Is It A Sin?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, I can't tell you how happy I am that you've accepted the invitation to a proper intellectual discussion of the matter. I don't know if you have been following the "Is it a sin?" thread, but my "debate" with a fellow named Carrdero has been more than frustratingly un-intellectual. You are a breath of fresh air .

Now, you posted quite a bit, and I hope you don't feel like I'm "shortchanging" you with the following response. I would be more than happy to elaborate anywhere you feel it is prudent or of interest to the discussion, it just seems like you made two straightforward criteria for discussion with regards to how we determine this notion of "intent." I will try to address all of your points by ordering them under one of those two criteria (below).

1.) Who determines intent?

2.) Is the source of the intent relevant?


I agree entirely that both of these issues are fundamental and must be discussed with regards to the idea of something being "intended for women."

I will start with number 1.

[b]Who determines intent?[/b]

You ask the question (rightly) [quote]Do we derive what is proper regarding men's clothing and women's clothing based on societal differences or do we base it on Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised apart from secular and worldly corruption?[/quote]

I would answer by saying that we derive what is proper regarding men's and women's clothing based on Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised [i]with regards to[/i] secular society.

Allow me to clarify and illustrate this answer. Catholic tradition on the subject says that dresses and skirts (of appropriate length) are perfectly modest (and beautiful), and always an acceptable option. However, the Church is neither locked in the past nor oblivious to the changes that the world and societies undergo, as many critics say (this is not directed at you at all, Adam). Rather, the Church is constantly responding to societal changes by exercising "Catholic prudence" and wise, careful judgement. Not all of secular society is bad, though much of it is. It is for this reason that I see the Church and society not as irrevocably seperate, but as two interactive entities, with the Eternal Church prudently judging what is acceptable or not acceptable in the constantly fluxuating society.

Now the catechism provides guidelines with regards to modesty, two of which are particularly important:

[quote]2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.[/quote]

and

[quote]2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.[/quote]

Now, from these two teachings we know that the Church believes that the [i]form[/i] of modesty can change though modesty itself remains, depending on the culture. We also know that, on a practical note, modesty means "refusing to unveil what should remain hidden."

You and I would both agree that we live in a different culture today than 100 years ago, and so I submit that, in accordance with the teaching of the church, the form of modesty can have changed.

In addition, I do not, in any way, feel that normal women's pants "unveil what should remain hidden" just as men's pants do not. I agree that some women immodestly wear their pant's too tight, just as some men do, and by doing so may reveal too much, but this is not the norm.

Now, with regards to criteria number 2:

[b]Is the source of the intent relevant?[/b]

Yes, absolutely it is. However, here is where you and I greatly differ. I think the introduction of women's pants was a slow social change that predates the drastic feminism and sexual revolution of the 60's.

During the first World War, women who worked the hard labor jobs (mining jobs) were forced to wear pants, rather than skirts, and soon after, women who worked factory jobs followed suite (dresses could get caught in the machines). While not yet widespread, women's pants were no longer unheard of. With the Second World War, the process simply extended to a much greater degree, as even more women were needed to support the workforce. It would not be foolish to assume that "women's pants" were being produced with the intent of aiding in the war effort.

Now, I will grant to you that the avid feminists who followed in the wake of WWII may have attempted to attach a feminist message to women's pants, but I will not grant that they were the root cause of the change in the societal norm. Rather, I view them as simply trying to twist and defile a change that was already occuring, and would have occurred without their presence.

Moreover, I do not view this as an adequate reason for claiming that the intent was bad. Satan may try to twist a thing and make it appear one way, but this does not change the objective truth of the thing. In my mind, the "objective truth" of the development of women's pants was that they were developed with the intent of aiding a Just War, and then became a social norm. Whether or not radical feminists attempted to (and perhaps partially succeeded) to attach a liberal connotation to it does not affect the ultimate reality.

So in summary, when I consider women's pants in light of Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised [i]with regards to[/i] secular society, I see a change in a social norm, caused by a desire to support Just Wars, that does not - when properly carried out - lessen modesty by revealing what should not be revealed. Based on this, I find women's pant's to be in accord with our definition of women's clothing and the basic demands of modesty.

Feel free to take your time to respond.

******************************************************************

PS

[quote]As an aside, do you feel that dresses and pants are equally becoming on women or that women are equally beautiful wearing both dresses and pants? This is not relevant to the debate; it is simply a question posed to you personally. I can tell you that I would be absolutely scandalized to ever see the women (and girls) from my church wearing pants (regardless of what they are doing) simply because they have such an aura of purity and even mystery as a result of the clothing that they wear not only in modesty but also in wearing dresses and skirts. God bless.
[/quote]

This is a hard question. I have a natural tendency and inclination towards the traditional. Even when I was really little, I loved the things of old more than those of today. My favorite book of all time, [i]Le Morte D'Artur[/i], is a testament to this. I think probably on account of my residual naivety and romanticism, the image of the pure maiden in a flowing dress impresses me more than the image of a pure maiden in pants. That having been said, I recognise this as a personal bias, and I must say that I have been humbled by the modesty and humility that I have seen from some of the girls who attend daily mass near where I work in DC (who wear pants).

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The thing that boggles my mind is that if JPII were to come out with modesty directives (even if they were just as strict), neo-conservatives would jump with joy to fulfill them. Instead of asking "how short" can a skirt be, they would ask "how long would you like it to be", but when it is a past Pope (especially a pre-Vatican II Pope), they balk at obeying. Do you know why this is? Do you think people would make the same statement you just made if the directives were from JPII? It is very confusing to me; it seems that today even 'faithful' Catholics are very disobedient (if not rebellious) insofar as they only adhere to the absolute requirements set down by the Church. It is quite disheartening.[/quote]

This comment is also disheartening. I try my best to dutifully follow all the popes across the ages, and to obey their statutes, decrees, and teachings - on all levels - as interpreted by the Magisterium, with all my heart, soul, and mind...

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 10:29 PM'] Dave, you cannot walk with your head in the ground; no matter what, you are bound to see a woman with practically no clothing on even for an instant. Simply exposing oneself to seeing that much skin is disgusting. If it is scandalous to see a person in his underwear, then surely the same is true here (except you are seeing hundreds of people in their underwear). I did not say that you cannot disagree; I simply said that 1) there is no reason to disagree and 2) all faithful Catholics should gladly consent to the statements of the Pope even those which are not [i]Ex Cathedra[/i], provided that they promote virtue. In short, those statements which are stricter (rather than more lax) should be accepted happily by faithful Catholics. The opposite is true today. "Faithful" Catholics gladly accept the lax opinions of the Pope but will not submit to stricter statements unless they can find them to be [i]Ex Cathedra[/i]. This is no way to live the Catholic Faith. Rather than supporting virtue, most "faithful" Catholics will do the bare minimum concerning any kind of virtuous act. As far as the Pope is concerned, when have I disagreed with any decree or decision of his which promotes virtue or which gives a stricter law or recommendation (so as to better grow in virtue)? I assure you that I have never disagreed in this regard. I only disagree when he poses propositions or recommendations which are 1) contrary to the tradition (or Tradition) of the Church or 2) provide lax or licentious guidelines by which to live the Faith. I do not ignore the current Pope, or otherwise I wouldn't be able to disagree with him! Also, I am guided by previous Popes as well and, just as importantly, the constant traditions (and Traditions) of the Church. There is no need for us to be cautious of (most) previous Popes, but in the post-Modern world there are all kinds of things of which we must be cautious. God bless.

Again, Dave, I invite you to join the debate if you wish. [/quote]
Number one, I think we need to take another look at this thread here: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14618&hl=modesty"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...4618&hl=modesty[/url]

I never said you won't catch a glimpse of that sort of thing; I just meant that if you do notice a scantily-clad woman you can look away.

You forget that things like the Church teachings against birth control and abortion aren't ex cathedra either, yet they're still doctrine and thus infallible. Dress codes, however, just aren't doctrine. I'm not saying we should just ignore things like that, but popes aren't infallible in areas like that.

And I really think you are wrong to say our Holy Father's positions on anything are "lax." It's also quite judgmental of you to act like Catholics who don't happen to agree with the Pope in areas where it's ok to disagree are somehow less than faithful Catholics.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, I need to go to sleep (I get up at 5:00 in the mornings for work) but if you post a response tonight, I will address it tomorrow. (I would have IM'd you, but you arn't signed on). Thanks!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

I apologize that I cannot reply regarding the actual debate tonight (it is almost 11:00 here and I need to get up early tomorrow for Mass; it is about a 45 minute drive). I just wanted to reply to the second post:

Jeff, I do not consider you to be a neo-conservative. That did not apply to you at all. I was speaking of those people who actually are neo-conservatives (most of Phatmass and most practicing Catholics). I consider you to be absolutely obedient to the Church and the Pope. God bless.

Dave, I did not mention anything that I consider the Pope to teach with laxity; this was simply one of the conditions by which I would disregard one of his (or any other Pope's) teaching. There must be a good reason to disagree with a Pope, especially when he is speaking in the area of morals. There is no good reason to downplay or disregard (even minorly) the Pope's decrees concerning the virtue of modesty and its application, especially when he lists specific areas and types of clothing which are immodest. It is hard to think that modesty from the beginning of the Church to 1940 did not change (or changed very minorly) and then sometime between 1940 to 1970 changed so much that sleeveless shirts or cap-sleeved shirts (or something even less modest) have become "modest." God bless.

Edit: I posted shortly after you did and did not see your most recent post. You have me beat by half an hour as far as when you wake up I will be glad to speak to your tomorrow (but I do not know if I will be able to get on because I have several things I must do to enroll at my school and to completely register for my classes at the college I am attending; I am doing a joint-enrollment program, so I have to register at both a high school and a college; I hope to talk to you tomorrow). God bless.

Edited August 4, 2004 by amarkich

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 11:04 PM'] I apologize that I cannot reply regarding the actual debate tonight (it is almost 11:00 here and I need to get up early tomorrow for Mass; it is about a 45 minute drive). I just wanted to reply to the second post:

Jeff, I do not consider you to be a neo-conservative. That did not apply to you at all. I was speaking of those people who actually are neo-conservatives (most of Phatmass and most practicing Catholics). I consider you to be absolutely obedient to the Church and the Pope. God bless.

Dave, I did not mention anything that I consider the Pope to teach with laxity; this was simply one of the conditions by which I would disregard one of his (or any other Pope's) teaching. There must be a good reason to disagree with a Pope, especially when he is speaking in the area of morals. There is no good reason to downplay or disregard (even minorly) the Pope's decrees concerning the virtue of modesty and its application, especially when he lists specific areas and types of clothing which are immodest. It is hard to think that modesty from the beginning of the Church to 1940 did not change (or changed very minorly) and then sometime between 1940 to 1970 changed so much that sleeveless shirts or cap-sleeved shirts (or something even less modest) have become "modest." God bless.

Edit: I posted shortly after you did and did not see your most recent post. You have me beat by half an hour as far as when you wake up I will be glad to speak to your tomorrow (but I do not know if I will be able to get on because I have several things I must do to enroll at my school and to completely register for my classes at the college I am attending; I am doing a joint-enrollment program, so I have to register at both a high school and a college; I hope to talk to you tomorrow). God bless. [/quote]
Although I know you were talking to Jeff here, regardless of whether or not you think he's a neo-conservative, I think that's a quite derogatory term. Most of the Phatmass members are ORTHODOX Catholics -- not liberal-minded cafeteria Catholics and not dissident traditionalists -- if the Church teaches it, they believe it.

And what you call Pope Pius XII's "decrees" on modesty were really not decrees.

Ya know, there was a time when even just showing your ankles was considered immodest -- both in secular society and surely in the Church. But Pope Pius XII doesn't say that women mustn't even show their ankles. Times had changed. My point is that there are some things that will always be considered immodest no matter what, and there are some things that were considered immodest a long time ago but are not now. So we have to exercise prudence.

[picchick]

I would like to agree with Dave. I am not a neo-conservative Catholic. Neither is my brother. To say that most of phatmass is is quite a generalization.
What makes most of phatmassers neo-conservatives?

[amarkich]

Picchick, this is not the thread in which to discuss that. I do not really intend to discuss it, but if you create a thread, I will do so. Thank you. God bless.

[God Conquers]

Wouldn't option two or three simply mean the person obtained salvation by #1 without knowing so, or through an unusual act of the mercy of God?

[Aloysius]

lol i think u posted in the wrong thread God Conquers...

[amarkich]

Now, back to the actual topic at hand.

[quote]I would answer by saying that we derive what is proper regarding men's and women's clothing based on Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regards to secular society.[/quote]

It seems that we have reached an agreement on the definition. What is considered men's clothing and women's clothing is based on [i]Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence while also taking into account secular society's practices[/i]. I completely agree with what you said about modesty in your statements answering the question "Who determines consent?" from my post. I assert that some 'female' pants are not immodest and thus do not contradict the Church's teachings on modesty. While some of the pants may be modest, this does not necessarily indicate that they are women's clothing simply because of this fact. In any event, it seems to me that the crux of the argument has become the origin of pants on women and whether or not this cause is compatible with Catholic prudence and, in light of this, whether or not pants can be considered women's clothing.


We both agree that the source of intent is relevant, but our disagreement is on the source of the intent. For the purposes of my argument, I will designate the following terms to describe separate movements and periods in history: Progressive Movement will define the time period of the late 1800s to the early 1900s (about 1890-1930) in which women began to take the first roles in the political system in the history of the Western world, eventually taking the freedom to vote in 1919 (really it should be called the Second Progressive Movement because the First Progressive Movement occurred in the antebellum period of the American Civil War, but since it is the only one I am considering, I will simply call it the Progressive Movement); it should be noted that during this time, for the first time in Western history, there is a great disdain for the cultural norms in dress and behavior, thus the ‘flappers’ became (while a small minority) a part of society (these are the women who first wore pants and who also bobbed their hair; by the way, I would like to present the idea that bobbing one’s hair qualifies as cross dressing; I will continue with this later in my argument; please comment on whether or not you disagree). Feminist Movement will define the time period of the 1960s in which women petitioned for an even more radical “equality” in political and social life, passing such “reforms” as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and other liberal legislation (this term will be used to define what most orthodox Catholics would consider to be the downfall of the Western family, the downfall of woman’s role in society properly speaking, and the formation of a gender neutral, gender blind society, at least in name). Sexual Revolution will define the time period of the 1960s and 1970s in which morality was abandoned by most of the young people in the generation, characterized by the rebellious ‘hippie’ attitude against the government and authority in general as well as establishing the maxim “I’m a lover, not a fighter” among other things (although this phrase is not pertinent to the debate, I simply wanted to show my disdain for it); it should also be noted that while many of the “flower girls” happily wore skirts and dresses that this time period was the first to witness the widespread practice of women wearing pants.


Using the defined terms, it seems that we both agree that pants were first worn by women during the Progressive Movement. With this being said, it does not alleviate the problem that women’s practice of wearing pants originated in a time period of the ‘flappers’ and during the first time of social upheaval of and rebellion against social norms concerning dress and behavior. We see the first sense of any type of movement of immorality coupled with a disdain for social norms in dress. The two aspects, clothing and morality, go hand-in-hand during this time period. Doing simple research on the time period will illustrate this. In any event, if you continue to assert that the first period of women wearing pants was during the Progressive Movement, you are agreeing at least to the fact that it was never socially acceptable for a woman to wear pants until a liberal (counter-cultural, counter-traditional, and essentially anti-Catholic) movement began (the Progressive Movement). I agree that women wore pants in factories for the purpose of not being caught in machinery, but this does not mean that the original purpose was for this reason. The intent originated from the flappers of the Progressive Movement who did not believe in the social standards for morals and dress. In their rebellion against the prescribed social norms, they went to such lengths as to even bob their hair (this practice was eventually accepted by society in the 1930s and even in the end of the 1920s).


This is brings me to my next point, namely that bobbing one’s hair (a woman wearing her hair short) is immoral, contrary to Catholic tradition, and contrary to Sacred Scripture. The most important thing to recognize is that the bobbing of women’s hair was being initiated at the same time as women began to wear pants, i.e., the intentions for the two things were paralleled; the same intention drove both standards. My contention that a woman wearing short hair is immoral comes from my belief that a woman bobbing her hair is the equivalent to a woman having her head shorn (the same as cross dressing by wearing her hair the same as a man’s hair, or close enough as to designate it being contrary to feminine qualities; N.B., this argument is contingent upon my third argument, that it is contrary to Sacred Scripture). My contention that a woman wearing bobbed hair is contrary to Catholic tradition is seen through history and even secular society’s disdain for the practice (until it became widespread).


My contention that a woman wearing bobber hair is contrary to Scripture is based on Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians: “But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” c.f., I Corinthians xi.15. This passage has constantly been understood to mean exactly what it says—that a woman’s hair is her glory and that it is a shame unto her to have it cut short (read the beginning of the chapter about women covering their heads in worship to understand the disgrace of a woman having her hair shorn). Likewise, Saint Paul says that it is a shame for a man to nourish his hair (verse 14). In this verse Saint Paul asserts that nature (not custom or culture) teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have his head covered. He then says that it is a glory unto a woman to nourish her hair. This passage has not only been believed and practiced in the Christian world but also in most cultures and societies (excluding those that are or were so corrupted by pagan influences and false religions as to dictate other societal norms). We see that Saint Paul tells us that nature demands that a woman’s hair is her glory. With this being said, it is impossible for anyone who believes in the Bible (let alone a Catholic!) to claim that a woman bobbing her hair is not immoral and is somehow acceptable, and if this is true, then the same must be said regarding pants, for they both have their origins in the rebel flappers of the Progressive Movement.


The final argument which is most besetting to the pro-pants argument (if I may call it that) is that pants had been around for essentially hundreds of years and were worn only by men during this time period until the Progressive Movement when women began to also wear pants. Had pants been worn by both men and women from the very beginning, it would seem that my argument would not be as strong but because the article itself was worn only by one sex (men) and then later worn by the other sex (women) is something unprecedented in societal and cultural norms and constitutes as yet another proof for the fact that this practice is no ‘normal’ development which is completely acceptable. Never in the past had a development been made in which the advent of a new style was adopted by only one of the sexes and then later applied to both. This is one of the most troublesome aspects of the argument that pants can be justly worn by Christian women. I would like to present an article to you written in 1960 by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri about the reasons that women should not wear pants (during this time period it was still generally accepted that pants were men’s clothing). I do not intend this to be a part of the argument at this point, but I think you might be interested in hearing it simply from the psychological argument (which he makes) rather than the philosophical. Because the link will be blocked by the moderators and because I do not want to make this an object of the debate (at least right now), I will have to email you the article, but I do not know your email because I have been blocked from using that feature on this website, so please email me so that I can know your email address and can send you the article. God bless.

[God Conquers]

CURSES!

Foiled again!

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, good post, and it seems to me that, as we come to a more precise agreement of definitions the fundamental issues that are truly in disagreement are coming to light.

With regards to pants, I agree with your "timeline" - that is, the progression of events in modern culture and the sociological titles denoting specific periods. However, upon looking at this timeline, it has occured to me that the best that you and I can do, in terms of the progression of women wearing pants, it seems is establish that there were [i]two[/i] origins of the societal change. One of these origins, it appears, has its roots in conservative ideology, while the other has as its basis liberal feminism.

Allow me to illustrate why such reasoning makes sense: We have, in my mind, two origins of the practice of women wearing pants that both take place during the same period: The Progressive Period (1890-1930). It is during this period that we witness the First World War and the first real, nationwide need to move women into the workforce. As I illustrated in my previous post, this need for women in the workforce - motivated by a sense of patriotism and it being a woman's duty to her husband to provide support at home for him while he is away at war - lead to a much more prolific wearing of pants by women. I could argue that the same thing happened during the Civil War, but I think this would be a stretch and not really beneficial for the debate at hand.

Now, despite the fact that I greatly desire to argue the legitimacy of claiming the flappers as the true source of the societal change (based on the fact that they were widely criticised and condemned by both men and women), I will, for the sake of argument, allow that such a proposition is true.

However, my allowing this, I am logically forced to conclude that there are [i]two alternate sources[/i] of the societal change, based on the fact that the ideology motivating women to wear pants in the workforce during WWI was a sense of patriotism and duty to husband than a sense of enflamed feminism. Thus, I would argue that there were two alternate paths that led to the same societal change. The first began, ostensibly, with the flappers, and then progressed with the feminists and later on with the adherents to the sexual revolution. The other path followed the conservative motivations that established the precedent via WWI and then drastically accelerated it during WWII.

To claim that the societal change was entirely due to one or the other would be false, on either of our parts, and so we are left at an intriguing dilemma.

The shift in the social trend was, it appears, caused in part by a good source and in part by a bad one. Thus, when asked the "roots" of her decision to wear pants, a woman could claim that passionate feminism made it a social norm, or she could claim that marital devotion made it a social norm. Arguably, both could be right.

So where does this leave us?

In order to answer this question, I think we should go back to the fulcrum of the argument, our mutually accepted definition: "women's clothing" can be defined as that clothing which is intended for women - whether by physical cut or by societal assumptions, taking into account that "intent" is decided by Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regards to secular society.

So what have we come to understand as of yet?

1.) a woman could argue that the ideological source of the historical beginning of "women's pants" is that of marital devotion, as well as patriotism

2.) a woman could also argue that the ideological source of the historical beginning of "women's pants" is that of feministic disgust for gender roles.

3.) women's pants are cut differently than men's pants

4.)* Women's pants, when properly worn, can be modest.

* I acknowledge that this is not fundamental to the argument, but I feel that, since the issue is one of catholic morality, modesty should not be entirely excluded.

Now, one could argue inconclusively back and forth as to propositions 1 and 2, but we would, ultimately, get no where. I would like also to call to mind that we are using the virtues of Prudence and Wisdom. Prudence and Wisdom, it seems to me, would say that when one reaches an impassable mountain, one should look for another way around. So, from this impassable mountain that is the "debateable ideological backdrop to a historical beginning of modern fashion" I look around to see if we can find another way around, and my eyes land on proposition 3.)

Thus, I would argue that we can prudently and justly say that women's pant's are truly articles of women's clothing, on the basis that they are cut in such a manner that they are naturally intended for women by virtue of their form.

This conclusion does not disregard the ideological beginning of the social trend, but rather, prudently acknowledges that such a line of thinking leads to a dead-end, and turns to a line of reasoning that is more certain.

********************************************************************


Adam, I appologize for not replying to the topic of women "bobbing" their hair, but I did so for a couple reasons. First, this post is quite long as it is (for which I appologize). Second, I do not really know what bobbing connotates: a "short" haircut, but how short are we talking? Third, I think I would need some time to read the Holy Scriptures, reflect, and pray before I can respond in a manner that would do the discussion - and you - justice. If it is something you are interested in, I will be more than happy to do just that.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[amarkich]

Jeff, first of all, you never need to apologize for a long post (I am the king)!

Now, after reading your post I completely agree with your assessment of the historical development and even make an allowance that you are more informed as to the influence of the flappers of the Progressive Era (I have all of my information from an AP United States History high school class and an Honors American Literature high school class and a nominal amount of personally researched information; N.B., these classes were taken at a 'Catholic' high school in Georgia, the former being taught by a progressive herself who somehow considers herself a "conservative Catholic" on moral issues while stating that hunger and starvation is a greater problem in America than abortion--while at the same time asserting that abortion is murder!--and the latter being taught by a true conservative who went to an all-girls college before Vatican II). I also recognize that further historical debate is futile. I agree with your entire post down to the numbering of the four propositions. My only addition would be the following:


Taking into account that intent is decided by (or "measured according to", either is fine) Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence exercised with regard to secular society:
5. (It would be better placed as number 3, moving the other two down) A woman must recognize that pants are the first type of clothing to be designed and worn specifically by one gender and accepted solely as fitting for that gender (males) and then, after hundreds of years (I am not sure how old pants are; I am sure they have at least been around in some form since the Renaissance) became accepted on the other gender (females), thus making the style of clothing available and acceptable to both men and women in the eyes of secular society.


If this proposition is accepted, I argue that, regardless of the veracity and good intentions of proposition 1, that in light of proposition 5 (or, if re-numbering were to occur, 3), pants could not be considered to be in line with the chief measure of intent--Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence--for such an event would be unparalleled and unmatched throughout the history of fashions the genders and due to the fact that [i]the practice was not accepted by Catholics at its onset both in this country and in others[/i]. Furthermore, because the practice was not accepted by most Catholics at the time of its onset and even into its popularity (1960s), the proposition that the practice of women wearing pants does not meet the demands of the definition for the measurement of proper intention as to what constitutes women's clothing (only sufficing to meet the secondary requirement--the approval of secular society--and failing to meet the chief requirement--the approval of Catholic prudence--it should thus be abandoned as a practice by faithful, informed Catholics). Likewise, recognizing that in the realm of Catholic prudence that there are situations in which differing fashions, while changing slightly or even dramatically, would not be offensive to those who assess them provided that both fashions are seen in light of Catholic prudence, i.e., a Catholic from the first century would not find a female's outfit from the future repulsive or contrary to the laws of modesty, or, in this case, of what is considered "women's clothing" such that a Catholic from the first century would not find a Victorian woman's clothing to be repulsive or contrary to feminine attributes in clothing; likewise, neither would a Victorian woman find the styles of a first century Catholic woman to be repulsive or contrary to feminine attributes in clothing.


It is, however, my contention that both a first century Catholic and a Victorian Catholic would equally find a modern outfit consisting of women's pants both repulsive and contrary to proper feminine attributes. To support this contention, I offer the reluctance of some, if not most, Catholics to accept the change in secular society even up to its moderate popularity (before Feminism) and the condemnation of the practice by some in the hierarchy even in its popularity (post-Feminism, or during the Feminist Revolution). Evidence will be provided to support this assertion in the form of an article published by a Cardinal in 1960 stating the negative effects of women wearing pants (which he openly considers men's clothing) as well as the general consensus and sentiment of Catholics while this practiced developed. Coupled with the fact that pants on women developed hundreds of years after the invention of pants, the fact that Catholic prudence in the form of common sentiment and the reluctance of Catholics during the onset of the practice of women wearing pants further illustrates that this practice is not in accord with the primary clause of the accepted definition of what can be considered proper intention concerning women’s clothing.


By the way, I would love to debate more about hair styles as a form of cross dressing [or, if you do not like this terminology, I would like to discuss possible "unacceptable hair styles on women (and men)"]. I am unsure if I used proper punctuation in the preceding sentence, but I suppose that does not really matter.


I have been able to make a lot of free time today and have done my best to reply expeditiously to any arguments in the debate, but I am unsure of whether or not I will be able to comment again today. I will do my best to check at least once more before I go to bed, but I look forward to your reply at any time which is convenient to you. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Adam, I think this will be my last post for a few days, my cousin is getting married in St. Louis and so I need to leave to catch a plane in about an hour. I have no way to know if I will have access to a computer, so if further debate on the topic is necessary, then I will gladly reply when I get home (should be late on Sunday).


You have proposed that we add another point to my list:

[quote]5. (It would be better placed as number 3, moving the other two down) A woman must recognize that pants are the first type of clothing to be designed and worn specifically by one gender and accepted solely as fitting for that gender (males) and then, after hundreds of years (I am not sure how old pants are; I am sure they have at least been around in some form since the Renaissance) became accepted on the other gender (females), thus making the style of clothing available and acceptable to both men and women in the eyes of secular society[/quote]

I must say, I do not think that this is true. Hats were initially worn by men to shield themselves from, while the fashion for women was to use an umbrella so as to not cover their hair. However, this changed over time and it became not only acceptable, but a sign of modesty for women to wear hats by the time of the Civil War (and I am almost certain earlier). This change from men exclusively wearing hats to both genders doing so predates the change in pants.

However, even if I were to grant you this point, which I do not, it seems to me that proposition 5 is not strong enough to outweigh proposition 3 (or, if you like, proposition 3 is not strong enough to outweigh proposition 4, as the ordering does not matter). I think this is true in light of two factors. First, the existence of proposition 1 is not negated by the existence of proposition (3) and so proposition (4) would still remain the only point upon which there is no contention.

More importantly, however, I would like to point out that Catholic Prudence is a thing that can be exercised properly by all people, regardless of their mastery of the historical development of fashion. It seems to me that proposition (3) would be weaker than proposition (4) by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of women are not well informed enough to be able to assert proposition (3). All women, however, can clearly and easily assert proposition (4).

Moreover, even if all of these things were to be completely thrown out the window, it seems to me that proposition (3) does [i]not[/i] lead to the conclusion that you draw.

You state that:

[quote]pants could not be considered to be in line with the chief measure of intent--Catholic traditions and Catholic prudence--for such an event would be unparalleled and unmatched throughout the history of fashions the genders and due to the fact that the practice was not accepted by Catholics at its onset both in this country and in others. [/quote]

1.) Just because an event has never happened before does not immediately mean it is not in line with Catholic prudence. However, I do grant that a thing which has never happened before should be suspect, and carefully considered by that prudence.

2.) The fact that the majority of catholics did not immediately start wearing pants merely shows that catholic prudence was operating as it should - carefully considering a new phenomenon and taking its time to make a decision about it. This is as it should be. In fact, I would claim it imprudence if anything different had happened.

Thus, even by granting proposition (3), the only thing is being asserted is that the informed catholic woman recongises a unique change in what is secularly accepted. The woman can then go further, and state that this unique instance of change in secular acceptance conforms with Catholic Prudence, and is acceptable.

Now, you have used a hypothetical situation which considers the reaction of a first century and Victorian catholic woman to the sight of a woman wearing pants. I am assuming that you are using this not as a proof, but rather, as a method of bolstering your position.

While I admit that it is an intriguing thing to wonder about, I also admit that there is no concrete way of knowing what such people would think. However, I would like to offer the picture a few posts back of a Saint who wore pants as a more concrete thing to consider. While I do not claim that the Saints were sinless or did not make mistakes, I do claim that they serve as models of Catholic Prudence, as well as the other virtues.


But I digress. In summary, I first would like to point out that I disagree with the basic assumption made in proposition (3), but in the interest of not getting into a historical debate, I have worked to show that even the acceptance of proposition (3) does not necessitate the conclusion that women's pants are a form of crossdressing.

If you disagree with any of the points made, or would like to add some insight or point out things that I have missed or gotten wrong, please feel free. Thanks!

********************************************************************

Also, did you see my response to the question you posed about my person feelings and opinions? If you have any comments, or want to elaborate on your personal outlooks, feel free!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff