Is It A Sin?

[cmotherofpirl]

WORD~!!!

[ironmonk]

NAB:
Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman shall not wear an article [b]proper to a man[/b], nor shall a man put on a [b]woman's dress[/b]; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.


Douay-Rheims:
Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman shall not be clothed with [b]man's apparel[/b], neither shall a man use [b]woman's apparel [/b]: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.


Pants made for women are ok for women to wear.


For other situations regarding humor, or a costume party, I think it might be a venial sin for cross dressing.... still it's a sin until the Church says otherwise.

For the very reason that it could an occassion of sin for others, not knowing that the crossdresser is doing it for humor might think that nothing is wrong with it.


Also, is it worth the risk of it being a sin to do it? What good can come out of it?

Fun? Funny? - Why does it seem that way? Because it's taboo and simply wrong.


When I see official Church documents that says otherwise, I'll change my mind.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[mmmerf]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:59 PM'] Well, men have worn pants for a long period of time (I am not sure of the actual dates, but definitely since the late Middle Ages). Women have worn pants for 30 or 40 years. I think history alone tells us that pants are men's clothing. [/quote]

...yeah, and history tells us slavery is acceptable too. History is a fickle judge.

[quote]Just because the majority of women wear pants that does not mean that it is somehow acceptable and not sinful. I know plenty of women (and girls) who do not wear pants. In any event, I do not really think that anyone should wear t-shirts    but I suppose it would be acceptable for a man to wear them if he is working. I cannot see a reason for a woman to [i]want[/i] to wear a t-shirt since they are so unbecoming of feminine beauty.[/quote]

That's simply ridiculous. Women shouldn't wear pants because they're unbecoming of feminine beauty? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you should be wondering is do pants detract from feminine DIGNITY. And you know what? They don't.

[quote]In any event, I do not think anyone would classify such attire as being feminine, but surely it could be classified as masculine. For this reason, t-shirts can be considered men's clothing. It is wrong to crossdress, regardless of intent, because intention does not have a bearing on matters which are intrinsically evil.[/quote]

By this rationale it would be wrong for me to dress a jewish man up as a woman in order to sneak him out of Nazi Germany alive.

Quite frankly I don't think this is what the church teaches on crossdressing. I'm not saying it's okay, but putting a man in a dress is not necessarily an evil act. Intent does matter.

[quote]If a man is a homosexual and he does not think it is wrong and does not "know" it is wrong, then is it therefore not wrong? Of course not. [/quote]

Hah. Here you tip your apparently bigoted hand. Homosexuality is not wrong. Homosexuality is a disorder. But it is the ACTS that are right or wrong. Not the disorder. Which is an extremely important distinction.

If the church has a formal teaching on crossdressing then I would presume it has to do with refusing to accept the identity given one by God, or attempting to mislead or cause scandal. But even then, while it might constitute grave matter, sinfulness does depend on knowledge and consent. If it's done as a joke, one's identity is not at issue, and hence the condition of knowledge is not present. So it could not be considered sinful. If it causes scandal unintentionally, then consent is not present. Again, it could not be considered sinful.

Intent and situation do matter in this case. And what is at stake is the dignity of the human person, not their beauty.

And I look very dignified in a Kilt, which is why I was married in one. Booyeah!

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='mmmerf' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:50 PM'] And I look very dignified in a Kilt, which is why I was married in one. Booyeah! [/quote]
So did my brother in law! (He's fron Ireland, they got married here in the states and his family all flew over. It rocked!) Niall looked EXTREMELY dignified.

[Aloysius]

when he said "if a man is a homosexual..." it is clearly to be understood that the person acts on it.

it [i]is[/i] wrong to 'be a homosexual'

but some people have certain desires, temptations.. they just cannot act on them.

i don't think it's right to call him bigoted for that statement.

that said, you can't say that pants are by nature men's aparel, it simply doesn't make sense. the thing that's wrong is if someone dresses to look like the opposite sex. it is dependent on the culture's clothing customs. women wearing pants is not crossdressing.

the slavery argument doesn't hold up though. history for 2000 years of Christianity has told us that unjust slavery is wrong.

[cmotherofpirl]

Homosexuality is disordered which means its nature [same-sax atrraction]is turned in the wrong direction.

Homosex is the sin, not the atrraction itself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Jul 28 2004, 03:59 PM'] So did my brother in law! (He's fron Ireland, they got married here in the states and his family all flew over. It rocked!) Niall looked EXTREMELY dignified. [/quote]
Are you going to tell them they are sinning?

[cmotherofpirl]

or this

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 28 2004, 04:04 PM']when he said "if a man is a homosexual..." it is clearly to be understood that the person acts on it.

it [i]is[/i] wrong to 'be a homosexual'

but some people have certain desires, temptations.. they just cannot act on them.

[/quote]
Ummm... no sale. Wrong is what we do, not who we are. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but this is an important point. Our Lord dined with prostitutes and tax collectors. He told them to change what they did, but he loved who they were. We are not identified to God only by what we do.

[quote]i don't think it's right to call him bigoted for that statement.[/quote]

Hmm. I dunno. The Church takes a lot of blows over statements like his, and I feel they misrepresent her teachings. We are not called to judge people. Only actions.

[quote]that said, you can't say that pants are by nature men's aparel, it simply doesn't make sense.  the thing that's wrong is if someone dresses to look like the opposite sex.  it is dependent on the culture's clothing customs.  women wearing pants is not crossdressing.[/quote]

Amen.

[quote]the slavery argument doesn't hold up though.  history for 2000 years of Christianity has told us that unjust slavery is wrong.[/quote]

He was judging by what people had done for centuries, not what Christianity has taught.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:38 PM']
[/quote]
Shall we talk about standards for men's modesty?
Dress and tights perhaps?

Medieval outfit for a merchant

[Madonna]

Gosh, I go to lunch and come back a bit later and I'm pages behind!

[quote]Madonna writes: I think the ventures into dangerous territory. That completely nullifies male and female roles

I think the boundaries should be nullified. If I was to have any relationship with anyone it would not be because they were a man or a women or an animal or a plant. It would be because they are a pleasing entity to be around. I think one of the reasons that GOD created man and women was so that we could simply identify with another entity not so that we could classify or catagorize or stereotype a sex race or creed or color. You don't hear to many people going around saying "This is Brenda she is my woman friend, or this is Carl he is my black friend or this is Sheila she's Catholic. We are human beings first and foremost and that is how we should perceive and accept people. This is how GOD understands us. What would be the benefit of GOD recognizing you as a man or a woman or black or white or Jewish or born again. How could this recognition be fair to other people who aren't of a specific gender race creed or color?[/quote]

But you just contradicted yourself within the paragraph. [i] "If I was to have any relationship with anyone it would not be because they were a man or a women or an animal or a plant."[/i] But then all of the sudden [i]We are human beings first and foremost and that is how we should perceive and accept people.[/i] You just categorized human's within the realm of God's creation.

[quote]Madonna writes: With gender comes certain duties and responsibilities.

Yes and the duties and responsbilities are all yours deciding which model (man or women) you chose to be. Don't forget a great deal of these responsibilities have been thrown at us through are upbringing. A mother who tells her daughter that she should sit with her legs crossed or the father who tells his son not to cry because real men don't cry. These are just simple examples but there are many unforgivable and irreversable examples already in effect.[/quote]

I think while human beings have free will, they have strong instincts that show evidence of their roles. I have a deep desire to be a mother. When I'm around children, I feel like I'm glowing. My whole disposition changes. I feel strongly called to nuture and care for people. I know many men who feel called to provide and protect. I don't think that is a desire that can be denied.

[quote]Madonna writes: A huge part of who I am is my sexuality and the fact that I am woman.

Fortunately or Unfortunately I do not live my life like that. Though I do sometimes feel the outside pressures of how a man or a guy is supposed to act (or react) I do not wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say "Wow am I glad I am a man or Gee I sure do wish I could have been a woman". My interests, my beliefs, the clothes I wear, the things I do are not based on mild misconceptions of the fact that I am existing in the body of a man. It is just something that I chose not to contend with.[/quote]

I'm really disliking the phrase "existing in the body of a man". You ARE a man. I AM a woman. That is who I am. Physiologically, emotionally, and mentally. How can you not contend with your sexuality and gender? I don't feel pressured to do certain things and be what society says just because I am a woman. I think their is such thing as natural law.

Even in animal groups, males and females have different roles. In the case of lions, for example, the females always hunt.

[quote]
Madonna writes: If our genders weren't important, God would have probably made us so we could just replicate like bacteria.

What is wrong with replicating like bacteria? What is wrong with all those creatures who reproduce asexually?[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with reproducing asexually if that is how you were designed. But humans are not designed so. Part of the dignity and beauty of the human being is their ability to bond and become one with someone of the opposite sex. Through this bond creates new life. That is blow my mind amazing.

I love being human. I love being a woman.

Edited July 28, 2004 by Madonna

[carrdero]

cmotherofpirl writes: You are confusing culture and gender.

Sadly in our society these lines aren't defined to well

cmotherofpirl writes: You are either male body and soul or female body and soul , that is biology.

You are confusing science with spirituality. I agree that we are either male body or female body (though it is interesting why we only have those two choices) but trust me the soul does not recognize these differences.

cmotherofpirl writes:A hermaphrodite still has more of one side or the other.

Are you speaking about gender or culture here?

God Conquers writes: , I suggest you take a closer look at the physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual natures of the sexes.

It is this "closer look" in differences that has gotten our society to be the way it is today. I am saying look beyond the differences and accept people for who they are, not what model body (shell) they are wearing and not all the physical, emotional and psychological baggage it has accumulated over the centuries.

Aloysius writes:men are men. women are women. they should act as such. men and women are intrinsically different. we do not decide our gender, God does.

I disagree. Men should not act like men? Women should act like women? How do you act like a man? How do you act like a woman? Old people should act like old people? Children should behave as children? Who says that we should act this way?
I also disagree about GOD choosing our gender. I truly believe that we have all the freedom of the way we live our lives and the choices that we make and the beliefs that we believe and the truths that we adopt as our own. For GOD to go dealing out genders to people goes against what TRUE freedom is and the freedom that comes with knowing and understanding who GOD is.

mmmerf writes:While it is unfair to make judgements on a person based solely on their gender, it's also unfair to negate that difference entirely.

Well lets use this present internet relationship as a example. I can't see you. I don't know what "mmmerf" means or if you or a boy or a girl (really I haven't given it much thought). Here we are having a charitable debate and we can safely assume we do not know if we are a man or woman. Lets say you tell me or I direct a web cam and reveal to you who I am. Does it make a difference? Can you see any benefit or importance in the fact that you know that I am a man or a woman? Relationships like these are going on everyday, every instance on the web.

I also think that NATURAL LAW can tell the difference between men and woman but you should also remember that NATURAL LAW does not judge.

mmmerf writes:God loves us unconditionally

Beautifully and truthfully put but please do not forget this aspect of GOD

mmmerf writes: Homosexuality is a disorder.

It is not a disorder. Homosexuality is a preference.

Aloysius writes: it is wrong to 'be a homosexual'

It is not wrong to be homosexual it is UNNATURAL to be homosexual but you should also remember that NATURAL LAW does not judge.

[Madonna]

[quote]
The Church has given us directives for women's modesty. The directives did not mention the wearing of pants whatsoever but only spoke of skirts and dresses. Until the Church gives directives about women wearing pants, we cannot presume God's mercy because of a culture change which originated with radical feminism, a heresy itself.
[/quote]

[quote]The Church has said that women's skirts and dresses must cover to the elbow, two fingers below the pit of the throat, and must be more than "scarcely below the knee." The directives give no information concerning pants and certainly not concerning shorts. From this it can be derived that this attire is not suitable for women.
[/quote]


Would you please tell me where that is written?



All in all, I do think women should remain covered somewhat. Not to the extent of Middle Eastern cultures, but still covered. Although i saw a woman today with her head covered and a garb down to her ankles. She looked positively beautiful.

[catholicguy]

I apologize to those of you who made actual points to add to the argument, but I simply do not have time to read through the semantical arguments and the subjectivism that characterizes much of the thread. In any event, I will leave the Church's directives for modesty since I have seen this question clearly posted (it is the last one). The Church has spoken on modesty, issuing a statement which speaks on morals from Pope Pius XII himself. Here it is:

[b]Standards of Modesty in Dress[/b]
(Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956)
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper."

There is a website which has all kinds of sources about modesty. It is called CatholicModesty.com. The website is great. It has a whole toolbar of quotes about modesty from the Church, the Bible, the CCC, the Saints, and more. God bless.

[Aloysius]

i really don't feel like talking about homosexuality right now. i am to homosexuality what an alchoholic is to alchohol, and I'm goin sober.

Our bodies and souls are made for each other, our soul is made for our body and our body is made for our soul. men and women are different. it's a fact that none of your rhetoric can disprove.

acting like a man means not being effeminate. you are called to masculinity. it means if you have a wife spiritually being the head of your household, you act self-sacrificially towards her. you give blessings to your children and you and your wife raise them. you lead your family in prayer. That is the role of a man in a family. the woman's role is to serve her husband, the man's role is to be self-sacrificial to her wife. the are both equal in dignity, but not equal in their role and actions.

only men can be priests. the role of a man is to spiritually lead the community. women have a different role. the woman is equal in dignity but not in role to men. the man is equal in dignity but not in role to women.

for a single man masculinity is still important. a man should be able to catch friends when they fall, be sturdy and kind, masculine. the code of chivalry should still apply to a good man.


different roles, equal dignity.

masculinity is intrinsically meant to be a part of a man, and feminity is intrinsically meant to be a part of a woman.