C
catholicmamajoy
Guest
Jane, I posted a reply that included 4 links to sites. Did you miss it? It was post # 48 on this thread.
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear francisca,Hi there Portrait, how are you today?
I’d like to comment on your words I bolded & underlined above.
The bible did not say that man & woman became aware of their sexuality because of the fall.
The man and the woman had been aware of their sexuality even before the fall, because God always address them as “man” and “woman”.
My evidence that man and woman were aware of their sexuality before the fall:
Genesis 2:24-25
That’s why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife, and with her become one flesh.
Both the man and his wife were naked and were NOT ashamed.
Before the fall, they did not realize that they were naked, eventhough they were aware of “being a man” and “being a woman” (which essentially their sexuality).
After the fall, however, they became aware of “their nakedness”. This fact indicate to us that sin is the cause of awareness of " being naked" (or being immodest).
The man and the woman has made for themselves “apron/ loin cloths made of fig leaves” right after the fall, before they met God in Genesis 3:7. Thus they were NOT naked anymore by the time God made them cloth made of animal skin.
God provided our first parent with animal skin right after God cursed the earth, and then later-- in Genesis 9:3, after the flood-- God allow man (Noah) to have animal’s meat as his food.
My opinion:
The reason of the animal skin and meat as food was : after the fall then God curse the earth, death rules the world. Animal’s skin was necessary for survival. After God send the flood, God allow meat as food for the same reason.
The first sin committed in the garden was not a sexual sin. Sex was not a sin then. I hope it is not sin until now
Sinful sex is only there after God gave the ten commandments, where God told Moses which sexual union he sees as abomination. Note that on the day Moses brought the tablet of the law down from the Sinai, Israel was commiting idolatry. God must have known what would happen even before it happened. Thus the book of the law begin to teach about “faithfulness to God” which essentially against both idolatry and adultery in sexual relationship.
Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear sister. Thankyou for your responses and apologies for the delay in replying, but it is it my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends.
Your faulty exegesis of the Book of Genesis is, I think, rather novel and does not accord with how the Sacred text has been generally interpreted and understood by our Church and the general sweep of Catholic tradition.
Our first parents became aware of their sexuality subsequent to the Fall owing to the immediate entrance of sin and with it concupiscence. They were aware of their state of undress because they they felt most keenly the disorder within their own souls, which they had hitherto not been conscious of in their paradise-state. They were denuded of all their ornaments and ensigns of honour, degraded from their dignity and disgraced in the highest degree. Their natures were now gravely wounded and they were both subject to evil desire; they had been enlightened as regards sin which is why they “knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3: 7). The entrance of sin changed everything and from henceforth they would be captive to the power of their lower nature and engaged in a fierce and unrelenting battle with concupiscence. Sound Catholic moral theology has always consistently taught that this is so and still does.
Therefore, after Adam and Eve rebelled against God, sin created a radical disorder in their
wills and this meant that they were now very much under the influence of their disordered sexual passions and lusts. Naturally, from this point onwards, immodest apparel would be calculated to enflame those base passions which were now sadly governed by a sinful nature and its awful result, concupiscence. Moreover, the key point with respect to Genesis 3: 21, is that God is not satisfied with the scanty garments that the first pair made for each other immediately following the Fall and the entrance of Original Sin. The fig leaves would only have partially covered them, thus they would have still been in a state of immodesty and dressed in unseemly attire, given their now fallen estate and the presence of evil desire. Therefore, God made for them new garments out of animal skins and clothed them entirely, or, if you please, modestly. Observe that by this God clearly reveals to man that He desires him to be clad in modest attire so as to avoid being a source of temptation to his fellow man by the arousing of base instincts that can lead to mortal sin and, without penitence, eternal ruin in Hell. This is surely the primary and most perceptible meaning to be gleaned from the these Genesis passages.
Carnal relations within the sanctity of the holy Sacrament of Marriage are not sinful, but indulgence in any sexual relationship, occasioned by lust, outside of that honoourable estate most decidedly is (see Heb. 13: 4). Since sin entered the world human society has always been permissive and immodest attire is simply a reflection of this permissiveness, but as Christians we have been rescued from this degredation by God’s amazing grace. Therefore we quite rightly give a wide berth to any garments that promote immodesty and hence impure thoughts in gratitude for our redemption.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear francisca,
Hello again and thankyou for submitting the above.
There is a distinct difference between attraction, which is perfectly natural and, indeed, necessary for the perpetuation our race, and lust which originates with our fallen nature and evil desire. The latter is disordered and must needs be subdued and brought into subjection (cf I Cor. 9: 27) if the soul is not to be polluted by the lusts of the flesh.
If men have more physical strength than women and are stronger in their bodies, they are certainly weaker in the area of sensuality. If the man is to use his superior strength to protect and defend a woman physically, then it is clearly incumbent upon a woman, given that she is obviously more visual, to use her strengh in the area of sensuality, that is to say, by her chaste conduct and choice of seemly apparel. As someone has aptly remarked, “Women are the guardians of chastity for the world”. Needless to say, this does not excuse a gentleman for any want of custody of his eyes (Job 31: 1), nevertheless the women has an equal responsibility also and is not free from culpability if she is scantily clad.
Of course there can be no cast iron “guarantee” in a fallen world, but at least by donning modest clothing women help men to keep impure thoughts in check and minimise the strength of evil desire. The way in which both men and women dress has an effect for good or ill, which is why the issue of modest vesture is of such vital importance, especially in our decadent Western culture with its obsession with seductive fashion styles and sex. Born as we are with a wounded nature disposed towards sin, it is necessary to ensure that our bodies are kept well-covered so as not to unecessarily excite impurity in others, possibly leading them into mortal sin. This may not chime with secular femenism, but the fact is that when a women dons immodest garments, she ipso facto becomes a temptress for men. Let us recall our dear Lord’s words to men who fall prey to such allurements: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (S. Matt. 5: 28). Now indirectly at least, immodestly clad women are included in this indictment, being cooperators as it were in the sins of men. God has made women beautiful and attractive to men so as to fit with His plan for procreation in holy and lawful wedlock. Unfortunately, however, as a consequence of his fallen estate, man must unceasingly struggle to regulate his attraction by keeping his baser instincts under control. It is manifestly obvious that unless men and women take positive steps to reduce the strength of concupiscence, sin will swiftly enter into their souls and defile them. God was fully aware of this, which is why, as I said in my previous post, he provided for our first parents more adequate and seemly attire. Men and women owe it to each other as brethren in Christ to be ‘cooperators’ in avoiding sin by being decently clothed.
It is incorrect to say that society considers women responsible for men’s impure thoughts - society generally does not care in the slightest as it does not worry overmuch about impure thoughts full stop (if only it did). On the contrary, sexual promiscuity is endemic because our godless and amoral culture actively encourages impurity by, inter alia, its seductive fashion styles, even for the very young who are yet in a state of formation.
Sexual immorality is actuated by both men and women because both sexes are equally subject to evil desire - “It takes two to tango”, as the old adage says. Only militant and biased femenist propaganda seeks to foot all the blame with men, who are regarded as being predatory and exploitative. Moreover, men and women are equally blameworthy for the thriving sex industry because both have a vested interest in perpetuating it. In any event, there is no law which states that a women must provide sexual favours upon payment of a fee.
Incidently, women do, alas, insitigate immorality, witness the case of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife ( see Gen. 39: 7-8). Given that she was a married women, she certainly ought to have made a ‘covenant with her eyes’ (Job 31: 1) and not have allowed her eye to defile her heart. She behaved like a harlot by saying “lie with me”, having already, by her unchaste desires, committed adultery with Joseph in her heart. Sadly, she is not a solitary example and many loose women in our our own degenerate culture are taking the initiative by making amorous advances to men in a manner that is most unbecoming in the fair sex.
Man is body as well as soul and thus impure thoughts are necessarily stimulated by he sees visually. As already stated, there is nothing amiss with the natural attraction that a man has for a women and vice-versa. However, he is now subject to concupiscence and so must take steps, if he is not to be taken captive by the Devil and be enslaved by the sins of the flesh, to subdue and surmount his base carnal passions. This is by no means an easy task and it is therefore an act of charity, in addition to a duty, for a women to be considerate by wearing modest apparel.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
JoArtist
Guest
You seem to flourish on stereotypes. I am way more visual than my husband and how he dresses affects me way more than how I dress affects him. The problems with stereotypes is that they do not pertain to everyone.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear mitzicross,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly splendid post, if I may say.
We live in a very brash world which takes pleasure in its extra to the normal indulgences. Alas, men and women have become so ostentatiously self-assertive in our debased Western world. Seductive style clothing is indicatory of the moral and cultural deterioration of our godless age and the complete abandonment of standards of good taste and decency.
Unfortunately, women are becoming increasingly less lady-like, with many seeking so called body enhancements such as tattoos. Indeed, their whole deportment appears to be more aggressive and noisy and we are now witnessing a so called ‘laddete’ culture which is terribly uncouth and is associated with excessive alcohol consumption and raucous behaviour.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear JoArtist,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
The vast majority of people would, I think, not dispute the manifestly obvious fact that women are more visual than men, simply because they are more curvaceous. Indeed, it is their shapely figures that make them exceedingly attractive to men, which is why they must make every effort to be modestly attired so that men do not focus exclusively upon their body parts. Moreover, it is also the reason why Sacred Scripture specifically singles out women when exhorting them to be clad in “seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9).
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
JoArtist
Guest
I don’t know what women you are around, but I know that most of the women in my life are the sexual instigators. (now these are all married women)For instance I am, my sister is, my mom is, my cousin is, my aunts are, a good 90% of my friends are. It just isn’t talked about because it is culturally unacceptable for women to be sexually driven. What you are basing your argument on is a cultural stereotype, not fact.
S
severus68
Guest
The outer appearance is no indication of the character of a person. Immodesty of dress according to the subjective rules of some is according to these same people, the source of all evil in the world. What about corruption, cheating, self righteousnesss, lack of charity?
I gather to you, women should be demure, self effacing, timid and say little. I am afraid and thank goodness, not all Christians/Catholics believe as you.
J
JoArtist
Guest
AMEN!!!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear JoArtist,
Hello again and thankyou for the above.
This whole idea of women being “sexual instigators” (wed or unwed) is most indecorous, why even the very term is sufficient to make one wince and it is lamentable to hear professing Catholic women even talk about such things. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising, given our sex obsessed Western culture and the loose morals of so many.
However, I must beg to differ that this most improper sexual forwardness in contemporary women is regarded as “culturally unacceptable”. On the contrary, women are now warmly encouraged to be sexually pro-active.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
You are mistaken, dear sister, for the outward appearance informs us a great deal as to the true interior state of a particular individual. A man semaphores to the world the quality of his character by his attire, his mode of speech, his manners and his general deportment. Thus a man or women who is clad in immodest vesture signals to others that they are devoid of any instinct for modesty and care very little about giving offence to others. Moreover, if the outward appearance was unimportant and “no indication of character” as you argue, then St. Paul was wrong to have instructed women to wear seemly apparel and not trespass the bounds of propriety.
If women once again behaved in a more ladylike manner and were less ostentatiously self-assertive, then our society would, I am quite certain, be a far better and happier place for all -“Women are the guardians of chastity for the world”.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
JoArtist
Guest
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR SPOUSE!!! The fact that I instigate sex with my husband is bad? So men must do this? Only men can want to have sex with their wives. There is nothing wrong with wanting sex with your spouse and to say otherwise is ridiculous. My point is women are just as sexually motivated as men so to say that the way men dress doesn’t affect us as much as the way women dress affects men is also ridiculous.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear JoArtist,
Hello again and thankyou for the above.
As I stated in one of my posts to francisca earlier today, there is nothing wrong with carnal relations within the sanctity of the holy Sacrament of Marriage. Apologies for the misunderstanding, dear sister, by failing to make a distinction between married and unmarried women. My concern is primarily with unwed women taking the initiative in making amorous advances to men rather than waiting to be, as you say stateside, invited out on a date. It is most unladylike and unbecoming for a women to pursue a man and usually means that the women in question has loose morals and considers herself ‘liberated’ from convention. Having said that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to give some kind of discreet little sign to a chap if she finds him attractive and interesting, as my wife did with me.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
JoArtist
Guest
Why would it be wrong for a woman to initiate sex with her husband?
J
JoArtist
Guest
What is wrong with a woman asking a man out on a date? I asked my husband out on a date and bum bum bum… it had nothing to do with being liberated, I just liked him and wanted him to come with me to a formal event. The Church certainly does not condemn this. You must feel this way due to old cultural norms, but as I have seen from previous posts, even if the Church says nothing on an issue you default to outdated cultural norms.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear JoArtist,
Fair point. There is nothing inherently bad about a married women initiating carnal relations with her lawful husband.
Goodbye for now.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
S
severus68
Guest
I do think you are mistaken. I am not advocating a man or a woman dance naked out in the streets of Plymouth or Bristol for instance, that would a question of sanity perhaps. S You St Paul,but his reference on the hair etc was with reference to a particular situation. He also sent a slave back to his masterso should we keep slaves? Your idea of modesty is not in line with what many Christians/Catholics think. For the most part, dress is superficial. A person dresses for a job interview, for instance, to fit standards set by human beings, subjective standards. A person dressing in a suit for work is not necessarily good at his work, hardworking and honest.
Women like men, are given brains and abilities by God. The fact is that in the past, women were required to stay in the background, be subserviant, say little, in most socities… That it was done in the past does not make it right. Women like men, have a right to assert themselves and have a say. Each person has to be the guardian of his/her own chastit.y
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
How do you know that if a woman was dressed in such a manner, she is not doing reparation for years of dressing very immodestly and would like to do penance? How do you know she isn’t doing penance for the way young girls are dressing at the mall, to gain graces for them? Perhaps she’s been very prideful in her appearance over the years and felt the need to humble that pride within her to grow in grace. Applying the scalpel with precision to the part that needs prompt removal.
If I saw someone with a long dress and no cleavage showing, I would not want to judge her as to have sinned in some way, neither would I discourage someone from dressing in such a manner. I might even start a friendly conversation and say Hello if she was attending our Divine Liturgy.
D
DAAVEED1590
Guest
I have to back up my friend here. Flawed logic. If the person dressed immodestly does not have bad character, why did they make the descision to dress immodesly, which is a decision that represents poor character??
D
DAAVEED1590
Guest
Again I feel the need to defend my friend. While it is not wrong for a woman to ask a man out on a date, it is unladylike is is not ideal. Im 16 and i can figure that out. Go on chastity.com (in the dateing section) for more explanation on christian gender roles.
However, your insult towards “outdated” cultural norms is erroneous. You mean cultural norms that have an unbroken link to Jewish-Christian/Western high culture? Norms that were created under the influence of a society much more influenced by Christanity than today? Its not defaulting to “outdated” cultural norms, its falling back on gender roles rooted in classic Catholic/Christian thinking, and the Church certainly supports that.
Not to mention that because the Church “falls silent” on an issue (which it rarely does, more offten than not, its people not wanting to find out real Church teaching), that dosent give the go-ahead to instantly take the most liberal possition possible. Root your thinking in Catholic tradition as well, because the chatechism isnt the be-all and end-all of Church teaching, its also explaned in the writings of the Saints, popes, and church fathers.
- Status