Creating Lustful looks and being Catholic?

[Bookcat]

---

“Modesty” and “Scandal” are subjective to time and place. What was “immodest” --“Scandalous” – 100, 200 years ago – is no longer the case. What is “immodest/scandalous” in one culture – does not hold true for another.

Your using here a different sense of the word “scandal”.

 

[Walking_Home]

“Modesty” and “Scandal” are subjective to time and place. What was “immodest” --“Scandalous” – 100, 200 years ago – is no longer the case. What is “immodest/scandalous” in one culture – does not hold true for another.

---

Don’t blow smoke.

 

[Bookcat]

---

Your play on words – does not change – that you still place responsibility on the woman.

It is not a play on words (or blowing smoke…)

As to placing responsibility on the woman…

Yes a woman can be responsible for her sin in leading another into sin (and be responsible “in addition to the personal sin of the man” for another’s sin). Yes most certainly. Such is not something I have invented. Such is present in even in Divine Revelation as I have noted …it is the Teaching of the Church and part of Catholic Moral Theology.

BOTH the man who lusts and the woman who is lusted after may have responsibility here…to various degrees.

It can also be the case that a women has NO responsibility for the sin of lust on the part of a man. No sin on her part at all. None.

Or it can be that she has sinned venially due to her somewhat immodest attire and he has sinned mortally via his lust.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism notes: “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death.”

Catholic Dictionary - Scandal: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=36307

 

[severus68]

Are you God or Christ or the Virgin? Immaculate and immune from sin? I didn’t think so. Your sanctimoniousness and willingness to judge so quickly and incorrectly while condemning its proper use in others - such as your statement about the hypothetical friend - is off-putting. Extremely so. Thou art not holier than all fallen men, but thou art holier than thou.

Perhaps you should avoid making such personal comments. This is an anonymous forum but it is CAF.

 

[severus68]

It is not a play on words (or blowing smoke…)

As to placing responsibility on the woman…

Yes a woman can be responsible for her sin in leading another into sin (and be responsible “in addition to the personal sin of the man” for another’s sin). Yes most certainly. Such is not something I have invented. Such is present in even in Divine Revelation as I have noted …it is the Teaching of the Church and part of Catholic Moral Theology.

BOTH the man who lusts and the woman who is lusted after may have responsibility here…to various degrees.

It can also be the case that a women has NO responsibility for the sin of lust on the part of a man. No sin on her part at all. None.

Or it can be that she has sinned venially due to her somewhat immodest attire and he has sinned mortally via his lust.

An obvious question is who decides her attire is immodest? It certainly cannot be because a few or some men lusted after her.

Another matter brought up on these threads is about a beautiful woman more likely to incite lust. So should a ‘beautiful’ woman be required to cover up more because she knows or thinks she is?