Modesty

[jmjtina]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 29 2004, 05:29 PM'] I by no means subscribe to New Oxford Review, but I was told there is a good article written against Scott Hahn. I read it, and it was quite convincing. [/quote]
What do you mean "against" Scott Hahn? I have read many of his books, and listened to him speak, so what do they have against him? What do you have against him? I'm truly curious. Have you read anything by him or heard him speak? If so, maybe one article wouldn't be so convincing of obvious bias. I've read some Jack Chick, and he can be pretty convincing if your fickle.


As a woman, I do not parade wearing pants to become a man. And that is exactly how it's coming across. I know you were trying to make a point, but the point is the Church is very clear on crossdressing.

[quote]2333 Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.[/quote]

For a man to wear a wig, lipstick, etc daily is deny your sexuality. For a woman to wear pants is NOT to deny she is a woman.

As far as tradition goes, how about the Catholic Irishman who wears a skirt? Is he denying his sexuality?

+JMJ

Edited June 30, 2004 by jmjtina

[amarkich]

Thank you, Ice. I was confusing him with Carson. I do not know why I do that. I have done that in the past as well. Thank you again.

Tina, the very scholarly article was titled "Scott Hahn's Novelties" and was twelve pages long. It was very in-depth. In response to your questions, I have not read any of his books in full, but I have read some articles which he has written, and I have heard many of his tapes and heard him speak once in person (I believe it was four hour talk with both parts). I was a moderately big fan of Scott Hahn when I did not know as much about him and before I completed my conversion to tradition. By the way, Edward O'Neill is the author of the article. The only error that I found with the article was that O'Neill implied that the earth is older than the Tradition of the Church tells us, and he uses Hahn's belief in Church Tradition concerning the age of the earth as "evidence" that he is a "fundamentalist". While his beliefs concerning the age of the earth are erroneous, his actual evidence accusing Hahn of fundamentalism is quite convincing. You should find someone you know who receives this publication and read it. It is the June 2004 edition. In any event, Jack Chick abandons logic at the beginning of any of his publications. Mr. O'Neill makes great, factual arguments concerning Hahn. As regards crossdressing, my point is that the Church has never stated what does and does not constitue crossdressing. If this is one's argument against women wearing pants not being crossdressing, it is a lost argument because the same can be said for my examples. An Irishman wearing a kilt would not be any different from a Roman citizen during the Empire wearing a tunic. These are not against tradition because the fact that an article of clothing does not have two parts to its bottom (pantlegs) does not mean that it is feminine because the Tradition of the Church has always been for Priests to wear this type of clothing. The fact that Tradition teaches us that women never wore pants until the women's rights movement is enough to illustrate the beginning of this erroneous custom. Just because it is commonly practiced does not make it acceptable. God bless.

[amarkich]

By the way, what I would consider the thesis of the article is as follows: "While many of Hahn's distinctive ideas fall more or less within the range of opinion permitted in Catholic thought, some, as this article will show, seem very dubious indeed, and a few are of the sort that, in a prior age, might have incurred such censures as 'offensive to pious ears,' 'suspect,' 'rash,' or 'proximate to heresy.'" He goes on to prove this through several means, but I cannot re-write the article. I stongly suggest you find a copy somewhere. God bless.

[Chrysologus]

amarkich, you say Scott Hahn believes the earth to be older than the Church's tradition says (I assume he accepts the standard scientific estimate of six billion years or however long it is). Please show me when the Church solemnly defined the age of the earth.

If Pius was intending to solemnly define what constitutes modesty in women's clothing, it's interesting that that this "dogma" is never listed in Catholic books of theology (prove me wrong if you can!). In any case, there's no way the pope could have been trying to define a dogma, as there is no basis for a divinely-revealed dress code in either scripture or tradition, the Church's two, only transmitters of revelation.

[jmjtina]

You know I quickly looked up O'Neill. So you agree with thier views of seeing the claim that Hahn, in mentioning the biblical and patristic tradition of picturing the Holy Spirit as feminine, was somehow asserting the virtues of lesbianism (since, y'know, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit). (I kid you not.) ~[url="http://markshea.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_markshea_archive.html#108811248540509622"]from Mark Shea's blog[/url]

When a 15 page paper is written to attack Hahn, not bring any kind of remote intelligence, sorry, I'll pass. I can read the Enquirer at the supermarket in line for free, but I have better things to do with my time. Thanks anyway.

I'm done with the pants.

+JMJ
God Bless

Edited June 30, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[cmotherofpirl]

Having read the publications last attempt at attacking Professor Hahn, and reading scathing reviews of this article, I conclude its sour grapes.

Scott Hahn is actually faithfuil to Church Tradition as taught by the Fathers, which of course out of fashion in modernist circles.

Everyone of the allegations have been proving false.

There is nothing like success to bring out the green eyes.

Edited June 30, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[BeenaBobba]

Hi amarkich,

Back when the Bible was written, pants on women probably would have been considered immodest, but the styles of the day change. Today, pants on women aren't uncommon, nor are they widely considered masculine. Like one of the posters pointed out, back in Jesus' day, men wore tunics. Were pants on men immodest when they were first introduced "because men always wore tunics," or do you not have a problem with that? If not, what's with the double standard? Why do you not have a problem with men's fashions changing, yet why do you (seemingly) have a problem when women's fashions change?

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

Hi amarkich (again),

What has Scott Hahn said about the age of the earth that you disagree with? Science and faith cannot contradict each other because of the very natures of science and faith. That being said, the scientific consensus is that the earth is billions of years old. This, of course, does not contradict Church teaching at all. After all, in as early as the 4th or 5th century, St. Augustine wrote that the six days in Genesis where God created the earth could be symbolic for long periods of time.

God bless,

Jen

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jun 29 2004, 10:40 PM'] Having read the publications last attempt at attacking Professor Hahn, and reading scathing reviews of this article, I conclude its sour grapes.

Scott Hahn is actually faithfuil to Church Tradition as taught by the Fathers, which of course out of fashion in modernist circles.

Everyone of the allegations have been proving false.

There is nothing like success to bring out the green eyes. [/quote]
i agree cmom. mark shea's blog link is a read.

15 pages on Scott Hahn who is faithfuil to Church Tradition?!

i also like the good point jake bought up...is it modesty or oppression?

and im still wondering for a good answer on the logically argument for wearing pants....

and beenabobba has made some very good valid arguments as well.

God bless.
+JMJ+

[Jake Huether]

[quote]Jake, you bring an interesting point concerning the Chuch's definition of men's clothing and women's clothing. Since the Church has never made a declaration on the matter, we must follow Tradition or be forced to conclude that there is [i]no[/i] discrepancy between men's clothing and women's clothing, and thus there is no such thing as crossdressing. [/quote]


You give two choices which, when looked at, make only one of the choices viable. Indeed, we must follow Church Tradition. I never said we mustn't. And what exactly is Church Tradition on "men dressing like women, and women dressing like men"? Well, need we look farther than St. Joan of Arc? I'm not so sure that she wore a dress into battle?? Or is this only one of the extreme cases? And do you believe that a Cassock is okay? It is dress-like, is it not?

Point being, there is clothing that can be "woman"-like or "man"-like, but yet it doesn't deny the dignity of the persons gender who is wearing the article. Joan of Arc was a women, and even in war attire she presumably appeared feminine. Although many priests (moreso in the past) wear cassocks, they do not attempt to hide or deny the masculinity of the one wearing it.

[quote]Certainly anyone can see that this is nonsense, but we cannot claim that "since the Church has not specifically left a directive on this issue, it is not true", for then that would mean that I could wear lipstick, a dress, a wig, other make-up, and various other feminine clothing and claim that I am not crossdressing "because the Church hasn't said this is feminine clothing; ergo, it does not constitute crossdressing."[/quote]

Again, you are setting up a straw-man. The Church has specific teachings on "crossdressing" / Tranvestite activities. And these teachings do not in anyway contradict what we are saying (i.e. women can wear pants, and in certain cultures it is acceptable for men to wear "skirts" or "dresses"). You seem to have missed that part of my previous post. The Spirit of the law is to protect us from scandle caused by confusion and/or indignation as to the gender of a person. You see, you might have said, "I could wear a dress and claim that I am not crossdressing", and you could. But you add in, "lipstick,...a wig, other make-up, and various other feminine clothing", and thus you attempt to burry the issue within a whole other issue not even in the scope of things.

St. Pauls letter is referring to the "lipstick,...". That's the spirit of the law that I was refering to. You would be purposfully attempting to mask your gender, and deny the dignity of your person. St. Paul wasn't interested in the fashion mode of clothing articles, whether it be pants, skirts, dresses, or whatever. He was interested in protecting the dignity of God's creation.


[quote]I am sure anyone would agree that this is false, but they balk at saying that women wearing pants is crossdressing. [/quote]

They would agree that this is false only because you added in "lipstick, wigs, etc." which don't even have to do with clothing. You set us up to try to make your point. But you negate the fact that in certain cultures men DO wear what we would consider dresses. Have you seen the news photos of the Iraqi men? They still look like men, yet they are wearing "dresses". They don't deny the dignity of their gender.



[quote]
The only reason this is true is that it is common place, and such a reasoning is tantamount to the Rationalists who discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible simply because it contains miraculous events even after its authenticity can be proved.[/quote]

I won't take this personally, since I know that wasn't your objective. But please don't infer that Ice, Tina, me, et al, are even remotely connected with "Rationalists who discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible".

You keep throwing out these exteme points in order to make our perspective look weak. When in reality, the your need to use such extrem examples is the downfall of your arguement.


[quote]
With that being said, we see that women wearing pants originated with feminism which was, of course, an evil movement against a woman's role and essentially against the natural law as well as the authority of history and Tradition, among other things.[/quote]

Actually, wearing pants didn't originate with feminism. Maybe so, only in the US. I just did a search, and it appears that several cultures had women wearing pants long ago. And feminism, at it's root, was a good thing. It only became evil when it started to overstep it's own scope and started to damage the role of women.



Again, I will repeat the spirit of St. Pauls letter. It is to protect men and women's dignity. That they clothe themselves (more internally/spiritually, than externally - as external clothing was practically the same) according to the dignity of their gender and their person. Men, therefore, should not act in a womans role attempting to hide his own masculinity. Women should not act in a mans role. It wasn't a statement banning certain clothing, it was a statement banning a certain disposition of soul and self.


And I have never attended SFU, and have not yet read that book by Scott Hahn.

God bless.

Edited June 30, 2004 by Jake Huether

[jeffpugh]

[goldenchild17]

more from the great mind of ewtn...

[Paddington]

There are two reasons to dress modestly, nay I tell you, there are three.

1. Having a good body.
2. Having a bad body.
3. Having a perfectly average body. The mocker says these are free to dress as they please. Forsooth! They incur
the greater penalty for messing with my non-virgin head! (me = the victim here)


I proclaim to you from the rooftops that my powers of lust are great enough (like the Nile in flood season) to act against those who dress according to the various gradations of modesty. It seems that what is beholden of one's mortal coil (yes) is no more tantamount (yes) as the fact that it is being shewn forth as if it were the freaking daybreak itself! In sum, immodest attire is as like unto the giving of too much information (sorry for when I did that) than to the act of seduction as practised by impudent harlots and other living things.

[Starets]

Yea and verily ... huh??

[Paddington]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1447749' date='Jan 19 2008, 02:16 PM']Yea and verily ... huh??

[/quote]

I need to get out more.