Holy Strippers?

[raaucoin]

I have very little sympathy for so-called hard luck prostitute/strippers. There’s a lot of other jobs out there that do not involve mortal sin, and they choose to pass up every single one, go for the easy way out, and wax on about how hard their life is. Sorry, not buying it. There’s a lot of single females who manage to feed their families without resorting to underhanded tactics.

Also, gender equality. Very few male strippers. If men can make it in the world, then so can women.

It is possible for a stripper to be a good person, without a doubt, but they are living in sin. And there is no real excuse for their behavior.

I managed a candy store on Bourbon street. Had the opportunity to meet and get to know a number of women down there who stripped. Some of them had no problem and seemed to enjoy what they were doing and the money they earned. But MANY hated it. I was heart broken to her the number whose parents "got them in the business"as children. They had not had the opportunity to develops mentally,emotionally (and forget about spiritually ) beyond that of a 12 year old.

Or the number of them who were being forced under the threat of violence or death to continue even when they wanted to get out.–one night three girls came in. While their " body guard" walked over to look at the gummy bears, I told one how nice it was that the club sent someone to protect them as they walked the street. Know what she answered?
“protect us?! He’s not here to protect us. He’s here to make sure we don’t run away.”

 

[PRmerger]

Merge,

Holy Strippers. That is the posting. I suggest everyone start with post # 116. I summarized a position in post 115 and what followed is fascinating. How did we get from Holy strippers to all that followed? 42 posts in the making and how did that happen?..It is a marvel. Isn’t the mind a wonderful thing?

I am not complaining. I ask everyone to understand the train of thought as it reaches this point and ask yourself How did we get from there to here. I don’t have a clue.

Holy strippers…Moral or Immoral…that is the question…?

CC, I commend you for wanting to get back on topic.

As for me, I rather like it when topics veer off on tangents. It mimics real life conversations that never remain on topic. I imagine us all sitting around someone’s backyard patio, sipping some wine and eating something deliciously unhealthy for us, discussing religion. And naturally, in scenarios such as this, topics diverge, often into more interesting things!

Imagine we’re sitting here, discussing religion. The discussion wouldn’t stay on the original topic, I guarantee that!

http://crazysweetdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/contemporary-small-patio-ideas-garden.jpg

 

[NeedImprovement]

You can call those people what you want, and I’ll call them what I want.

You won’t convince me that calling them “occasions of sin” is good. Sorry.

(lol)
I don’t think you should feel the need to apologize .

It became progressively evident earlier in the thread that I wasn’t going to be able to convince you of very much – ever since you misconstrued my post # 52. I mean, seriously, as it went on, : If Blessed John Paul II and Father John Hardon S.J. didn’t convince you , there wouldn’t have been any point at all in my trying to convince you . I actually gave up on that a while back – when I began to notice a lack of logic in the responses.

Neither do I think anyone was ever questioning *your *right to misconstrue the Catholic meaning of “occasion of sin” and try to somehow imply out of it that calling someone an occasion of sin is equivalent to calling them sinners

There is no need to point out and say “so and so is a sinner!” Because as human beings, we ALL are It’s like saying “so and so has a nose.” What’s the point?.

– leaving you quite free to call people what you want instead.

It was an interesting spin - your reply quoted above , but my post which it responded to, had very little to do with ***you ***calling people what ***you ***want. That’s why it was addressed to everyone . The gist was in response to your assertion that all of us ( ***“we” ***) should stop referring to a person as an occasion of sin.
"Debora123:

Also, we should stop referring to/viewing strippers as “occasions of sin.” Doing so is just as dehumanizing and objectifying as the profession itself . . . Their ACTIONS are occasions of sins .

Indeed, please feel very free to call people whatever you want, and to accept or reject whatever you want . However, it must be acknowledged that your right to embrace a particular error doesn’t somehow confer on you the right to teach others to do the same here at CAF. To respond the way you have would seem to indicate that you really don’t have much of an inkling what an “occasion of sin” actually is. I pray that one day you do , and wish you the best. There wouldn’t seem to be much of a point in my responding further to any more of your posts here on this thread, since, as you adeptly point out :

. . . You won’t convince me . . .

God Bless.

 

[NeedImprovement]

People who reject what Father John Hardon S.J. has to say , can end up cheating themselves out of some superb insights. Perhaps there could even be some who may think that Fr Hardon could end up being a little rigid in the “judgment” department. Actually, what he says about judging, is compatible with what the thread has been saying about judging others – and it remains completely compatible with the definition of occasion of sin.

Here’s an excerpt from The Will of God

Judging Others

The New Testament has some strong language about judging other people. “Be compassionate about judging other people,” Christ tells us, “as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge and you will not be judged yourselves” (Luke 6:36-37).

Because this is so practically important, it should be carefully explained. We must immediately distinguish two kinds of judgments we can make about people. We can judge the morality of the actions, and we can judge the morality of the persons.

We have to judge whether a given action is objectively good or bad. If I see someone stealing or hear someone cursing, or know that someone is unfaithful to his or her married spouse, I spontaneously and justifiably recognize that such conduct is morally wrong.

But when I move from the external action to a person’s internal responsibility for the action, I must pause. I may not make a rash judgment. A rash judgment would be made if I concluded, without strong evidence, that the person is guilty for doing something wrong. Finally, only God can read the human heart. Only He knows for certain whether and how culpable people are when they commit what is objectively sinful.

Referring to a stripper as an occasion of sin – as we can see, must not (cannot actually) make a rash judgment about the stripper’s internal responsibility for her actions ; so it is irrational to try and twist the meaning of “occasion of sin” so badly as to imply it would be calling the stripper a sinner. What it does , is imply, conversely, that the one going to watch her would be the sinner. Again, stripping could not be considered an externally immoral act if there were no one there watching the stripper . So in saying whether stripping is even objectively immoral, it has to be in reference to another – the one who seeks the enticement.

While the statement that “only a stripper’s actions are the occasion of sin – and not the stripper” , might appear somewhat appealing to the politically correct , once we move to the meat of the matter , from analysis to practicality , we begin to see all the holes in that statement.

The intended vantage point , when we discuss “occasion of sin” for the purposes of practicality, is avoidance . Once we identify the proximate “occasions of sin” , we know what to avoid. But in order to actually avoid the occasion , we need, as humans, the coordinates for the occasions of sin as they would correspond to time and space – it has to be something tangible to us.

For example, if I only have to avoid “the actions of the stripper” , then how am I supposed to do that without avoiding the stripper herself ; at the very least for the duration that she is stripping or scantily clad ? Therefore the stripper is an occasion of sin. And this can be said without rendering any rash judgment about her internal responsibility for her actions .

Consider a more severe example of, say, a man who has an ongoing adulterous affair with a woman. Now it wouldn’t even be totally practical to say the man must simply avoid the “actions” of his adulterous partner. In some relationships of this nature, just meeting in a restaurant would be too much – it would’ve been a foregone conclusion at that point. There can be no question that the woman with whom he commits adultery is an “occasion of sin” and needs to be avoided – yet even then, if we refer to her as an occasion of sin , we are not even referring to any part she had in the sin of adultery, we are saying she is an “occasion of sin” – but it’s still the man’s sin we’re referring to.

I don’t know what’s so complicated about that .

 

[englishredrose]

The Lord calls sinners, but to repentance, not to continue what they are doing.

We may find a former stripper in heaven, but if someone was shot in the act of stripping (and died unrepentant) her chances to get to heaven are not high.

Really.
Bearing in mind that God gives everyone a chance of believing in Him when they die.

Also
We are all sinners and it doesn’t matter what the sin is. God doesn’t grade sins. Man does but not God.

But back to topic as it aint about getting to Heaven its about being Holy.
What do you mean by being Holy?

 

[atheistgirl]

For example, if I only have to avoid “the actions of the stripper” , then how am I supposed to do that without avoiding the stripper herself ; at the very least for the duration that she is stripping or scantily clad ? Therefore the stripper is an occasion of sin.

You seem to be backing up Debora123’s point here about ‘‘actions’’.

Originally Posted by Debora123
Also, we should stop referring to/viewing strippers as “occasions of sin.” Doing so is just as dehumanizing and objectifying as the profession itself . . . **Their ACTIONS are occasions of sins **.

The stripper removing her or his clothing involves an act on their part.

Therefore the stripper is an occasion of sin.

When fully clothed out shopping?

When breastfeeding her baby in her bedroom?

When out in the yard in scruffy coveralls changing the oil in her truck?

I don’t think so.

It is the ‘‘action’’ the person performs that can occasion sin.

At the weekends I like to kick back in short shorts and a sleeveless top, or a short skirt and tshirt, or something equally casual because all week I’m dressed very smart and formal. If I’m washing down one of the horses and a truck load of young guys drive up to the farm looking for directions, am I a near occasion of sin for them?

I don’t think so, and if their minds go off somewhere with how I’m dressed on my own property, good luck to them but no way am I responsible for that.

Now if I seductively started moving around the hose, that would be an entirely different situation. But in that case, I would be performing an action. An action that would be just as effective were I dressed in scruffy coveralls and covered in oil with a scarf on my head.

Sarah x

 

[Debora123]

You seem to be backing up Debora123’s point here about ‘‘actions’’.

The stripper removing her or his clothing involves an act on their part.

When fully clothed out shopping?

When breastfeeding her baby in her bedroom?

When out in the yard in scruffy coveralls changing the oil in her truck?

I don’t think so.

It is the ‘‘action’’ the person performs that can occasion sin.

At the weekends I like to kick back in short shorts and a sleeveless top, or a short skirt and tshirt, or something equally casual because all week I’m dressed very smart and formal. If I’m washing down one of the horses and a truck load of young guys drive up to the farm looking for directions, am I a near occasion of sin for them?

I don’t think so, and if their minds go off somewhere with how I’m dressed on my own property, good luck to them but no way am I responsible for that.

Now if I seductively started moving around the hose, that would be an entirely different situation. But in that case, I would be performing an action. An action that would be just as effective were I dressed in scruffy coveralls and covered in oil with a scarf on my head.

Sarah x

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Debora123]

(lol)
I don’t think you should feel the need to apologize .

It became progressively evident earlier in the thread that I wasn’t going to be able to convince you of very much – ever since you misconstrued my post # 52. I mean, seriously, as it went on, : If Blessed John Paul II and Father John Hardon S.J. didn’t convince you , there wouldn’t have been any point at all in my trying to convince you . I actually gave up on that a while back – when I began to notice a lack of logic in the responses.

Neither do I think anyone was ever questioning *your *right to misconstrue the Catholic meaning of “occasion of sin” and try to somehow imply out of it that calling someone an occasion of sin is equivalent to calling them sinners – leaving you quite free to call people what you want instead.

It was an interesting spin - your reply quoted above , but my post which it responded to, had very little to do with ***you ***calling people what ***you ***want. That’s why it was addressed to everyone . The gist was in response to your assertion that all of us ( ***“we” ***) should stop referring to a person as an occasion of sin.

Indeed, please feel very free to call people whatever you want, and to accept or reject whatever you want . However, it must be acknowledged that your right to embrace a particular error doesn’t somehow confer on you the right to teach others to do the same here at CAF. To respond the way you have would seem to indicate that you really don’t have much of an inkling what an “occasion of sin” actually is. I pray that one day you do , and wish you the best. There wouldn’t seem to be much of a point in my responding further to any more of your posts here on this thread, since, as you adeptly point out :

God Bless.

I don’t/won’t refer to any person as an “occasion of sin,” and neither do I agree with you that anyone should. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but whatever.

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t/won’t refer to any person as an “occasion of sin,” and neither do I agree with you that anyone should. Not sure how many times I have to say it, but whatever.

I wonder if all this ‘‘occasion of sin’’ stuff has it’s root in Genesis 3?

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Instead of Adam manning up and just saying yeah, sure, I ate some, and taking personal responsibilty for his actions, his first reaction, his very first instinct, was to blame the woman



Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

However, it must be acknowledged that your right to embrace a particular error doesn’t somehow confer on you the right to teach others to do the same here at CAF. To respond the way you have would seem to indicate that you really don’t have much of an inkling what an “occasion of sin” actually is. I pray that one day you do , and wish you the best.

I don’t think any error has been “embraced”. The point is a valid one: to call a *person *(a woman who strips) an “occasion of sin” is dehumanizing. To call the *act *(stripping) an occasion of sin is correct.

 

[CopticChristian]

I wonder if all this ‘‘occasion of sin’’ stuff has it’s root in Genesis 3?

Instead of Adam manning up and just saying yeah, sure, I ate some, and taking personal responsibilty for his actions, his first reaction, his very first instinct, was to blame the woman



Sarah x

Sarah,

I think that it is worse than you propose…

The woman you put here with me

In other word’s I didn’t do it…You put that woman here with me…if you had not put that woman here with me…kind of stinks of it is your fault God…and how many of us don’t own up to our own responsibility and blame God…on the other hand for you you not believing in God as I understand it would not do it…however this is how I see it… and then

she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

So what. She gave you some fruit. Don’t you have the ability to say no…Nancy Regan says you do…but rather than accept his own reponsibility for getting the fruit and this guy took it…no, he does not say…and I threw it to the ground…by his own admission he took implying the will to act and then he goes and blames poor eve…

this is worse than you put it…

 

[Mintaka]

Being around an occasion of sin doesn’t mean you sin. But it does mean you are in a situation where it’s easier to sin, and harder not to sin.

Deliberately inciting sin by others is a sin.

Going into a situation where your job is tempting someone else to sin and cooperating with their sin – that’s either deliberate cruelty to other people for money (like a less serious version of becoming a torturer), or forced upon you by duress. Your culpability is either increased or decreased by your situation, but it’s never going to be a good thing.

However, the chief sin of being even a peripheral member of the sex industry is that you are selling bits of yourself to other people, for money, and sinning against yourself and your own dignity. You set yourself up to live a dissociative life, where your body does stuff that your brain doesn’t agree with. You expose yourself to all sorts of unsavory persons, including sex predators, and you risk ruining future job prospects of responsible, well-paying work. You also will probably be offered more degrading sorts of propositions and jobs, which you may be tempted to take if they pay well.

They say it’s better to die than to sin even a venial sin. It’s probably better to kill people than to cause them to sin. But causing yourself to sin – that’s pretty hateful to yourself.

So if you’re desperate enough to become a stripper, and for whatever reason you can’t obtain any sort of welfare or charitable aid, you should probably plan to become a thief instead. Lots more moral authority for feeding your family by theft, especially if you steal from those who won’t miss it.

However, there are a lot of jobs which use similar skill sets, but which don’t require you to lose your dignity. There are professional belly dancers, for example, who live perfectly respectable lives.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Your culpability is either increased or decreased by your situation, but it’s never going to be a good thing.

I think this is the issue where people get most confused about. Ultimately, the whole picture is wrong but when it comes to dispensing justice and absolution, culpability plays a role in determining who the “real bad guy” is.

I also believe it’s the result of people being blinded by naivety and are closed to the idea that there are some people who are just really, really evil.

They say it’s better to die than to sin even a venial sin. It’s probably better to kill people than to cause them to sin. But causing yourself to sin – that’s pretty hateful to yourself.

Taking another life, even your own, is a sin in of itself. Allowing yourself to die is also another way of being hateful towards yourself.

The upside of living however is that it gives you the opportunities to change your situation, even bit by bit. Also, we as a society have an obligation to open these people to those opportunities.

So if you’re desperate enough to become a stripper, and for whatever reason you can’t obtain any sort of welfare or charitable aid, you should probably plan to become a thief instead. Lots more moral authority for feeding your family by theft, especially if you steal from those who won’t miss it.

However, there are a lot of jobs which use similar skill sets, but which don’t require you to lose your dignity. There are professional belly dancers, for example, who live perfectly respectable lives.

I somewhat agree with the belly-dancing option more. Although, I recommend caution with regards to stealing. I think you might be already aware but it takes more skill to be a thief than a stripper. Hence, it’s reasonable for many women to opt for the latter (especially if they actually have the looks for it).

Heck, if I were to take it a step further: Prostitutes can be paid highly but so can assassins. The former however, doesn’t need much ‘skill’ (and to those who think otherwise, stop fooling yourself with Kama Sutra and those porno videos ). The latter however… well, the CIA says hi.

 

[TiggerS]

Sarah has indicated in a recent discussion that she is good with the answer “we don’t know.”

Apologies - and to Sarah also, I must have missed her post! (Although, I was responding to her post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9483297&postcount=90 in which she posed a question to me on the subject of “we don’t know”

 

[TiggerS]

Do you think Jesus told someone when they were doing wrong?

I’m not condemning anyone. But being a stripper is morally wrong.

You got it:thumbsup: - to take one’s clothes off in a puplic place of entertainment i.e. “stripping” is “morally wrong”. The former is an objective assessment of a behaviour. Once I call a person a “sinner” or “sinful” then I am subjectively judging the person.

A human behaviour has an objective element (what is done) and a subjective element (who does it).

 

[TiggerS]

New Advent Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
Excerpt only " It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). "

As I understand it only, a person engaging in morally wrongful behaviour and the person who sins are two totally different situations. A situation where for example, a woman takes off her clothes in a public place of entertainment (‘stripper’) which is a “morally wrong” act or behaviour can only become a “participant in a situation that is an occasion of sin” in the actual presence of a person who is tempted by the morally wrongful act to sin. That person enters into the situation that is an occasion of sin for him or her either voluntary or involuntarily.
Certainly the ‘stripper’ most often realizes that her morally wrongful act is likely to lead others into sin and she may be responsibile for her morally wrongful act to some degree. On the other hand, she may not be fully responsible and is in some way forced by exterior or interior circumstances to be a ‘stripper’ and culpability on her part is reduced - or even eliminated altogether.
The ‘stripper’ is engaging in morally wrongful behaviour that is likely to be an occasion of sin to others, but he or she may not be fully morally responsible.

We all have sufficient Grace to avoid sin wherever and whenever we are tempted to do so, including if one finds that a situation is an occasion of sin for oneself, whether in the situation voluntarily or involuntarily. Having said that, any situation that is an occasion of sin is a “temptation”. Of the free will of the person in an occasion of sin, sin itself must be chosen and the Grace to avoid that sin is present.

If I choose voluntarily free of all exterior or interior forces to enter into a situation that is an occasion of sin for me, then I have sinned in doing so. If I then submit to the temptation that the situation presents to me, then I have sinned again.

 

[TiggerS]

Obviously, if a person is absolutely repulsed by public ‘stripping’ as entertainment, there is no occasion of sin in that situation.
However, if another person is tempted to sinful thoughts, words or deeds in the same situation, then the situation is an occasion of sin.

If a ‘stripper’ removes all clothing before retiring alone at night, then there is no morally wrongful act nor occasion of sin for anyone. For any sitaution to be an occasion of sin, it takes another person present finding the situation to actually be a situation of temptation leading to sin.

 

[PRmerger]

Apologies - and to Sarah also, I must have missed her post! (Although, I was responding to her post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9483297&postcount=90 in which she posed a question to me on the subject of “we don’t know”

Oh, p-shaw, Tigger. shaw: No need to apologize to me.

But I’m glad that *you *got what I was saying.

 

[TiggerS]

Oh, p-shaw, Tigger. shaw: No need to apologize to me.

But I’m glad that *you *got what I was saying.

… :tiphat:

 

[NeedImprovement]

I don’t think any error has been “embraced”. The point is a valid one: to call a *person *(a woman who strips) an “occasion of sin” is dehumanizing. To call the *act *(stripping) an occasion of sin is correct.

If that’s what you really think, PRmerger, then I sincerely hope you will do better than what we’ve seen on the thread so far and substantiate your assertion with proofs. But first, please make sure you’ve understood what you’re responding to.

Some here think it’s all just a game, and they say certain things which aren’t even pertinent simply to be argumentative. When someone does that, without being able to prove what they’re saying or another starts parroting the same thing unproven just to be an instigator , it doesn’t merit any response.

If you wish to get into a one-on-one concerning this, I’ll give it a try with you , as long as we can keep it civil and give honest answers. Let me know if that’s what you’d like – (maybe we could both come away from it learning a little more from each other.)

If you go back and read the posts which were being responded to , a poster repeatedly said they wouldn’t refer to any person as an occasion of sin, and made the inference that neither should we. The stripper was simply the first step.

. . . we should stop referring to/viewing strippers as “occasions of sin.” . . . Their ACTIONS are occasions of sins.

I . . . would never refer to another person themselves as “occasions of sins.” . . .

I’m willing to go more deeply into it with you PRmerger ( even specifically with the example of the stripper) if you wish, but for me, it begins with the definition of an occasion of sin. The people making those aforementioned assertions don’t even subscribe or admit to any definition for the occasion of sin themselves ; until they do, what they are claiming , is at best frivilous.

The definitions of "occasion of sin" were given earlier in the thread at post # 103. Here they are again :

Occasions of Sin Is defined as, “Any person, place or thing which allures a man to sin.” (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951). Another definition: “Occasions of Sin are external circumstances–whether of things or persons–which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917)

catholicessentials.net/occasionsofsin.htm

Sharing an article from the “Dear Padre” column.

Dear Padre,
What is an occasion of sin? My grandmother refuses to go to casinos. She says they’re “occasions of sin.” What is she talking about? ~ Robert

Dear Robert,
Occasions of sin are people, places, or situations that can easily lead a person to sin or give them an opportunity to commit a sin. There are two types: remote and proximate (also called near).

aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/what-is-an-occasion-of-sin/

CatholicCulture.org thinks highly enough of Fr. John Hardon’s definition of an occasion of sin to present it as the definition of occasion of sin :

OCCASION OF SIN
Any person, place, or thing that of its nature or because of human frailty can lead one to do wrong, thereby committing sin. If the danger is certain and probable, the occasion is proximate; if the danger is slight, the occasion becomes remote. It is voluntary if it can easily be avoided. There is no obligation to avoid a remote occasion unless there is probable danger of its becoming proximate. There is a positive obligation to avid a voluntary proximate occasion of sin even though the occasion of evildoing is due only to human weakness.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission .

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35228

I would begin with 2 questions to you (alone) PRmerger :

1. 
   *]One Catholic to another I ask you : If the Church says an occasion of sin is *“ **any person **,place or thing that can lead one to do wrong ” *, is it an error to say we must not call persons occasions of sin, (primarily for analytical purposes), or not ?
   
   *]If not, then please give me/us your definition of an occasion of sin.
   
   One final clarification : the actual assertion was made that : a stripper was not an occasion of sin – only the stripper’s actions are the occasion of sin .