Questions about Rules

[estesbob]

Firs
Secondly, a woman who looks like a Little House on the Prairie women would be less likely to incite temptation in others. That is a fact. I would think any good Catholic woman would rather protect herself and others from sin than keep up with modern fashions. .

This comment is demeaning to both men and women. It is the kind of attitude that led the Muslims to dress their women in Burka’a, The idea that man is so consumed with lust that women must be covered so as not to inflame him is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[estesbob]

Wow So convincing!

Pax Christi tecum.

Convincing and true the church has absolutely no prohibition against women wearing pants nor does it have a prohibition against celebrating Halloween.

 

[strugglingalong]

This comment is demeaning to both men and women. It is the kind of attitude that led the Muslims to dress their women in Burka’a, The idea that man is so consumed with lust that women must be covered so as not to inflame him is complete and utter nonsense.

Sorry you’re wrong. Earlier ages all had women covered. Men also dressed better, more modestly. There’s nothing wrong with women in Burka’s actually and I read a story recently of a Muslim woman who came to the U.S. She dressed like an American women but eventually got tired of cat calls so she started dressing as a traditional Muslim woman. She concluded that she liked it better because men more easily saw her as a person and not as an object.

There is nothing demeaning about the comment of covered up women. It is protecting both the woman and the man.

Only a modern person would find the idea of a covered up woman as demeaning. What is so demeaning about it?

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[estesbob]

And from Pius XII:

"The opinion which allows custom to dictate the question of modesty was refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence: “There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved.”

Custom, of course, pays no attention to absolute norms; but, it is a follower of this false principle: “… the majority cannot go wrong.”

To say that “… modesty is a matter of custom” is just as wrong as to say that “… honesty is a matter of custom.”

What about those who teach “What is customary does not affect us?”

Pope Pius XII calls this application of an ancient principle to the virtue of modesty, “the most insidious of sophisms.” He calls attention to the fact that some people use this sophism “…in order to brand as ‘old fashioned’ the rebellion of honest people against fashions they consider too bold.”

The Pope’s pronouncements make no distinctions for various types of garments. Pius XII states “…an unworthy, an indecent mode of dress has prevailed” without any distinction of place, “on beaches, in country resorts, on the streets, etc.” (Aug. 29. 1954)

His quotation: “Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity,” applies as well to the beaches, or the streets, or resorts, or elsewhere."

Pax Christi tecum.

In other words PiusXII did not say it was improper for women to wear pants.

 

[RyanML]

We cannot separate intent from action like that though. Sure I can see in ignorance if someone doesn’t know but we can’t say, “Well she loves purity in here heart even though she wears tiny tops and mini skirts.” How much can you love purity and chastity if you wear clothes like that? Then that leads to: “Well I didn’t intend to tempt so if they are tempted it it their problem.” We all need both: purity in intention as well as in action.

Pax Christi tecum.

I must agree. Maybe Abercrombie is stretching it, but Gap has some good stuff:doh2: I guess my argument would make more sense on the issue of wearing pants or not. But you are right, you can’t dress like a prostitute and claim you didn’t know you were dressing immodestly.

 

[strugglingalong]

In other words PiusXII did not say it was improper for women to wear pants.

But he did say there exists an absolute norm when it comes to modesty which was why I posted it in reply to another poster who said modesty is based on local custom.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry you’re wrong. Earlier ages all had women covered. Men also dressed better, more modestly. There’s nothing wrong with women in Burka’s actually and I read a story recently of a Muslim woman who came to the U.S. She dressed like an American women but eventually got tired of cat calls so she started dressing as a traditional Muslim woman. She concluded that she liked it better because men more easily saw her as a person and not as an object.

There is nothing demeaning about the comment of covered up women. It is protecting both the woman and the man.

Only a modern person would find the idea of a covered up woman as demeaning. What is so demeaning about it?

Pax Christi tecum.

you’re entitled to your opinion and you can cover yourself up as much as you want. However the original poster asked if the church allows women to wear pants and celebrate Halloween. The answer is yes.

 

[EasterJoy]

Sorry but I disagree. The eyes are drawn to one’s rear end or to the crouch when a woman wears pants more than in a skirt or dress that is modest. Why? Because a modest dress doesn’t cling to the shape of the behind which with pants can draw the eyes. In a modest dress there is nothing there to see. Also, the crouch cannot be seen.

And actually modest doesn’t just required that the garments don’t make the person into an object, it also requires that the shape and form of the body remain hidden. A modest dresses accomplished that while pants, which generally are fairly tight, do not.

It doesn’t matter if it is 1008 or 2008. Modesty is modesty.

You can disagree all you’d like and I know many do but it’s true. With a modest dress there is simply nothing to see below the waist because there is no shape or form that can be seen.

Pax Christi tecum.

And why is the region above the waist any different? What about guys who think it a “turn on” that dresses are so much more “accessible” than pants? What about form-fitting pencil-cut dresses? You aren’t arguing that those hide the contours of a woman’s backside?

You are right, though…I can disagree all I like, and I won’t change what you believe to be true. It is not, however, what the Catholic Church teaches.

In short: Modesty is required, but a garment for the lower body that is cut so that a woman’s legs are covered separately, rather than together in the same sleeve, is permissible.

 

[strugglingalong]

you’re entitled to your opinion and you can cover yourself up as much as you want. However the original poster asked if the church allows women to wear pants and celebrate Halloween. The answer is yes.

You could also ask if the Church says it is good for women to wear pants and celebrate Halloween? The answer is no.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[EasterJoy]

You could also ask if the Church says it is good for women to wear pants and celebrate Halloween? The answer is no.

Pax Christi tecum.

When something is wrong, the Church is not in the habit of remaining silent about it.

When the Church leaves something to prudential judgement, there are boundaries in which the judgement must be exercised. The Church teaches against the occult, against mocking the holy, against glamorizing evil, against inciting lust, against confusing equality with sameness, and so on. Where a particular celebration of Halloween or the suitability of how the particular cut of a garment on a particular woman at a particular time fits into the teachings for the Church falls within our prudential judgement. That does not mean we have carte blanche to do what we will, but it also does not mean that we are bound to avoid everything that the Church does not specifically encourage.

Practicing the faith does require that we think once in awhile.

 

[strugglingalong]

And why is the region above the waist any different? What about guys who think it a “turn on” that dresses are so much more “accessible” than pants? What about form-fitting pencil-cut dresses? You aren’t arguing that those hide the contours of a woman’s backside?

My point was a modest dress or skirt, i.e. one that is not form-fitting, not tight, and of sufficient length without slits.

If a guy thinks it “accessible” then he has a different problem than visual attraction and I find it hard to believe he’d immediately think that of a dress/skirt of sufficient length, i.e. covering the knees. The point is to safeguard what is seen visually and where the eyes are drawn.

You are right, though…I can disagree all I like, and I won’t change what you believe to be true. It is not, however, what the Catholic Church teaches.

In short: Modesty is required, but a garment for the lower body that is cut so that a woman’s legs are covered separately, rather than together in the same sleeve, is permissible.

Yes you can disagree but I have more things said from the Church on the issue than not:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”
The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

However, it is a different aspect of women’s wearing of men’s trousers which seems to us the gravest.
The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:–
Cardinal Siri, 1960, Archbishop of Genoa

Because of Padre Pio’s emphasis on traditional modesty a sign was made for those seeking confession with Padre Pio that said the following:
“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts AT LEAST 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to confession.”

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RyanML]

As far as Halloween goes, I must admit i’ve always had fun with the holiday. I like the fall decorations and the “scary” stuff but it is certainly more meaningful in the context of All Saints Day. But I would think as long as the celebration of the Saints is our main focus, celebrating with fall festivities could do no harm. As far as costumes go I would definately go for a saint over the devil

 

[peregrinator_it]

Earlier ages all had women covered. Men also dressed better, more modestly.

I beg to differ. Tight hose and early breeches would not be considered modest dress for men today!

(Not to mention (because they really shouldn’t be) … codpieces )

(And dresses for women between 1500 and 1800 generally show way more cleavage than I’d be comfortable with.)

There is nothing demeaning about the comment of covered up women. It is protecting both the woman and the man.

Beyond the fact that it is Church teaching that modesty is expressed in different ways in different cultures, (CCC 2524) a good dress code is not the equivalent of modesty. (There’s more to it as previous posters have noted; clothes are not mentioned in the CCC’s definition of modesty.)

What’s more, what one wears must be determined by suitability to the task and prudence as well as modesty (i.e. one wouldn’t wear a tuxedo to work.) (And there’s no way I’d wear a skirt to weed-whack the back yard.)

Where I live is (not a safe area, but it’s the area that fits my budget) I would feel pretty unsafe walking around in a skirt. As a woman living alone, I won’t wear clothes that I don’t feel comfortable running or fighting in; thus pants and sensible shoes are the most prudent choice of clothing.

I think if one satisfies both modesty (within one’s culture) and prudence one is on the right track.

 

[strugglingalong]

Beyond the fact that it is Church teaching that modesty is expressed in different way in different cultures, (CCC 2524) a good dress code is not the equivalent of modesty. (There’s more to it as previous posters have noted; clothes are not mentioned in the CCC’s definition of modesty.)

What’s more what one wears must be determined by suitability to the task and prudence as well as modesty (i.e. one wouldn’t wear a tuxedo to work.)

Where I live is (not a safe area, but it’s the area that fits my budget) I would feel pretty unsafe walking around in a skirt. As a woman living alone, I won’t wear clothes that I don’t feel comfortable running or fighting in; thus pants and sensible shoes are the most prudent choice of clothing.

I think if one satisfies both modesty (within one’s culture) and prudence one is on the right track.

1. To say that modesty is expressed in different ways in different cultures is not the same as to say that cultures determine what is modest.

1b. Just recently the USCCB made a change to the Catechism regarding the Jews so not every word in there means it is infallible Catholic dogma. It’s a fallible explanation. Councils and teachings of the Pope and the agreement of the Fathers/Doctors carries far more weight.

1. So modesty, for you, is based on (a) safety and (b) comfort. I wonder how women in earlier ages survived attacks in their dresses and skirts? It’s a wonder they didn’t all die off in their dresses! Also, what makes a skirt or dress that much more unsafe? Regardless, safety and comfort don’t say anything to the issue of whether pants are more modest or not.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[estesbob]

You could also ask if the Church says it is good for women to wear pants and celebrate Halloween? The answer is no.

Pax Christi tecum.

I don’t believe the church ever said it was good to pull for the Houston Astros. Does that mean that I can’t do that. In fact I could probably give you tens of thousands of things the churchhas not commented on. The idea that if the Church doesn’t comment on something we must assume it is bad is specious.

The original poster, I believe, was a new Catholic and asked two very simple questions. She didn’t ask for lectures on modesty, she didn’t ask our opinion on celebrating Halloween, she asked if the church allowed women to wear pants and if the church allowewd us to celebrate Halloween. This thread should have been 2 posts long. The answer is yes.

 

[estesbob]

Excuse me. The dog was NUDE!!! Unless of course it was one of your young children dressed up for Halloween…

 

[strugglingalong]

I don’t believe the church ever said it was good to pull for the Houston Astros. Does that mean that I can’t do that. In fact I could probably give you tens of thousands of things the churchhas not commented on. The idea that if the Church doesn’t comment on something we must assume it is bad is specious.

The original poster, I believe, was a new Catholic and asked two very simple questions. She didn’t ask for lectures on modesty, she didn’t ask our opinion on celebrating Halloween, she asked if the church allowed women to wear pants and if the church allowewd us to celebrate Halloween. This thread should have been 2 posts long. The answer is yes.

But if the Church hasn’t said anything definitively on it then that doesn’t mean go do it either. That means a Catholic should have a formed opinion and therefore the response to the OP should not have been 2 posts long. Any good, charitable Catholic would want to explain their view on these issues on which there is no definitive binding decisions.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[peregrinator_it]

1b. Just recently the USCCB made a change to the Catechism regarding the Jews so not every word in there means it is infallible Catholic dogma. It’s a fallible explanation. Councils and teachings of the Pope and the agreement of the Fathers/Doctors carries far more weight.

The change the USCCB made was to its own publication, the Adult Catechism, NOT to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I cited.

1. So modesty, for you, is based on (a) safety and (b) comfort. I wonder how women in earlier ages survived attacks in their dresses and skirts? It’s a wonder they didn’t all die off in their dresses!

(Restraining my ire…) I’d like to point out that women generally didn’t (have) to go out after dark alone in former ages.
Weapons are less expensive and more available now than in former times. And handguns are a fairly recent invention.

Also, what makes a skirt or dress that much more unsafe?

Police safety tips say not to wear clothing (including, of all things, long scarves) that an attacker could use to drag or haul you. Further, a skirt would make it difficult for me to fight someone off without exposing myself.

Having recently had an unpleasant run-in (with a man with a gun) I’m inclined to take the police safety tips seriously.

Pax Christi tecum.

I’m really doubting the sincerity of your signature right now.

 

[amandamay83]

(name removed by moderator), I am appalled that you would post such a picture of your wife! Why, I can see part of her wrist! And that squatting position she is in? Heaven’s to Betsy!

I truly do not understand the notion that pants draw a man’s eyes to the crotch. The only people I have heard tout this is women. Not once have I heard a man say he struggled in this area.

To the OP, if you, personally, feel that for you, a dress or skirt is more modest than pants, by all means, forgo wearing pants. But please don’t stop wearing pants because you feel the Traditional-Catholic-Police are going to knock on your door and take you away.

 

[strugglingalong]

I’m really doubting the sincerity of your signature right now.

Well we all have the option to doubt another’s sincerity. But you can expect a discussion to never question your arguments…

I do wish Christ’s peace to you and all safety even though we definitely disagree.

Pax Christi tecum.