Modesty: Does It Include Bare Shoulders In Church?

[kateri05]

[quote]But I will say the following unapologetically: nuns should not wear pants.[/quote]

i couldn't agree more. nun should not, with rare exceptions, wear ordinary clothes. they should wear habits, and their habits should be fun by this i mean, real habits.

in addition, i will go so far as to say that priests should rarely wear pants. well, i guess pants alone, because i think they should wear cassocks, or their order's habit, 99% of the time. why? because cassocks rock my sox and honestly, there is nothing quite as priesty as a priest in a cassock

[quote]Deut 22 is being taken out of context[/quote]

entirely. how do we know? because the Magisterium is the arbiter of Scriptural interpretation and clearly, have not made pants wrong, sinful, intrinsically disordered, etc. MODESTY is the issue. Deut. 22 clearly is speaking about cross-dresssing.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1380412' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:13 PM']While I agree with your point about intrinsic tendencies, "gender" is a social and behavioral construct that is based, in part, on "sex," not the act but primary and secondary physiological characteristic, i.e. genitals, body hair, hormones, of course, deep or high voice, etc.[/quote]


[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1380420' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:18 PM']I also have a question specifically for you, which I hope is not too personal. I recall earlier in the thread you said pants for women are "intrinsically disordered." Yet, on your facebook profile, you have several pictures of yourself from earlier this year and late last year wearing jeans. Is this a relatively new conviction for you?[/quote]
I didn't say that I personally believed that pants were intrinsically disordered. I also didn't say that wearing pants is wrong, although I definitely believe that skirts really should have the pride of place.

As for my personal clothing preferences, I started exclusively wearing skirts since I graduated from college, mainly because they're more feminine and are pretty. Plus, my future husband really likes it. On the odd occasion, I'll wear pants, either when I'm doing something that involves getting dirty or it's one of those days where I really need to do laundry and it's the only thing I own that's clean. Also, you'll see a lot of pictures on me on facebook that document the many dumb things I did in college, most notably the picture of me playing liturgical music on the guitar at a Campus Ministry Mass. I have since repented for such offenses.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1380439' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:40 PM']I have since repented for such offenses.[/quote]
sorry, that just struck me as darn phunny

[Sojourner]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1380439' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:40 PM']I didn't say that I personally believed that pants were intrinsically disordered. I also didn't say that wearing pants is wrong, although I definitely believe that skirts really should have the pride of place.

As for my personal clothing preferences, I started exclusively wearing skirts since I graduated from college, mainly because they're more feminine and are pretty. Plus, my future husband really likes it. On the odd occasion, I'll wear pants, either when I'm doing something that involves getting dirty or it's one of those days where I really need to do laundry and it's the only thing I own that's clean. Also, you'll see a lot of pictures on me on facebook that document the many dumb things I did in college, most notably the picture of me playing liturgical music on the guitar at a Campus Ministry Mass. I have since repented for such offenses.[/quote]
Fair enough.

I edited because I felt a little uncomfortable about putting up something about facebook stuff ... sorry if that was offensive.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1379701' date='Sep 6 2007, 02:18 PM']We're straying into dangerous territory here. If a four-year-old child can't wear a sleeveless dress for fear of provoking lustful thoughts in a man, we need to pay attention to that man's psychological need to get into counselling. Pronto. The little girl's wardrobe is not the problem here.

This made an old alarm bell clang for me. In Saudi I used to hear a lot of people (mainly men) talking about how women should cover up 'for their own protection'. I have a lot of respect for my female Muslim friends who wear [i]hijab[/i] - they're intelligent, bubbly, creative women who cover for the sake of their own convictions. But as soon as people start saying women have to dress in a certain way to 'protect' themselves, I say that the time has come to focus on the supposed threat and challenge that.

Even here in Britain, a country which is supposed to have a fine justice system, women are frightened to report cases of rape because they are often made to feel as if they provoked the assault. I know this from my experience with the Cambridge Rape Crisis Centre. Saying that women in sleeveless tops must bear the responsibility for provoking lustful thoughts in the man who is sitting two pews away is not so very far removed from saying, "She was in a cheap miniskirt. She was asking for it."

They may sound like they are poles apart, but unfortunately they are not.[/quote]

wholeheartedly agree that men who lust over four-year-olds need counselling, and pronto! don't agree at all with the "she was asking for it" mentality - that's not what i'm saying, and i'm sorry you took it that way. as i said, i just don't recognize the intrinsic value of a first communicant showing off her shoulders and upper arms (but, if you can explain that value to me, i could reconsider the issue). as for the four-year-olds, i just think it is never too soon for little girls to learn to respect themselves and dress modestly, and that parents should be aware of the dangers of letting their little darlings go out dressed in ways that could draw the wrong kind of attention. seriously, i've even seen little girls wearing earrings and make-up out in public - two things designed to draw the attention of members of the opposite sex!

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380201' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:50 AM']But I will say the following unapologetically: nuns should not wear pants. period.

nuns and brides are important bastions of dresses, in any case.[/quote]

agree - nuns shouldn't wear pants, nor should they wear make-up and earrings! he-hee!

as for the nuns and brides part - you'd never see (i hope!) a nun showing off her chest and shoulders, though. in fact, most wear long-sleeves (yes, even in the heat and humidity) - some, like the Nashville Dominicans, even have false sleeves on underneath, just in case their habit sleeves are too loose and happen to show their forearms.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1380273' date='Sep 7 2007, 09:36 AM'][color="#0000FF"]Dresses are good to keep for special occasions when you have nothing important to do but look good or mark an important event. But for actual real life, nothing beats a good pant of comfortable pants. [/color][/quote]

sorry, can't relate - i don't wear dresses because i want to look good!

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380367' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:15 PM']Why does our clothing need to reflect that?

God did make both parties naked. I dont think Clothing is needed for gender ID.[/quote]

same reason Religious men and women should wear habits - as an outward sign of an inner reality. let's face it - no matter how much we might want to deny this, what we wear often speaks to who we are.


by the way, you guys rock!

[N/A Gone]

'photosynthesis'
[quote]Clothing is a material expression of the values of a given culture. Most Judeo-Christian cultures in some way or another have had norms of dress that involved gender distinctions.[/quote]

Why should we take all cultural norms to reflect the moral norms? A quick read of deut shows plenty of cultural rules/norms that have no place today.

Was some of that distinction based on function also? Man=hunter, woman=baby maker/watcher?

[quote]It's true that God made men and women naked. But when you think about what that means you'll realize that there were (ahem) "built-in" gender distinctions already. Now that humans wear clothes, there is a natural desire for clothing to reflect these differences.
how so?[/quote]

Im sure we can still notice those "built-in" regardless of the outfit. I agree that there is a natural urge to self-expression and gender is part of that, but freedom of expression within moral means (cover those built-ins) is more likely than restrictive laws that appear to make women second-class.

Your friends situation is extreme. But to be fair big familes often dont re-paint the room for each baby and the children will play with similar toys. The problem with your friend is the urge to pendulam(sp-thats bad) to the extreme other end of the spectrum and lose all gender ID.

[quote name='kateri05' post='1380433' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:31 PM']MODESTY is the issue. Deut. 22 clearly is speaking about cross-dresssing.[/quote]

Deut 22 has many things that would shake our head if we were trying to enforce with this standard. Commentaries note that it had to do with something like a drag-queen and women involved with war.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1380273' date='Sep 7 2007, 11:36 AM'][color="#0000FF"]Yep, the same argument works for me for veils as well.[/color][/quote]

well, it can't work to justify any attempt to argue that Catholics cannot hold veils as required, because that position was predicated upon the idea that the magisterium's current silence on the issue basically meant all Catholics should be silent on the issue. But yes, it can be used to sustain your position as a legitimate position in the discussion. I never said you didn't have a right to hold that position, I merely indicated that it is my position that that position is incorrect.
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1380273' date='Sep 7 2007, 11:36 AM'][color="#0000FF"]Nuns are humans and most don't appreciate being held up as idealized women. THat said, I absolutely think they need uniform habits.[/color][/quote]
I understand that, it's the iconography of the nun which is an important sociological charecteristic of the Church. yes, treat nuns as real human beings, do not alienate them with idealization; but on the same token, there is a real need for them to represent to the laity in general an iconographic position for them to emulate in the seeking of holiness. there is likewise a need for them to engage in real human interaction with laity too (except if they're cloistered)
[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1380273' date='Sep 7 2007, 11:36 AM'][color="#0000FF"]Dresses are good to keep for special occasions when you have nothing important to do but look good or mark an important event. But for actual real life, nothing beats a good pant of comfortable pants. [/color][/quote]
that's a good position; though I do think there are and/or could be more occassions than what one might limit your statement to. since it's not really my personal call, I'm not going to try to go through some exhaustive list of when it should be a dress and when it should not be; I'm just offering a general: dresses should have a good degree of pride of place in our culture. your position reflects that fairly nicely, I'd like to see a societatal shift that makes dresses more common that they are now, though, but more common in a way kind of like you describe. If you mean just weddings, proms, and funerals, though, I'd disagree, there should be more of a preference than that. It's not something that can be absolutely defined or imposed, though.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1380392' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:44 PM']I think pants can do that for a woman as well as skirts.[/quote]
I don't think so; there are practical differences between girl's pants and guy's pants, to be sure, but not clear iconographic differences. I'm talking about the image projected and it's symbolic reference to the beauty of women and/or men. Maybe girly pants can do that to some degree or another; but the feminine archetype par excellence, which I am saying should have some type of pride of place, in our culture is the dress or skirt. Just look at the symbol for woman on a bathroom sign: it's still a potent visible image, it's still part of our cultural symbolic imagination, and ought to be retained.

it's not that we need something to know who's a man and who's a woman, either, it's that culture should elaborate upon nature to try to bring to the visible spectrum some degree of symbolic reference to the invisble realities of the differences between our natures.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380509' date='Sep 7 2007, 05:01 PM']'photosynthesis'
Why should we take all cultural norms to reflect the moral norms? A quick read of deut shows plenty of cultural rules/norms that have no place today.[/quote]
Gender-specific clothing has had a place in Judeo-Christian culture for thousands of years. When in doubt, err on the side of tradition.
[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380509' date='Sep 7 2007, 05:01 PM']Was some of that distinction based on function also? Man=hunter, woman=baby maker/watcher?
Im sure we can still notice those "built-in" regardless of the outfit. I agree that there is a natural urge to self-expression and gender is part of that, but freedom of expression within moral means (cover those built-ins) is more likely than restrictive laws that appear to make women second-class.[/quote]
Nobody's talking about making women "second-class." In general, I think that when a woman tries to take on more masculine roles she ends up making herself into a second-class citizen because men are better at being men than women. When a woman acts and dresses in a dignified, feminine way, her gestures, clothing, and demeanor express that she is not a second-class citizen but in a class all her own.

[Jaime]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1380439' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:40 PM']I didn't say that I personally believed that pants were intrinsically disordered. I also didn't say that wearing pants is wrong, although I definitely believe that skirts really should have the pride of place.[/quote]

The beauty of discussion boards
[quote]I can see the logic behind that, although I don't think most women who wear pants have any idea that such a style of clothing is intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

[homeschoolmom]

So, is no one concerned that this very website sells t-shirts to people without regard to their sex? Boys and girls are wearing... THE SAME SHIRTS!!! and so... that's okay with you all, right?

[Aloysius]

it's fine with me, so long as there are punctuated points of distinction in the elaboration of cultural clothing upon sex. while it is incorrect to attempt to establish an absolute rule that no articles of clothing can be unisex, that does not mean that important iconographic distinctions shouldn't be made between the sexes.

t-shirts and pants may be worn by all... in the correct context, in the proper places and times. for everything... turn turn... there is a season.. turn turn turn.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380607' date='Sep 7 2007, 05:54 PM']for everything... turn turn... there is a season.. turn turn turn.[/quote]
hippie..

[Paladin D]

A tree-hugging, nut job! Get him!

[N/A Gone]

did I get a post deleted?

[Lil Red]

i don't think so