Why is cross-dressing a sin?

[AdamP88]

If something places a person in an occasion of sin it becomes sinful, if something places someone in an occasion of occasion of sin it becomes sinful because an occasion of sin is sinful, using this logic almost anything is sinful.

Yes, if something places a person in an occasion of sin, it can become sinful…Knowingly placing oneself in an occasion of sin is, in itself sinful.

I don’t see how this logic is unreasonable or could be used to make anything a sin…

 

[sw85]

Yes, if something places a person in an occasion of sin, it can become sinful…Knowingly placing oneself in an occasion of sin is, in itself sinful.

I don’t see how this logic is unreasonable or could be used to make anything a sin…

This isn’t entirely true. Needlessly placing oneself in a near occasion of sin is sinful. But there are occasions where it is appropriate to do so.

Dating is one such example. Dating always implies the risk of fornication. But this risk is acceptable because its ultimate end, marriage, is a vastly superior good.

Really, placing oneself in a near occasion of sin is a sin when it offends against prudence.

 

[AdamP88]

This isn’t entirely true. Needlessly placing oneself in a near occasion of sin is sinful. But there are occasions where it is appropriate to do so.

Dating is one such example. Dating always implies the risk of fornication. But this risk is acceptable because its ultimate end, marriage, is a vastly superior good.

Really, placing oneself in a near occasion of sin is a sin when it offends against prudence.

Dating does not always imply a risk of fornication and is not always an occasion of sin.
A risk of fornication may only occur when those dating are put into a position where that sin may actually happen. With prudence, this can be avoided when dating.

An occasion of sin is putting oneself into a position where one may fall more easily to a particular sin…In this case - a gay cross-dresser in a Gay club. Or in the case of your dating example - an unmarried couple who decide to pair off at the end of the evening and go home alone to watch a romantic movie etc.

The occasion of sin is not either the action of cross-dressing or dating - It is the context into which each is brought.

 

[rodarbal]

You clearly don’t believe the bolded part. As you wrote this block of text, your teeth didn’t spontaneously turn into liquid and dribble down your chin, nor did your monitor morph into a tiger and attack your face, nor did the gravitational constant change, causing the universe to rip itself apart. Because there is in fact a natural order. God created the world and “saw that it was good,” so that natural order is charged with meaning and value. It includes even basic considerations of how people live their lives and interact with each other, since God designed man in a particular way and thus with a particular set of goods in mind.

I’m impressed that you preface this whole thing by saying that you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy yet somehow you still know natural law is bogus. It’s alarming how much you sound like an atheist there (though, to your credit, you at least made a passing effort to understanding that which you criticize). If you’re not an intellectual and don’t understand philosophy, the proper attitude is one of epistemic humility, i.e., to bow down before the collective wisdom generations of saints, theologians, doctors of the church and holy men who consecrated their lives to contemplation and prayer, who are smarter and holier than you and who understood this stuff. And, also, to bow down before the teachings of the Church that the sexes are the proper moral expressions of human nature and not something to be inverted and turned on their heads, on the grounds that the Church is protected from error and you aren’t.

Now, to my specific problem with your earlier post, here’s an example:

The issue is that, no, it isn’t. “Natural law” pertains to human nature. It’s not about what feels natural to a given person, but about what is objectively true of human nature. If a person’s feelings don’t line up with the natural law than their feelings are disordered. One who acts on disordered impulses, knowingly and consciously, sins. If you want to deny that there is such a thing as “human nature,” you are a nominalist, which I believe might be a formally condemned position but is, anyway, nonsense. If there is no human nature than you and I have no necessary connection. Which means you have no basis for saying you and I are any more like than a starfish is to a skyscraper. Which clearly isn’t true.

You would understand this if you knew anything about natural law. Since you don’t, you really shouldn’t presume to comment on the validity of its content.

I do not posses a doctorate in philosophy, but to bow down before these ancient peoples subjective ponderings. I do not believe any of these people knew about xx or xxy or xy chromosomes or dna makeup, so I prefer 21st century science based in fact not star gazing, but thats me. You may believe what you wish and throw a lot of words around that have little application in modern times. We have evolved as a species since then, Would you like to debate electromagnetic theory or water science with me, maybe level the playing field a little.
Bowing down before all those suggests false gods worship, I will bow down before Our Lord the Father only or Christ himself, no one else.
You also failed to address the simple fact of child abuse and the churches lack of credibility in protecting our most precious youth.
Church morals, sorry. They failed to act so they failed.

 

[PLeeD]

The occasion of sin is not either the action of cross-dressing or dating - It is the context into which each is brought.

If you mean this the way it sounds, then This is exactly what I’ve been saying. If we are not under the law, and are instead judged by our hearts, then it is the motive and intent of our actions on which we will be judged. Doesn’t matter if the issue is crossdressing, or if it’s playing too much golf on a Sunday afternoon.

I just want to point out that this idea of scandal is tricky. Who is in the wrong? The faithful married crossdresser who is out with his wife for an afternoon of shopping? Or, is it the busybody Christian who is scandalized because they assume that crossdresser is looking for gay sex?

I thought the Catholic church teaches that a person should allow for the most charitable assumption possible when it comes to judging the actions of their neighbor? Seems like assuming the worst about a male who happens to be wearing women’s clothes, yet conducts themselves with respect and dignity in every other way, seems completely uncharitable.

 

[Cherry5]

I do not posses a doctorate in philosophy, but to bow down before these ancient peoples subjective ponderings. I do not believe any of these people knew about xx or xxy or xy chromosomes or dna makeup, so I prefer 21st century science based in fact not star gazing, but thats me. You may believe what you wish and throw a lot of words around that have little application in modern times. We have evolved as a species since then, Would you like to debate electromagnetic theory or water science with me, maybe level the playing field a little.

Here is a link that seems gives reason to ponder
ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/SRY
Here is an excerpt from the page:
How are changes in the SRY gene related to health conditions?

"Swyer syndrome - caused by mutations in the SRY gene

Mutations in the SRY gene have been identified in between 15 percent and 20 percent of individuals with Swyer syndrome, also known as 46,XY complete or pure gonadal dysgenesis. SRY gene mutations that cause Swyer syndrome prevent production of the sex-determining region Y protein or result in the production of a nonfunctioning protein. A fetus whose cells do not produce functional sex-determining region Y protein will develop as a female despite having a Y chromosome.

46,XX testicular disorder of sex development - associated with the SRY gene

In most individuals with 46,XX testicular disorder of sex development, the condition results from an abnormal exchange of genetic material between chromosomes (translocation). This exchange occurs as a random event during the formation of sperm cells in the affected person's father. The SRY gene is misplaced in this disorder, almost always onto an X chromosome. A fetus with an X chromosome that carries the SRY gene will develop male characteristics despite not having a Y chromosome."

So having XX or XY does not mean being female or male, the question is how much do we still need to find out? in the mean time do we condemn those that do not conform?

 

[rodarbal]

Besides the chromosome issues and their complexity, it became almost routine
in the early to late 50’s to administer a product known as DES to women who miscarried.
This increased the chances of transgendered children, the following explains.

DES sons
Initially, fewer studies documented risks of prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol on males (referred to as “DES sons”). The first documented case study of intersexuality occurring in a male prenatally exposed to DES was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1959 by Kaplan.[30]
In the 1970s and early 1980s, studies published on prenatally DES-exposed males investigated increased risk of testicular cancer, infertility and urogenital abnormalities in development, such as cryptorchidism and hypospadias.[31][32] Research published in the U.S. by Palmer et al. in 2009 further confirmed evidence of these findings.[33] Additional research published in Finland in 2012 has further confirmed an increased risk of cryptorchidism among males exposed prenatally to DES.[34]
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has acknowledged the link between diethylstilbestrol exposure and noncancerous epididymal cysts.[35] Exposed males have been suggested to be more likely to be left-handed than unexposed males.[36]
Research on DES sons has explored the hypothesis that the range of effects of prenatal exposure to DES in males might include behavioral or neurological changes, and also intersexuality. Dr. Scott Kerlin, founder of the DES Sons International Research Network, has documented for the past 15 years “the high prevalence of individuals with confirmed or strongly suspected prenatal DES exposure who self-identify as male-to-female transsexual, transgender, and intersexed, and many individuals who have reported experiencing difficulties with gender dysphoria.”[37][38][39]
Various neurological changes occur after prenatal exposure of embryonic males to DES and other estrogenic endocrine disrupters. Animals that exhibited these structural neurological changes were also shown to demonstrate various gender-related behavioral changes (so called “feminization of males”). Several published studies in the medical literature on psychoneuroendocrinology have examined the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to estrogens (including DES) may cause significant developmental impact on sexual differentiation of the brain, and on subsequent behavioral and gender identity development in exposed males and females.[40][41] There is significant evidence linking prenatal hormonal influences on gender identity and transsexual development.[42][43][44][45]

Not sure if this is my case as my mother has passed, but she did miscarry after my older brother was born.

 

[Sonic]

Besides the chromosome issues and their complexity, it became almost routine
in the early to late 50’s to administer a product known as DES to women who miscarried.
This increased the chances of transgendered children, the following explains.

DES sons
Initially, fewer studies documented risks of prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol on males (referred to as “DES sons”). The first documented case study of intersexuality occurring in a male prenatally exposed to DES was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1959 by Kaplan.[30]
In the 1970s and early 1980s, studies published on prenatally DES-exposed males investigated increased risk of testicular cancer, infertility and urogenital abnormalities in development, such as cryptorchidism and hypospadias.[31][32] Research published in the U.S. by Palmer et al. in 2009 further confirmed evidence of these findings.[33] Additional research published in Finland in 2012 has further confirmed an increased risk of cryptorchidism among males exposed prenatally to DES.[34]
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has acknowledged the link between diethylstilbestrol exposure and noncancerous epididymal cysts.[35] Exposed males have been suggested to be more likely to be left-handed than unexposed males.[36]
Research on DES sons has explored the hypothesis that the range of effects of prenatal exposure to DES in males might include behavioral or neurological changes, and also intersexuality. Dr. Scott Kerlin, founder of the DES Sons International Research Network, has documented for the past 15 years “the high prevalence of individuals with confirmed or strongly suspected prenatal DES exposure who self-identify as male-to-female transsexual, transgender, and intersexed, and many individuals who have reported experiencing difficulties with gender dysphoria.”[37][38][39]
Various neurological changes occur after prenatal exposure of embryonic males to DES and other estrogenic endocrine disrupters. Animals that exhibited these structural neurological changes were also shown to demonstrate various gender-related behavioral changes (so called “feminization of males”). Several published studies in the medical literature on psychoneuroendocrinology have examined the hypothesis that prenatal exposure to estrogens (including DES) may cause significant developmental impact on sexual differentiation of the brain, and on subsequent behavioral and gender identity development in exposed males and females.[40][41] There is significant evidence linking prenatal hormonal influences on gender identity and transsexual development.[42][43][44][45]

Not sure if this is my case as my mother has passed, but she did miscarry after my older brother was born.

Adding this to my notes. Thanks, Rodarbal! I’ve recently been working on a theory, based on information in one of Fr. Ripperger’s audio seminars, concerning the role of trauma and disassociation.

If the DES information is true, then there no reason to preclude it as a chemically induced trauma. I would guess there are other factors and reasons, as well. I think there the is a spectrum of factors that don’t include just what most people associate with crossdressers or transgenderism.

Anywho, I will do more research into this chemical.

 

[rodarbal]

I will also research this some more and share my findings. Its synthetic estrogen and has a lot of complications to boys and girls. Synthetic estrogen, What could go wrong?.

 

[vsedriver]

I do not posses a doctorate in philosophy, but to bow down before these ancient peoples subjective ponderings. I do not believe any of these people knew about xx or xxy or xy chromosomes or dna makeup, so I prefer 21st century science based in fact not star gazing, but thats me

 

[Miguelita]

Yes, if something places a person in an occasion of sin, it can become sinful…Knowingly placing oneself in an occasion of sin is, in itself sinful.

I don’t see how this logic is unreasonable or could be used to make anything a sin…

According the the AAA threads, putting yourself in a near occasion of sin is NOT, in itself, sinful. just foolish.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177586&highlight=near+sin

 

[rodarbal]

rodarbal;9454850:

Science can never give moral instruction. Science has no morality.
Science is not about morals, it does not think it just is. Its a field guide.

Mankind has not evolved. We are the same as those ancient theologians and philosophers. Why is it that people think we are so much smarter than the people before us? They had the same brains we did. Unless you think Aristotle or Plato were less intelligent than your average science major?

Mankind has certainly evolved, why are you stuck in the past? We have so much more knowledge available to us now. take math, medicine, technology (not all is good) but its progress. Compaing science majors and plato is like comparing rock and roll to classical music. They are both beautiful but so unlike each other.

And how will you know God the Father or Christ? How will you avoid creating a god in your

own image?

.I am not worried about that,

Are you surprised that there are sinners in the Catholic Church? Was not St. Peter a sinner when he denied Christ 3 times? Or St. Paul who actively persecuted the early Christians?
No comparison to raping little boys, your responses are weak

It is the teaching of the Church that is protected. The moral teaching taught to the Apostles and handed down to the Bishops. If you want to know what is sinful behavior you look to the Church that Jesus founded because science is silent on the subject.
I thought you said science has no morals so why would you look to it for guidance on sinful behavior? You are taught right and wrong by your parents and school.
Science dictates male seminal release, why are priests made to be celibate? Do you think that has a hand in the pent up sexual tension a priest must endure? They then resort to homosexual pedophelia? You compare that to what st peter did? Then they sweep it under the rug therefore condoning it. I am a lucky one, I was a alter boy and had a good experience and never heard of it, but the numbers are staggering of the ones that did.
So sad to have such a holy place serving the Lord tainted with that garbage. Many like me think and feel the church left us by losing its credibility when all that happened. Did not change my feelings toward the Lord one bit, but your love for your neighbor is not shining through. Ghandi said " I love your Christ, but not your christians".

 

[Crescentinus]

If you are acting or infiltrating you are not cross-dressing. That is not what cross dressing means.
A cross dresser is a transvestite and that is an abomination to God.

Deut 22:5 "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.

How about cosplaying a character of the opposite gender?

 

[EverCatholic]

Hello.

 

[vsedriver]

vsedriver;9467689:

I thought you said science has no morals so why would you look to it for guidance on sinful behavior? You are taught right and wrong by your parents and school.

I can’t determine who you are really quoting here. I never said that I look to science for guidance on sinful behavior. Science can give you direction on what the function of something is, such as sex organs are for reproduction. Doesn’t mean everyone must reproduce in order to justify having sex organs.

Science dictates male seminal release, why are priests made to be celibate?

Priests are not made to be celibate. They choose to be celibate. Just as Christ chose to be celibate. Choosing celibacy is a gift to God.

Do you think that has a hand in the pent up sexual tension a priest must endure? They then resort to homosexual pedophelia?

No because there are many more married men who also prey on children. Celibacy does not cause pedophilia. Especially when you consider that the number of pedophile priests were so small in comparison to how many celibate priests are around. If what you state is true than there should have been thousands of pedophile priests instead only a few hundred.

You compare that to what st peter did?

Yes, denying Our Lord and abandoning Him in his hour of need is a far, far greater sin than pedophilia. Also persecuting and killing innocent people is a far, far greater sin than pedophilia.

Then they sweep it under the rug therefore condoning it. I am a lucky one, I was a alter boy and had a good experience and never heard of it, but the numbers are staggering of the ones that did.

Did they sweep it under the rug? Or where they doing what the psychiatrists were telling them to do? Remember, these cases took place back in the 60s and 70s. The church is accused of simply moving these guys around but that isn’t exactly what happened. They were given counseling and treatment. The psychiatrists pronounced them ‘cured’ so the church, believing these guys were cured, put them back to work. In many cases the church did turn these guys into the law but either the statutes of limitations ran out or the law said there wasn’t enough evidence or the families didn’t want the ‘scandal’.

Everyone used this method… schools, sports programs… they all did this. Why isn’t anyone suing schools and sports programs?

I am not condoning what those priests did. What they did was wrong. And we now have very strict procedures in place to prevent this along with a good clean sweep of the seminaries. I also trust that those who suffered will receive pure and true justice from God.

So sad to have such a holy place serving the Lord tainted with that garbage. Many like me think and feel the church left us by losing its credibility when all that happened.

The devil loves to damage the church. Loves it even more if he can get good men to do wrong. But just because the people in the church sin doesn’t mean the Church is any less holy than before.

Did not change my feelings toward the Lord one bit, but your love for your neighbor is not shining through. Ghandi said " I love your Christ, but not your christians".

So even Ghandi was incapable of loving his Christian neighbors. The church is going to survive this and come out even better. The Holy Spirit is guiding and helping. But we will always have sinners in our church. We will always have men who handle things badly, who misuse the church for their own personal desires.

Just remember, at no time has the Church ever taught that pedophilia was OK.

 

[AdamP88]

Yes, denying Our Lord and abandoning Him in his hour of need is a far, far greater sin than pedophilia. Also persecuting and killing innocent people is a far, far greater sin than pedophilia.

I think you are wrong on this as you are not comparing like with like. Also Our Lord Himself said that those who scandalize children ought to be “thrown into the sea with a millstone around their neck.”

Let’s not forget that the first Pope abandoned Jesus.

 

[Irishgal49]

It implies homosexuality.

That could be scandal but if done privately would not be the case. It’s clothing, nothing more. If you’re doing it to attract someone of the same gender, that would be sinful. But if you are merely putting on the clothing of another gender because you like to wear it then it’s not a sin at all.

I prefer men’s socks and men’s shirts, I enjoy wearing men’s flannel jammies, that does not make it a sin. So a man might want to put on a woman’s dress. If he’s not trying to seduce another man (the majority of cross dressers are straight) then there’s no sin in it. I have no problem if my husband wanted to cross dress.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I think it is a mortal sin too, but why?

I guess it could have to do with the cross-dresser wanting to change the est. physical order of God but not all cross-dressers want this yet all cross-dressing is a sin. So there must be something more, is there?

Because it’s a symptom of a deeper problem. It’s much deeper than just liking how a dress looks.

 

[Kamaduck]

meriane:

We believe our customers deserve and expect the very best when it comes to their clothing choices. Flexibility is the key to good business relations Because of our long standing relationships with some of the clothing industry’s top suit and clothing manufacturers, we are able to offer our selections a exceptional values. We will provide our customers with the most efficient shopping environment by presenting the most comprehensive line of mens white suits and formal accessories worldwide while continually improving our levels of customer service through training, total quality management, and advances in technology.

I can’t tell if you’re arguing or advertising, but it really sounds like this thread was unearthed for the umpteenth time by an advertising message. :doh2:

As I understand it, crossdressing itself is not so much the issue. Naturally if one was doing it with sexual intent outside of marriage, that would be sinful. If it’s not done with sexual intent (which seems to be the main point), or for the purpose of deceiving people (in situations where that isn’t allowable), I don’t see why it would be sinful.

So acting is fine, because it doesn’t fall under either of those categories. Men wearing kilts and women wearing pants is fine, because there’s no sexual intent or deception going on. Lost Wanderer mentioned crossplay; since that’s also not sexual or deceptive, I expect it would be fine.

Dressing like the other gender to save someone seems like it would be OK in any situation where lying would also be OK- ie. to save someone or to protect yourself. I know I’ve heard stories of young men dressing up like young women in Europe during WWII to avoid being taken by the Nazi’s. I hardly think they were sinning, since they did it to protect themselves.

I could be coming at this from the wrong angle, but it seems to me that it’s more the inappropriate sexual gratification and deceiving people about one’s true gender that are sinful, and not so much the wearing of the clothes itself. I’m not sure how to reconcile that with Deuteronomy 22:5, but maybe someone else will be more fortunate.

 

[AloysiusBologna]

Cross dressing is a sign that it is Almost Easter because veiling during lent is now limited to Passiontide.

Cross Dressing?
If Cross Dressing is a sin then why does our church drape crosses?

I suspected something might be wrong…after all the Church has historically long had “Reproaches” on Good Friday!

Cross dressing? Please specify type and extent of the wound you wish to dress.:stretcher:

Simple,…'cause it is the Opposite Over The Hypotenuse!
Aren’t you glad St Patrick :irish2:used a Shamrock :shamrock2::nstead of Trigonometric Functions?