That’s ridiculous… we have to prioritize our lives and, based on the fact that we have a severe priest shortage where some priests are responsible for 2,3,4, or more churches/groups of faithful, this topic would hit my top 10. I find it superficial and I haven’t seen any thing to convince me otherwise. If we are looking around at what other people are wearing and making judgments, then we are are the problem.That universal excuse simply doesn’t pass the smell test…
Tap-dance around it as much as you like, if a woman (or a man) dresses in a provocative manner and they facilitate sin in others, they share in that sin. That’s why in part, some garb might be perfectly acceptable for wearing at home, in private, while inappropriate for Mass.Nope – Lust is a failure on our part – in valuing the other person (manichaen anti-value). A man can lust – so can a women.
Including the person being lusted at (the sin is shared by both) – is part of that failure (manichaen anti-value).
What does that even mean?I do not dress provocatively. I do not try to dress provocatively. I dress in a way that is comfortable to me and well within reason. I do not show cleavage and I do not wear anything higher than the knee, and I almost always wear tights or modesty shorts under my dress.
Playing the victim doesn’t sell in this case. I don’t think your body is why anyone has sinful thoughts. I suspect how you cover it might well be a reason however.This is what I am talking about. I am tired of being told that my body is the reason men have sinful thoughts. I didn’t ask for this body, it was given to me.
What’s ridiculous is using one of the old universal excusesThat’s ridiculous…
to discount a real problem.I simply think that there are WAY bigger fish to fry
Depending on how big she is, there may not be much she can wear or do to hide it. I took dance class with a girl who was about a size 8 but with natural F cup breasts. They would have stood out in a gunny sack. She had reduction surgery down to a B cup within a year or two.If you dress immodestly then you DO share in the fault. That doesn’t mean they oglers don’t sin if they have impure thoughts in such situations, but to believe you don’t facilitate the sin and thus share in it is just silly.
Right. let’s try to apply a drastic extreme to everyone.Depending on how big she is, there may not be much she can wear or do to hide it. I took dance class with a girl who was about a size 8 but with natural F cup breasts. They would have stood out in a gunny sack. She had reduction surgery down to a B cup within a year or two.
I don’t think the poster was suggesting that solution. However, there are some women for whom any top may be on the tight side. These people are owed charity if they are doing their best to dress modestly.Right. let’s try to apply a drastic extreme to everyone.
I agree 100% without question.These people are owed charity if they are doing their best to dress modestly.
No one said a woman has to wear nylons to church. I would imagine very few do. As for the “cuts & styles” of clothing, you may be shopping in the wrong place. Maybe a size bigger would be more suitable for your body shape. High heels are optional and not the only fashionable footwear for Mass. I happen to like them and wear them when the weather cooperates, other than I wear boots (fall & winter) or flats.High heels, nylons, and a lot of cuts and styles for dresses are greatly uncomfortable for my build - ie they sung in the wrong places, are restricting to move in, and just, in general, do not feel good to wear.
Which leaves me with long skirts/pantsuit ensembles. Perhaps this is vain, but I do not like wearing outfits that are very unflattering or unfashionable. However, I also am not aware of a point in catechism that mandates that woman must sacrifice their innate sense of femininity for the mental comfort of male church-goers. Call me crazy, but I like to look reasonably fashionable.
What era are these clothes from? I am always trying to find something better than what’s available now.And most of my clothing is fashionable even some of my older classic styles.
a) Mistaken concept of sexuality. Difficulties are likely to arise once the priest gives in to the widely held view that human beings are biologically determined. The erroneous notion that the male is in a sense compelled to sexual activity by virtue of the very fact of being male, is becoming stronger and stronger. People even think that the sexual act ‘proves’ one’s virility; that without it, a man is in some way disabled, unrealized. Concepts of this sort, especially if repeated by medical authorities in the sexological field (as often happens) can easily be used to justify one’s own behaviour. From now on the individual, dominated by his own body, justifies himself by saying that ‘it is not possible’ to act otherwise.
** So it is extremely important for every priest to know how to maintain discipline over his thoughts and his imagination. For one can also sin alone, in thought: by looking at another person with desire, by treating that other person as an object, the sin of fornication is committed in the depths of the heart. If an attitude of this sort dominates the heart, it will also manifest itself outside. On the other hand, if we are clean within, no external situation can provoke somatic reactions against our will.Sexual excitement depends, in the first place, on the intentions with which we approach our neighbour, how we look at him or her and what we see there. The priest is obliged to see the very Christ in his neighbour; the aim of any encounter can only be to bring that person nearer to God.**
Lust tends to subordinate others to our will, subjugating them and humiliating them by treating them as objects. A father’s love, however, offers itself, asking nothing in return. But to attain to this, one must teach the body self-control. Chastity is, therefore, a constant effort to subject the body entirely to the aspirations of the soul. Each human being’s body is always subject to a spirit: either to the Holy Spirit, or to the spirit ‘of this world’.
Keep in mind that he’s preaching not only to those in attendance, but also to TV viewers and radio listeners.I have only watched the first homily and not all of it. I get what he is saying, but isn’t he “preaching to the choir”?
The people at Mass at the EWTN chapel really don’t need to be hearing this, and the ones who do, I am pretty sure are not there.
That’s very true. In my small EC parish, suits/ties or at least sports coats/ties are de rigueur. It would be OK, except that it can be intimidating to visitors, and because too many don’t know how to dress. They don’t realize that it’s not OK to replace the worn-out trousers of their grey pinstripe suits with a pair of khakis or that gentlemen do not wear white socks with their suits. The guys that do such things are typically ushers too – the first people anyone sees when entering the church.Probably the latter. But it really transcends of just what people wear to Mass. There is a general dressing down of this society over the past 60 years or so. I have seen pictures of men in the stands of the 1960 World Series, dressed nice in ties and jackets- compare and contrast with the bummy attire of this years’ World Series audience.