Is It A Sin?

[Madonna]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 03:31 PM'] 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. [/quote]
I don't mind disagreeing with people ni the slightest. But it's really hard to maintain respect if you're going to be demeaning. I don't recall insulting you.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 05:31 PM'] 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. [/quote]
lol
"semantical arguments and the subjectivism "

So in other words you cut and run, instead of actually addressing our points.

Nowhere does the Holy father address many of the issues we have raised, and no where does he address culture or pants.

[catholicguy]

This will be my last post, so do not attempt to lure me back with similar statements as the ones above. I am leaving the thread because I am unable to respond to the rest of Phatmass when I am only one person, and there are several more people posting just as often as I am about several topics both relevant and irrelevant. In any event, the reason I left the modesty directives is that a person asked for them (this was the latest post on the thread when I returned). I did not say that it had anything to do with crossdressing. I do not have time to answer the same question five times then get to the real points afterward (this is addressed to cmom who demeaningly posted pictures concerning men wearing outfits which I had already answered, all of which were very masculine). I will not be reading the thread anymore, but I hope I helped Madonna by giving her the Church's directives on modesty.

To Madonna, I did not mean those comments to you necessarily, and I do not find them to be demeaning. That is what the thread became--semantical and subjective. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 28 2004, 05:02 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Our society doesn't define much anymore does it?

Really? The body and soul are inseparable up until death. A body is simply a walking soul, so souls are difinitely male or female.

Each soul is created in the image and likeness of God, will live forever and has an innate dignity. We should be looking at this in everyone we meet. But to dismiss distinct gender and brain differences as "physical, emotional and psychological baggage it has accumulated over the centuries." is to overlook reality in favor of some vague PC notion of equality.

You may disagree about God choosing one's gender by that doesn't change the reality of it. True freedom is accepting what God has given you and making the most of it.

When talking to someone on the net, it makes little difference whether one is male female, old young, pretty or ugly. What counts is one's heart. However that does not negate the value of gender in real life. Men cannot have babies and women cannot be sperm donors.

Homosexuality is a disorder, the natural affections are dis-ordered , not ordered in the right direction.

Natural law does judge. It judges courage to be good, and murder to be bad. It judges between right and wrong, it is the small still voice implanted in every human being.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Jul 28 2004, 11:51 AM'] Pants used to be strictly men's clothing though. We wear them now.

so do you dress according to culture? This is such a gray area. [/quote]
Well...hmmm...let's see.....


The garments which were worn in Old Testament time would be most like the dresses today. So, women, I guess we'd better not wear anything, because if we wear dresses, then we're dressing like men in Old Testament Times, and if we wear pants, well...we're dressing like men in modern day. Let's just go around nude, cause that's not dressing like men....

[Oik]

[quote]Nowhere does the Holy father address many of the issues we have raised, and no where does he address culture or pants.[/quote]

Not to be a jerk, but JP II did address culture. He said that we live in a culture of death.

Jesus said that the man(male or female, really) that looks at a woman (or male, really) lustfully has already committed adultery. Men are sensory stimulated and therefore called to a more demending aspect of discipline(sp) concerning the mental-sexual aspect of life. However, women are directly part of this aspect, as they are (rightfully so) the object of desire (read: not lust).

I don't think that pants necessarily degrade or devalue a woman, or cause scandal much anymore. In the same rescpect, capitalism doesn't really starve people or bankrupt them. However, just as the cost of captialism was/is poverty, greed, and death, certain fashion was/is brought about at the expense of lust, rape, fornication, scandal, and promiscuity (read: this is and opinion, so don't think I'm speaking definatively).

[cmotherofpirl]

I was addressing the Pope quoted, I know the Holy Father has addressed the culture of death.

CG contends that since the Pope has not ruled on pants we shouldn't wear them.

I agree with everything you say.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Many men find skirts--even modest long skirts, not just skimpy imodest ones--far more lusty than pants. I have read things from priests who comment on this and say that often pants are much more modest than dresses or skirts.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Jul 28 2004, 05:45 PM'] Well...hmmm...let's see.....


The garments which were worn in Old Testament time would be most like the dresses today. So, women, I guess we'd better not wear anything, because if we wear dresses, then we're dressing like men in Old Testament Times, and if we wear pants, well...we're dressing like men in modern day. Let's just go around nude, cause that's not dressing like men.... [/quote]
W00 HOO!!!





wait.....






married AND catholic.





retracts "Woo-hoo" statement

[Madonna]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Jul 28 2004, 04:45 PM'] Well...hmmm...let's see.....


The garments which were worn in Old Testament time would be most like the dresses today. So, women, I guess we'd better not wear anything, because if we wear dresses, then we're dressing like men in Old Testament Times, and if we wear pants, well...we're dressing like men in modern day. Let's just go around nude, cause that's not dressing like men.... [/quote]

[Azriel]

did ya'll know that cmom is my hero?

Maybe I should make Dani wear only dresses from now on ...

Wait ... I just called my baby girl a name historically considered a man's ..... oh the horror!

[mmmerf]

[quote name='Oik' date='Jul 28 2004, 06:57 PM'] Not to be a jerk, but JP II did address culture. He said that we live in a culture of death.

[/quote]
I think he was speaking more to the sexual depravity rampant in our society, the disregard for the sanctity of life and the abandonment of social justice... and less about, y'know, slacks.



In regards to Catholic Guy:

But you're not reading so it doesn't matter. Best of luck to you my friend, you'll need every ounce of it.

In regards to Carrdero:

Your philosophy of 'preference' means that the [b]only[/b] reason I shouldn't take a hammer to your head is because you'd [b]prefer[/b] I didn't. Don't you think we need more reason than that?


Good then.

Dave

[God Conquers]

Carrdero,

You are making many fundamental errors in basic logic and philosophy.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Our bodies are not "shells" for our souls. We are indivisible in our physical and spiritual natures.

Examining something at greater and deeper lenght (i.e. gender) will never lead us further away from understanding it.

[quote] natural law does not judge[/quote]

This is nonsense. Laws by their very nature judge.

[quote]GOD does not choose our gender[/quote]

I can't even begin to understand how you believe this is possible. How could a creator NOT decide or choose what He is creating.

Science can never be entirely separate from religion, because biology will nbever be entirely separare from spirituality and psychology. You can not separate gender and personhood. They are the same. We are male in mind and body, or female in mind and body. We do not choose. Some people have unatural (like you admit) inclinations to rebel against their gender. We all have struggles that must be overcome.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I hope people arn't too tired of this thread to read my comments, I came in kind of late:

[quote]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]


Ultimately, this argument is drastically flawed from an intellectual standpoint. I do not know from what theological basis you come (it seems not a catholic one) so I will approach the question from two angles.

Biblical: If you believe the Bible to be the true Word of God, then you need look no further than the familiar Genesis quote, "He created Man and Woman. Man and Woman, he created them." We are made, from the beginning, as male or female: two distinct things, and this was done directly by God's Active Will, so there is little question how God "views" us: He views us as He made us: male or female, as well as being individual persons.

Non-Biblical: I will spend more time here, because it seems to me that your current position is a dualistic one. Based on your quotes, it seems as if your view of "person" is a distinctly spiritual one, and that God views our spirits exclusive and irrespective of our bodies. This, however, does not hold much water from an intellectual standpoint.

If one considers your ideas as merely the application of Aristotelian "Form" (which it most closely resembles) then let us consider the following. An entinty exists, primarily, because it has a "Form." That is, the "idea" or [i]Form[/i] of "tree" exists not exclusively in the physical reality of the tree. However, the [i]Form[/i] necessitates the physical reality of the tree, and, as such, there is a unity between the substance and that which is substantiated. Now let us consider the issue of "accident" as it regards the idea of Form and physical reality.

Philosophically speaking, an accident is that whichis incurred upon a thing but which does not change its [i]Form[/i]. So, using the tree example, If I go up and cut out a square chunk from the side of the tree, it is still a tree. Moreover, if the tree has a disease, or if locus eat its leaves, it remains a tree. Even more, if a tree is born and grows misformed, bent and warped, bearing no fruit or leaves, it remains a tree still.

However, one must understand that there is a very great distinction between an accident and a substantial change. If I cut a tree down and burn it, that is not merely an "accident" for the [i]Form[/i] of the tree ceases to exist and in its place, the [i]Form[/i] of smoke and ash is left. This should be juxtaposed with an example of natural growth and change that occurs without a change in the form, so take the case of an acorn. The "purpose" or "order" of an acorn is for it to grow into an oak tree and, as such, throughout its entire life and physical transformation, it retains the same [i]Form[/i]. It should be noted that whether or not an individual acorn does or does not become an oak tree does not change the fact that it is ordered towards doing so.

So, how does this relate to gender? One could very well consider our souls the same thing as our [i]Form[/i]. We can see that gender is actually an aspect of our [i]Form[/i] or soul, and not merely physical, if we run through the test above. A female baby is born. All female babies are ordered towards producing and nurturing offspring, as all acorns are ordered towards becoming oak trees. As we have already shown, if a female baby is born impotent, the baby's soul remains female, just as an acorn that is born with a disease that halts its growth remains ordered towards becoming an oak tree and so keeps its [i]Form[/i].

Thus we see that, even from a philosophical standpoint, gender is an aspect of the soul which necessitates a physical reality, and, as such, is intimately related to the soul, or [i]Form[/i] of the individual.

In fact, one would be right to argue that your stance, which holds the soul as an androgenous, nondescript blob of spiritual energy, is dehumanizing, for such a stance still maintains that our souls are important, but holds that our physical reality is inescapably seperate from that same fundamentally important soul.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[curtins]

[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." [/quote]

HA! they should come to some of my CATHOLIC school dances- HOOCHY SKIRTS!!!!!!!!!

and now to the cross dressing:

cmotherofpirl and dave- I agree with you guys completely on this issue. Catholicguy youre taking it WAY too far. girls wearing pants, t-shirts, or sweatshirts is NOT A SIN- I think women look very smart in pants and a jacket

ok look I go to a Catholic school and like 1 day in the year the 8th grade guys put on the girls uniforms- thats cross dressing but its for fun!!! for laughs!!! not to be perverted!!!! THERES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE. and this past winter the girls were allowed to wear pants instead of their usual skirts becuase it was like -5 every day- is it sinful to keep warm??????? catholicguy ur really taking it to the extremems- please stop

LETS LEAVE IT AT THIS: guy or girl if they cross dress to feel horny or sexy or sumthing perverted and it is giving them sexual pleasure then THAT is a sin- if they are doing it for a play, a skit, or just for laughs- then thats not giving them Sexual pleasure- its not a sin