Questions about Rules

[estesbob]

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.

She didn’t ask for opinions. She asked if the church allowed these. The answer is yes. You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[strugglingalong]

(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!

Uh huh, that’s necessary. No one has said a word about wrists or anything of the sort. Go ahead and mock those who care so much about modesty and protecting persons. That’s fine. You think we’re just old-fashioned or mean or whatever but honestly the vast majority of us care about people and their souls.

Oh the joys of modernized catholics!

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Well we all have the option to doubt another’s sincerity. But you can’t expect a discussion to never question your arguments…

The is above a little disingenuous following this:

Originally Posted by strugglingalong forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
2. 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!

What would you suggest women who live in unsafe areas today wear?

(When) is it acceptable to risk one’s safety to conform to a dress code?

(And how on earth would you conclude that I equate modesty with “safety and comfort” when I quite clearly stated that prudence must play a part in dress not modesty, which is a virtue that concerns more than just one’s clothing???)

 

[amandamay83]

Uh huh, that’s necessary. No one has said a word about wrists or anything of the sort. Go ahead and mock those who care so much about modesty and protecting persons. That’s fine. You think we’re just old-fashioned or mean or whatever but honestly the vast majority of us care about people and their souls.

Oh the joys of modernized catholics!

Pax Christi tecum.

Yes, I was mocking you. I’m very sarcastic and don’t always know when to censor myself. No, it was not Christ-like, and I do appologize.

But I do think you’re carrying the notion of what constitutes modesty a little too far. To state that the only way for a woman to be dressed modestly is to be wearing a dress or skirt is ludicrous.

I’ll ask this time: have you spoken to a man who said he struggled with women wearing pants? Because I have not. The only people I have heard say this is an issue is other women. I’ve never heard a man say, “Oh, I just could not quit looking at the Y her pants created!”

Many dresses of the 50s-era, while having a full skirt, had a pretty snug upper area. I’ve heard many more men struggle with looking at a woman’s chest than the Y created by pants. There’s always going to be something that caused someone to struggle. No, this is not an excuse to wear any revealing thing we please, but rather to point out that modesty can be taken to impossible extremes.

I am curious: what do you consider an appropriate dress for a woman?

 

[strugglingalong]

I’ll ask this time: have you spoken to a man who said he struggled with women wearing pants? Because I have not. The only people I have heard say this is an issue is other women. I’ve never heard a man say, “Oh, I just could not quit looking at the Y her pants created!”

Yes, in fact I have. It is more subconscious than conscious thing. I myself thought it was odd until I read about it and realized that it does happen, that the eyes do get drawn to those areas at times without even knowing it. It’s not as conscious as, “Oh look at the Y there.” It’s more subtle than that but yes I have spoken to other men who agree with it and see it as an issue.

I am curious: what do you consider an appropriate dress for a woman?

I consider a dress or skirt modest if it covers the knees with the woman is sitting, if it is loose enough not to reveal the form of the body and if it does not have any slits.

I’m content to be considered odd or old-fashioned. It’d be far worse to fit in with this degenerate age. There was a great article in the New Oxford Review months back called Church, Women and Pants written by a woman that explained it very well. I guess we’re just odd balls who think the older generations had it more right than it is today.

And I do appreciate and accept the apology.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RyanML]

As a guy I can say that I could find issues with both dresses and pants. I’ve never even thought about the whole “Y” issue created by pants on a woman but the modern, low rise pants are definately made to accentuate the butt. They are quite disgusting too because i’ve never seen a woman in low rise pants who could keep it all hidden when she sits down or bends over. Yeah not so good But unless you are wearing a potato sack, modest dresses show a little bit of figure as well. If a woman wants to be totally unattractive to a man I would say wear a dress that’s too big for you with white socks and tennis shoes and put your hair in a bun and wear no make up. I say that partly in jest But I appreciate women who choose to dress in a very modest and traditional fashion. For many of those women it’s about sincere conviction of what is most pleasing to God. And if I had to choose between a woman wearing pants or a dress I would rather see them in dresses. But I do not think we should be so sensitive that a woman in pants scandalizes us. The most prayerful and devout soul I know is a woman who always wears pants. Of course she is 68 years old so I don’t know if it matters at her age

 

[peregrinator_it]

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.

The more I consider the above post, the more I am tempted to think that not only do the “pants-only for women” arguments have little basis in Church teaching, logic or common sense, but they seem to inspire ungentlemanly attitudes (like the above, disregarding the safety of women) in men.

 

[RyanML]

And I would also add that i’ve seen several men, mostly the cowboy type, who wear very tight jeans that clearly accentuate the croch…that’s just tacky :nope:

 

[strugglingalong]

The more I consider the above post, the more I am tempted to think that not only do the “pants-only for women” arguments have little basis in Church teaching, logic or common sense, but they seem to inspire ungentlemanly attitudes (like the above, disregarding the safety of women) in men.

Really? Cardinal Siri in 1960 seems to have some criticisms of pants in women (olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml)). And they do have a basis in logic and common sense. There is a great article on the New Oxford Review that is very ably argued from the basis of original sin and fallen human nature and the principles of modesty written by a woman called Church, Women and Pants.

I am not disregarding the safety of women. I don’t know what should be said in your situation quite honestly. I don’t have the answer since no one I’ve talked to has ever said that to wear a modest dress or skirt presents a danger to their well-being. It’d take some one better than I.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[estesbob]

Really? Cardinal Siri in 1960 seems to have some criticisms of pants in women (olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml)). And they do have a basis in logic and common sense. There is a great article on the New Oxford Review that is very ably argued from the basis of original sin and fallen human nature and the principles of modesty written by a woman called Church, Women and Pants.

I.

So? The fact that 48 years ago a single Cardinal expressed his personal opinion on women wearing pants does not set church doctrine.

I am a long-time subscriber to the new Oxford review. They are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun although I enjoy their magazine very much. Like the Cardinal their opinion counts no more than my opinion. All that matters is what church teaching is. The church does not fforbid women to wear pants. Period. The church does not forget us to celebrate following. Period. It really is that easy.

You Know about 100 years ago the discussion was whether women should be allowed to wear shorter skirts. In fact what you consider modest was considered immodest century ago.

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.

Cole Porter 1934

 

[strugglingalong]

If only you had been Cardinal and not Cardinal Siri many Catholics would have been spared his confusing arguments about the dangers of women wearing pants! Alas, you’ve only recently come to our rescue with your wisdom.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

So? The fact that 48 years ago a single Cardinal expressed his personal opinion on women wearing pants does not set church doctrine.

I am a long-time subscriber to the new Oxford review. They are somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun although I enjoy their magazine very much. Like the Cardinal their opinion counts no more than my opinion. All that matters is what church teaching is. The church does not fforbid women to wear pants. Period. The church does not forget us to celebrate following. Period. It really is that easy.

You Know about 100 years ago the discussion was whether women should be allowed to wear shorter skirts. In fact what you consider modest was considered immodest century ago.

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.

Cole Porter 1934

First of all, a Cardinal’s letter written to the clergy is far more important than your opinion.

Second of all, modesty is not based on what a generation says is or is not modest. The main areas of the body - and we all know what they are - need to be covered and not revealed. Period. I don’t care what generation or planet you’re from.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

You Know about 100 years ago the discussion was whether women should be allowed to wear shorter skirts. In fact what you consider modest was considered immodest century ago.

And by this logic, if in 100 years people walk around naked then after years of it then that’ll be modest too? I mean, once they’re used to it and its accepted and all…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[estesbob]

First of all, a Cardinal’s letter written to the clergy is far more important than your opinion.

Second of all, modesty is not based on what a generation says is or is not modest. The main areas of the body - and we all know what they are - need to be covered and not revealed. Period. I don’t care what generation or planet you’re from.

Pax Christi tecum.

Actually a 60-year-old letter from a Cardinal is not binding on any Catholic in anyway. Please show us in the catechism of the Catholic Church where women are not permitted to wear pants and where we areforbidden to celebrate Halloween.

I don’t know what areas of the womans body leads you to lust. Why don’t you tell us.?

 

[estesbob]

So are you telling us your wife wears the pants in your family!!! Not a good start

 

[strugglingalong]

Actually a 60-year-old letter from a Cardinal is not binding on any Catholic in anyway. Please show us in the catechism of the Catholic Church where women are not permitted to wear pants and where we areforbidden to celebrate Halloween.

I never said it was binding but it has more force and weight than the average lay person.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RyanML]

Just curious…to the posters who disagree with “no pants” policy for women, what would you say constitutes immodest dress for our times?

 

[estesbob]

Just curious…to the posters who disagree with “no pants” policy for women, what would you say constitutes immodest dress for our times?

I possible to say. Something that may be very immodest when worn to church church may be very modest on the beach.

 

[RyanML]

Actually a 60-year-old letter from a Cardinal is not binding on any Catholic in anyway. Please show us in the catechism of the Catholic Church where women are not permitted to wear pants and where we areforbidden to celebrate Halloween.

Praying the daily Rosary, going to Mass everyday, meditation, daily Scripture reading and spiritual reading, wearing the Brown Scapular, Eucharistic Adoration…etc. None of these things are binding on Catholics either, but how much has the Church benefited from these practices? More than we can know i’m sure. As I have said, for me women wearing pants and the right or wrong of celebrating Halloween are non issues. I have preferences and I do no feel as strongly about it as some, but those who go the extra mile out of love for the Lord should be seen as good examples, even if we disagree about some things

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

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?

Yeah, you’re right. What could possibly be demeaning about it?

http://www.mythinglinks.org/WomenFlee~cmp30~capt_1000565819pakistan_afghanistan.jpg

http://www.milesk.com/Rabiah in Burkah.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)