C
centurionguard
Guest
Now that is a very shallow comment for someone who has no idea what Rape is. In fact what you said is an ignoramus insult.
Get a Life
- Status
Get a Life
A
ac_claire
Guest
Thank you for this post.I suppose we need to inject common sense here.
Sins can be contributing factors to the likelihood of us being hurt by other people’s sins. That how it works. The farther we are from God the farther we are from His protection, and sometimes certain sins directly increase the likelihood of certain other sins.
**It is basic Catholic doctrine that it is a sin to dress in such a way as to provoke lust. **When one has -no choice- but to dress that way because there are no other clothes available that is a situation of course, where there is no sin though there could be sins that lead to that inability in the first place or not…
Why is it basic and fundamental that it is a sin? Because Catholic doctrine REQUIRES people be responsible to each other in their behavior. We are REQUIRED not to behave in ways encourage sins. It is a SIN to encourage another to sin, by both our actions and inactions…
These are just examples that have foundational ways of thinking behind them – stop looking for loopholes and look at the foundation and spirit of it, the Catholic teaching.Looking for loopholes is not modesty.
You’ve said, very eloquently, what I’ve been trying to say. This is the truth.Yes this is what I’m encountering on this thread. A couple people in particular are taking the argument personally and posting their own stories of being victimized. While I feel for them, it needs to be understood that nobody is attacking anyone personally here and nobody has said that it is the victim’s fault for being raped. This is a straw man, so please don’t take any offense where none was meant.
Thanks.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
Excuse me?
Rape has NOTHING to do with what YOU think it’s about
rape has EVERYTHING to do with the damage it causes.
My comment was nothing more than bringing abstractions back to one the the greatest evils we face. If you call that shallow, you obviously can’t see past your own nose (which is more concerned with the reason for the evil, rather than the fact that it needs to be stomped out)
S
Shin
Guest
Thank you and Peace.
Let’s all mutually look for the truth for the sake of God and our fellow man.
God bless those who have suffered we pray.
Let’s all mutually look for the truth for the sake of God and our fellow man.
God bless those who have suffered we pray.
C
centurionguard
Guest
If you were as half as intelligent as you claim to be why make such shallow comment by saying Rape Is Rape.
You should of had enough wisdom not to say something so bloody shallow. Nevertheless I see people like you everywhere.
No matter. Small minds think about small things.
All the power to you buddy
C
centurionguard
Guest
Ladies; my sincere apologies for getting worked up.
Ottaviani; my apologies go out to you also.
I hope we can be gentlemen and forgive
Sorry
Ottaviani; my apologies go out to you also.
I hope we can be gentlemen and forgive
Sorry
O
Ottaviani
Guest
Look beyond what you perceive as shallowness and you might find yourself getting back to the heart of the issue.
Apology accepted.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think this started as a side-discussion as to whether rape was more or less likely to happen to a woman who wore slacks when forced to travel through a dangerous area alone, rather than wearing a dress. It was not about whether women were in any way responsible for being raped. There are times to carry a wallet instead of a purse, but if you have your purse stolen, who would even think to imply that wasn’t entirely the fault of the thief?
Besides, Our Lord didn’t say that a man who lusted after a woman had already raped her. He said that a man who lusted after a woman had already committed adultery with her. Clearly, He wasn’t about to let men off the hook when they committed their sin with cooperation.
Likewise, if a woman is among men she knows are not going rape her, that doesn’t give her carte blanche to dress any way she likes. We don’t have freedom so we can degrade ourselves. Immodesty is a form of self-degradation. When a man lusts, he allows himself to also degrade the worth of that woman in his mind, reducing her to an object. That is what modesty is all about. This is why a woman who allows herself to be exposed in a situation where it is necessary, like a medical situation, commits no sin even if lust ensues. Even though she willingly exposes herself, she has not degraded herself. Her conduct has not invited disrespect.
This is why modesty does have a cultural and situational component: because how one dresses so as to show self-respect and a desire for purity will differ somewhat from one setting to another. I don’t mean that in a secular sense, but whether she gives the sense, “Ah, this woman looks as if she belongs to the Lord.” That will take more or less coverage, depending on where she is, and will allow sometimes more and sometimes less in how elaborate her clothes are. It isn’t just about coverage. It is about humility, too. If we are modest, we won’t make spectacles of ourselves. We will be conspicuous in virtue, not in our trappings.
Besides, Our Lord didn’t say that a man who lusted after a woman had already raped her. He said that a man who lusted after a woman had already committed adultery with her. Clearly, He wasn’t about to let men off the hook when they committed their sin with cooperation.
Likewise, if a woman is among men she knows are not going rape her, that doesn’t give her carte blanche to dress any way she likes. We don’t have freedom so we can degrade ourselves. Immodesty is a form of self-degradation. When a man lusts, he allows himself to also degrade the worth of that woman in his mind, reducing her to an object. That is what modesty is all about. This is why a woman who allows herself to be exposed in a situation where it is necessary, like a medical situation, commits no sin even if lust ensues. Even though she willingly exposes herself, she has not degraded herself. Her conduct has not invited disrespect.
This is why modesty does have a cultural and situational component: because how one dresses so as to show self-respect and a desire for purity will differ somewhat from one setting to another. I don’t mean that in a secular sense, but whether she gives the sense, “Ah, this woman looks as if she belongs to the Lord.” That will take more or less coverage, depending on where she is, and will allow sometimes more and sometimes less in how elaborate her clothes are. It isn’t just about coverage. It is about humility, too. If we are modest, we won’t make spectacles of ourselves. We will be conspicuous in virtue, not in our trappings.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Beautiful article, very well put.
Too bad this isn’t elaborated on from the Pulpit.
I’m sure it would lift a few eyebrows
hopefully in the tackful direction it is proclaimed.
Not really sure though how many men would take it to heart.
I wouldn’t take insult to it.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You’re very kind. As for those who would be put off by it, there aren’t many good homilists who don’t get complaints on subject matter. If you get them complaining, though, at least you got them thinking. The Holy Spirit takes over after that.
C
ConservativeOne
Guest
While I agree with various posters - that:
(a) lust and rape existed long before tight jeans and miniskirts;and
(b) seductive dress can/may be an occasion of sin - whether or not intentional -----
…can we get back to the original question/issue?
What is the Church’s stand on pants for women? I’m not speaking in terms of those cultures where loose fitting leg coverings under saris, etc. are part of the culture - but pants, slacks, shorts, etc. If Padre Pio - now acknowledged by the Church as a saint - warned us about them, and if we already had directives before we knew of Padre Pio - what’s the answer?
Based on what the Bible says (rough quote here)…‘men who dress like women and women who dress like men are an abomination to God’…then??? Are women offending God by wearing pants/slacks/shorts - at all - be they tight or loose? Inquiring minds want to know.
(a) lust and rape existed long before tight jeans and miniskirts;and
(b) seductive dress can/may be an occasion of sin - whether or not intentional -----
…can we get back to the original question/issue?
What is the Church’s stand on pants for women? I’m not speaking in terms of those cultures where loose fitting leg coverings under saris, etc. are part of the culture - but pants, slacks, shorts, etc. If Padre Pio - now acknowledged by the Church as a saint - warned us about them, and if we already had directives before we knew of Padre Pio - what’s the answer?
Based on what the Bible says (rough quote here)…‘men who dress like women and women who dress like men are an abomination to God’…then??? Are women offending God by wearing pants/slacks/shorts - at all - be they tight or loose? Inquiring minds want to know.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Good post EJ. I just wanted to point out though that when we started talking about the increased likelihood of being attacked/raped when dressed immodestly, I think we (me at least) are speaking more about immodest and provocative dress in general, and not specifically about pants. Whether or not pants on a women are inherently immodest is sort of another issue more in line with the OP.
Ok, good question.While I agree with various posters - that:
(a) lust and rape existed long before tight jeans and miniskirts;and
(b) seductive dress can/may be an occasion of sin - whether or not intentional -----
…can we get back to the original question/issue?
What is the Church’s stand on pants for women? I’m not speaking in terms of those cultures where loose fitting leg coverings under saris, etc. are part of the culture - but pants, slacks, shorts, etc. If Padre Pio - now acknowledged by the Church as a saint - warned us about them, and if we already had directives before we knew of Padre Pio - what’s the answer?
Based on what the Bible says (rough quote here)…‘men who dress like women and women who dress like men are an abomination to God’…then??? Are women offending God by wearing pants/slacks/shorts - at all - be they tight or loose? Inquiring minds want to know.
B
Black_Dog
Guest
I cant comment on the official teachings of the Church on this issue but…if I seriously thought for one moment that God would be offended I would become an atheist. Surely God is more concerned with what’s in our hearts than in our outward appearance?Are women offending God by wearing pants/slacks/shorts - at all - be they tight or loose? Inquiring minds want to know.
L
Leonius
Guest
Yes I can, but are you really interested in the answer or are you trying to make another point I wonder?
Actually it was God who gave Adam and Eve their clothes.
Why did God make clothes for Adam and Eve? What was wrong with the ones they had made for themselves? Is this not proof that God actually does indeed care about how we are clothed?
Your example does not apply to the general population and is therefore irrelevant to the majority of people, an exception does not change what is best, otherwise all standards would degenerate to the lowest level and the excellence of humanity which God desires would be nullified.Think about this. A poor woman has no money, (her husband left her for another woman). All her dresses have holes in them. She has no “decent” "church going"clothes. She is given clothes to wear by a thrift store. (But they are all pants) What does she do?
Stay Home??? Stay away from partaking of the Eucharist?
People are like houses. It’s what’s inside that counts.
The exterior is the mirror of the interior.
B
Black_Dog
Guest
That dictum may be true for you but I would suggest that you are an exception and to use your own argument…not relevant
I have attended Mass straight from work…grubby and sweaty, I have attended Mass in full leather motorcycle gear. The important consideration is for me to get to Mass…not what I look like. Those who know me dont presume to judge me on outward appearance and I’m sure God doesnt either.
S
Shin
Guest
What you look like is your God given responsibility. God cares about what responsibility you take. Just as He cares about wedding guests coming to weddings in the proper garments, and throws them out if they do not.
How is the mass different from the wedding?
Exceptions are made for people who -can’t- take care of their appearance, not for people who -won’t-.
How is the mass different from the wedding?
Exceptions are made for people who -can’t- take care of their appearance, not for people who -won’t-.
B
Black_Dog
Guest
I think you’re taking a very literal interpretation of scripture there…Sola Scriptura comes to mind.
A lot of people on here seem very adroit at trotting out cliches whose only purpose seems to vindicate their sense of self righteousness and right to judge others.
L
LynnGM
Guest
For me, I think the abomination issue has to do with transvestites. Men who wear women’s clothes to take on the appearance of women.
And although they aren’t as predominent, there are women who choose to dress like men. I’m talking about the women who want to look and act like men. Sometimes they even choose to shave their faces so thick beard hair will grow and they can be more “manly” looking.
Such people are messing with gender roles, oftentimes even abusing their bodies to the point of transgender procedures. To me, such actions of these ill people are abominations.
Just my two cents.
And although they aren’t as predominent, there are women who choose to dress like men. I’m talking about the women who want to look and act like men. Sometimes they even choose to shave their faces so thick beard hair will grow and they can be more “manly” looking.
Such people are messing with gender roles, oftentimes even abusing their bodies to the point of transgender procedures. To me, such actions of these ill people are abominations.
Just my two cents.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
Why did God make clothes for Adam and Eve? What was wrong with the ones they had made for themselves? Is this not proof that God actually does indeed care about how we are clothed?
Your example does not apply to the general population and is therefore irrelevant to the majority of people, an exception does not change what is best, otherwise all standards would degenerate to the lowest level and the excellence of humanity which God desires would be nullified.
The exterior is the mirror of the interior.
As I highlighed above. Your scripture only shows that God loves us even AFTER we sin and still provides for our needs. This is in no way “proving” that God want’s us to dress a certain way.
You’re taking it out of context.
Also, when Jesus walked the earth, men and women alike dressed the same. It was their custom. Long “tunics” for both.
God gives us grace to know what is right and wrong. A Catholic is not going to dress lustfully with the INTENTIONS of creating lust.
Lust is in the eyes of the beholder. We do not dress in any way to make of “show”, whether lustfully or modest. That is not what being Catholic is all about. It is not a “show”…
Sorry, your point just doesn’t add up. Still friends?
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
I have to wonder why so many on threads like these take it upon themselves to “judge”…yes I said "judge" what another person wears as long as that person is not coming to Mass in revealing clothes with their skin hanging out all over. *Would you rather they didn’t come to Mass at all? *What gives you the right to judge…is that why you go to Mass…to judge and notice how other are dressing? God says to love your neighbor…is that how you are doing that?
- Status