Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very Important: The Church has not commented on hair or pants either way-so neither opinion is anything but a decision based on conscience. It results will be answerable before God depending truly if one acts against good faith as they know it-or strikes their conscience. Even when head coverings were worn, it was not the doctrine of the Church, simply custom. Still, custom being far below doctrine, is in no wise unimportant.
But, if the Church does not command it - it does not have to be dogmatically asserted.
This is the great point that binds and unites us, thanking God
-Sean
 
Poetess Kera, only the actor can know if the action is sinful. For conscientious people there is potential for venial sins with regard to dressing through accidental scandal. (But I would not minimize venial sin because it undermines our relationship with God and requires later purification.) Since every situation is unique no standard rule will be correct, even though at least one Pope has said there is an absolute standard. Not everbody can be scandalized, but we have to be on watch for the weak or young.

Taking a legalistic approach, to contrast with the other views here, there are some teachings of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Catechism that can be used. At least the following sins could be committed directly through dress:
  1. immodesty (revealing too much, pertaining to the sixth and ninth commandments)
  2. disrespect for God expressed by inappropriate attire in Church, etc.
  3. disrespect for others, causing them embarassment, by inappropriate attire
  4. disrespect for authority (political, religious, or elders) by inappropriate attire
  5. (venial only) false pride, i.e., ostentation or pride of appearence for one’s beauty or wealth
  6. scandal (fifth commandment)
Saint Thomas Aquinas details scandal (setting a bad example or tempting another to sin) in the following way:

Intention to lead other to mortal sin = mortal sin
Intention to lead other to venial sin by mortal sin = mortal sin
Accidentally through a mortal sin = mortal sin

Intention to lead other to venial sin by venial sin = venial sin
Accidentally through a venial sin = venial sin
Accidentally through a non-sin with appearence of evil = venial sin
 
Vico said:
Poetess Kera, only the actor can know if the action is sinful. For conscientious people there is potential for venial sins with regard to dressing through accidental scandal. (But I would not minimize venial sin because it undermines our relationship with God and requires later purification.) Since every situation is unique no standard rule will be correct, even though at least one Pope has said there is an absolute standard. Not everbody can be scandalized, but we have to be on watch for the weak or young.

Taking a legalistic approach, to contrast with the other views here, there are some teachings of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Catechism that can be used. At least the following sins could be committed directly through dress:
  1. immodesty (revealing too much, pertaining to the sixth and ninth commandments)
  2. disrespect for God expressed by inappropriate attire in Church, etc.
  3. disrespect for others, causing them embarassment, by inappropriate attire
  4. disrespect for authority (political, religious, or elders) by inappropriate attire
  5. (venial only) false pride, i.e., ostentation or pride of appearence for one’s beauty or wealth
  6. scandal (fifth commandment)
Saint Thomas Aquinas details scandal (setting a bad example or tempting another to sin) in the following way:

Intention to lead other to mortal sin = mortal sin
Intention to lead other to venial sin by mortal sin = mortal sin
Accidentally through a mortal sin = mortal sin

Intention to lead other to venial sin by venial sin = venial sin
Accidentally through a venial sin = venial sin
Accidentally through a non-sin with appearence of evil = venial sin
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for such a thorough and detailed answer. So if I were to wear loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn’t revealing according to my conscience, I’m not sinning? I have OCD and worry about going to hell over things like this, so I really do appreciate your answer.
 
BlyssfulDreamer said:
In my last edition of the local Catholic newspaper there was an article asking us for support for the “Catholics Come Home” advertisements to air on our local TV channels this winter.

While I do not believe that wearing dressy slacks to Church is a sin, wearing hip hugger jeans fotosearch.com/CRT326/15360-41at/ may well be wrong. I feel the same way about T-shirts at Mass. Properly fitting t-shirts, worn under a blouse for warmth are fine, T-shirts picturing your favorite Rap-star are not. I don’t think one can make a dress code for Mass, as it isn’t usually the clothing per se…but the way it’s worn & WHY it’s worn that can prove to be distasteful.
…that It stated that only 2/3 of Catholics in the USA attend Sunday Mass. It also stated 100,000 Catholics leave the church a year. Tell me, since the Church is making a concerted and distinct effort to return Catholics back to the Church…why would we put up roadblocks by picking apart whether women wear pants or dresses?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I must sincerely post my feelings on issues such as this. Have we really come to a place where the most basic principles themselves come into question as if theologically significant and/or personally inconsequential?
Can anybody, anywhere, in the world today, really make the complaint that they do not know that at least certain forms of dress are a matter for reproach? Of course not. It is justification of private functions of the person, which the person does not with to address out of selfishness. Anybody with a sincere heart toward God, and a sincere desire to Love Him with all of their heart, soul, strength and mind, and their neighbor as themselves, will do at least the best they know how, and act at least to the best of their knowledge. Anything else is simply a personal rejection and rebellion against the nature of God’s person.
Even the most humanist, atheist philosophers have resolved that ethically, in the context of ones’ culture, any action can be an offense against the whole if done without reserve or scruple for the ideal of the instant (the general norm acceptable to the culture), and an act or behaviour done with willful disregard for the norm is always “wrong”. - c.f Act and Rule Utilitarianism, also David Hume, Hobbes, etc.
When even the Atheist knows better, I do not accept that a true Christian does not. I speak of course in regard to what one wears.
This post has deviated. I am not condemning women wearing pants. We have proceeded to a more peculiar discussion of conscience, which is actuated by the ideal of the original post.

-Love
-Peace
-Sean
 
Poetess_Kera said:
So if I were to wear loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn’t revealing according to my conscience, I’m not sinning?.
Click to expand...
There could still be a venial sin there, it is so dependent upon who could be scandalized, or upon what is considered respectable in the situation.

It if possible to stay warm even with the most extreme modesty of a long skirt.

frugalabundance.com/practicalmodesty.htm
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
I, too, am distressed by folks who point to Scripture to say the wearing of pants by women is sinful. Alright, I believe that same scripture also says men are supposed to dress as men.

Now, consider when it was written. Pray tell, was Jesus wearing pants? Did the Apostles wear pants? How about monks, including Padre Pio? How about the Pope? What about Scotsmen? What about all the men in the East who wore robes long after men in the West started wearing pantaloons?

Jesus wore robes. Does make Him a woman? No, I don’t think so.

I wish folks would look at what that scripture actually means. I believe it means that one should not try to mascarade as a person of the opposite sex.

Jesus had long hair. So? Does that mean He was trying to be a woman? I don’t think so. My hair is relatively short. Does that mean I am trying to be a man? Certainly not!

As long as a man or a woman dresses modestly, and is not trying to mascarade as the opposite sex, I don’t believe God has a problem with it.
Click to expand...
How do you know Jesus had long hair? In the bible it says a man should be ashamed of having long hair & if Jesus had long hair, then that would mean the bible is bashing on him.
Bluegoat said:
So, do those who worry a lot about temptation have concerns about this Catholic celebration?

http://photomediamagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/HH-PNG_Elevala_mw2005_006.jpg

There are definatly women with bare shoulders, and the men… well!
Click to expand...
What celebration is that?
 
Vico said:
There could still be a venial sin there, it is so dependent upon who could be scandalized, or upon what is considered respectable in the situation.

It if possible to stay warm even with the most extreme modesty of a long skirt.

frugalabundance.com/practicalmodesty.htm
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I disagree completely with this. If one is dressed modestly and decently (as would be the case cited by the previous poster) there isn’t the slightest hint of sin - venial or otherwise.

We must be most careful about setting up our own prejudices and preferences as a standard for others. If one is “scandalized” by modest, loose fitting pants and a decent blouse or shirt, it is not the wearer who has the problem.
 
Poetess_Kera said:
Thank you very much for such a thorough and detailed answer. So if I were to wear loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn’t revealing according to my conscience, I’m not sinning? I have OCD and worry about going to hell over things like this, so I really do appreciate your answer.
Click to expand...
Of course you’re not sinning. Don’t let others convince you that their own specific preferences are preferable to your own sense of what is appropriate and decent.
 
This post needs to go back to its grave now. Read the bible, let God speak to you knowing you will answer for your actions in every particular sense if you disobey Him. If it is clear to you that it is right-do it and do not excuse yourself. If it is clear to you that it is wrong-do not do it under any threat or circumstance. Listen to the Church on every and every definitive particular. Heaven is a step and a heartbeat away.
-Sean
 
CradleCath said:
I feel the same way about T-shirts at Mass. Properly fitting t-shirts, worn under a blouse for warmth are fine, T-shirts picturing your favorite Rap-star are not. I don’t think one can make a dress code for Mass, as it isn’t usually the clothing per se…but the way it’s worn & WHY it’s worn that can prove to be distasteful.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with a T-shirt like that? Unless you see swear words or something pornographic on the shirt, I don’t see what’s wrong with letting people wear shirts like that. Heck my shirts almost always have an image on them (most often it’s my favorite creature, the dragon, or characters and icons from certain video/computer games).
CradleCath said:
Whether our dress helps to bring fallen-away Catholics “home” (or not) should never be the ruler with which we measure our success as Catholic. It’s how we look to God, does our appearance please Him? Have we taken time to prepare ourselves to enter His house…have we prepared ourselves BOTH physically & spiritually to come into His home?? Do we make the best of what He’s given us when we worship…that’s what matters, HIS opinion.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I’m more worried about God’s opinion on what I had done with my life and about the burdens I’ve had on my heart and mind… than what I wear.
 
dixieagle said:
I’m sorry, but I disagree completely with this. If one is dressed modestly and decently (as would be the case cited by the previous poster) there isn’t the slightest hint of sin - venial or otherwise.

We must be most careful about setting up our own prejudices and preferences as a standard for others. If one is “scandalized” by modest, loose fitting pants and a decent blouse or shirt, it is not the wearer who has the problem.
Click to expand...
You are making a determination that “loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn’t revealing according to my conscience”, is modest and decent, whereas I am presenting the factors that one must consider, which are immodesty, respect, vanity, and scandal (including the apparence of evil), rather than a judgement of the outfit.

The point is that each must decide for themselves as we alone know what our intentions are. Do we really disagree?
 
Vico said:
You are making a determination that “loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn’t revealing according to my conscience”, is modest and decent, whereas …/QUOTE]

I am not quoting Vico directly. I am just trying to play “catch up” Could someone summerise this thread for me?
Click to expand...
 
Isn’t it true that in some Eastern cultures the women wear pants culturally? To me, if something’s going to be treated as doctrine, it ought to withstand the “global test” – which means it has to work in every culture. Else, it’s just our (usually western) tradition.

The Holy Scriptures only go so far as to require “modesty”. And I dare say I’ve seen some immodest skirts, and some modest pants.

Soli Dei Gratia
 
I agree 100% with this last poster.Modesty does not lie in the cut or design of the garment
,could be pants or skirts.Does it seek to attract attention to it,or is it too revealing?.Those are the tests of modesty.
 
I have an old book which I found in a junk heap: “American Catholic Etiquette” from 1964. In it, there is a discussion of proper attire for mass. At the time it was written, there was undoubtedly a social injunction against women wearing pants to mass, since pants were more for gardening, housework, etc., and not generally worn for social occasions.

Interestingly, there is also listed a stricture against sleeveless attire! This book says that after age 5, women and girls should never appear with their shoulders bared at mass since this was considered to be immodest in front of the Real Presence. When was the last time you were at a Catholic wedding? The last ten I attended, the bride was not only sleeveless but had no fabric at all above her breasts!

I for one will be elated when sleeves make their return to women’s clothing.
 
JOL started this thread Jul 15, 2009 with:
“I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church [on] wear[ing] skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?”

Then she clarified on Jul 16, 2009:
“I should have been more specific. When I said “skirts,” I meant long skirts. It is obvious that a short or mini-skirt would be less modest than pants. I would hope though that Christians wouldn’t wear a mini-skirt to begin with. Another thing is long skirts with big slits, another no-no. So, when I say “skirt,” I would be referring to long modest skirts (little or no slit).”

So she was requesting Catholic opinions on Pants vs. Long Dresses/Skirts (with little or no slit).

Now we have had over 400 posts on the subject, with diversions, and with deja vu, including the comment that the thread was disrespectful and should be terminated.

My opinion was that pants are more revealing of the form given an equivalent length and tightness of pants, and I summarized factors in choosing non-sinful apparel. There were many comments on what was modest or not and differences in various cultures. Also people discussed specific guidelines for dress were from religous sources including a Pope. Also we have the catechism that does explain what the principles are for avoiding sin, but as you know, specific judgements are not made there because the catechism is a general statement, and perhaps to avoid becoming crude by putting questionable descriptions into writing, for a general audience.
 
USAFAmom said:
I have an old book which I found in a junk heap: “American Catholic Etiquette” from 1964. In it, there is a discussion of proper attire for mass. At the time it was written, there was undoubtedly a social injunction against women wearing pants to mass, since pants were more for gardening, housework, etc., and not generally worn for social occasions.

Interestingly, there is also listed a stricture against sleeveless attire! This book says that after age 5, women and girls should never appear with their shoulders bared at mass since this was considered to be immodest in front of the Real Presence. When was the last time you were at a Catholic wedding? The last ten I attended, the bride was not only sleeveless but had no fabric at all above her breasts!

I for one will be elated when sleeves make their return to women’s clothing.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the key, people do not understand how so much modesty was simply understood. 🙂

I should like to read this book.

But I think reading other books too, and magazines, as long as they are old enough – people would understand. You watch older films… the standards are there, they are understood. When they are violated back then it is even more notable.

These are different times where pornography is on the regular television channels and in front of the cash registers at every supermarket. People do not understand how far it is from the standards of God, and talk about rights and things as if that will obtain them Heaven. Heaven is hard to get to. Very hard. You can’t treat modesty at too priceless.

And you can’t look and the before and after and -when- the change came and not see the warning signs flashing, because of the clear -why-. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top