Should females not wear pants?

[deb1]

I was actually referring to clothing styles, not standards of modesty. To assume that women have to wear dresses in order to be modest is a very Euro-centric view, which doesn’t even apply to the US, much less the whole world.

But its hard to judge if clothing styles are immodest if there is no standard of modesty and I think that this is behind many of the arguements over what specific clothing is modest or immodest.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Females must not wear pants it is in contradiction to the HOLY BIBLE. Here evidence: THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT THE WORD OF GOD+

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” While we are no longer under the legal canons of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant incorporates their holy principles. To that end, women should think twice about wearing pants, trousers and other articles of clothing that “pertains to a man.” Such clothing obscures her feminine identity and plays to a wicked society that wants women to usurp the authority of men.

Lev. 18:17 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness.” When women dress immodestly (showing their legs, stomachs, and even more), they are uncovering their nakedness to a fallen world and leading people into serious sin. To the extent women intend to sexually excite others by their immodest dress, they are guilty of mortal sin.

REMEMBER THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT THE WORD OF GOD+.

PLEASE USE THE HOLY BIBLE TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN VULGATE AND GREEK.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Females should follow the word of GOD+; here is more evidence, again this is NOT my word, but the WORD OF GOD+.

Rom. 12:1-2 – Paul commands us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God which is our spiritual worship. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost which we offer to God through prayer, fasting and other self-mortifications, which include dressing modestly and living chastely.

Gal. 5:16,23 – Paul says “walk by the Spirit and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. But the fruit of the Spirit is…chastity.” Those who wish to invoke the desires of the flesh by their immodest dress are opposed to the Holy Spirit. They commit grave sin against God and their neighbor.

1 John 2:16 – “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God.” Woman cannot use their beautiful bodies as a pretext for evil (that is, to sexually tempt men) without committing serious sin. Such women are not “servants of God,” but “servants of Satan".

REMEMBER, if all of us read the bible as much as possible daily, we would not need to discuss this very often.
PLEASE USE THE ORIGINAL HOLY BIBLE TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN VULGATE AND GREEK. NO OTHER TRANSLATION IS CORRECT.

 

[Mary_Henley]

Okay…so where do I pick up a burqua?

How far are we going to take this issue.

Deacon Ed,

Just how much of the Old Testament are we obliged to follow?

What have we, as Christians, been released from?

Is what we must follow of the Old contained in the New?

Man, some of the 'ole law is pretty tedious!

( Just when I was beginning to enjoy pork!)

 

[deb1]

Okay…so where do I pick up a burqua?

How far are we going to take this issue.

Deacon Ed,

Just how much of the Old Testament are we obliged to follow?

What have we, as Christians, been released from?

Is what we must follow of the Old contained in the New?

Man, some of the 'ole law is pretty tedious!

( Just when I was beginning to enjoy pork!)

It could be that I not reading the thread carefully enough but I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that anyone wear a burqua or that you have to wear skirts. I thought we were just debating whether skirts are more modest then pants.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

It could be that I not reading the thread carefully enough but I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that anyone wear a burqua or that you have to wear skirts.

Check out posts # 62 & 63!

Well, I’m wearing slacks right now, and they do not “pertain to a man” – no man would be caught dead wearing them.

 

[Mary_Henley]

1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one’s merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions. 2.free from ostentation or showy extravagance: *a modest house. *3.having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: *a modest neckline on a dress. *
There is more to modesty than clothes.
Modesty should involve the way we communicate as well.

Sisters in grade school had simple rules…skirts must touch the floor when kneeling
necklines no more than two fingers below the nape of the neck
no sheer material…no undergarments revealed underneath
slacks must not hug the derriere nor must any inappropriate parts of the anatomy be revealed
no sleeveless anything
shorts had to be no less than a hand width above the knee…
Am I the only antique out here?

Originally Posted by deb1 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It could be that I not reading the thread carefully enough but I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that anyone wear a burqa or that you have to wear skirts.

I obviously need to polish up on my humor etiquette…grrr

 

[Zooey]

Yes, pants are an inherently masculine garment just as skirts and dresses are inherently feminine. Has there been any prior culture wear women have worn pants? (I don’t know–but I don’t think so.)

Yes. China.
Before the Communist takeover, traditional Chinese clothing was skirts for men, & pants for women.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

PLEASE USE THE ORIGINAL HOLY BIBLE TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN VULGATE AND GREEK. NO OTHER TRANSLATION IS CORRECT.

Um, the Vulgate is a translation from Greek (cross checked with Hebrew, but based upon the Septuagint). Should we not skip the translation and go straight to the Greek or Hebrew?

Deacon Ed

 

[deb1]

Yes. China.
Before the Communist takeover, traditional Chinese clothing was skirts for men, & pants for women.

wasn’t the traditional outfit a longer tunic type shirt over the pants? I’ve always found such outfits to be feminine.( I might be thinking of Indian clothing)

 

[deb1]

Check out posts # 62 & 63!

Well, I’m wearing slacks right now, and they do not “pertain to a man” – no man would be caught dead wearing them.

I understand now. I hate to admit but I sort of jumped over that post. Sorry about that!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Okay…so where do I pick up a burqua?

How far are we going to take this issue.

Deacon Ed,

Just how much of the Old Testament are we obliged to follow?

What have we, as Christians, been released from?

Is what we must follow of the Old contained in the New?

Man, some of the 'ole law is pretty tedious!

( Just when I was beginning to enjoy pork!)

Mary,

Jesus restated the law for us – we are to love God with our whole heart, our whole mind and our whole soul and our neighbor as ourself. That means that we are not bound by the dietary restrictions (Per St. Peter). Paul told the women of Corinth that they were not to “stand out” in the general community because they would look like prostitutes if they did (Corinth was a sea port and a lot of the women there were find of the sailors!).

However, in terms of this question, my answer is that the woman should dress modestly in all cases. Thus, tight fitting slacks would be inappropriate at all times unless there is a safety issue (jeans for horseback or motorcycle riding, etc.). At Mass one would hope that dress slacks would be worn if the woman chooses not to wear a dress.

God does not dictate clothing styles but He does offer us moral guidelines that allow us to make the proper decisions.

Deacon Ed

 

[Mary_Henley]

Thank you, kind Sir!

Now for that pork chop…

 

[gorman64]

Um, the Vulgate is a translation from Greek (cross checked with Hebrew, but based upon the Septuagint). Should we not skip the translation and go straight to the Greek or Hebrew?

Are you sure you want to suggest this? Or are you joking here?

 

[Mary_Henley]

ncyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible

Clothing
Covering for the body. The clothing of the Israelites of Biblical times was not unlike that still worn by many of the peasants of the Near East today. The basic garment was the kethoneth or tunic, a sort of shirt with or, more often,’ without sleeves and reaching to the: knees, or, in the case of the more: wealthy and of women, even to the ankle. It was made of wool or linen, sometimes of fine quality. This garment was worn next to the skin and fastened about the middle with a belt or girdle of twisted cloth or leather. A person wearing only his tunic was said to be “naked” (Is. 20:2 f.; John 21:7). It was usually the only garment worn by the common people at work. Over the tunic, except during any activity involving physical exertion, was worn a simlah or cloak. This was simply a rectangular piece: of heavier woolen material folded and sewn together in such a way that it could be worn with both sides left open and large openings left for the arms. At least by the common people it was used as a covering at night (Ex. 22:25; Deut. 24:12). It was not worn at work (Acts 7:58; Matt. 24:18). Since it was the principal outer garment the Law stipulated that, if it were given as a pledge for a loan, it had to be returned to its, owner before nightfall (Ex. 22:25 f.; Deut. 24:12 f.). More wealthy individuals, both men and women, wore over their tunics a more elaborate kind of cloak or robe called a me’iyl. The use of linen breeches as an undergarment seems to have been restricted to the priesthood (Ex. 28:42; Lev. 16:4). ** The dress of women was essentially the same as that of men, but there must nevertheless have been some difference, because the sexes were forbidden to wear each other’s garments (Deut. 22:5). Probably the difference was that women’s garments were ordinarily more elaborate or at least cut fuller and longer so as more effectively to cover the whole body**. In token of mourning the Israelites tore their garments (Gen. 44:13; Matt. 26:65; etc.) and wore a tunic made of “sackcloth,” which was woven of goat’s or camel’s hair. This was worn next to the skin, either as the only garment (1 Kings 20:31; Is. 3:24; etc.), or as an undergarment (2 Kings 6:30). Sandals or shoes, fastened with thongs about the feet (Gen. 14:23; Mark 1:7), were ordinarily worn only outdoors or when travelling. Very little is definitely known of the headdress of the ancient Hebrews, but it is supposed that, because of the great heat of the sun, they must have worn some sort of head covering outdoors probably similar to that of the bedouins of the present day. The parable of the wedding garment (Matt. 22:11 ff.) and other passages in the Bible indicate that it was usual, at least among those who could afford it, to keep especially fine garments in reserve to be worn on special occasions.
(C)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Are you sure you want to suggest this? Or are you joking here?

Joking? No, of course not. I don’t read Hebrew (studied it, but don’t read it) – but I do read Greek and Latin so the Septuagint and the Vulgate and the New Testament are all accessible to me. Of course, with the New Testament one has to carefully choose which manuscript to use (in school I studied the Nestle because it’s the most common).

Deacon Ed

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Okay, I’ve been dissed because I said this is a silly discussion. You have to admit that the phrasing of the question is intentionally humorous, indicating that the author does not consider it an entirely serious issue.
Have you any idea how absurd Siri would have appeared arguing that women should not wear pants in a community of Inuit? Just because his only life experience was among people of Western European culture does not give him the right to abuse the sartorial style of other peoples. Catholic still means “universal” and we are committed to accepting everyone from whatever society.
The genius of good evangelization is leaving behind your own culture to learn a new one in order to preach the word in terms that make sense to the target audience. St. Jean de Brebeuf spent years among the Hurons of southwestern Ontario (Upper Canada) before he made a single convert. All that time was spent living among them and learning their language, culture, values, etc. so that when he eventually spoke, he would speak as one of them and not as a foreigner. Siri speaks only to the Western European culture (and primarily the Italian culture) of his own time. This can hardly be said to be universally applicable to all Catholics of whatever culture. Or are we really advocating that the Inuit women stop wearing pants?
Try considering the fact that we are not the only people on the planet.
Matthew

Originally Posted by drafdog forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/viewpost.gif
Just a PS on Siri.
Read through the letter and set it aside.
Consider how valid are his arguments regarding the “gender bending” effect of women wearing “men’s” clothing.
Now consider men in kilts.
How serious is his argument now? The poor man needed to get out of Genoa more often. And I don’t mean to travel to Rome.

Matthew

You might try considering the fact that Cardinal Siri was the Archbishop of Genoa, Italy and not Fairbanks, Alaska (or Edinburgh, Scotland). This was addressed privately (not publicly) to the religious leaders of his diocese. Which is one reason in the beginning he discusses the fashions as they pertain to Genoa, not Alaska.

Archbishops are responsible for their diocese and the issues in one do not necessarily pertain to another, nor do Archbishops intend to address the entire Catholic world when they write to religious leaders in their diocese. And I’m pretty sure he would not have been slapping his head in dumbfoundment at how he could have missed counterexamples to his argument such as eskimos or kilts.

God bless!

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This is exactly my point: culture assigns appropriate and inappropriate fashions for men and women. In today’s culture, pants are not inherently considered masculine by our society’s standards.

Cardinal Siri refers to women wearing men’s trousers. Most women who wear pants are not wearing men’s trousers. I am guessing that in Cardinal Siri’s day, there were not racks and racks of women’s pants in the stores and those women who wearing trousers were wearing clothing intended for men. Slacks sold in stores today are intended for women.

I think it is also notable that Cardinal Siri himself says that women wearing pants are not immodest:

Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of woman’s body than do modern women’s skirts.

Finally, when Pope Benedict issues a directive that women should wear dresses and skirts exclusively, I most certainly will abide by the Holy Father’s wishes. However, as it currently stands, Cardinal Siri’s instruction *to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations *is not a binding requirement for the laity.

I agree that Cardinal Siri noted that the wearing of men’s trousers as such cannot be considered a grave offense against modesty, nor is Cardinal Siri’s instruction a binding requirement for the laity (I don’t think it was back then in Genoa, either).

You bring up an interesting point about men’s trousers as that is the term used by Cardinal Siri. Now, I think he was referring to trousers in general as he was juxtaposing trousers with skirts, and I doubt by his arguments that he would have been fine with women wearing trousers as long as they were cut for a woman (women’s trousers). One may still disagree with him, but I do think he was speaking about trousers whether cut for men or women. And I would think it would be difficult for women to wear trousers cut for a man, period.

Also, he seems to be arguing on a higher level than what the current society accepts. Certainly, perhaps many in Genoa at the time thought there was no problem with women wearing trousers.

Also, if he were alive today and saw our society, my guess is he would look at our constant striving to erase the differences between the sexes in general as going hand in hand with the fact that we really don’t differentiate much between men’s and women’s clothing. Sure, items such as women’s jeans are cut for a woman, but they began as a man’s garment.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The way things are in society today, it’s pretty tough for a woman to never wear pants. I think we should wear dresses and skirts wherever possible, and especially to Holy Mass, but for my job, I have to wear pants. I can’t see being dressed in a skirt to go over the bank at a motor vehicle accident to retrieve a patient.

Gardening and running would be a little difficult in a skirt too.

 

[cue]

In our discussion about pants, it seems we must focus on the cultural side of the question. It is not a question of modesty (we all agree on modesty). What we need to sort out is, “Are pants a masculine garment in culture?”
This brings up several issues.

1. A definition
   Culture and fashion, how do we define these? I use culture to mean the true form of a society. So a desire to ‘let freedom ring’ characterizes American culture, independent of whether or not the members of the society live up to it. I believe fashion is created by the culture as language is. Just as it is possible to misuse language, it is possible to misuse fashion. A change must be examined to determine if it is a development or an abuse.
2. A distinction
   Just because it is acceptable in our society for women to wear pants does not mean that pants cease to be a masculine garment. It could be that our society has no problem with women wearing masculine clothing. The argument, therefore, has to be more developed than “Everybody does it.”

As a side note - Kilts are not skirts. They do look like skirts, but we have a different word because we understand it is a different thing. In the same way, night-gowns, albs, and trench coats are not dresses even though they may look similar or are put together in a similar way.