What exactly about wearing pants is so sinful? If it is where they lead the eye from either back and front views, doesn’t a man wearing pants have the same effect as a woman wearing pants? So, if that is the case, nobody should wear pants then, right? I’m not suggesting anyone parade around not covered, but if that is the case, then shouldn’t we ALL just stop wearing pants and just wear tunics?
I brought this up before: I tend to look at the crotches of men because there’s often a bulge there in some form (and, if there’s not, I tend to look that much more to see where it could be). I don’t see any men offering to change their wardrobe on my behalf.
I can imagine the scene at the Final Judgment. Our Lord turns smiling to those on his right and says, “I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was lonely and you… Hey! are those PANTS?!? Get in the other line.”
You don’t know, that is what Father had me thinking. He even alluded to it’s not right to wear pants at home when only your family will see you. At that point I was thinking, ‘Even Muslim women are able to show their hair in their home’.
So that invalidates his argument? That he’s a man? So, let me get this straight; you’re saying that just because he’s a man, his theological arguments are invalid?!? His arguments for practicality may be limited, but this really isn’t in the realm of practicality, as he pointed out…
Pax.
Let him walk a mile in my dress, then we’ll talk.
not even a holy priest? Why do women have such are hard time dressing modestly? Is it the influence of the modern world?
Who do you think you are dictating what is modest? Why should this holy priest be listened to? It wasn’t about any serious sin, it was his take on pants, women, and modesty. This is not an infallible pronouncement. Like another poster said, when somebody else pays my bills, then they can dress me.
These are all… dare I say, emotional arguments that are not honest.
I agree, people posting opinions they found of priests, popes, and cardinals, using Our Lady as a gateway to their thinking, claiming children look down on their mothers if they are not in dresses – these ARE emotional arguments without a thread of logic linking them to my original post. In the meantime, thankfully, we have had those posts about not being able to climb the monkey bars and having to be lady like and that pants are cultural, that display logic and that pants in and of themselves on women aren’t sinful/immodest.
Please show me where in the Catechism it states that women must confirm to the standards of dressing advocated by Ms Hammond in her book. If it’s not there, maybe you can get me something where the Pope has endorsed this mode of dress as the only correct modest attire for Catholic women?
Other than that-it’s all opinions.
I agree. Please show me as well.
Attractiveness is not what I am writting about. When many men look at women’s bottoms, it is of a sexual look.
Pants have nothing to do with that. If a man wants to look at a woman, he’ll find an excuse. If they are looking at a woman’s butt in church, they need to re-evaluate their thinking in front of Our Lord
Thank you RedSoxWife for the link. I find it disheartening that St. Padre Pio, instructed by God, would refuse to listen to confessions of anybody, but, I am glad that it was because they were wearing skirts/dresses too low/high. I am glad that he acknowledged that there were immodest dresses. Not everybody who goes to Mass acknowledges this. I note that the second sign covered a group of what was acceptable in the church. I will note how many men come to church in short sleeves. Incidentally, I know a few women who love and are devoted to St. Padre Pio. I have seen them in pants at Mass (OF).
