Our parish priest refused Communion to women churchgoers who wore pants

[whatevergirl]

The only thing that makes this ‘right’'is if the priest had knowledge that these women were living in sin, and hadn’t been to confession. Other than that, to turn a parishioner away for strictly not adhering to ‘dress code’ is not right.

 

[bpbasilphx]

He also requires the churchgoers to receive the host by the tongue because that is the proper way of doing it.

And also the churchgoers must kneel in receiving the host because Satan enticed the believers not to kneel before the host who is Jesus himself.

Obviously, he’s going against the law of the Church, which allows Communion in the hand and to receive standing.

 

[marchoi]

But we do still consider crossdressing a sin, right? And aren’t we commanded to keep the old law unless told otherwise?

Pax.

I do not think “cross-dressing” itself is a sin, but rather the rejection of one’s God-given sexuality is. If an actor (or actress) cross-dresses for the sake of a theatrical production but remains fully aware and appreciative of his or her sexuality, I don’t think that act in itself is sinful. If, however, a man parades around in a dress or a woman in a male outfit with the specific and clear intent to ignore, reject, or in some way repress his or her sexuality, then that act would be sinful. God has given us a gift in our sexuality (hence “man and woman He created them”) and - in my opinion - it is the disordered attitude towards sexuality that is condemned in Leviticus.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I do not think “cross-dressing” itself is a sin, but rather the rejection of one’s God-given sexuality is. If an actor (or actress) cross-dresses for the sake of a theatrical production but remains fully aware and appreciative of his or her sexuality, I don’t think that act in itself is sinful. If, however, a man parades around in a dress or a woman in a male outfit with the specific and clear intent to ignore, reject, or in some way repress his or her sexuality, then that act would be sinful. God has given us a gift in our sexuality (hence “man and woman He created them”) and - in my opinion - it is the disordered attitude towards sexuality that is condemned in Leviticus.

Yes, but is not the other opinion also a valid Catholic opinion? Since there has been no definitive statement from the Church, we can only conclude that both are equally valid opinions.

Pax.

 

[marchoi]

Yes, but is not the other opinion also a valid Catholic opinion? Since there has been no definitive statement from the Church, we can only conclude that both are equally valid opinions.

Pax.

I assume the “other opinion” refers to considering cross-dressing a sinful act in itself. The problem is twofold.

First, how does one objectively define cross-dressing without taking into account the contemporary culture? That is to say, in the days of the early Church, I would imagine most men and women dressed somewhat similarly - a basic tunic. Moving through history, I would imagine the medieval serfs of the Catholic faith were dressed similarly regardless of sex. So what exactly would have constituted cross-dressing for most of our Church’s history? Further, can we categorically deny the role of culture in our judgment? Would traditional Scotsmen in their kilts be denied the Sacraments? Or, if we are permitted to pass judgment through the lens of the contemporary culture, who is to deny that women do wear pants as a part of their fashion, usually quite different from pants in male fashion? And if we grant that the wardrobe of the average woman contains pants unlike those found in a man’s wardrobe, then could we consider it cross-dressing anymore?

Second, we ought to look at the laws of the Old Covenant through the lens of the New Covenant. That is to say, we don’t just accept the laws of the Old Covenant for the sake of accepting them, but rather because they make sense when tied to Christ’s teachings. How does cross-dressing as an act (taking intent and purpose out of the picture for now) violate Christ’s command to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself?

 

[pnewton]

I do not understand this fixation on crossdressing being defined as crossdressing. Women slacks are not the same men’s. There might be some explaination, but if this is the reason, then the priest needs a dose of common sense.

 

[Mike_Dye]

My hearing of such a brave priest so concerned about the souls of his parishioners is quite inspiring.

I am sure Martin Luther’s early followers found him quite inspiring also.

 

[PacoG]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Evidently someone wasn’t listening to the gospel today…Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23…

Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”
21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

 

[Mike_Dye]

I do not think “cross-dressing” itself is a sin, but rather the rejection of one’s God-given sexuality is. If an actor (or actress) cross-dresses for the sake of a theatrical production but remains fully aware and appreciative of his or her sexuality, I don’t think that act in itself is sinful. If, however, a man parades around in a dress or a woman in a male outfit with the specific and clear intent to ignore, reject, or in some way repress his or her sexuality, then that act would be sinful. God has given us a gift in our sexuality (hence “man and woman He created them”) and - in my opinion - it is the disordered attitude towards sexuality that is condemned in Leviticus.

I have to agree, I see no problem with a woman wearing slacks. I can tell a woman is a woman if the slacks are the only difficulty. In the same way I can tell a 290 pound Scotsman that has just thrown a 150 pound log 50 feet while wearing a kilt is probably all man:thumbsup:

 

[James_Miller]

#1 The OP is from the Philippines…what are the norms there?
#2 We have not seen the pants in question. Some are decent and some are not.
#3 Benedictine monasteries have a sign on the door asking women not to visit the
chapel wearing shorts. I assume they might be refused Communion if they did.
#4 A quick call to the bishop did not remove the pastor of Sacred Heart Church
(Dayton) who refused Communion to a man who tried to go to Communion in short
shorts.
#5 What would happen in India I do not know. I have never seen a woman wearing
pants. (Little girls yes and little boys in shorts).
I am not so quick to call a post a lie.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Evidently someone wasn’t listening to the gospel today…Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23…
Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”
21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

I did. I did! :extrahappy:and said that same thing earlier.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Pax.

That would be true if we were Jews. Levitical laws do not apply to us.

You make an interesting point. Something else to consider is that there have been bishops around the world who have chosen not to use the indult for the reception of communion in the hand. We need to remember that communion in the hand is a valid option, but, one that comes by way of an indult. An indult simply means that a bishop can choose to employ this option in his particulat territory, or, he can choose to not use it and, instead, mandate the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue.

Prohibition against reception in the pants?

The priest had been constantly reminding the women churchgoers not to wear pants attending the Mass. They were also ordered to inform visitors about the ordinance.

But my question really is:

Does the Church allow the refusal of communion to women who wore pants?

No.

And what about visitors? Surely there are tourists, even occasionally. Do they get turned away at the door if not dressed properly?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I assume the “other opinion” refers to considering cross-dressing a sinful act in itself.

yes.

First, how does one objectively define cross-dressing without taking into account the contemporary culture? That is to say, in the days of the early Church, I would imagine most men and women dressed somewhat similarly - a basic tunic. Moving through history, I would imagine the medieval serfs of the Catholic faith were dressed similarly regardless of sex. So what exactly would have constituted cross-dressing for most of our Church’s history? Further, can we categorically deny the role of culture in our judgment? Would traditional Scotsmen in their kilts be denied the Sacraments? Or, if we are permitted to pass judgment through the lens of the contemporary culture, who is to deny that women do wear pants as a part of their fashion, usually quite different from pants in male fashion? And if we grant that the wardrobe of the average woman contains pants unlike those found in a man’s wardrobe, then could we consider it cross-dressing anymore?

Up until quite recently, women did not wear pants (in the U.S. anyways, I can’t speak for the Philipines). So, where different people draw the line is respective of his thoughts on the matter.

Second, we ought to look at the laws of the Old Covenant through the lens of the New Covenant. That is to say, we don’t just accept the laws of the Old Covenant for the sake of accepting them, but rather because they make sense when tied to Christ’s teachings. How does cross-dressing as an act (taking intent and purpose out of the picture for now) violate Christ’s command to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself?

So, CHRIST didn’t preach directly on homosexuality either, yet we always pull out Leviticus… We are to respect the old law unless told otherwise. Have you been informed of anything that allows crossdressing?

Evidently someone wasn’t listening to the gospel today…Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23…

Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”
21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

If a little kid gets scared, he might forget to actually run to the bathroom and use his pants instead. What shows on the outside in this case is a physical sign of the inside. The gospel was talking about how no one can force you to sin - sin comes from within. But it does not say that there cannot be a physically maifest sign of the sin on the outside.

That would be true if we were Jews. Levitical laws do not apply to us.

So, CHRIST didn’t preach directly on homosexuality either, yet we always pull out Leviticus… We are to respect the old law unless told otherwise. Have you been informed of anything that allows crossdressing?

Pax.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Pax.

Women wearing pants or slacks has never been considered “crossdressing,” so the question of it being “grave matter” is moot. The rest of your logic is flawed to the point of meaningless.

In any event, cultural norms differ from region to region, country to country and if you travel enough you will see men and women wearing things that you would never have conceived before. Even priest wear robes that someone, using your flawed reasoning, could describe as “crossdressing.”

The question is really very simple; has the Church ever issued an authoritative teaching saying that it is improper for women to wear pants? This whole thread can be put to rest if just one person can provide the needed information.

 

[Sir_Knight]

#1 The OP is from the Philippines…what are the norms there?

That’s what I’ve been saying all along – what is the position of the local Bishop on this?

#2 We have not seen the pants in question. Some are decent and some are not.

Yep.

Some pants could be more appropriate and decent than certain types of dresses / skirts.

#3 Benedictine monasteries have a sign on the door asking women not to visit the
chapel wearing shorts. I assume they might be refused Communion if they did.

I don’t know about that. Refusing Communion to someone is a serious matter. As somebody else mentioned, the ushers may prohibit the person from entering but once seat, they should be allowed to fully participate in the mass based on the predisposition of their soul – not on their wardrobe.

#4 A quick call to the bishop did not remove the pastor of Sacred Heart Church
(Dayton) who refused Communion to a man who tried to go to Communion in short
shorts.

He may not have been removed but he may have be reprimanded because, as others have said, refusing Communion to someone is a serious matter. And I think that this kind of inconsistencey is hurting the Church more than it is helping. We allowed those in public office who publicly oppose Church teaching and support practices which the Church calls an “intrinsic evil” to receive Communion but deny it to someone wearing shorts.

#5 What would happen in India I do not know. I have never seen a woman wearing
pants. (Little girls yes and little boys in shorts).
I am not so quick to call a post a lie.

When do little boys and little girls stop being “little boys” and “little girls”? When they reach a certain age? Certain size? How is that uniformly determined?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Women wearing pants or slacks has never been considered “crossdressing,”

Oh really? Never?

The question is really very simple; has the Church ever issued an authoritative teaching saying that it is improper for women to wear pants? This whole thread can be put to rest if just one person can provide the needed information.

No, but I would still ask of you the following; has it issued an authoritative teaching saying it is proper for women to wear pants? Since the Church has not issued such a document, we are left in a bit of a bind aren’t we?

Pax.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, but I would still ask of you the following; has it issued an authoritative teaching saying it is proper for women to wear pants? Since the Church has not issued such a document, we are left in a bit of a bind aren’t we?

Pax.

If you take that approach, I don’t believe that the Church ever issued an authoritative teaching saying it is proper for MEN to wear pants either. After all, Jesus never wore pants. So, where does that leave us?

 

[JSSebastianoP]

If you take that approach, I don’t believe that the Church ever issued an authoritative teaching saying it is proper for MEN to wear pants either. After all, Jesus never wore pants. So, where does that leave us?

Up to the culture, as with women. The problem is that in modern culture pants are considered by most people acceptable on women and by a significant minority not. It’n not just one guy screaming something… What if men started wearing dresses? Right off the bat, you’d have most people who wouldn’t accept it but probably a vocal minority that would…

Pax.

 

[Timothysis]

Oh really? Never?

Since you seem to be such a wellspring of knowledge, please, clues us all in.

No, but I would still ask of you the following; has it issued an authoritative teaching saying it is proper for women to wear pants? Since the Church has not issued such a document, we are left in a bit of a bind aren’t we?

The Church does not issue dictates of everything that is “allowed”; it issues prohibitions in circumstances when things are definitively and morally not allowed. By your logic, we may be “left in a bit of a bind,” since the Church has never issued an authoritative statement saying that women may play tennis or men may do needlepoint. Your thinking is much more Puritan than Catholic.

 

[Timothysis]

Up to the culture, as with women. The problem is that in modern culture pants are considered by most people acceptable on women and by a significant minority not.

Some of the “significant minority” believe that women should not attend higher education or even work for a living. So what does that have to do with anything?

What if men started wearing dresses? Right off the bat, you’d have most people who wouldn’t accept it but probably a vocal minority that would…

I love “what if?” scenarios. What if everyone in the world started to employ a little common sense and not get their dander up over insignificant, trivial matters?