Originally Quoted by Patrick2340:
I think it is very uncharitable to disparage a priest’s homily when all we know of the homily is given to us second-hand. There is no context for his sentiments. We don’t know which saints, Popes, or documents of the Church he might have referenced. Context and content are both necessary.
I think we may discuss the merits of whether co-ed swimming, flirting, or immodest dress (i.e. women wearing pants) are sinful without calumniating a holy priest of the Church.
I apologize if I seemed to unfairly disparage the priest’s homily, or if I gave fuel for others to disparage it. I gave my honest reactions to his sermon, but I should have realized that nobody else on these forums heard the sermon for him or herself.
But in any case, let me give you a little context and structural information to his sermon.
He began the sermon by stating that his topic would be modesty in dress, since it was now summer, when people generally dress less modestly than at other times of the year. After introducing the topic, he clearly laid out that he would use four sources in discussing this topic. His four sources were all legitimate, although I’m not sure as to the authority of each (except for Scripture, if the Church’s interpretation was applied). In jogging my memory, I believe that he used the Catechism, Pope Paul VI, Pope John II and St. Padre Pio. The only one I’m not so sure about is the first one (Catechism). He may have used Scripture instead, but I honestly can’t remember. It was one or the other, perhaps both, since much of the Catechism includes Scripture.
His primary, though not exclusive, concern was with how women dressed. He used, I believe, Scripture, Pope Paul VI and John Paul II’s words (many paraphrased) on modesty to support what he believed constituted modest dress. Most of these statements laid out general rules, such as one should not wear clothing that is too skimpy or which might excite the member of the opposite sex, should not cross-dress, etc. Nothing with which most would disagree.
In discussing the impropriety of women wearing men’s clothing, he utilized a story about Padre Pio (one which he supposedly heard or read, but for which he did not give a source; and for which I am not accusing him, but am simply pointing out a fact.) The story basically narrated how this modern day saint refused to give sacramental absolution to women who came to the sacrament wearing pants (i.e. men’s clothing).
While he used these sources to substantiate his belief that people, especially women, should dress modestly, and while he even used the saintly actions of Padre Pio to support his belief that women should not wear pants, he gave no authoratative support against flirting. So, I suppose that his argument against women wearing pants has some claim to authoratative, even if not infallible, teaching, if what he told is true; and certainly his arguments against women wearing bikinis and such are justifiable I think; but his one remark on flirting, which, being as it was in the context of other condemned immodest behaviors, I did not completely agree with, not because of my personal belief, but because I had never read or heard this belief expressed in any authoratative source in the Church.
Then again, as his mention of flirting was brief, he did not define specifically what he meant by flirting. I interpretted the word in its widest sense, since there was no ostensible reason to believe that the word was used in a limited sense.
I wasn’t so much put off by what the priest had to say, even though I disagreed with parts of it, as I was by what I saw as innapropriate displays of anger in the way he presented the sermon. It was his physiogomy, his stark language, and his bodily and vocal quavering throughout that I found a little awkward in a church. Of course, he may have had a severe nervous or mental disorder (no offense intended), which would then perfectly explain what I perceived.
As I saw it, and this is by no means an objective statement, but rather a normative one, equanimity was lacking in his presentation.
This said, he was very reverential througout the Mass. He also seemed genuinely concerned for the salvation of his flock. I just thought that his understanding of modesty was a bit puritanical and more than a little reactionary. But that’s just me. I didn’t meet him in person after the service, so I can’t say anything about his character in a broad and extended sense, only what I could glean from how he approached his sermon and what was contained therein.
