Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

[Alexander_Smith]

I’m sure as practicing Catholics, we know that St Gianna Beretta Molla was a Catholic wife, mother, and Medical Doctor that choose to give birth to her youngest child after being advised (in 1962) that if she didn’t abort, she would surely die. She choose life for her daughter and did die a few days after giving birth to full term Gianna Emmanuala, who herself grew up to be a prolife physician!!

And if anyone cares to follow this link (since I can’t figure out how to post a picture on here), you can see SAINT Gianna Beretta Molla in (GASP!!!) a pair of ski PANTS!!! :

saintgianna.org/loveroflife.htm and there is not only one, but TWO pictures of her!

Here is the statue of her at the US shrine (in a dress with SHORT sleeves):
saintgianna.org/stgiannashrine.htm

And here is an actual photo of her in short sleeves:
apostolstwo.diecezja.kalisz.pl/MollaFoto/gianna_025.jpg

So, if some Catholics say that women should NEVER wear pants, how do they explain that a CANONIZED SAINT wore them? Especially when we have pictures and home movies of St Gianna? I don’t think there is a Christian out there who would say St Gianna was anything less than a wonderful and holy role model for all women!

Do they make ski-skirts? My sisters also wear pants sometimes when the situation calls for it, such as martial-arts classes and such, but they mostly just wear skirts/dresses.

Short sleeves have been an accepted modest attire for women for a long time, nothing new there. Also, even canonized saints can make mistakes. A female saint wearing pants doesn’t mean it’s OK for women to wear pants. Sainthood is not an endorsement of the saint’s whole life and habits… And no I don’t have a problem with women wearing pants.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I would like to clarify what I was trying to get across in my post. The Church teaches very plainly that women who wear skimpy clothing–with FULL UNDERSTANDING that it is immodest-- are in a state of sin. If immodesty deeply offends God, we are in a state of sin.

Also, Debora123, I believe you were mistaken to say, “This is why as Catholics, we do not take the bible literally. Doing so is more of a protestant thing. Us Catholics know that the bible is filled with symbolism.” We take quite a few things literally, actually. The fact that Jesus said, “This IS my body”, for one.

I think people in this debate are on what might be called the “extremes” of either side. One side says women should not wear pants, should be completely covered, etc. And the other side is: bikinis, short skirts, mini-anything, or tight-anything; the “I could care less if you disagree with how I dress” people. I would like to remind everyone there is a nice place in the middle we can meet at.

 

[Rence]

So, if some Catholics say that women should NEVER wear pants, how do they explain that a CANONIZED SAINT wore them? Especially when we have pictures and home movies of St Gianna? I don’t think there is a Christian out there who would say St Gianna was anything less than a wonderful and holy role model for all women!

Deuteronomy 22:5 states the matter quite succinctly: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”

This quote only says that women can’t dress like men, and men can’t dress like women. There are pants designed for men and there are pants designed for women. Both women and men can wear pants and be appropriate (obviously). To say that this quote means that women can’t wear pants is just taking the quote out of context. So I agree with you Prayerfully, of course women can wear pants.

 

[mommamaree]

Replying to each point at a time:

• I most certainly am not. Did you read what I quoted? My point was that a vain and prideful person who wears flashy clothes just to show off does not create a problem for Church-goers if that person wears clothing that isn’t revealing.
• Clearly I am not.
• Why did I know someone was going to say that? Well let’s just forget about encouraging men and women to dress more modestly! It’s our fault we are tempted! I am not saying a sin would be on her head, my point was that by her lack of thought for others, that woman would be putting others in danger of impure sins. If a woman walked into a room full of men naked, she could possibly commit a grave sin by gravely endangering others deliberately.

Btw, I am a guy, so if you want to add the opposite circumstances of a woman having difficulty with immodestly dressed men, please do so. I can’t do it, because I don’t know how women react to that sort of thing.

• The overdressing person may be vain, but at least he/she is dressing well for such a special occasion. The underdressing person is displaying his/her laziness and his/her lack of desire to be dress well for a special occasion. The immodestly dressed person is not only displaying laziness, but also a lack of respect for those around him/her by subjecting them to visual temptations during a time where such distractions should not be.
• I am not sure of how God views such things. All I know is that people in the past cared a lot more about dressing well for Mass than we do today, and I find that sad. The reason guys walk around in backwards hats and “prison pants” is that they have been disconnected from the concept of appropriate attire, and they even see things like tucked in shirts and suits as “stuffy” or some other such nonsense.

Alexander,
I went back to reread your post, and I see that you edited to add the last paragraph during the time that I was responding to your original, shorter post. With the last paragraph, I am able to understand you better. Also, I do understand your perspective about others presenting a temptation to sin with their immodest dress, but with the way you worded your statement, I thought you were trying to point fingers of blame at women for tempting you. I can see now that I was wrong to draw that conclusion, though again, it was the last paragraph that helped me better understand what point you were trying to make. I think, then, essentially we are in agreement. We both feel that people should dress modestly and not expose that which should be hidden from public view. We both agree that presentable dress is more important than ostentatious dress, and that slovenly dress is also a problem. I think the only difference in our thinking lies in our opinions on casual dress, as I see no problem with the wearing of denim. That, IMO, is a minor quibble. Most of what you said in this thread I would agree with, but it is the how you say it that I have been uncomfortable at times with. Perhaps that is just because you are a ‘give it to them straight, pull no punches’ kind of person? Whereas, I am very cautious of word choice and phrasing, out of a concern that people might misunderstand me. So anyway, I hope you did not take my questioning as intending to assume anything about you or make you look bad. That was exactly why I asked questions instead of stating assumptions, because I really wanted to understand where you were coming from. And since you kindly responded to each of my points, I now do.

 

[Prayerfully]

Do they make ski-skirts? My sisters also wear pants sometimes when the situation calls for it, such as martial-arts classes and such, but they mostly just wear skirts/dresses.

Short sleeves have been an accepted modest attire for women for a long time, nothing new there. Also, even canonized saints can make mistakes. A female saint wearing pants doesn’t mean it’s OK for women to wear pants. Sainthood is not an endorsement of the saint’s whole life and habits… And no I don’t have a problem with women wearing pants.

I hope they don’t make ski skirts. Like you mentioned, some activities require pants, like martial arts. I think snow skiing would fall into the same category and if some woman can’t fathom wearing pants to ski in, then she should find another activity than can be done in a long denim skirt.

And yes, I know saints can make mistakes, but I don’t think St Gianna’s wardrobe was one of them. So much ruckus has been caused by this thread, so I figured that if Catholic women actually had a MODERN role model to follow, St Gianna would be a good example. However, it doesn’t surprise me that you had to make the first comment trying to decredit my suggestion/example. Once again…:banghead:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

OK, folks, for those of you who had been annoyed by my posts - Good Bye.

I’m outta here, because someone started a separate thread on how to dress when visiting churches in Italy. Just don’t forget - what applies to Rome and to Italy, also applies to the USA. Because we belong to the Roman Catholic Church, which uses the Roman rite, is Universal (Katholikos = universal), and when in doubt, we always look to the Pope for instructions, the Pope who is of course the Bishop of Rome. Thus, we can’t go wrong by imitating what’s being practiced in the Pope’s (Bishop of Rome’s) diocese of Rome.

Now, if you visit an Eastern Catholic Church, e.g. an Ukrainian or Russian Catholic Church, the rules may be stricter and include mandatory head covering for ladies, and bare heads (no baseball caps, hats, etc) for gentlemen.

Don’t cry for me, please.

Just visit the other thread entitled “What should I wear to visit churches”, if you miss me.

 

[LLMom]

I would like to clarify what I was trying to get across in my post. The Church teaches very plainly that women who wear skimpy clothing–with FULL UNDERSTANDING that it is immodest-- are in a state of sin. If immodesty deeply offends God, we are in a state of sin.

Also, Debora123, I believe you were mistaken to say, “This is why as Catholics, we do not take the bible literally. Doing so is more of a protestant thing. Us Catholics know that the bible is filled with symbolism.” We take quite a few things literally, actually. The fact that Jesus said, “This IS my body”, for one.

I think people in this debate are on what might be called the “extremes” of either side. One side says women should not wear pants, should be completely covered, etc. And the other side is: bikinis, short skirts, mini-anything, or tight-anything; the “I could care less if you disagree with how I dress” people. I would like to remind everyone there is a nice place in the middle we can meet at.

EXACTLY! A balance is needed. You don’t have to wear dresses and cover every piece of skin, but be decent and cover enough as in no mini-anything, tight-anything. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Mommyjessica]

Well, I was able to get through about 5 pages before giving up on reading them all. I feel like this could have been a very good conversation from both sides if there weren’t so many people on the attack. I would like to read about both takes on this issue but it’s too hard for me to get a good idea of either with all the attacks going on here.
I went to a very traditional Catholic college in VA where I dated a man who thought women should only wear dresses and skirts. I totally agree when it comes to Mass but not day to day activities. I change my three year old out of her church clothes when we get home and into pants because I don’t want her to be jumping around and doing cartwheels in a skirt. I don’t want her to show anything that doesn’t need to be seen and I don’t want to stop her from being a kid.
I like how I look in sleeveless shirts (not spaghetti strap just a high cut shirt with the sleeves missing). I didn’t realize that this could be seen as immodest and I would like to hear more on this issue. Do men see this as sexy and if so I can adjust my attire.
I feel like a lot of women are upset over this because they don’t like to be told that what they are doing might be wrong. I know where you are coming from! I’ve been there, but I’d suggest trying to have an open mind when a man tells you that something you are doing might make him struggle. No, men aren’t all so lame that they can’t avert their eyes but why make them deal with it in the first place? We should be more loving of them than to just say “deal with it cuz I like how I look”
OP thank you for bringing the topic up. I know for me it’s going to be hard to convince me that wearing pants is wrong or sexy because I have talked to too many men who don’t have a hard time with a woman wearing pants. I, myself, believe that is too far fetched because yes wearing pants does show that I have legs but as long as they aren’t tight fitting it shouldn’t be a problem. Men can tell that I am a woman by my face. I don’t feel like I need a skirt to make me look or feel more feminine.

 

[Debora123]

I would like to clarify what I was trying to get across in my post. The Church teaches very plainly that women who wear skimpy clothing–with FULL UNDERSTANDING that it is immodest-- are in a state of sin. If immodesty deeply offends God, we are in a state of sin.

Also, Debora123, I believe you were mistaken to say, “This is why as Catholics, we do not take the bible literally. Doing so is more of a protestant thing. Us Catholics know that the bible is filled with symbolism.” We take quite a few things literally, actually. The fact that Jesus said, “This IS my body”, for one.

I think people in this debate are on what might be called the “extremes” of either side. One side says women should not wear pants, should be completely covered, etc. And the other side is: bikinis, short skirts, mini-anything, or tight-anything; the “I could care less if you disagree with how I dress” people. I would like to remind everyone there is a nice place in the middle we can meet at.

Wow, I guess I’m not allowed to go to the beach or the pool anymore. I guess I’ll be forced to be covered up down to my knees and wear sleeves when it’s 97 degrees out with 80% humidity. I guess I’ll just have to give up all the fun things I do that keep me active, in shape, and happy. I guess I’m just a second class citizen - a woman - who cannot wear clothing appropriate for the physical, sporty activities I love to participate in. Because men are after all more important, and heaven forbid they actually have to work at self control when passing by a girl running 3 miles in shorts on a hot day. I guess I’ll just be like a little doll, stay locked up in the house when it’s hotter than 80 degrees out, keep 75 % of my body covered up at all times, and give up my outdoorsy, fun loving, and sporty spirit.

But noooo, that’s not sexist or anything…

 

[Debora123]

stccp,

I’m sure you must be a wonderful Christian person with only the best of intentions, and I have respect for you. However, I would have to say that I COMPLETELY disagree with what you are saying in your thread.

1. There was a point in time in the western world when women DID dress very very “modestly” - much like you described. They wore long thick dresses that started high up on their neck and went all the way down to their shoes. In fact, they covered themselves up so much that men used to get aroused simply from catching a glimpse of their ankles. So if what you are saying has complete truth to it, then we’d all expect that these woman were all treated with great respect and dignity -after all, they did dress to “show themselves and not their bodies” - as you would put it. However, if you look back on those times, you will come to find that the opposite is actually true. Woman during much of that time were not allowed to vote or to have careers. They were second class citizens - properties of men. Sexism was definitely at large.

On the other hand, if you consider many of the indian tribes around the world (many, not all), you will come to find that women are considered to be of great value. They are deeply respected and valued and viewed as sacred because of their ability to bear children. Yet those woman DON’T walk around completely covered up from head to toe. They walk around half naked! And the men around them do not get aroused every second from seeing them like this. Sexism is much less of an issue with these people.

Now, I’m not saying we should all walk around half naked to gain the respect of men. I am not saying that it will gain their respect. All I’m saying is maybe it’s more objective than how you’re telling it, and maybe it’s more about what is socially accepted. Is it socially accepted for woman to wear t shirts, jeans, shorts, mini skirts, tank tops, and bathing suits? Absolutely. Hopefully you can understand the point I’m trying to make here.

1. I love wearing little clothing. I’m a thin, physically fit young woman who moved to Florida from the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I am proud of my beautiful, strong and lean body. It is hot and humid here in Florida and I live by the beach. I love wearing my cute little mini skirts, jean shorts, tight tops, and I LOVE sporting my bikinis to the beach, having fun in the water, and getting a tan. I’m very outdoorsy. I run 3 miles everyday, I like to play, hike, and climb trees. How could I accomplish all this if I had to be confined to wearing dresses and long skirts at all times? It would keep me from being free and doing what I love. What if it’s a hot day out? Am I going to suffer just so I can be perceived as what YOU refer to as “lady like?” Now THAT is sexist. That is in no way good for women, or respecting of woman as an individual, free to go off into the world, play, explore, exercise, and have fun.
2. I don’t think you are giving men enough credit here. They may be “wired” differently from us woman. Sure, they are a lot more visually oriented, and I know and understand that. But they are not animals. They are human beings with brains, self control, and the ability to make choices. Christian men who are close to me have told me that just because a girl is wearing something small, doesn’t necessarily mean they will automatically be aroused and think dirty thoughts for the next 10 minutes. They have to actually sit there and make the conscious decision to think about them in the most sexual, disrespectful way - it’s not something they have absolutely no control over. They are very capable of not allowing themselves to go there. And I think they are called to make an effort to be chaste in that sense. It’s extremely sexist to make us woman have the soul responsibility over this, and make us be limited to wearing only long dressed and long skirts, despite the temperature and the activities we want to participate in.
3. I love men. I have a lot of male friends, some of which are very devout Christians, and I have just recently married the most amazing Catholic man in the world. I have never felt like I was being looked at as a “collection of body parts” by any of them. Yes, I have a nice body, I live in a hot place, and so I wear what you would consider to be little clothing, and yet I have very seldom felt disrespected by a man. Quite the opposite actually, men respect me because I make it very clear to them with my body language, the way I live my life, and the way I talk, that I am a conservative girl with morals. There is much more to me than my clothes, and men ARE smart enough to figure that out.

Conclusion: Hopefully these 4 arguments I gave you will open your eyes to the flaws and sexism in your ideal. And hopefully you understand that in no way am I saying that we should all rip our clothes off and pose for playboy. Absolutely not. We still need to keep our sexual private parts covered. But my gosh, “no jeans allowed, no shorts allowed, no skirts exposing the knee, and no pants and no t-shirts” whatsoever?? That is definitely sexist, demeaning to woman, and WAY beyond the boundary of decency.

And this is the post I wrote yesterday. I find it interesting that no one who thinks women should be covered up in a long dress/skirt and sleeves in public actually responded and attempted to argue each and every single one of the points I made, and still be able to tell me they are not being extremely sexist.

 

[Mommyjessica]

And this is the post I wrote yesterday. I find it interesting that no one who thinks women should be covered up in a long dress/skirt and sleeves in public actually responded and attempted to argue each and every single one of the points I made, and still be able to tell me they are not being extremely sexist.

I would say that your points are very one sided. You don’t seem to consider the men very much. Also, you are obviously irritated and no one wants to defend their point to someone who is most likely going to come back even more upset. Those are probably a couple of reasons why no one responded to you. If I were you I would try to think outside of the box. Try and consider things from a man’s perspective. Maybe a man who sees you has a hard time looking at a woman in little clothes without slipping down the path of sinning. So many men struggle with this. We can’t say “well they need to figure out how to stop sinning. It’s not my job to help them.” I do exercise in shorts and a t-shirt but I make sure that they aren’t tight or too revealing. Even when I lived in California I was able to do this. I’m not saying that I’m perfect but I try to do what I think that Our Lady would do if she lived in our times. I hope this helps and didn’t come across as too harsh. It’s hard to say things through post without things coming across wrong

 

[Debora123]

I would say that your points are very one sided. You don’t seem to consider the men very much. Also, you are obviously irritated and no one wants to defend their point to someone who is most likely going to come back even more upset. Those are probably a couple of reasons why no one responded to you. If I were you I would try to think outside of the box. Try and consider things from a man’s perspective. Maybe a man who sees you has a hard time looking at a woman in little clothes without slipping down the path of sinning. So many men struggle with this. We can’t say “well they need to figure out how to stop sinning. It’s not my job to help them.” I do exercise in shorts and a t-shirt but I make sure that they aren’t tight or too revealing. Even when I lived in California I was able to do this. I’m not saying that I’m perfect but I try to do what I think that Our Lady would do if she lived in our times. I hope this helps and didn’t come across as too harsh. It’s hard to say things through post without things coming across wrong

1. I don’t think you are giving men enough credit here. They may be “wired” differently from us woman. Sure, they are a lot more visually oriented, and I know and understand that. But they are not animals. They are human beings with brains, self control, and the ability to make choices. Christian men who are close to me have told me that just because a girl is wearing something small, doesn’t necessarily mean they will automatically be aroused and think dirty thoughts for the next 10 minutes. They have to actually sit there and make the conscious decision to think about them in the most sexual, disrespectful way - it’s not something they have absolutely no control over. They are very capable of not allowing themselves to go there. And I think they are called to make an effort to be chaste in that sense. It’s extremely sexist to make us woman have the soul responsibility over this, and make us be limited to wearing only long dressed and long skirts, despite the temperature and the activities we want to participate in.
2. I love men. I have a lot of male friends, some of which are very devout Christians, and I have just recently married the most amazing Catholic man in the world. I have never felt like I was being looked at as a “collection of body parts” by any of them. Yes, I have a nice body, I live in a hot place, and so I wear what you would consider to be little clothing, and yet I have very seldom felt disrespected by a man. Quite the opposite actually, men respect me because I make it very clear to them with my body language, the way I live my life, and the way I talk, that I am a conservative girl with morals. There is much more to me than my clothes, and men ARE smart enough to figure that out.

 

[LittleSoldier]

And this is the post I wrote yesterday. I find it interesting that no one who thinks women should be covered up in a long dress/skirt and sleeves in public actually responded and attempted to argue each and every single one of the points I made, and still be able to tell me they are not being extremely sexist.

I’ll respond but it’s just to say that I agree with you. I was in a thread similar to this one not too long ago, although it specifically referred to bikinis (which, of course, can run the gamut from the kind worn in the fifties to tiny little things with bits of cloth and string). I was attacked by both men and women who told me that I would be leading men into sin if I wore a bikini.

You’re right. I think that men are much too intelligent to be led into sin by a woman wearing a bikini and I also do not understand why many men think it’s perfectly fine to walk around on a beach or at a pool wearing trunks (or speedos ), enjoying themselves, feeling the sun on their backs and fronts, showing their sometimes rather large breasts, while women should not be allowed to have this privilege and should always cover their knees, elbows, and necks, even when swimming.

It is sexist thinking. And as one poster has pointed out, men in those countries in which women wear burqas show far less respect for women than is shown in the U.S., Canada, and Europe (among other places). Like the man who cut off his wife’s nose and ears because she fled her abusive in-laws. And I will provide a cite if anyone requests it although it’s made the news internationally.

 

[Debora123]

I would say that your points are very one sided. You don’t seem to consider the men very much. Also, you are obviously irritated and no one wants to defend their point to someone who is most likely going to come back even more upset. Those are probably a couple of reasons why no one responded to you. If I were you I would try to think outside of the box. Try and consider things from a man’s perspective. Maybe a man who sees you has a hard time looking at a woman in little clothes without slipping down the path of sinning. So many men struggle with this. We can’t say “well they need to figure out how to stop sinning. It’s not my job to help them.” I do exercise in shorts and a t-shirt but I make sure that they aren’t tight or too revealing. Even when I lived in California I was able to do this. I’m not saying that I’m perfect but I try to do what I think that Our Lady would do if she lived in our times. I hope this helps and didn’t come across as too harsh. It’s hard to say things through post without things coming across wrong

1. My original post was not irritated. It was my genuine response to this thread, and I responded to it as respectfully as I could while still giving my full opinion. So for you to say that no one responded bc “I was irritated” is completely non-credible.
2. Other than saying I’m one sided and wasn’t considering men’s feelings, you still didn’t respond to the points I have made in this post, and I thought I made really good points. I’d like to see legitimate, logical, and non sexist arguments against each and every one of the points I’ve made. I think I deserve at least that much if people are going to tell me I’m wrong.
3. I DO talk about men in this post. Read points #1, 3, and 4 of my original post, and you will see where I talk about men. Like I said, I am friends with many men, and many of which are good Christian. I am married to one of them. I’m willing to bet my life that every single one of them will say that this whole ideal is extremely sexist and ridiculous.
4. According to this thread, you are doing wrong by working out in shorts and a t-shirt. I wrote this post to make a legitimate argument against the people who are saying women shouldn’t even wear pants. So who’s side are you on? Because according to them, you’re sinning too, by working out in the clothes you work out in.

And yes, even though i was not irritated when I wrote my original post, I am very irritated now. I am irritated, frustrated, insulted, and feeling very judged. I joined this forum thinking I’d be talking to Catholics, and instead I feel as though I’m talking to Amish or Muslims, and like I’m fighting for my basic, God given rights as a human being. I have never heard Catholics be this sexist before, going as far as to say that I’m not allowed to wear jeans and a t-shirt and it makes me extremely sad that there are Catholics out there who are. I can’t change that. All I can do is make a few very good points (of which no one with opposing views acknowledged), and move on. I am sure you are all good people with only the best of intentions, but you are making a mistake. I will pray for you to open your eyes and realize that sexism is a great injustice.

It is 89 degrees and sunny out right now. I will put on my shorts and tank top and go for my daily 3 mile run, and I will know that God has absolutely not problem with that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I would like to clarify what I was trying to get across in my post. The Church teaches very plainly that women who wear skimpy clothing–with FULL UNDERSTANDING that it is immodest-- are in a state of sin. If immodesty deeply offends God, we are in a state of sin.

Also, Debora123, I believe you were mistaken to say, “This is why as Catholics, we do not take the bible literally. Doing so is more of a protestant thing. Us Catholics know that the bible is filled with symbolism.” We take quite a few things literally, actually. The fact that Jesus said, “This IS my body”, for one.

I think people in this debate are on what might be called the “extremes” of either side. One side says women should not wear pants, should be completely covered, etc. And the other side is: bikinis, short skirts, mini-anything, or tight-anything; the “I could care less if you disagree with how I dress” people. I would like to remind everyone there is a nice place in the middle we can meet at.

Catholics do take the bible literally. Many Protestants take the bible in a literalistic sense. A literal sense puts the emphasis on what the author meant; hyperbole, symbolism, poetic license, etc. are not taken verbatim as they are when the bible is taken in a literalistic sense.

"Most often what our culture means by the phrase “reading Scripture literally,” would be more correctly rendered “reading Scripture literalistically,” that is, taking each word at face value apart from its literary context. Such an approach drains the life out of language; such readers leech the meaning out of Scripture. For example, a literalistic take on the phrase, “Her eyes are as bright as diamonds,” would claim that her eyes provided a similar luminescence as diamonds. Such a wooden reading misses the poetic thrust of the simile — the radiant beauty that flashes through her eyes.

"An interpretation guided by a one-dimensional view of words may not only fail to glean the true meaning, but may reap the tares of a wrong-headed interpretation. For instance, the poetic comparison inspired from romantic courtship, where the poet sings of his beloved’s beautiful hair, saying, “Your hair is like a flock of goats, moving down the slopes of Gilead” (Song 4:1), can easily be misunderstood if the metaphor is not read correctly. By comparing her hair to a flock of black goats cascading down a mountain, he is thinking of her rich, black hair; a comparison of color, not scent, is the aim of the simile.1 In this case, missing the metaphoric expression leads to an interpretation that is diametrically opposed to the intended meaning of the passage. I can tell you that it took me some explaining to convince the high school students I taught years ago that this image was flattering!

"Context is crucial, and that is why knowing the literary context of what we’re reading is vitally important. In Scripture, God speaks through men in a human fashion. In order to understand what God is communicating, we must carefully search for the intention of the sacred authors. That is why the Church stresses the importance of knowing the literary genres of Scripture: “In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, inter alia, to ‘literary forms for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts,’ and in other forms of literary expression” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 12). In short, we are not to take the Bible literalistically, but literarily.

"Should Catholics take the Bible literally? If by literal we are referring to the intention of the author, then yes, Catholics do take the Bible literally. For such a literal reading respects the author’s intention — it reads poetry poetically, metaphors metaphorically, and history historically. The aim of interpreting the Bible is to discern what the author intended by the words he used. For example, when we read that Jesus says it is better to lose a member of one’s body than to sin, we understand that Jesus is teaching about the gravity of sin through hyperbole. We do not take Him as literally commanding dismemberment. Some misreadings can be more costly than others, which is why Origen’s literalistic reading of these words of Jesus (Origen supposedly castrated himself) is an example of the consequences of interpreting words without regard for their rhetorical genre."

catholiceducation.org/article…cs/ap0076.html
[bolding added]

I apologize for the link. I am having computer problems because of a thunderstorm (I’m going to shut it down in a minute). I can’t find the whole link right now because both threads that show the complete link have been closed. Sorry.

 

[LittleSoldier]

1. My original post was not irritated. It was my genuine response to this thread, and I responded to it as respectfully as I could while still giving my full opinion. So for you to say that no one responded bc “I was irritated” is completely non-credible.
2. Other than saying I’m one sided and wasn’t considering men’s feelings, you still didn’t respond to the points I have made in this post, and I thought I made really good points. I’d like to see legitimate, logical, and non sexist arguments against each and every one of the points I’ve made. I think I deserve at least that much if people are going to tell me I’m wrong.
3. I DO talk about men in this post. Read points #1, 3, and 4 of my original post, and you will see where I talk about men. Like I said, I am friends with many men, and many of which are good Christian. I am married to one of them. I’m willing to bet my life that every single one of them will say that this whole ideal is extremely sexist and ridiculous.
4. According to this thread, you are doing wrong by working out in shorts and a t-shirt. I wrote this post to make a legitimate argument against the people who are saying women shouldn’t even wear pants. So who’s side are you on? Because according to them, you’re sinning too, by working out in the clothes you work out in.

And yes, even though i was not irritated when I wrote my original post, I am very irritated now. I am irritated, frustrated, insulted, and feeling very judged. I joined this forum thinking I’d be talking to Catholics, and instead I feel as though I’m talking to Amish or Muslims, and like I’m fighting for my basic, God given rights as a human being. I have never heard Catholics be this sexist before, going as far as to say that I’m not allowed to wear jeans and a t-shirt and it makes me extremely sad that there are Catholics out there who are. I can’t change that. All I can do is make a few very good points (of which no one with opposing views acknowledged), and move on. I am sure you are all good people with only the best of intentions, but you are making a mistake. I will pray for you to open your eyes and realize that sexism is a great injustice.

It is 89 degrees and sunny out right now. I will put on my shorts and tank top and go for my daily 3 mile run, and I will know that God has absolutely not problem with that.

Debora, when I was attacked for my views, which align with yours, I felt extremely betrayed by my fellow Catholics. I couldn’t believe that anyone would think that wearing jeans or shorts or tank tops or even a bikini would be inappropriate. What hurt the most is that some women agree with the idea that women lead men into sin by the way they dress.

And I’ve thought about the poster who stated that she climbs a ladder while wearing an ankle-length denim skirt. That is dangerous. Nobody should climb a ladder while wearing a skirt that long. It’s far too easy to get one’s feet caught up in the skirt which could lead to a nasty fall. If someone fell and hit her head on something, she could even die.

But I honestly don’t think that most Catholics believe that what we wear is inappropriate. I’ve talked to a lot of people since that thread in which I was attacked and I really think there is a small fringe group which espouses such archaic beliefs.

And btw, when I was in that thread I asked if any man would actually tell me if my dress could lead men into sin. And I received not one answer. No man in that thread would admit to it, even though we all have user names and it’s just about as anonymous as it can be here. I guess we’re supposed to be psychic or have that knowledge imparted to us as we are born, but men don’t have to tell us. We’re just supposed to know.

After being attacked I was becoming very irritated with what I saw as a holier-than-thou, self-righteous attitude among many posters. I still received responses. I was lied about. I had words that I had never said attributed to me. I was told that I don’t care about anyone else and to hell with everyone else and I’m not going to change my opinion. One poster said that he wanted us to go back 100 years to when his country (U.S.A.) was a Christian country (I’m paraphrasing here). Yes, let’s go back 100 years to 1910. Women didn’t have the right to vote, they were routinely fired from their low-paying jobs if they became pregnant, blacks, native Americans, and other minorities were treated as second-class citizens or worse. I don’t see those as reflecting Christian attitudes. For awhile there was a group discussing me, right there in the thread where I could read what they wrote. At that point I asked the moderator to close the thread and he did (thank you!).

I’m very happy to read your posts. You are entirely correct. And I want to thank you because now I know I am not almost alone (some posters supported me and very well, too, but for awhile it was just me because people have lives to lead and couldn’t stay on the thread). I do love what one male poster said: (paraphrasing) “These people scare me more than the Taliban.”

I know I’m discussing another thread but this is helping me to obtain closure. I was very hurt and angry. I’ll try to not bring it up again but I do appreciate the opportunity to say a few things I couldn’t say back in that other thread.

God bless and have a pleasant time on your run!!

 

[Shin]

Honestly, instead of feeling attacked, when one finds one may be committing sin one should calmly and prayerfully consider whether it is the case or not, and look into the background of it.

Otherwise one is in a dangerous situation, and approaching matters of importance with a bias that can harm you forever.

We’re all sinners and the scriptures say the few are saved, on more than one occasion. There’s a reason they say that. We shouldn’t be thinking and acting like everyone else in the world and thinking that’s fine.

We owe it to honestly and taking good care of ourselves to treat these things calmly and properly, and being open to change.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Honestly, instead of feeling attacked, when one finds one may be committing sin one should calmly and prayerfully consider whether it is the case or not, and look into the background of it.

Otherwise one is in a dangerous situation, and approaching matters of importance with a bias that can harm you forever.

We’re all sinners and the scriptures say the few are saved, on more than one occasion. There’s a reason they say that. We shouldn’t be thinking and acting like everyone else in the world and thinking that’s fine.

We owe it to honestly and taking good care of ourselves to treat these things calmly and properly, and being open to change.

Is this a response to my post in which I stated I was attacked? One can’t help feeling attacked - it’s an emotional response which includes fear, hurt, and anger. It’s true that one should calmly and prayerfully consider whether it is the case or not. As I have done and will continue to do.

I don’t think and act like everyone else in the world. Nobody does. And my agreement with the majority in this particular case does not mean that I agree with the majority on any other issue. I take issues separately. I don’t vote the party-line and I didn’t even know until a few days ago that I’m registered as a Republican. The issues are what are important.

But it is very difficult to be calm when one is reading that one said “to hell with everyone else” which I never stated. Posts should not contain lies, especially if those lies are meant to hurt others. That is never appropriate.

I am open to change. I’ve conceded on threads before and have been happy to do so. I’m here to learn as well as to try to get my opinion across. And I feel very blessed to have learned so much on this forum! I’ve learned more here than I ever learned when I attended Catholic School.

Sometimes it takes awhile to be able to calm down and look at the discussed issue again. As a human being I am going to react emotionally when I feel attacked. Now I’m not feeling so hurt about that other thread, although I stand by everything I stated there.

Thank you for your post. You are correct in that it helps us to take care of ourselves by being calm. Anger can lead to angry posts and hurt can lead to hurtful posts. And thank you for writing a kind post. I appreciate that very much!!

God bless!!

 

[masha]

I’ve been thinking more about this post lately lol…(not to beat a dead horse) - but I was thinking that perhaps, maybe, what people are sort of arguing about, isn’t so much about the idea of modesty, but rather, ceremony

?

That is, going to church…wearing one’s “glad rags” or nice clothes…or what was nice for them (as we all know not everyone can afford the same level of niceties) made going to church a special occasion - something not of the norm. And this was part of the ceremony, the celebration, of mass.

Of course this doesn’t mean that if you’re in a hurry, or don’t have time to change that it makes ANY DIFFERENCE what you wear because like so many have said, the point is that you came and of course showing our reverence to God in this matter, by simply attending Mass, is ultimately, what matters.

But by dressing up - wearing something a little different, a little “special” - sort of embraces the ceremonial aspect of going to Mass, and separates it from the times when we pray on our own.

…But I think the key is to perhaps try to embrace or unify the form AND the function?

Because in doing so, by making the effort to conform, to wear something “nice,” to do something out of the norm - we’re in effect saying, by showing, that this is special. This is a special event. This is something worthy of my best effort…and by dressing in such a way, I’m reflecting that.

And the only reason I have this perspective, is because I am the worst of offenders…I know it. I have worn yoga pants to Mass (and no it’s not funny I know…they weren’t tight but sloppy)…and baggy, rather bulky, ski jackets and so forth. But I didn’t know really, any better, at the time. Yet during Mass, I was there in spirit. However going even FURTHER back in time, my mother used to make us dress-up quite a bit for Mass…however I wasn’t there in spirit…my mind was elsewhere and I only cared about local gossip or whatever nonsense was happening in the pews (ya know…the furtive glances…ooooh…look a that coat! Did she get her hair done? Maybe you don’t know…but trust me, I did this. ).
QUOTE]I think you are dead right in this. We do lack ceremony, reverence for the event itself, and an understanding that despite the repetitive nature of the liturgy, it is a sacred event, worthy of our extra effort and the sort of devotion that is expressed by our bodies as well as our souls.

I know that there are often distractions and issues that make coming to Liturgy in a style worthy of the ceremony very difficult. I remember when I was single, working at a dairy farm and I would race to Presanctified Liturgy on weeknights in Lent. I kept a clean skirt and shirt in my car and changed in the Parish Bathroom, or at a gas station, in order not to come to Liturgy in my manure-y boots and jeans. I know that God would have been slightly disappointed if I’d come in distracting His worshippers with the scents of manure, old milk, and cow placenta. I think it’s important to reclaim an understanding of situational appropriateness, and the importance of physically reminding ourselves of the Holiness of the Mass.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I hope they don’t make ski skirts. Like you mentioned, some activities require pants, like martial arts. I think snow skiing would fall into the same category and if some woman can’t fathom wearing pants to ski in, then she should find another activity than can be done in a long denim skirt.

And yes, I know saints can make mistakes, but I don’t think St Gianna’s wardrobe was one of them. So much ruckus has been caused by this thread, so I figured that if Catholic women actually had a MODERN role model to follow, St Gianna would be a good example. However, it doesn’t surprise me that you had to make the first comment trying to decredit my suggestion/example. Once again…:banghead:

I want to thank you for providing that example. I agree - I don’t think St.Gianna’s wardrobe was a mistake. And I deeply appreciate knowing that there is a modern role model who can help lead us to understand what modesty is and that wearing short-sleeves is not immodest.

I’m sorry you received the response you did. So I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your post. I’m going to learn more about this saint.

God bless!!