Please provide the post numbers where I stated those things. This is way beyond appropriate. I never said “to hell with any many who falls into lust because of that” or that I “couldn’t care less about the fate of other peoples’ souls”!
It’s good to counteract possible bias and flaws in studies by looking at the full articles, check the credibility of the sources those articles cite, and look for multiple studies from multiple authors published in multiple journals (that may risk loosing credibility if they publish errant articles).
Thank you, Patrice. I never said those things.
I’ve seen quite a few attempts otherwise.
Actually, we are to judge actions - it’s souls that we must not judge.
Well you are not our confessor for one, many catholic men are rightly ashamed of their sins they don’t want to admit to them its hard to admit a weakness or failure.
Bob I think you have me mistaken for someone who respects the intelligentsia that have brought our culture and our Church to the brink of ruin.
I would like to point out that there is more than one type of bikini. I would also like to point out that I responded to a poster’s question about what type of clothing would be immodest and in my answer I listed thongs and string bikinis.
Little Soldier,
You have a short memory it seems let me remind you of the following:Oh yeah, you’re not only judging me, now you’re lying about me.
I hope I’m not your confessor. I’m a woman and I wanted to know if there was a problem with those kinds of thoughts being brought on by a woman in a bikini.
If I believed that was appropriate Paul I would be doing it already I would not wait for a government endorsement if I thought it was the right thing to do.
Wow, thank you Paul! Your words mean so much to me right now! I do believe they would beat the hell out of me in Jesus’ name.
Are you serious? You would be walking the streets with a paddle to chastise me?
I’m waiting for the post numbers that reference where I said those things.
I just said no didn’t I? This thread has gone ridiculous.
That’s fine.
Yes, but Costco was used as the example.
That’s fine, but since I’m not assuming that you do, don’t feel you need to mention it to me.
Problem is, those of us who are saying that bikinis can be sinful and/or occasions of sin are assumed to be judging souls, when we’re merely judging actions.
There hasn’t been a specific Church teaching on the wearing of bikinis per se, but the Church does have binding teaching on the subject of modesty, as well as a certified, error-free pronouncement on decency in dress lengths and cuts (mentioned on this thread) which, even though dated in the 1950s, is still officially without error. Taken together, these (should) carry the weight that a direct ex cathedra papal pronouncement would (meaning that it ought to be taken seriously nonetheless).
Here is the entire post:
I beg to differ. Not one of the statements you posted actually states what types of clothing are worn by men and women in an immodest way. They are general statements and can be interpreted in many different ways.
That quote denotes no such thing! It doesn’t use or even imply “shame” or “recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety.” All it states is that “women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel.” That’s it. How did you ever get from that simple little statement to “shame” and "recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety? I think you’re reading a whole lot more into those quotes than what is actually there.
Mini skirts and bikinis are not unseemly apparel. You have your opinion and I have mine. I’m not going to worry about inciting “sinful desires” in men and I’m not going to change my opinion.
This is what you said:
I misread your post. I read “I do not” as referring to waiting for a government endorsement. I apologize. It would help if you used punctuation a bit more. Sorry.