Is flirting between two unmarried and marriagable people a sin?

[cardenio]

Flux: How the culture expects men and women to dress.
Timeless: Women should not dress like men.

 

[pnewton]

otm:

One needs to be careful of that quote, as it can be used to justify any number of things based on what someone else perceives.

It seems to be a very good quote to me, as it points out our responsibility to each other. Section 2521-2522 points out that modesty is part of purity and effects our choice of clothing, within the context of the culture, of course (section 2524).

 

[dublingirl]

Katie1723:

So HE can have an impure thought because WE are wearing a bikini??
Yes, we are sinning because by our actions i.e. the way we dress ourselves (something we have control over) we caused an impure thought. Note however that if the average man wouldn’t find he got impure thoughts after looking at us in a particular article of clothing then it is not a sin for us to wear it, however in the case of bikinis the majority of men would have lustful/impure thoughts pop into their head, therefore it is a sin for us to wear one.
And HE is not sinning, but WE are???
Yes he is not sinning if he gets rid of the impure thought straight away. We are sinning cos we have caused the impure thought.
THAT makes no sense.
Don’t agree
~ Kathy ~

 

[tkdnick]

I’d like to take a different approach. I have looked into the “art” and “philosophy” somewhat of flirting. There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Flirting is a form of communication as much as having a conversation is. Women, in general, flirt for friendship purposes. Men, in general, flirt for sexual purposes. It is totally possible to flirt in a non-sexual, non-suggestive way with no intention of ever doing anything.

 

[otm]

pnewton:

It seems to be a very good quote to me, as it points out our responsibility to each other. Section 2521-2522 points out that modesty is part of purity and effects our choice of clothing, within the context of the culture, of course (section 2524).

I didn’t say that it was a bad quote: I said that one needs to be careful in using it.

Reactions to that quote can lead to the point of scrupulosity. I do not suggest that anyone be flippant about modesty; however, it (modesty) can be taken to a hyper-sensitive point. some of the posts herein seem to suggest, if not a scrupulosity, something that seems to border on it.

 

[pnewton]

otm:

I didn’t say that it was a bad quote: …Reactions to that quote can lead to the point of scrupulosity.

I know that you did not call it bad. The idea that we need to dress and behave as to keep our fellow Christian from sinning is inherent in the teaching of Jesus and must effect many of our actions and decisions, dress being one of them.

We must also be balanced by what you pointed out in the rest of your post. Thank you for your comments because I missed that point earlier. The one who stumbles is still primarily responsible for his own sin. Many who suffer from scrupulosity could see the words of Jesus as a condemnation of them for evvery sin someone else commits.

Last night after I posted I had another thought. Since the catechism states that modesty is affected by the culture, it should be enough that the Christian is always on the more modest end of the spectrum; not always clothed in a way to bare no skin, just more modest than most others, in a given situation.

 

[twiztedseraph]

Define flirting. Sometimes its a smile from across a bar or a swift pinch to the buttocks. The first being wholesome the second somewhat distasteful,lustful and sinfull.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I feel very strongly on this issue because I’ve seen this “over-conservatism” backfire.

The fact is, just like you shouldn’t call bad things good, you shouldn’t call good things bad. God made man and woman attracted to each other. To call that attraction “sinful” is to say that God is wrong. God made sex, too. It isn’t bad. It’s a wonderful expression of love and life that a husband and wife get to share. If a couple is meant to get married, they will feel this physical attaction for one another, which is what God planned.

The SSPX crowd is so ultra-conservative on some issues that they forget what some of the reasoning behind the issues is. For example: dating. They condemn dating as sinful, but it’s not. Dating can be done in a sinful way, but so can marriage, drinking, and praying even! By telling people to not flirt and to ignore their attraction to each other, you’re messing with God’s plan for marriage and procreation. Where do you think little Catholics come from? From couples who flirted, dated, fell in love and married!

And the whole pants thing is ridiculous. I’ve been told pants can be so revealing on a woman, but what about skirts? There are mini skirts and leather skirts and even long, flowing skirts get caught in the wind and fly up. Shirts can be even more revealing than pants can! It’s a matter of buying appropriate clothing. Plus, women are then held back from doing things that men can do in pants. If I had to wear skirts all the time, I wouldn’t be able to rock climb, cart-wheel, horseback ride (comfortably), play sports well (with no concern for tripping on my skirt or having it fly up), etc.

There is no Biblical, Traditional, traditional, or God-given idea that women shouldn’t wear pants or shouldn’t flirt. The Catholic church has clearly defined what people should and should not do with each other. Since when is it the priest’s role to say “The rest of the Catholic church never covered this very specific rule about women not wearing pants, but they should have!”

:banghead: Okay, breathe. I’m better now. Thank you!

 

[Olympia]

Katie1723:

So HE can have an impure thought because WE are wearing a bikini?? And HE is not sinning, but WE are??? THAT makes no sense.

Sorry Kathy, I have to disagree. Watch men follow women with their eyes. They cannot help it, God made them that way.

Women should dress modestly and sensibly, not only for their sakes, but #1 for their own self-respect. Women should not dress as if they are in a “meat market” vying for everyone’s attention.

 

[Pondero]

Madaglan:

, by flirting, I mean innocent flirting, such as winking, looking at the person in a certain way, gently touching the person on the shoulder as you pass him or her, smiling, speaking in a funny way, etc. What I don’t mean by flirting is touching the other person’s private parts or making obscene sexual gestures. Basically, by flirting I simply mean showing the other person signals by which they can understand that you like him or her.

No, of course that isn’t sinning, but it could be an occasion of sin if indulged in too often between a single and a married person.I have seen such relationships develop - innocently enough - and then before you know it adultery takes place. I have often said, that if I were God, I would have thought of a different way of propagating the species.

While I thought the Mass itself was interesting, and that the people were well-dressed and reverent, I had difficulty connecting with the moral theology as demanded by the priest in his sermon, which, incidentally, had nothing to do with the Gospel reading, nor with the epistle reading. The FSSP priest condemned, among other things, coed swimming (for which I can somewhat understand his concern), women wearing pants and young people flirting with one another. The latter two completely baffle me. He said that pants are men’s clothing, and that women who wear them are sinful, since they go against the Scriptural command not to wear the clothing of the opposite sex. But in any case, it seemed like he was a rigorist, like Tatian, Tertullian, Origen, and the many others who condemned anything that had to do or would even lead to sex, even if it was chastely done in marriage, which incidentally many of these early Chrisitans condemned, such as the Encratites (Tatian) and the Montanists (Tertullian).

Your priest is from the Dark Ages. What on earth is wrong with women wearing pants?

I’m just trying to maintain sanity here, too. I know that I should not lust around trying to seduce women. But is it wrong even to engage in romantic activity with a person of the opposite sex? Is it sinful to lovingly kiss him or her? Is it sinful to hug a girl? That’s what this priest seemed to suggest: that young men and women should stay as far apart from each other as possible http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Of course not if both are single.

Has the Church ever taught this universally, or is this FSSP priest just a little too rigorist and psychotic?

I am not aware of any such teaching. I can’t comment on the mental state of your priest.

 

[space_ghost]

…it can be volitile…

http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/cmn3104/images/tnt.jpg

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

To the contrary my friend…it is the person having the thoughts who is sinning…

This is a sin called “scandal”. It is a grave offence, to lead another into sin, or impure thoughts. Such clothing, if it can be called such, falls into that category.

FSSP, eh? I like the lot if they are anything in similarity to that priest.

I would rather be fined £400,000,000 than to be guilty of scandal.

 

[NightRider]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

It’s all in the intent.

I think to preach across the board that to innocently flirt with the opposite sex is sinful is a grave misinterpretation of people and their intent. It lowers perfectly acceptable behaviour to nothing better than gutter smut. It says to Christians, you cannot be trusted to act appropriately; you are all going to sin awfully because you cannot resist any temptation whatsoever and as such you had better just keep away from each other. How ridiculous!!

That is not what happens between people of the opposite sex who engage in a little flirting as a way to show interest in the other person.

There will be people who have a smutty intent and the content of their flirting shows their intent, it debases the converse to sexual innuendo and is purely lustful and therefore a sin. However someone who flirts a little in an innocent and non-smutty way is not entertaining sinful thoughts nor committing a sin.

A woman who wears appropriately fitting trousers is not sinning. I have never heard such a double standard! Men wear trousers and their bodies are just as defined in them as women’s are! St Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing, in a misguided attempt to condemn her they accused her because of this, how archaic and how misguided, she is a great Sainmt of the Church now.

But then I suppose we could all push a pole up our backs, not trust in our ability to discern appropriate behaviour and not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the conscience! In that case we had better sit at home and not mix with people, male and female for fear of falling into sin! Better still have all the women clothed head to foot and keep them out of social mixing, make them hide themselves away because all men will be corrupted because of them and all women will be so weak as to not defend their own honour!

Really sometimes all I can do is sigh when I read about such things.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Very well put, Teresa! I couldn’t have said any of this any better! Bravo!