Sins against purity/chasity

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason3477
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
All you and I have to say – is that each one of us – is responsible for our own sins – no ifs, ands or buts.
Click to expand...
“Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Corinthians 8:13

““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Matthew 18;6-7

These quotes are not to imply disagreement about personal responsibility for our sins, but when a sin occurs, multiple people may each have personal responsibility in that sin, not necessarily in a cooperative manner, but a cause-effect manner. We are our brothers keeper, yes?
 
markspost said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
All you and I have to say – is that each one of us – is responsible for our own sins – no ifs, ands or buts.
Click to expand...
“Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Corinthians 8:13

““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Matthew 18;6-7

These quotes are not to imply disagreement about personal responsibility for our sins, but when a sin occurs, multiple people may each have personal responsibility in that sin, not necessarily in a cooperative manner, but a cause-effect manner. We are our brothers keeper, yes?
Click to expand...
Re-posting the following by Pope John Paul II. We cannot transfer responsibility for our own sin onto others. To do so – would be to deny our own dignity and freedom – even when expressed negatively.
POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY
Click to expand...
Personal Sin and Social Sin
Click to expand...
  1. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt.** But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people**. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed.** Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin**.
Click to expand...
 
markspost said:
“Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Corinthians 8:13

““Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Matthew 18;6-7

These quotes are not to imply disagreement about personal responsibility for our sins, but when a sin occurs, multiple people may each have personal responsibility in that sin, not necessarily in a cooperative manner, but a cause-effect manner. We are our brothers keeper, yes?
Click to expand...
(bolded emphasis mine)

When I see people immodestly dressed in church, I am concerned about three things:
  1. They are sinning.
  2. They are inviting me to sin.
  3. They are inviting others to sin.
And yes, we ARE our brother’s keeper. I am responsible not only for dealing with point 2. (not responding to their invitation to sin), but also for dealing with points 1. and 3. - namely,
  • admonishing these sinners (a spiritual act of mercy), in the hope that at least some of them will repent of their ways and manage to save their own souls, which deals with point 1.; and
  • doing what’s possible to eliminate the scandal created by these sinners, which deals with points 2. and 3. I need to protect everybody (both myself and others) from the danger of falling into sin, given the fact that scandal is a public invitation to sin, and a spiritual hazard to everyone around the sinner - much the same way as a person with a deadly infectious disease is a physical hazard to everyone around. As it is reasonable to isolate (quarantine) people with deadly infectious diseases in order to protect ourselves and our children, it is also reasonable to impose norms of modest dress in Catholic churches, and banish those who refuse to comply out of their own fault and stubbornness (of course, those who are simply too poor and lack adequate clothing due to hardship are a different category - in my area we do have collections to help them with clothes and with money). So, this deals with points 2. and 3., i.e. stopping the sinner from endangering the souls of others. I am especially concerned that our children will be lead into sin by the scandalous example they see all around them, including, sadly, in our Catholic churches. I grew up in a different, safer environment, where people used to dress decently, modestly for church. I want our children to enjoy the same advantages I enjoyed when growing up - namely, a safe environment conducive to the virtue of modesty, instead of the scandal, filth, spiritual hazard creeping into our churches.
 
Freud says that spiritual joy is a substitute for physical pleasure. People become saints out of sexual frustrations.

This is exactly the opposite of the truth. St. Thomas Aquinas says, “No man can live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy goes over to carnal pleasures.” Sanctity is never a substitute for sex, but sex is often a substitute for sanctity.

– Peter Kreeft, Joy

It is as simple as that, friends.
 
Walking_Home said:
I don’t think telling someone — they dress like a “tramp”, “slut”, “filth”-- is what our Pope meant to have a Christ like attitude. And neither is it Christ like – to do it behind their backs.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
L_piperatus said:
(bolded emphasis mine)

When I see people immodestly dressed in church, I am concerned about three things:
  1. They are sinning.
  2. They are inviting me to sin.
  3. They are inviting others to sin.
And yes, we ARE our brother’s keeper. I am responsible not only for dealing with point 2. (not responding to their invitation to sin), but also for dealing with points 1. and 3. - namely,
  • admonishing these sinners (a spiritual act of mercy), in the hope that at least some of them will repent of their ways and manage to save their own souls, which deals with point 1.; and
  • doing what’s possible to eliminate the scandal created by these sinners, which deals with points 2. and 3. I need to protect everybody (both myself and others) from the danger of falling into sin, given the fact that scandal is a public invitation to sin, and a spiritual hazard to everyone around the sinner - much the same way as a person with a deadly infectious disease is a physical hazard to everyone around. As it is reasonable to isolate (quarantine) people with deadly infectious diseases in order to protect ourselves and our children, it is also reasonable to impose norms of modest dress in Catholic churches, and banish those who refuse to comply out of their own fault and stubbornness (of course, those who are simply too poor and lack adequate clothing due to hardship are a different category - in my area we do have collections to help them with clothes and with money). So, this deals with points 2. and 3., i.e. stopping the sinner from endangering the souls of others. I am especially concerned that our children will be lead into sin by the scandalous example they see all around them, including, sadly, in our Catholic churches. I grew up in a different, safer environment, where people used to dress decently, modestly for church. I want our children to enjoy the same advantages I enjoyed when growing up - namely, a safe environment conducive to the virtue of modesty, instead of the scandal, filth, spiritual hazard creeping into our churches.
Click to expand...
What about judgemental, self righteous people? Shall we banish them too? Who else shall we banish and I am asking you this seriously.
 
ChiRho said:
I don’t believe in blaming others for a person’s sin. Blame rests solely on the person who commits it. But that doesn’t mean certain factors don’t contribute to a person feeling the need to sin, or ignoring their conscience, etc. If a parent is mean to their child all their life, and the kid grows up to be angry at them (which is sinful), the child is guilty of their sin. But if the parent had avoided their sin, their child’s sin might not have ever happened (as the portion you did not bold indicates).

This is what it means to live in a community. You are concerned with your own sins, preventing them and seeking forgiveness, and you should also be concerned with helping others not to fall into temptations, patterns or addictions which could lead to sin. No man is an island, and whereas good actions help everyone, bad ones do too. Admitting this is not the same as blaming someone for my sins.

This is discussed at length by St. Paul in Corinthians
Click to expand...
You are being contradictory. If we are solely responsible for our own sins, we cannot then lessen our responsibility by saying something or someone contributed to our having decided to sin.

Being self righteous and judgemental is a sin too.
 
I wouldn’t completely blame your parents on that one for not instructing you. My husband comes from a fairly devout family and he got sucked in. He’s still sucked in, and I pray that he will get out some day.

But I think on the the reasons people get so sucked into it is because it’s practically shoved in your face day to day. You don’t have to look far. Society has normalized it really. I mean…hollywood practically sells sex and immodesty. The more revealing the dress the better, and you look like an old granny if you cover up your cleavage and midriff and arms? Why be warm in the winter!? Psh…just forget pants all together. heavy sarcasm of course

Some people have a natural tendency to be addicted as well, which I think is why my husband got sucked in too. His family has a history of it.

So is it common? Yeah. I even think people get addicted without realizing they are. But it’s still bad. But thankfully we have a loving and merciful God 🙂 (I just went to Reconciliation and I’m pretty happy, and it’s just so powerful. Such a beautiful Sacrament 🙂
 
POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY
Personal Sin and Social Sin

“…This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt…”

I think it is charitable to try to avoid being one of those “external factors” mentioned in this often quoted paragraph.
 
Walking_Home said:
Another thing ChiRho – “modesty” varies by culture. And depending on who is doing the talking and “looking”. There are some — whose idea of “modesty” is to obliterate the female form – turning a woman into a shapeless lump-- under long sleeved/ankle length/to the neck – layers of loose clothing. Anything less is “immodest” and “sinful”. So you see one cultures view of modesty varies from another culture — and even from one person to another.
Click to expand...
Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

“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

Just curious if you think the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII wished to “obliterate the female form” by turning her into “a shapeless lump”. ?

Pax Christi
 
severus68 said:
You are being contradictory. If we are solely responsible for our own sins, we cannot then lessen our responsibility by saying something or someone contributed to our having decided to sin.

Being self righteous and judgemental is a sin too.
Click to expand...
I’m not lessening anyone’s responsibility. Trying to investigate why impoverished communities are more prone to violence is not giving the poor a free pass, it is preventative. Please read 1 Corinthians 8. And yes, those are sins
 
Bearontherun said:
POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY
Personal Sin and Social Sin

“…This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt…”

I think it is charitable to try to avoid being one of those “external factors” mentioned in this often quoted paragraph.
Click to expand...
That just means – depending on the person and circumstances --the responsibility and guilt for the sin is diminished. But we still cannot go around placing responsibility on someone else – for it would deny our own dignity and freedom. And there is nothing “charitable” about passing off – responsibility for ones sin – onto others.
Personal Sin and Social Sin
Click to expand...
  1. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.
Click to expand...
 
Dan_Daly said:
Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

“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

Just curious if you think the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII wished to “obliterate the female form” by turning her into “a shapeless lump”. ?

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
I am sure Pope XII was a good man. Popes are human too. I am sure more than one Pope in the past would be shocked at the freedom and the rights of women today.
 
ChiRho said:
I’m not lessening anyone’s responsibility. Trying to investigate why impoverished communities are more prone to violence is not giving the poor a free pass, it is preventative. Please read 1 Corinthians 8. And yes, those are sins
Click to expand...
And what are some arbitrary, dress rules sought to be imposed by a few supposed to prevent?
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I don’t think anyone here is saying that immodest behavior or appearance is perfectly okay, and I think it ridiculous that you are comparing immodest fashion to actual hard-core porn depicting sexual acts. Sure, some people wear immodest clothing with the express purpose to sexually entice others, but many others, especially the young, do so out of ignorance. Many young women are very naive when it comes to male sexuality, and would be horrified to find that men are looking at them lustfully. The issue really is, since we can’t actually physically force people to change, how do we deal with it? Sure, we can spend our time pointing out these sinners and griping about them, but how does that improve the situation at all? If some of the complainers actually were to take productive steps such as ask the priest or bishop to set a dress code, that’s great, but what does all this judging accomplish, otherwise?

Some of the comments people have made remind me of that Bible passage where a Pharisee goes to Temple and gives thanks to the Lord that he’s not a big sinner like the tax collector who happened to go to Temple at the same time. Whereas the tax collector admits his sinfulness and humbly begs the Lord to have mercy on him. And how Jesus said that it wasn’t the supposedly sinless Pharisee, but the sinful tax collector, who came away justified.

I also suspect that some of the prostitutes Jesus ministered too weren’t dressed that modestly, either. And indeed, some of his disciples protested, for example, when Mary of Bethany came and anointed Jesus with expensive perfumed ointment. As I recall, one of them was Judas Iscariot, who obviously was not sinless himself; even before his ultimate betrayal, I’ve read that he was embezzling funds from the group, and that’s the real reason why he protested that the ointment could have been sold to raise funds for the poor.

There’s also that comment about taking out the plank in your own eye before pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye. Modesty topics make it really easy for people to become self-righteous hypocrites and spend all their time pointing out the sins of others, and not enough time examining their own. Easy to say “look at those sinful women” and excuse your own lustful tendencies.
Click to expand...
Education is key here and no-one is forcing anyone to change but asking that they abide by Church teaching on modesty due for reason’s of their dignity and value. There IS a reason for these teaching’s and not just done as a mean’s to control women. You stated before that if a man is to look at a immodest dressed woman in Church not because he desire’s to but because as i said these clothe’s are created to draw attention from the male eye then he shouldn’t look at all and should spend more time watching the priest. You have accused the man who eye’s are drawn and therefore is concerned with this sin yet made no appeal for modesty at all here, has he not purity in his heart whenever he does not give into lustful thought’s like many do but is merely concerned that such dress is accepted and worn at Church in the first place. I can assure you when men are concerned about such thing’s just as many women are it is because of the damage that immodesty does to women and how she is therefore generally seen in society. It is not done for some self-righteous reason but to combat the normalizing of women being sexualized and thus them being generally seen in such a way

You say who are we to point out the sin of immodesty on a page where a poster has asked why porn has become so normalized and on purity. Surely you can understand how all this fit’s in to the topic which i explained earlier in which today women’s fashion is nearly primarily aimed at maximizing sex appeal. To be fashionable today is to be sexually appealing. Do you not see the harm this does. Also as for comparing immodesty to sexual act’s depicted in porn, this was aimed at post’s that seemed to imply that some should see immodest dress from a different perspective and that immodesty is merely a creation of the mind, it was said that if a women wore something that paritally exposes her breast’s for example they should not look at it negatively and as immodest but even keep in mind the natural purpose such as in child nurturing. I was merely saying well what if some ask for the same with sexual act’s depicted in porn which is done to invoke sexual stimulation and simply ask to look at it from a different perspetive. I was pointing out the silliness and unrealistic point of the statement by comparing it to another

Also i fail to understand your point on Jesus ministering to those who did not practice immodesty such as prostitute’s for example. Was he therefore acceptive of this behaviour or was he simply opening his arm’s to those in need of him and to embrace them in which if they did accept him would turn away from such thing’s. Do we as Christian’s not do the same and try and bring ourselves and other’s closer to Christ or should we should be acceptive of sin and immodesty?
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Some forum members really do like to argue. I know of one who was defending Planned Parenthood recently and I believe she was removed or removed her account. No matter what was said, she was on the side of Planned Parenthood and wasn’t going to admit any wrongdoing on their part. People say, “Just turn your eyes away” which may seem easy for them, so they have no empathy for others who struggle and stumble with half-naked people in church.
Click to expand...
I agree that some maybe just want to argue but modesty is such a basic teaching of the Church and it’s not difficult to understand. Why don’t those that disagree with it and support immodesty try and debate Church teaching on this and what they have a problem with
 
Paddy1989 said:
Education is key here and no-one is forcing anyone to change but asking that they abide by Church teaching on modesty due for reason’s of their dignity and value. There IS a reason for these teaching’s and not just done as a mean’s to control women. You stated before that if a man is to look at a immodest dressed woman in Church not because he desire’s to but because as i said these clothe’s are created to draw attention from the male eye then he shouldn’t look at all and should spend more time watching the priest. You have accused the man who eye’s are drawn and therefore is concerned with this sin yet made no appeal for modesty at all here, has he not purity in his heart whenever he does not give into lustful thought’s like many do but is merely concerned that such dress is accepted and worn at Church in the first place. I can assure you when men are concerned about such thing’s just as many women are it is because of the damage that immodesty does to women and how she is therefore generally seen in society. It is not done for some self-righteous reason but to combat the normalizing of women being sexualized and thus them being generally seen in such a way

You say who are we to point out the sin of immodesty on a page where a poster has asked why porn has become so normalized and on purity. Surely you can understand how all this fit’s in to the topic which i explained earlier in which today women’s fashion is nearly primarily aimed at maximizing sex appeal. To be fashionable today is to be sexually appealing. Do you not see the harm this does. Also as for comparing immodesty to sexual act’s depicted in porn, this was aimed at post’s that seemed to imply that some should see immodest dress from a different perspective and that immodesty is merely a creation of the mind, it was said that if a women wore something that paritally exposes her breast’s for example they should not look at it negatively and as immodest but even keep in mind the natural purpose such as in child nurturing. I was merely saying well what if some ask for the same with sexual act’s depicted in porn which is done to invoke sexual stimulation and simply ask to look at it from a different perspetive. I was pointing out the silliness and unrealistic point of the statement by comparing it to another

Also i fail to understand your point on Jesus ministering to those who did not practice immodesty such as prostitute’s for example. Was he therefore acceptive of this behaviour or was he simply opening his arm’s to those in need of him and to embrace them in which if they did accept him would turn away from such thing’s. Do we as Christian’s not do the same and try and bring ourselves and other’s closer to Christ or should we should be acceptive of sin and immodesty?
Click to expand...
No one in this thread – has approved of porn – just like no one in this thread has approved of planned parenthood – but my – how some of you will use any means – to muddy the waters – and keep devaluing the person – for the clothes they wear. Now if someone does not see the difference between porn and a woman who to them is “immodest” – well that says — much about the state of their mind. That mind is in need of repair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top