Is It A Sin?

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:14 PM'] Here is another saint.  St. Joan of Arc. :wub:

She wore pants.  Not to crossdress but to protect her purity.  Was this wrong? [/quote]
Yeah... that was one of the reasons she was excommunicated... just as with much of what she did, her actions are a case confined to her personally, since much of what she did would have been objectionable otherwise (as she was excommunicated for much of it).

Edited August 3, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:36 PM'] [url="http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html"]http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html[/url]

Check out that link. The woman in those pictures is a SAINT. She is wearing pants in about half of them.

[img]http://www.gianna.org/Bl.gianna.3.jpg[/img] [/quote]
Should we read Confessions and imitate what a SAINT did??

Just because she is canonized doesn't mean she didn't sin!

[Dave]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:55 PM'] Should we read Confessions and imitate what a SAINT did??

Just because she is canonized doesn't mean she didn't sin! [/quote]
C'mon now ... I don't know if she was on a ski trip in that photo, but I do know St. Gianna was an avid skier. Are you going to claim she shouldn't have been skiing?

[Tora-Musume]

[quote name='Dave' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:14 PM'] C'mon now ... I don't know if she was on a ski trip in that photo, but I do know St. Gianna was an avid skier. Are you going to claim she shouldn't have been skiing? [/quote]
Good question.

[picchick]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 2 2004, 08:52 PM'] Yeah... that was one of the reasons she was excommunicated... just as with much of what she did, her actions are a case confined to her personally, since much of what she did would have been objectionable otherwise (as she was excommunicated for much of it). [/quote]
Remember, a canonized saint cannot be excommunicated too. So she was acquitted to the Church 23 years later in 1456. As far as I know, women still did not approve of wearning pants in the 1400's.

Meg

[Guest JeffCR07]

still anxiously waiting for someone (ideally Amarkich, because he brought up some good points before) to respond to my post...

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 2 2004, 11:29 PM'] Remember, a canonized saint cannot be excommunicated too. So she was acquitted to the Church 23 years later in 1456. As far as I know, women still did not approve of wearning pants in the 1400's.

Meg [/quote]
Actually, her excommunication, from what I have read and seen in documentaries, was not dropped until just prior to her beatification in the early 1900s. Furthermore, that is what I am trying to say: wearing pants was so wrong that it was an excommunicate-able offense, cross-dressing. That (and many other things she did) were permissible ONLY for her because of special command and revelation from God. God bless.

[amarkich]

[quote]C'mon now ... I don't know if she was on a ski trip in that photo, but I do know St. Gianna was an avid skier. Are you going to claim she shouldn't have been skiing? [/quote]

Dave, as I am sure you remember from Father Bouchard's sermon on Sunday (I was glad to see you and meet you; I hope you come back often in the future), there are some places that are occasions of sin and must be avoided. Father mentioned that none of us should attend public beaches because they are an occasion of sin for everyone (imagine how much worse it is for the people who are actually scandalizing others by their immodesty!). The same would apply here. If there is a situation which is an occasion of sin (cross dressing while skiing), then one would not be able to participate in such an event (Pope Pius XII in his directives for modesty mentions that gymnastics cannot be performed by Catholic women because of the immodesty involved in the act; it would only be acceptable if modest clothing could be worn; the act does not dictate what modesty is required; modesty dictates which acts are acceptable).


Jeff, I just read your introduction to your post. I would be glad to separate our discussion. The points made above will be my final deviation from this new format.


As for the response to your post, the only issue I can really have with it is the idea of intent. Intent is clearly an important aspect of prudence, but I do not think that trusting secular authorities (by this I mean secular prudence) in properly understanding what is women's clothing. If one culture perceived that men should cover their heads and women should leave their heads uncovered as a sign of authority for women or as a sign of modesty for men, this would be improper (even more so if the men covered their heads for prayer and women did not, as this is not only condemned but also adversely contradicted by Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians). While the above does not touch on cross dressing, it is simply a means of illustrating that the secular world does not always exercise prudence in dealing with matters of male and female heterogeneousness.


As I stated earlier, it is my contention that women wearing pants specifically began as a part of the feminist movement and (more commonly later) with the sexual revolution. If this is true (I still do not know whether or not you agree with me), then it would seem that the "prudence" of these movements would be contrary to Catholic prudence as far as societal norms are concerned and would be a valid reason to reject the conclusion (women wearing pants). If you do not agree that feminism and the sexual revolution began the practice of women wearing pants, please reply giving your reasoning behind this change in practice. I essentially agree with you that women's clothes are those clothes which are intended for women. This is true. The only question is: by whose intent are these norms derived? 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? It seems that Catholic prudence is the sole determining factor (or, the chief determining factor) in what is to be considered male clothing and what is to be considered female clothing. If you agree with this statement, then the only issue is the origin of women wearing pants. The question becomes: was the practice of women wearing pants originated by strictly societal changes or was it initiated by a false, imprudent source which is opposed to Catholic thought? If you agree with my statement that Catholic prudence is the chief determining factor in proper female clothing, then it seems that intent can be corrupted by movements or beliefs which are also corrupt, i.e., a relativist believes that there is no difference between clothing and that a dress (as feminine as it may be) is intended to be worn by both a male and a female; his perspective and "prudence" are flawed and corrupted by other false notions which he holds (relativism). The same is true of society. As most older people will tell you, Christianity (read "Catholicism" or, at least, "Catholic culture") was the 'institution' in their childhood (pre-sexual revolution). In this time period, pants were considered absolutely to be men's clothing (although some women may have worn pants as a result of the initial feminist movement).


Another case is also pertinent. One can ask "Is it immoral for a woman to bob her hair?", and I (as well as Saint Paul) would answer: Yes, it is immoral for a woman to have short hair. Society, while it maintained Catholic culture (at least in practice and in thought) agreed completely that a woman having short hair is immoral. Once the practice became popular (around the time that the sexual revolution was takings its roots and a growing number of women were becoming loose with their morals), society treated the practice as acceptable, and it was common even among American Catholics by the 1950s. Does it mean that the practice is now acceptable simply because almost all women (even Catholics) do it? Of course not. This serves simply as an example of how societal ‘prudence’ and belief concerning what is acceptable as far as fashions are concerned can be flawed. Society views short hair as an acceptable practice for both men and women. This does not mean that it is correct (N.B., I am considering this to be on par with cross dressing and in the same field, i.e., women wearing short hair is a question which is equivalent to women wearing certain kinds of clothing which may be deemed to be men’s clothing; it may even be worse since it is permanent).


Do you agree that the source of the intention is a relevant question, or do you assert that the source of the intention need only be the particular society in question (that as long as a large group of people accept a certain fashion to be ‘feminine’, it is acceptable as far as fashions for men and women are concerned)? If you believe that the society is the sole judge as to what deems the intention to be correct and acceptable or flawed and unacceptable (in regard to women’s clothing vs. men’s clothing), then your definition would stand and you have won the argument, but I wholeheartedly disagree that the society is the sole rule of judgment as to what deems something to be an acceptable intention, and I assert that the chief determining factor must be unmarred Catholic prudence. If you accept that Catholic prudence plays the vital role, then the argument is based on the source of the practice of women wearing pants. I will do my best to respond expediently to your next reply.


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.

[picchick]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Aug 3 2004, 03:46 PM'] Actually, her excommunication, from what I have read and seen in documentaries, was not dropped until just prior to her beatification in the early 1900s. Furthermore, that is what I am trying to say: wearing pants was so wrong that it was an excommunicate-able offense, cross-dressing. That (and many other things she did) were permissible ONLY for her because of special command and revelation from God. God bless. [/quote]
Check it out Catholicguy,
[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj05.htm"]Citation[/url]

and
[quote]Twenty-four years later a revision of her trial, the procès de réhabilitation, was opened at Paris with the consent of the Holy See. The popular feeling was then very different, and, with but the rarest exceptions, all the witnesses were eager to render their tribute to the virtues and supernatural gifts of the Maid. The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear, and it speaks well for the sincerity of this new inquiry that it could not be made without inflicting some degree of reproach upon both the King of France and the Church at large, seeing that so great an injustice had been done and had so long been suffered to continue unredressed. Even before the rehabilitation trial, keen observers, like Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini (afterwards Pope Pius II), though still in doubt as to her mission, had discerned something of the heavenly character of the Maid. In Shakespeare's day she was still regarded in England as a witch in league with the fiends of hell, but a juster estimate had begun to prevail even in the pages of Speed's "History of Great Britaine" (1611). By the beginning of the nineteenth century the sympathy for her even in England was general. Such writers as Southey, Hallam, Sharon Turner, Carlyle, Landor, and, above all, De Quincey greeted the Maid with a tribute of respect which was not surpassed even in her own native land. Among her Catholic fellow-countrymen she had been regarded, even in her lifetime, as Divinely inspired. [/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm"]Citation[/url]


See was canonized in the 1900's. 1920 to be exact by Pope Benedict XV.

[amarkich]

Bump to Jeff.

[Dave]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 3 2004, 06:35 PM']
Dave, as I am sure you remember from Father Bouchard's sermon on Sunday (I was glad to see you and meet you; I hope you come back often in the future), there are some places that are occasions of sin and must be avoided. Father mentioned that none of us should attend public beaches because they are an occasion of sin for everyone (imagine how much worse it is for the people who are actually scandalizing others by their immodesty!). The same would apply here. If there is a situation which is an occasion of sin (cross dressing while skiing), then one would not be able to participate in such an event (Pope Pius XII in his directives for modesty mentions that gymnastics cannot be performed by Catholic women because of the immodesty involved in the act; it would only be acceptable if modest clothing could be worn; the act does not dictate what modesty is required; modesty dictates which acts are acceptable).
[/quote]
I was glad to see and meet you too. As for Fr. Bouchard, I agreed with what he said about public beaches, but only to a point. I agree that they can indeed be occasions of sin. However, some places and situations are near occasions of sin for everyone, and others are near occasions of sin only for certain people. Are there people for whom public beaches would be a near occasion of sin? Yes. But would it be a near occasion for EVERYONE? No. There ARE men out there who are able to control their thoughts and exercise custody of the eyes. Heck, in this day and age, where immodesty runs rampant everywhere, we all have to do that everywhere! Everywhere is a potential occasion of sin, but that doesn't mean we have to lock ourselves in a closet to escape from such occasions.

And as for skiing, c'mon now, how many guys do you know who lust after every girl they see on the slopes? A ski outfit is hardly immodest!

As for Pope Pius XII's directives, they weren't meant to be doctrine. The pope is entitled to his opinions, but that doesn't mean that just because he believes something it's automatically true. Of course, I'm not referring to Church doctrine or dogma. Take, for example, Pope John Paul II's belief that the war in Iraq is an unjust war. That is one of those things about which Catholics may disagree with the pope and still be faithful Catholics. It has nothing to do with doctrine or dogma.

Edited August 4, 2004 by Dave

[amarkich]

It is impossible to guard one's eyes when a woman has a bikini on. There is nothing you can do to somehow avoid that. Even if you do not lust, it is at least a scandalous sight to see a person practically naked. That is enough of a reason to avoid public beaches. I don't think it was immodest, I was just saying that if pants are cross dressing, then it would be scandalous for a woman to go skiing because she would be forced to cross dress. Pope Pius XII spoke as the Pope concerning a facet of morals. Even if it is not [i]Ex Cathedra[/i], it is still the Popes proclamation concerning morals, and it should be followed strictly by all faithful Catholics. Before Vatican II one was pretty much always safe listening absolutely to those in authority. Obviously this has changed, but when the Pope gives directives concerning morality, faithful Catholics must obey. 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. In any event, I would like to keep the replies pertinent to the topic at hand (Jeff is doing a wonderful job, but I invite you to join if you wish), but you can reply to this as much as you like; after that, however, I think it would be best to maintain the argument that the thread is following (namely, whether or not pants are cross dressing for women). God bless.

[Socrates]

[quote]Furthermore, that is what I am trying to say: wearing pants was so wrong that it was an excommunicate-able offense, cross-dressing. That (and many other things she did) were permissible ONLY for her because of special command and revelation from God. God bless.[/quote]

So God commands people to commit mortal sins??!!!

You people need to get real! I'm a conservative, orthodox Catholic, and far from feminist, but find this silliness about women's pants and hair utterly insane!

So good and saintly women are commiting mortal sin by wearing modest pants? This is all because of the sexual revolution? I'm a man and personally, I prefer skirts and dresses on women, but also find skirts much sexier!

Please, enough of this pharisaical quibbling, and show a little common sense!

[Dave]

Of course it's possible! A person can look down or away.

I'm sorry, but as to what would be considered immodest is not a teaching of the Church on morals. That we must be modest IS a teaching of the Church. The type of attire that would be considered immodest falls in the realm of common sense.

So, according to you, if we can't disagree with what popes (whether past or present) claim is immodest, then would you say that we also mustn't disagree when our present pope calls the war in Iraq unjust? Do you believe that a pope is infallible in his personal opinions? The Church doesn't teach that that is so.

I'm sorry, but considering that you haven't exactly spoken of Pope John Paul II in the most glowing terms on this phorum, I can't take seriously your claim that Catholics today pay too much attention to him and not previous popes. I'm sure the faithful Catholics on this phorum pay attention to all of them. I'm sorry to be blunt, but maybe you should do the same rather than pay attention to past popes and ignore the current one.

[amarkich]

Socrates, if you wish to join the argument, please respond to my post; otherwise, please refrain from posting what would can be deemed "worthless posts" that only distort the flow of the debate.

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.