Two Hardcore Videoed EWTN Homilies on How to Dress/Act for Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is the same logic that leads to burquas. B does not follow A in this case, it is beholden upon the person looking at the person in “immodest dress” to not be consumed by lustful thoughts.

After all, what is “immodest dress” to one may be wholly normal and appropriate clothing to the other. My job requires me (not the boss, but the nature of the job itself) to wear pants and a slim top. Some may find this immodest, but if someone sees me at work and is given to lustful thoughts because of it, it is on them, not me.
 
Blaming another person/transferring the responsibility for the sin of lust onto another – is the manichaen “anti-value”

Pope JohnPaul II
General Audience Wed. Oct 22
Realization of the Value of the Boy According to the Plan of the Creator
For the Manichaean mentality, the body and sexuality constitute an “anti-value.” For Christianity, on the contrary, they always remain a value not sufficiently appreciated, as I will explain better further on. The second attitude indicates the form of ethos in which the mystery of the redemption of the body takes root in the historical soil of human sinfulness. That is expressed by the theological formula, which defines the state of historical man as status naturae lapsae simul ac redemptae (the state of fallen, but at the same time redeemed, nature).

Question of detachment
  1. Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5:27-28) must be interpreted in the light of this complex truth about man. If they contain a certain “accusation” leveled at the human heart, all the more so they appeal to it. The accusation of the moral evil which desire, born of intemperate lust of the flesh, conceals within itself, is at the same time a call to overcome this evil.** If victory over evil consists in detachment from it (hence the severe words in the context of Matthew 5:27-28), it is only a question of detaching oneself from the evil of the act (in the case in question, the interior act of lust), and never of transferring the negative character of this act to its object. Such a transfer would mean a certain acceptance—perhaps not fully conscious—of the Manichaean “anti-value.” It would not constitute a real and deep victory over the evil of the act, which is evil by its moral essence, and so evil of a spiritual nature. On the contrary, it would conceal the great danger of justifying the act to the detriment of the object (the essential error of Manichaean ethos consists in this)**. It is clear that in Matthew 5:27-28, Christ demanded detachment from the evil of lust (or of the look of disorderly desire). But his enunciation does not let it be supposed in any way that the object of that desire, that is, the woman who is looked at lustfully, is an evil. (This clarification seems to be lacking sometimes in some Wisdom texts.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Continued:
Knowing the difference
  1. We must, therefore, specify the difference between the accusation and the appeal. The accusation leveled at the evil of lust is at the same time an appeal to overcome it. Consequently, this victory must be united with an effort to discover the true values of the object, in order that the Manichaean “anti-value” may not take root in man, in his conscience, and in his will. As a result of the evil of lust, that is, of the act of which Christ spoke in Matthew 5:27-28, the object to which it is addressed constitutes for the human subject a value not sufficiently appreciated. In the words of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27-28) which have been analyzed, the human heart is accused of lust (or is warned against that lust). At the same time, by means of the words themselves, it is called to discover the full sense of what, in the act of lust, constitutes for him a value that is not sufficiently appreciated. As we know, Christ said: “Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Adultery committed in the heart can and must be understood as “devaluation,” or as the impoverishment of an authentic value. It is an intentional deprivation of that dignity to which the complete value of her femininity corresponds in the person in question. Matthew 5:27-28 contains a call to discover this value and this dignity, and to reassert them. It seems that only when the semantic significance of Matthew’s words is respected they are understood in this way.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bravo! Excellent videos. Good to see priests who tell it like it is.
 
I’m not saying to wear burkhas, but women should cover up to avoid scandal. This is deeply rooted in church teaching throughout the centuries.
 
I know. If someone scandalizes me, they are guilty of scandal and I am guilty for giving in to temptations.
 
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
it is beholden upon the person looking at the person in “immodest dress” to not be consumed by lustful thoughts.
Click to expand...
Why are you pitting it on one party when both parties have responsibilities. Is that really so unreasonable a position?
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
My job requires me (not the boss, but the nature of the job itself) to wear pants and a slim top.
Click to expand...
Yeah, context matters. Thus, the title of the thread.
 
Last edited:
Why are you making it an issue of woman having to police themselves for the comfort of men? I’m not saying let’s all wear tube tops to Mass, I’m saying that men should understand that a traditional understanding of '‘modest dress’ is often uncomfortable or unfeasible for a modern woman.

Again, I’m not going to be scantily clad at Mass, but I’m also not going to make myself physically uncomfortable or purposefully dowdy because a man can’t control himself.
 
If someone is lusting – is because they fail in valuing the other person (manichaen anti-value) – and putting the blame on the other person is trying to “justify” – the act of lust.
 
Boler said:
Yeah, context matters. Thus, the title of the thread.
Click to expand...
I’ve gone to many a 5:30 Saturday or Friday Mass, which is just enough time to get off work and drive there. Would you prefer that people coming straight from work don’t go?
 
I don’t know what a “slim top” means. Might be fine. Might involve cleavage. Regardless, there’s this wonderful invention called a light jacket, or light sweater, or other simple item of clothing, fits nicely in a car, can be thrown in the back seat.
 
Last edited:
I know well what a jacket is, there is no need for the sarcasm. I certainly don’t show cleavage at Mass either - I’m a professional, and my uniform doesn’t have cleavage.

My point was that “immodest dress” may be perfectly normal and even required for the person who is deemed to be “immodest”, and requiring there to be a host of rules and regulations for who may and may not attend Mass will only serve to alienate many Catholics.
 
Fair enough. You’re probably not who this priest is addressing. I just take issue because so often it seems like the argument is that no one ever comes to Mass immodestly dressed or that such a concept is relative and therefore moot. My first response to you reflects this.
 
It just seems like such a non-issue to me. Never in my life have I gone to Mass and thought “wow, inappropriate” in terms of clothing. To me, this whole issues seems like a way for someone who thinks they are holier than others to say “see! Look how righteous and just I am compared to these dirty slobs!”
 
Frown upon showing cleavage? If I do, it’s not because I am uncomfortable with myself, but it’s because I know it’s a distraction to men. I am not trying to draw attention to myself, but on the other hand I’m not ashamed of the way God made me.

Again, I’m not saying it’s fine to go to Mass like you’re going to Studio 54. But I am not going to make myself physically uncomfortable, nor am I going to hide my God-given beauty behind layers and layers of heavy fabric.
 
Do priests conceptualize themselves as holier than others? Maybe. Maybe they are. I don’t know, I’m not a priest. But for laypeople to take up that title? Or to use it as a rally cry against their fellow Catholics? That seems like a problematic area for me.
 
Last edited:
CoffeeAndDonuts said:
That is the same logic that leads to burquas. B does not follow A in this case, it is beholden upon the person looking at the person in “immodest dress” to not be consumed by lustful thoughts.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. The sin is shared by both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top