The independent "traditional Catholic" school, Holy Family Academy (HFA), which opened for school year 2018-2019 and which was started by the former ruling family of Our Lady of Sorrows (OLOS) in Phoenix has already sold out it's "traditional Catholic" identity for the Almighty Dollar and so the students can play league sports!So, they left OLOS to go with the Vatican II sect. I didn't know that DETAIL. By their deeds you shall know them
HFA is led by a female Principal who is 100% Novus Ordo (short skirts and all), the academy is in the final stages of being approved by the Diocese of Phoenix as the first "Diocesan Traditional Catholic School", the local Priests from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter mission Church are saying Holy Mass and hearing Confessions there, and the sports teams joined up with "91st Psalm Christian School" of Phoenix (Protestant School) so they could field a baseball, volleyball, and soccer teams!
Diocesan money and tuition deals soon to come and then......... liturgical dance lessons for the kids!!!
The poor, young, Catholic souls of HFA are being scandalized!!! The girls volleyball actually had to wear baby blue uniforms reading "91st Psalm Christian Church"! "Pastor" Cunningham of the evangelical church (Southgate Christian Church which owns 91st Psalm school) serves as the pitching Coach for the "traditional Catholic" boys baseball team.
http://holyfamilyacad.org/2019/01/from-the-chairman-holy-family-academy-seeking-recognition-from-bishop-olmsted/ (http://holyfamilyacad.org/2019/01/from-the-chairman-holy-family-academy-seeking-recognition-from-bishop-olmsted/)
http://holyfamilyacad.org/2019/05/visit-and-blessing-of-frs-passo-and-malain/ (http://holyfamilyacad.org/2019/05/visit-and-blessing-of-frs-passo-and-malain/)
http://91pcs.com/ (http://91pcs.com/)
https://sglife.org/ (https://sglife.org/)
Dear St. Patrick! How did this get so out of whack? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME! At least thanks to the new families who have recently moved to Phoenix, OLOS Academy is growing again and will soon not even be phased by the exodus of the families that left for HFA.
I shalt now sit back and await a snide comment from my new arch-nemesis, the TownCrier!
Cheers and may you tip a pint up in my memory!
:cheers:
I agree as do many families at OLoS
Avoid the entire mess. Homeschool!
What's wrong with boys playing sports?Nothing! Depending upon the sport, there’s nothing wrong with girls playing sports, either.
Most sports leagues require that children have practice and/or games on Sunday morning, which means that the child and their parents cannot attend Mass or must attend Mass wearing their sports clothes and then leave early. It is a bad example to other families, whose children may become jealous and complain, "If Paul can participate in a sports event on Sundays, then why can't I."What you say is certainly true of public school sports and of many private, secular leagues. Joining a Christian sports league eliminates the Sunday problem, but these are mainly comprised of Protestant schools. Often, Catholics aren’t welcome because we’re not considered Christians, especially by the type of Protestants with whom we share many moral standards! Example, Independent Baptists, Holiness congregations, Conservative Pentecostals, and many small, traditionally black and southern state churches have standards of modesty, speech, dress, respect for authority as traditional Catholics. The problem is that they won’t accept Catholics!
Even if some games/practice are only held one Sunday per month and the rest on Saturdays, it is still a slippery slope. One Sunday per month can easily morph into every Sunday.
If the league wins and goes on to a national event, then the child and parents must travel during the weekend and attend mandatory events on Sunday.
What you say is certainly true of public school sports and of many private, secular leagues. Joining a Christian sports league eliminates the Sunday problem, but these are mainly comprised of Protestant schools. Often, Catholics aren’t welcome because we’re not considered Christians, especially by the type of Protestants with whom we share many moral standards! Example, Independent Baptists, Holiness congregations, Conservative Pentecostals, and many small, traditionally black and southern state churches have standards of modesty, speech, dress, respect for authority as traditional Catholics. The problem is that they won’t accept Catholics!The down side of attending a Protestant-led homeschool coop is that they demand that you sign their homemade Creed, not the original Nicene Creed. They also want you to attend their prayer services.
The Protestants who will accept Catholics are liberal; they accept everyone! One may as well play public schools and novus ordo schools.
Public school sports was not always as it is now. When I was in grade six, I tried out for volleyball at a friend’s insistence. I made the team and she didn’t. I wasn’t into sports, so my parents were a bit surprised, but I played volleyball for two years and enjoyed it, both games and practices. There were no Saturday or Sunday activities. Games and practices were M-F in the afternoon. We were a middle of the road team, didn’t win the championship, but didn’t lose every game, either. I didn’t play in grade eight because I chose another extracurricular, the Outdoors Club. When my sister hit grade six, she wanted to try out for field hockey and soccer. I was already a high school senior, not at all involved in school sports. My sister made the soccer team and all of a sudden, there were arguments about missing Mass—-never allowed by Dad, and staying over various friends’ houses for the weekend to accommodate Saturday practices and games instead of going camping with the family. Too often, she got her way with the resulting alienation. She’d agree to go to Mass, either Saturday vigil or Sunday, but often that didn’t happen. There’d be excuses, headache, upset stomach, got a flat tire on the bike and it was too late to walk...So then Dad required a Mass bulletin. Well, one needn’t actually attend Mass to get a bulletin! She had a boyfriend who’d supply one, or she’d pick one up on the way to or from school since the church was a block away. By grade seven, after screaming, yelling fights, a priest whom Dad consulted said she should not be made to attend church(!?!), so she pretty much left off all religion except the five classes in the evening for Confirmation. Dad and Mom insisted in the hope that it would eventually bring her back. Sadly, I have serious doubt as to the validity at that point in time.
Did sports cause the entire disaster? No, of course not, but it didn’t help, and was definitely used by the devil as one more tool.
Believe it or not I agree with everything absolutely everything you have wrote EXCEPT you allude to the idea that with the ruling elite gone from the school it and church will grow .The ruling elite are still at the church are they not ? and besides that the damage has been done .Unfinished and shoddy construction and a huge dept we are being blackmailed into paying . That church isn't growing no matter what they say from the pulpit . That place looks like a Novus Ordo warehouse and we average 300 a Sunday WOW! that is almost as many as we had at the old church. you remember right ? it is the building turned in the performing arts center so the ruling elite construction company could make a couple of extra million off usThey do indeed still attend Mass at OLOS, but how long do you think that will last? Will the Priests from the FSSP and the Bishop of Phoenix be ok with spending time and resources to offer daily Mass and hear Confessions at HFA while the families maintain Parish membership at OLOS giving tithe to an SSPX Chapel? I think the Diocese sees their large families and the financial wherewithal that those families have and sees DOLLAR SIGNS! Rome follows the money, right? Back in Post Falls / Coeur d'Alene that almost happened years ago when I was there. I think the families will gradually migrate to Mater Misericordiae Mission (FSSP Chapel in Phoenix) after they are given some gentle (maybe even not so gentle) nudges from the Diocese.
What's wrong with boys playing sports?Absolutely nothing..... especially for the lads. The problem is playing on an "interfaith sports team" in which religious lines are blurred. Do they think the evangelical protestants won't try to convert their kids? They are taught that they MUST under the Great Commission because Catholics are misguided idolaters who are headed to Hell unless they repent of their sins, stop worshiping Mary, and accept a "Fun Jesus" as their Lord and Savior. We are going to Hell because we don't know that Jesus just wants to be our good buddy, so they have to correct us!!!
They do indeed still attend Mass at OLOS, but how long do you think that will last? Will the Priests from the FSSP and the Bishop of Phoenix be ok with spending time and resources to offer daily Mass and hear Confessions at HFA while the families maintain Parish membership at OLOS giving tithe to an SSPX Chapel? I think the Diocese sees their large families and the financial wherewithal that those families have and sees DOLLAR SIGNS! Rome follows the money, right? Back in Post Falls / Coeur d'Alene that almost happened years ago when I was there. I think the families will gradually migrate to Mater Misericordiae Mission (FSSP Chapel in Phoenix) after they are given some gentle (maybe even not so gentle) nudges from the Diocese.You may be absolutely right about the ruling elite moving on to greener pastures . After all they have just about bled us dry
Just to be clear, Holy Family is NOT an SSPX school( not listed on the website) Don’t blame the Society for what they doI don't think anyone on this post was blaming the Society for what this group of families has done while creating this school. The Society, and especially OLOS. are victims in all this since HFA has been targeting Parish families in an effort to recruit away students. HFA is even using a stolen Parish directory to mail their HFA brochures to OLOS Parishioners' homes. The other victims in this are the HFA students who are being scandalized by being led and influenced by a Novus Ordo Principal and Protestant coaches and teammates.
Just to be clear, Holy Family is NOT an SSPX school( not listed on the website) Don’t blame the Society for what they doNo one is blaming the SSPX or OLoS for the HFA scandal We are not only the
No one is blaming the SSPX or OLoS for the HFA scandal We are not only theThe SSPX is arguably culpable for not recognizing the influence and for not toppling the clique before the catastrophes.
victims as a matter of fact we are being victimized by the same family twice as they the founders of HNA are also the owners of the construction company that built our for the lack of a better word church. No I'm afraid the society is to blame for a lot the problems we are having but not this
The SSPX is arguably culpable for not recognizing the influence and for not toppling the clique before the catastrophes.Can't argue with that now that I think about it.
No one is blaming the SSPX or OLoS for the HFA scandal We are not only theVery true... well said!
victims as a matter of fact we are being victimized by the same family twice as they the founders of HNA are also the owners of the construction company that built our for the lack of a better word church. No I'm afraid the society is to blame for a lot the problems we are having but not this
The SSPX is arguably culpable for not recognizing the influence and for not toppling the clique before the catastrophes.That is a good point and it's hard to argue with since someone at a higher level than the young / inexperienced Priest who was the Prior at the time should have noticed what was going on. This family ran circles around the young Priest and lined their pockets in the process.
I looked at his Instagram. He doesn't know how to spell "haboob." He'll have to learn now that he lives in Phoenix.You're right. There truly are many good folk in the Novus Ordo and I'm actually not ripping this guy personally. He appears to be a nice enough guy and probably has no idea what he signed on for at HFA. At face value, I would hope that HFA might bring him to Tradition, but that's not really what they're about. I'm actually ripping HFA and the elitist family that runs it. They act like they are "Holier Than Thou" and more "Traditional Catholic than ABF himself", but they hire a Novus Ordo Principal and Novus Ordo teachers to teach the HFA kids who, according to them, "weren't receiving a sound and well-rounded Traditional Catholic education" at OLOSA. Total BS. Sorry, it is what it is, though. Am I venting? Yes. They drained the Parish coffers and lined their pockets and, at the end of the day, they are just elitist fakes.
He seems harmless...and STRAIGHT.
Hooligan, it's not right to rip on some guy, especially considering nothing bad has happened! It makes you look like you have sour grapes.
He might not be what you envision for a teacher, but there are good people of good will in the Novus Ordo, you know.
Come to think of it, that guy seems a lot better than a certain boys' school teacher at Post Falls that was removed, who we are not to name. The one that had a certain "culpability." ;)
Hool: but they hire a Novus Ordo Principal and Novus Ordo teachers to teach the HFA kids who, according to them, "weren't receiving a sound and well-rounded Traditional Catholic education" at OLOSA. Total BS. Sorry, it is what it is, though. Am I venting? Yes. They drained the Parish coffers and lined their pockets and, at the end of the day, they are just elitist fakes.
The SSPX is arguably culpable for not recognizing the influence and for not toppling the clique before the catastrophes.
You're right. There truly are many good folk in the Novus Ordo and I'm actually not ripping this guy personally. He appears to be a nice enough guy and probably has no idea what he signed on for at HFA. At face value, I would hope that HFA might bring him to Tradition, but that's not really what they're about. I'm actually ripping HFA and the elitist family that runs it. They act like they are "Holier Than Thou" and more "Traditional Catholic than ABF himself", but they hire a Novus Ordo Principal and Novus Ordo teachers to teach the HFA kids who, according to them, "weren't receiving a sound and well-rounded Traditional Catholic education" at OLOSA. Total BS. Sorry, it is what it is, though. Am I venting? Yes. They drained the Parish coffers and lined their pockets and, at the end of the day, they are just elitist fakes.Yeah, I'm willing to cut that young man a break.
…Fr. Remski was no friend to the SSPX.…You are familiar with what Fr. Remski did at St. Michael's in Bethany, OK?
The SSPX is arguably culpable for not recognizing the influence and for not toppling the clique before the catastrophes.This is analogous to the argument that the Church shares in the guilt of schismatics' having left the Church.
You are familiar with what Fr. Remski did at St. Michael's in Bethany, OK?No, do tell...
It sounds like this family has money. I have yet to live in a parish where the priests are not swayed by the sparkly families with money. Even the good ones surprise you sometimes by falling for it like anyone else. This is not a uniquely SSPX problem, that is true, but they are certainly not exempt.Ay, you are correct about this family having wealth. Unfortunately, quite a bit of their wealth came from the services that they provided to the Chapel and Academy. Services for which OLOS paid top dollar. When you own the general contracting company that was awarded Church and Academy construction contracts - and you’re also the Treasurer who has contract awarding rights for the same said Church and Academy - you can’t lose.
TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MODESTY FOR YOUNG LADIES AT HOLY FAMILY ACADEMY??Yes this just another example of OLoS and district overlooking the behavior of the HFA families .I know personality of people who have complained to district only to be told they are guilty of backbiting for doing so
TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC MODESTY FOR YOUNG LADIES AT HOLY FAMILY ACADEMY??
WHEREAS careful study of costumes made by the best sports-goods houses and used by the majority of private and public schools and colleges, leads to the conclusion that the necessary requirements for an appropriate costume for the girl and young woman in athletics may be met by the knicker-bloomer of material suited to the season; middie [sic] Blouses for children; tailored shirts with long (or short) sleeves for older girls; sweaters, sleeveless or with sleeves according to season; long stockings and "sneakers;"
BE IT RESOLVED that the National Council of Catholic Women recommend the above costume as best suited to feminine dignity and the best interest of sportsmanship and good health.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council condemn "trunks" and other such objectionable extremes of costume which are as inappropriate and undesirable for women as are the particular forms of athletics with which they are especially associated.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=52919.0;attach=13502;image) (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/holy-family-academy-another-scandal-in-phoenix/?action=dlattach;attach=13501;image)
Why... how dare those neo-trad girls wear culottes while playing sports and expose their bare knees!
This is an outrage....
Close the school down! :really-mad2:
I can assure you that my friend Incredulous is quite humorous, playful, and not "boiled" to any degree.I rarely look at the name of a poster. One can make a joke, no problem, but they should follow it up with a lesson, the truth, or else it could end up teaching the totally wrong thing.
Why... how dare those neo-trad girls wear culottes while playing sports and expose their bare knees!Ahhh sarcasm, a truly low example of humor
This is an outrage....
Close the school down! :really-mad2:
I think that their coach is the bigger issue. She is not playing and need not be dressed that way.
As for the girls, I think that the clothes might be as modest as you can get while playing the sport. As far as girls' sports, if they are in a closed venue with a known girls sport taking place, then if some guy shows up there and finds himself "tempted," then he should have known better than to go there. But it looks like they are outside of the sports venue, and the picture should not have been taken that way. They could have had them stand up and capture only the view above the bottoms of their uniforms. So, for instance, if there's a private property, a camp, for instance, where it's just girls in attendance, they could go swimming. So what might be OK in that context, may not be outside of it. Same thing applies to some girls' sports. In a Catholic society, girls' sporting events should likely be offlimits to men and boys ... except as necessary. But, as it is, if they restrict their immodesty to within the venue, nobody is forcing any man to attend. If I walk into a womens' locker room and see nude women, is that their fault and are they being "immodest"? I should not have gone in there ... obviously. Likewise, if there's a girls' swim meet, I should not go in there, nor a girls' volleyball game.
So, the rules, IMO, should be:
1) dress as modestly as possible given the sport if someone is playing (coach and other staff do not count)
2) keep the objectively-immodest dress within the venue (don't venture outside of the venue or take pictures that aren't properly cropped)
As far as girls' sports, if they are in a closed venue with a known girls sport taking place, then if some guy shows up there and finds himself "tempted," then he should have known better than to go there. ….In a Catholic society, girls' sporting events should likely be offlimits to men and boys ... except as necessary. But, as it is, if they restrict their immodesty to within the venue, nobody is forcing any man to attend.When discussing immodest dress, your focus appears always to be on the sin of tempting men. Your comment above further corroborates it. What you are describing is a type of situational "modesty". The entire comment from SJ is spot on, but the part that directly applies to your erroneous mindset is this:
Essentially what you are saying is that a group of girls could sit around in thong underwear and practice knitting and embroidery, so long as other “men” are not around, and any pics of them in the inappropriate attire are carefully cropped.
Girls have no business playing sports (a masculine recreation whose only purpose is to encourage competitiveness and provide a cathartic outlet for aggression in a controlled environment).
Saying girls can play sports privately still undermines their feminine psyche, and encourages masculine traits incompatible with submissiveness, nurturing, and other essential qualities of espousal and motherhood.
Essentially what you are saying is that I could sit around in thong underwear and practice knitting and embroidery, so long as only other “men” are around, and any pics of me in a inappropriate attire are carefully cropped.
This vigorous defense by some of women in sports reveals an undeniable taint of feminism, and is surprising to see coming from those who consider themselves traditional.
Soon we will hear from Fr. Urrutigoity, warning us not to be puritanical.
Yes, for any who have not yet been slow-boiled in modernism, women in sports is a scandal (as are the demeaning outfits, which seem to be nothing more than a contrived facade of modesty, but which are in reality an ulterior means by which to be modern, and show some leg).
Most sports leagues require that children have practice and/or games on Sunday morning, ...
There are many ideals, we Trads should strive to achieve. Do you agree?
For example, Catholic gentlemen shouldn't describe their debate adversaries as pieces of excrement, stupid or incapable.
To put the neo-trad ladies into context:
1. They are living in the hottest state in the nation. I didn't fine their attire or their fat little knees provocative.
It could have been much, much worse.
2. While many sports are out-of-bounds, Catholic girls should be able to do something in the field of sports.
3. Our Lady of Sorrows has many more problems than athletic culottes.
I appreciate your honest rejection of both the norms for Catholic modesty, and Catholic femininity.
Yes, I can well imagine the BVM wearing these outfits and playing volleyball.
NOT!!
HINT: can anyone point to anything from the Church which states that spots are "off limits" to girls?It’s implicit in the teaching on modest attire, and in the Catholic conception of femininity.
When discussions took place regarding female athletic attire, this entirely presupposes the licitness of their playing sports
Yes, I can well imagine the BVM wearing these outfits and playing volleyball.
This distinction between the precepts (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12372b.htm) of the Gospel, which are binding on all, and the counsels, which are the subject of the vocation of the comparatively few, has ever been maintained by the Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). It has been denied by heretics (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm) in all ages, and especially by many Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) in the sixteenth and following centuries, on the ground that, inasmuch as all Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) are at all times bound, if they would keep God's Commandments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm), to do their utmost, and even so will fall short of perfect obedience, no distinction between precepts (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12372b.htm) and counsels can rightly be made.
...
The difference between a precept and a counsel lies in this, that the precept is a matter of necessity while the counsel is left to the free choice of the person (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) to whom it is proposed.
You are making up your own norms, Sean. Again, please point to a Church teaching which precludes women/girls entirely from athletic endeavours.
As far as modesty, you know, right?, that in the early Church women were baptized by immersion and either nude or close to it. That was the original role of the so-called (non-ordained) "deaconesses". They would assist the women being baptized while the bishop would stand behind a screen so as not to see them while he pronounced the form of Baptism. So, again, given the stipulation I laid out that the girls should not dressed that way in mixed company or out in public, the perfect modesty required when in the presence of the opposite sex does not always apply.
If the girls were to, say, play volleyball at an all-girls' school in the gym, in an intramural (not-particularly-competitive) manner, I don't see anything wrong with that.
There are many things that Our Lady would not do that are, nevertheless, licit and not sinful ... e.g., getting married and having marital relations. Moral theologians always distinguish between the evangelical counsels, which are things that are not strictly required for all, but nevertheless represent the striving for a higher state of perfection.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm)
Our Lady, of course, freely chose to adopt and to follow, EVERY such counsel for perfection, but that does not mean all are bound, nor are all capable of keeping them, so that, for instance, as St. Paul states, some need to marry rather than to "burn".
Your focus is also on the sin of tempting men, a simplistic mindset which leads one to dismiss this as an insignificant matter of a few inches of cloth.
To put the neo-trad ladies into context:
1. They are living in the hottest state in the nation. I didn't fine their attire or their fat little knees provocative.
It could have been much, much worse.
Your focus is also on the sin of tempting men, a simplistic mindset which leads one to dismiss this as an insignificant matter of a few inches of cloth....and they play in air-conditioned gyms, so there's just no excuse for it. "Highway to Modernism"!
By the way, I have lived/live and worked outdoors in much much hotter locations in the tropics (the climate in Arizona is dry and they have seasons. I hiked there in 107 degrees, it was cool compared to the tropics because the air is dry). I have never worn shorts to do hard labor work in the outdoors in my life. Shorts means bug bites of every kind, it means grease and dirt on your skin, burns from hot steel, cuts from thorns/machete/shovels...….. In sports, I played football in the same stifling humid heat, where a 300lb athlete loses 17 lbs in a practice, all of that and never wore shorts.
As for the girls, I think that the clothes might be as modest as you can get while playing the sport."As modest as you can get"? Does such a standard exist in the public forum? I don't see how.
As far as girls' sports, if they are in a closed venue with a known girls sport taking place,Such a "closed venue" does not exist in our current society. You're inserting an idealism which is imaginary.
then if some guy shows up there and finds himself "tempted," then he should have known better than to go there.If he were tempted for reasons other than the clothing, I agree. But since we're talking about clothing, your point makes no sense.
But it looks like they are outside of the sports venue, and the picture should not have been taken that way. They could have had them stand up and capture only the view above the bottoms of their uniforms.They were either dressed immodestly or they were not. These girls either scandalized those in attendance or not. The issue of the picture is a SEPARATE issue, where they take an isolated immodesty and SPREAD IT to those not in attendance. Assuming one argues that the clothing was immodest at the game, then a picture is an ADDITIONAL sin, which exposes the scandal to far more people.
So, for instance, if there's a private property, a camp, for instance, where it's just girls in attendance, they could go swimming. So what might be OK in that context, may not be outside of it. Same thing applies to some girls' sports.We don't live in this ideal world where women are separated from men in sporting events. Your example of swimming at a girls camp is acceptable. Sporting events aren't private in the same degree. Not. at. all.
In a Catholic society, girls' sporting events should likely be offlimits to men and boys ... except as necessary.That society doesn't exist. We're talking about current reality.
But, as it is, if they restrict their immodesty to within the venue, nobody is forcing any man to attend. If I walk into a womens' locker room and see nude women, is that their fault and are they being "immodest"? I should not have gone in there ... obviously. Likewise, if there's a girls' swim meet, I should not go in there, nor a girls' volleyball game.No such thing as a girls-only swim meet. They don't exist nowadays.
So, the rules, IMO, should be:You are either dressed modestly or not. "Modestly as possible" is anti-Catholic thinking, and only applies to emergency situations.
1) dress as modestly as possible given the sport if someone is playing (coach and other staff do not count)
2) keep the objectively-immodest dress within the venue (don't venture outside of the venue or take pictures that aren't properly cropped)
They could easily cover themselves underneath the skirts with leggings, like football pants that already have the knee pads. BY the way, volleyball players wear padding around other areas.
(https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.155.175/i6z.8dd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/73249829_3073852345963676_2357690909518200832_n.jpg?time=1573497264)
Your focus is also on the sin of tempting men, a simplistic mindset which leads one to dismiss this as an insignificant matter of a few inches of cloth
Girls have no business playing competitive sports (a masculine recreation whose only purpose is to encourage competitiveness and provide a cathartic outlet for aggression in a controlled environment).What do you think of my addition SJ? I added it because there are sports activities for girls that are not competitive, or team oriented, nor a cathartic outlet for aggression in a controlled environment.
You are just arguing for arguments sake, likely because it is SJ on the other side.
It’s implicit in the teaching on modest attire, and in the Catholic conception of femininity.
Women used to be taught, and made to comply, with modesty even when they were only in the presence of other women.
Quote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=52919.msg675413#msg675413) on Thu Nov 14 2019 10:13:51 GMT-0600 (CST)
That is your interpretation of Catholic teaching on those subjects. Presumably at some point you would find something from the Church about this ... if it were wrong, since many Catholic girls have participated in sports for a very long time now, long before Vatican II.
I'll actually come back later and cite some things from Pius XI.
To a point, but not to the same point as when with mixed company or in public.This is nitpicking, you are debating about gnats, just to defend your point. All you are doing is lengthening this thread and making it worthless. You should be asking questions, instead you are just defending yourself.
What do you think of my addition SJ? I added it because there are sports activities for girls that are not competitive, or team oriented, nor a cathartic outlet for aggression in a controlled environment.
For others, notice that in all women's sports, the women are scantily dressed. Even in women's pro football where you would think they would be covered for protection, they play bare butt. Look at track, bare butt. Tennis...… There is a reason for that, it is to attract men to the "sport". Why would anyone go to watch woman's highschool/college/pro sports except they be parents or relatives? It is like going to watch a pro football game between men with their ankles tide together, or other handicap. That is the reason for the bare butt and exposed breasts outfits. It is of course of the devil. Also, because of the aggression in competitive sports it attracts an abnormally high percentage of lesbians to play or watch/stalk. I have a relative who's daughgter played on the highschool volleyball team and I was at his house once when the girls were all there. I smelled something wrong, and over time found that many of them were indeed lesbians, maybe the majority.
LT-
Yes, I agree with your qualifier that women should not play “competitive” sports.
That -combined with truly modest attire- would preserve a true feminine psyche, and protect against inculcating masculinity in girls.
Papal Decree Concerning Modesty,
POPE PIUS XI, 12 January 1930
http://www.olvrc.com/reference/docuмents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf (http://www.olvrc.com/reference/docuмents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf)
3. Let those same parents prohibit their children from public athletic events and gymnastics competitions, or at least, if their daughters must be involved in them, that they take care to exhibit clothing which is fully in keeping with modesty and that their parents never permit them to wear immodest clothing.
Some of you guys are ridiculous, and singlehandedly responsible for making Traditional Catholics look like nutjobs.You would actually be correct if the girls were just standing, but they are jumping, diving, and even falling at times. Those skirts fly up when they do those things.
There's no way that some volleyball games played during a gym class at an all girls school leads to "masculinized" women. That's just insane. Playing hockey or football or playing against boys, certainly.
And to imply that it's practically the same thing for a girl to not be in perfect conformity with the rules of modesty when in the company of other females, especially when the nature of the activity makes it difficult or cuмbersome, that it's practically the same thing as running around naked in front of men ... that's also insane.
This stuff is just nuts.
When you get this unreasonable and insane, 90% of the time this comes from an at-least latent misogyny, which in turn usually derives from insecurity of some kind that I need not further elaborate on.
And, finally, these uniforms in the pictures, are really NOT THAT BAD for what they are. If these girls were to stand up, they probably hit right at or just slightly above the knee.
Some of you guys are ridiculous, and singlehandedly responsible for making Traditional Catholics look like nutjobs.
There's no way that some volleyball games played during a gym class at an all girls school leads to "masculinized" women. That's just insane. Playing hockey or football or playing against boys, certainly.
And to imply that it's practically the same thing for a girl to not be in perfect conformity with the rules of modesty when in the company of other females, especially when the nature of the activity makes it difficult or cuмbersome, that it's practically the same thing as running around naked in front of men ... that's also insane.
This stuff is just nuts.
When you get this unreasonable and insane, 90% of the time this comes from an at-least latent misogyny, which in turn usually derives from insecurity of some kind that I need not further elaborate on.
And, finally, these uniforms in the pictures, are really NOT THAT BAD for what they are. If these girls were to stand up, they probably hit right at or just slightly above the knee.
Did you see the the "public" part? I bolded it for you in case your eyesight was wanting. You ignored this. "Public" is also stipulated by Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri. Learn how to read, people, before you hurts yourself attempting to reason.
The public vs private distinction pertains to modesty, but not to femininity.
Siri and others have written about the deleterious and masculinizing effects of men’s attire and sports upon the feminine psyche (and it applies whether girls wear or do these in public and private).
Some of you guys are ridiculous, and singlehandedly responsible for making Traditional Catholics look like nutjobs."And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?" (John 10:20).
Some of you guys are ridiculous, and singlehandedly responsible for making Traditional Catholics look like nutjobs.We're not talking about a private game of volleyball or some "pick up" game where the girls are playing in gym class. We're talking about a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL game, where HUNDREDS of people are present (or could be) to watch. You keep inserting imaginary factors into a clear-cut, factual case of a PUBLIC SPORTING EVENT.
There's no way that some volleyball games played during a gym class at an all girls school leads to "masculinized" women. That's just insane. Playing hockey or football or playing against boys, certainly.
And to imply that it's practically the same thing for a girl to not be in perfect conformity with the rules of modesty when in the company of other females, especially when the nature of the activity makes it difficult or cuмbersome, that it's practically the same thing as running around naked in front of men ... that's also insane.Ladislaus, have you ever been to a high-school or club sporting event? The attendance is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. These games are not being played "in the company of other females" only. Your arguments are borderline insane. That, or you're just so sheltered that you have no experience of what these games are all about or the atmosphere surrounding them.
And, finally, these uniforms in the pictures, are really NOT THAT BAD for what they are. If these girls were to stand up, they probably hit right at or just slightly above the knee.The 'above the knee', non-Trad skirts are the least problem with this whole scenario. The overall problems are
You would actually be correct if the girls were just standing, but they are jumping, diving, and even falling at times. Those skirts fly up when they do those things.
3. Let those same parents prohibit their children from public athletic events and gymnastics competitions, or at least, if their daughters must be involved in them, that they take care to exhibit clothing which is fully in keeping with modesty and that their parents never permit them to wear immodest clothing.
How do their opponent teams dress?Probably wear the typical female-volleyball garb: uber-tight, spandex, daisy-duke style, short-shorts, with sleeveless, masculine-style tank tops. It would be an occasion of sin for anyone to be the same room with this style of clothing, whether male or female.
Some of you guys are ridiculous, and singlehandedly responsible for making Traditional Catholics look like nutjobs. (no explanations or quotes to point out who is or what makes X a "nutjob")My responses in red
There's no way that some volleyball games played during a gym class at an all girls school leads to "masculinized" women. (who said that? I specifically added competitive, as in being in a team practicing all week to play other schools teams, not just playing in a gym class in an all girls school.)
And to imply that it's practically the same thing for a girl to not be in perfect conformity with the rules of modesty when in the company of other females, especially when the nature of the activity makes it difficult or cuмbersome, that it's practically the same thing as running around naked in front of men ... that's also insane. (again your nit picking, you are going on and on and on about your trivial idea that girls can wear immodest clothes if there are no men around. That's focusing on a gnat, that has nothing to do with 99.99% of girls competitive sports which is performed in public. By the way, the immodest dress "just among girls" is a bonus for the lesbians which are women too. )
This stuff is just nuts. (what is nuts is this strawman that you created on this thread. This whole posting is one big strawman)
When you get this unreasonable (about what?) and insane (about what?), 90% of the time this comes from an at-least latent misogyny (I had to look up that word ), which in turn usually derives from insecurity of some kind that I need not further elaborate on. (You are totally out of your area of expertise, I would suggest that you just ask questions. )
And, finally, these uniforms in the pictures, are really NOT THAT BAD for what they are . If these girls were to stand up, they probably hit right at or just slightly above the knee. (Again, all it is to you is a matter of inches. You do not understand. But you ask no questions, so you will never understand, to you it will always be a matter of inches of cloth and how men react to it. )
Your theoretical principles are fine, Ladislaus, but they do not apply to the point of this thread. The actual games being played are happening in public arenas, are of a masculine/competitive nature (as are all high school girl sports today), and involve immodest attire relative to those watching and to the type of sport involved.
It appears that the girls were out in public, in this picture, but I do not consider playing in an arena where the scheduled event states that it's a girls' match ... to be public. You have to buy a ticket to get in. And the events are not viewable to someone who hasn't entered the arena of his own accord.
but I do not consider playing in an arena where the scheduled event states that it's a girls' match ... to be public. You have to buy a ticket to get in.Oh come on. Tickets to this event might be $2 for adults and free for children. These are high school events, put on by the diocese. They could have a few hundred attendees at each match. Very public and very family oriented...which makes the immodesty that much worse. A horrible example these young ladies and the schools are setting for the 7-13 year old girls.
It appears that the girls were out in public, in this picture, but I do not consider playing in an arena where the scheduled event states that it's a girls' match ... to be public. You have to buy a ticket to get in. And the events are not viewable to someone who hasn't entered the arena of his own accord. Secondly, the degree of immodesty here is something might even be tolerable at Mass. These uniforms are not even close to being gravely immodest. Even if these girls walked out to the grocery store like this, truly in public, I would consider it a venial violation of modesty at the most. But with regard to a sport that is clearly billed as a girls' sporting event, I consider this acceptable. Now, if they were wearing those so-called "spanks" which have their butt cheeks hanging out and leaving little to the imagination, yeah, that would be in appropriate even in the relatively closed venue. But, really? These uniforms are just not that bad. What, because someone can catch a glimpse of knee when they're standing up. Even that is mitigated by the fact that they are wearing knee pads.
Now, the coach in the picture appears to have an inappropriate skirt on ... without any whatsoever reason to do so. Now, THAT is a bad example to the girls on the team for sure. Now, I can see it being a problem if the players' skirts were too long over the knee. If they were to go down on their knees, the skirt could actually get caught between the floor and their knee and they could be injured.
I bet that their competition was very badly dressed, and the fact that they beat them sends a message that you don't need to dress like that to be competitive. I think that the excuse for the immodesty in dress is the competitive advantage to be gained from it ... although for girls it's usually an excuse to practice exhibitionism.
Now, if they were wearing those so-called "spanks" which have their butt cheeks hanging out and leaving little to the imagination, yeah, that would be inappropriate even in the relatively closed venue.Wearing spandex short shorts is "inappropriate"? That's it?! Such attire is borderline pornographic. It's totally, 100% impure, in every regard.
I bet that their competition was very badly dressed, and the fact that they beat them sends a message that you don't need to dress like that to be competitive.
Gentlemen,Learning from what Pax Vobis posted, it matters little what they wear, they can't be in a match against girls in panties. (Saying they can convert them by a "good" example, is like Eric GaJєωski saying he is picking up prostitutes to convert them.)
Please provide us with a photo or sketch of what you believe is suitable attire for a traditional Catholic girl to wear on the public volley ball court.
Yes, their competition was 100% wearing such "spanks" and everyone in attendance was part of the occasion of sin, for taking part in the game where such women are dressed such. You can visit the athletic association's facebook page to confirm, as I did: https://www.facebook.com/CanyonAthleticAssociation/ (https://www.facebook.com/CanyonAthleticAssociation/)
I saw 1 picture of an opposing team all wearing "spanks" but almost all of the girls (or should I call them "land whales"?) were so overweight that such scandalous "shorts" were vomit-inducing. Thank God for that.
.
Can one partake of a sporting event where your competition is impurely and provocatively dressed? I don't see how this is morally acceptable. So, by the very fact you are playing this hooker-dressed team, you are condoning such dress all in the name of sports. What a great example of living the Faith!
.
Finally, these events are not held in a "closed venue". All are open to the public, all addresses are posted all over the web, anyone can attend for a nominal fee of $2-5 (children are free).
For others, notice that in all women's sports, the women are scantily dressed. Even in women's pro football where you would think they would be covered for protection, they play bare butt. Look at track, bare butt. Volleyball, ice skating. Tennis...… There is a reason for that, it is to attract men to the "sport". Why would anyone go to watch woman's highschool/college/pro sports except they be parents or relatives? It is like going to watch a pro football game between men with their ankles tide together, or other handicap. That is the reason for the bare butt and exposed breasts outfits. It is of course of the devil. Also, because of the aggression in competitive sports it attracts an abnormally high percentage of lesbians to play or watch/stalk. I have a relative who's daughgter played on the highschool volleyball team and I was at his house once when the girls were all there. I smelled something wrong, and over time found that many of them were indeed lesbians, maybe the majority.No Catholic can attend such events, just like they can't go to a crowded beach full of young girls in their underwear (better known to the brainwashed as bikinis and one piece bathing suits).
Please provide us with a photo or sketch of what you believe is suitable attire for a traditional Catholic girl to wear on the public volley ball court.The issue is not ONLY "what is suitable to wear"? But also,
Okay.. okay.I played football and baseball from 9 years of age till 12th grade and I was very good at it. The daily football practices and games sapped me of all of my aggression and made me a better student. Hitting people and getting hit everyday day till you can't walk will do that. Had I known the faith like my son does today (I knew absolutely NOTHING!), I would never have played, as I would not have had the aggression and the malice. It is a lot of work to play any organized competitive sport and a waste of time for 99% of the people who play it.
Let’s imagine we are living in the “Sixth Age of the Church”.
What’s left of the Jєωs are in hiding and everybody else is Catholic. The Restoration Pope has reiterated the rules for modest dress.
There’s a Catholic girls school volleyball league. What might there uniforms look like?
Here's what the uniform could look like, but made with lighter material with built in hip and knee padding.The skirt can be the same length as they currently use:
Female sports today only exist for the pleasure of men. That is why girls sports are played bare butt (in pro football, track, tennis, volleyball, swimming.....). If people once again lived the faith, you would not see any girls going through all of the work to compete in sports.
Not bad, ...But short of having them custom designed, I'm not sure where you'd fine something like that.We buy those bathing suit for our girls from Hydrochic. They last forever and can be passed on for years. The material is too thick for volleyball however, it would be too hot. It could easily be replicated by the girls just using black leggings under their current skirts. They currently likely only have the same spandex short underwear like their competitions, and whenever they jump or bend over you can see everything under the skirt. The leggings would fix that. A simple cure. Nevertheless, they can't play against other teams because the other girls are naked.
Here's what the uniform could look like, but made with lighter material with built in hip and knee padding (or they could just wear separate knee pads like they do know).The skirt can be the same length as they currently use. The sleeves above the elbow:
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.RaOah8JwipswhPV6P-sgzQAAAA&w=141&h=162&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7)
No, female sports rose in popularity due to feminism ... and not the pleasure of men. That's why even today you have on the books all these rules in school athletics about having to have the same number of sports for women/girls as for men ... with anything else being "discrimination". Then the girls themselves are the ones who set the styles to be more provocative ... for the same reasons they do that with everyday clothing as well.If female sports relied on women spectators, they would not last one year. Look at the crowds at women's pro-football, which is the most ridiculous of proofs of what I say. (beware, they are really naked).
Very few men watch womens' sports, and that's why the womens' leagues usually fold and pay next to nothing. If men are interested in ogling women, they won't be watching womens' sports, but going straight to something more provocative ... unless you count "swimsuit" as a sport (to have it appear in Sports Illustrated).
....umm, no. You don’t notice boobs bursting through the clingy chest??The guy kept insisting on a uniform so I gave him one. I made it quite clear that they can't play other teams because the other girls are naked. Also, that in a Catholic world, no girl would want to go through all of the work to be in competitive sports. That I myself, would never have played competitive sports if I had known the faith.
Women have no business playing sports regardless of whether they are modestly dressed or not.
Their involvement was largely the result of the Jєω slut movement in 1920’s America known as the “flapper movement.”
I believe a slut named Madonna starred in a movie called “A League of Their Own” back in the 80’s/90’’s based on that slut movement.
Yes, flappers were sluts, and encouraging women in sports one of their Jєωιѕн legacies.
Here's what the uniform could look like, but made with lighter material with built in hip and knee padding (or they could just wear separate knee pads like they do know).The skirt can be the same length as they currently use. The sleeves above the elbow:The misfit could be fixed by wearing the correct size, not 1 or 2 sizes too small, as this image depicts.
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.RaOah8JwipswhPV6P-sgzQAAAA&w=141&h=162&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7)
The guy kept insisting on a uniform so I gave him one. I made it quite clear that they can't play other teams because the other girls are naked. Also, that in a Catholic world, no girl would want to go through all of the work to be in competitive sports. That I myself, would never have played competitive sports if I had known the faith.
Women have no business playing sports regardless of whether they are modestly dressed or not.
There's absolutely zero support for this emotional outburst. You didn't even qualify this with "competitive" sports.
Therefore, in an ideal Catholic world, women would abstain from sports.
Your post contains absolutely zero justification for women in sports.
I needn't provide any. Burden of proof is squarely on you, since the Church has never forbidden it or declared it to be sinful or bad. Find me a single pre-Vatican II theologian who stated that female sports are categorically sinful, bad, or displeasing to God. THEN I might begin to listen to your drivel.
Sports can have many benefits. I'm not talking about competitive sports or anything involving immodest dress. There are many physical, psychological, and emotional benefits. Getting into shape can give one more energy to perform one's duties of state. There's absolutely NO reason whatsoever that girls should be deprived of this.
It's idiots like yourself that make Traditional Catholics look like an Amish cult.
| (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/images/B003_BasketballPlayer1.jpg) A masculine young woman ... or a feminine young man? LA Times, August 22, 2004 |
| (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/images/B003_BasketballPlayer2.jpg) |
There is only one way, today, as yesterday and tomorrow, for the Catholic girl and woman to counter immodesty in immoral fashions, bad language, and masculine attitudes: an absolute rejection of them. For the good of the soul, certain gymnastic exercises and sports are simply not suitable for Catholic young ladies."“Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circuмstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion. These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality…
"As St. Thomas of Aquinas teaches, the good of our soul must take precedence over that of our body, and to the good of our body we must prefer the good of the soul of our neighbor” (Allocution to the girls of Catholic Action of May 22, 1941).
With this ridiculous unqualified assertion, it would be sinful if girls enjoyed a little pickup game of badminton and a girls'-only outing in the park ... even if they had ankle-length dresses on the entire time.
This is just stupid.
Of course, nobody in the entire thread was ever protesting girls participating in non-competitive "sports" (e.g., fishing, horseback riding, hiking, etc.), which are really just recreations, and not properly "sports" at all.
To pretend that you have only been defending girls recreation/non-competitive "sports" is betrayed by the fact that you intervened in this protest thread at all, which does not concern such things.
…For the good of the soul, certain gymnastic exercises and sports are simply not suitable for Catholic young ladies."We do have an obligation to respect our temples of the Holy Ghost. In that regard, 120 minutes per week of moderate exercise is a reasonable target for meeting that obligation. That obligation can be met with modesty and without violating the boundaries of male/female roles. Women can certainly play at games without becoming sportanists (portmanteau of sports and satanists).
You idiot. You made a post that stated, categorically and absolutely, without any qualifications whatsoever, that girls cannot play sports ... without even so much as attempting to define the basic terms like "sport". I rejected the statement outright. Without actually admitting that your statement needs to be qualified, now here you're half walking it back by allowing for certain qualified "not-really-sports". So where would a game of badminton fit in? Is that "properly" a sport? You have two teams of girls competing to get the higher score. Is this wrong? It sounds like you're suggesting that solitary exercise is OK, but nothing in groups. But, again, you're too stupid to actually articulate what you're talking about, so I'm left in the position of having to draw it out from your dull wits.Loudestmouth-
We do have an obligation to respect our temples of the Holy Ghost. In that regard, 120 minutes per week of moderate exercise is a reasonable target for meeting that obligation. That obligation can be met with modesty and without violating the boundaries of male/female roles. Women can certainly play at games without becoming sportanists (portmanteau of sports and satanists).Exercise is not competition.
Exercise is not competition.Would you argue that playing a card or board game is sinful? After all, someone wins, hence there is competition.
Neither is it a sport (unless you are watching ESPN2, where they shake a stick and call it a sport), but a recreation.
Generally, if it is not competitive, it is not a sport.
Start by taking modesty totally out of consideration, and assume all parties are perfectly in keeping with standards of modesty.Modesty is your argument (ie., women can play sports if modestly dressed).
1) Is physical activity / exertion wrong for girls?
2) Is any competition among girls wrong?
Sounds to me like you consider any kind of more intense physical exertion to be wrong in limiting your list to things like hiking. What about jogging or even running, assuming there's no competition? But then you never clearly articulate anything.
I absolutely stated girls have no business in sports, period.
But you conveniently ignore that I also say that what you call “non-competitive sports” (eg., hiking, fishing, etc) are really not “sports” at all, but simple recreations.
Would you argue that playing a card or board game is sinful? After all, someone wins, hence there is competition.
Would you argue that playing a card or board game is sinful? After all, someone wins, hence there is competition.The key distinction is sport vs recreation.
Thank you. He's unable to articulate anything on his own, so you have for force it out of him ... like playing Socrates.Refuted again (see previous post); victory after victory...
Is any competition among girls wrong? That's step one to him unraveling his own emotional brain.
To date, your resume includes:
-defending women in pants
-defending women in sports
-defending women in makeup
Not very traddy, it it?
Everything above with distinctions and qualifications that you are incapable of grasping. If being "traddy" means being an idiotic unthinking Jansenistic member of an Amish cult, then I'm happy to say that i'm not "traddy" ... whatever emotional litmus test you wish to apply to that amorphous term.Are you Fr. Urrutigoity?
Absolutely none of the above is intrinsically wrong and can be done, with qualifications. You are a moron who makes all "trads" look bad.
The key distinction is sport vs recreation.
Why?
Because Pius XI said we had to be careful to protect feminine reserve.
And where sport by nature excites the passions (thereby surrendering feminine reserve: think of the tennis player in the 1990’s going down to her knees after victory and ripping off her top in exuberance), recreations (eg., boardgames, hiking, fishing) do not elicit such passions, and therefore present no threat to feminine comportment or reserve.
…Because Pius XI said we had to be careful to protect feminine reserve.…There is nothing feminine about the many sows among us.
There is nothing feminine about the many sows among us....and is not a sport, but a recreation.
I argue that moderate exercise dressed modestly protects feminine reserve.
Are you Fr. Urrutigoity?
OK, you have now come a step closer to having a rational thought ... since it's been forced out of you. Don't hurt yourself now. Except that you make these idiotic caricatures about it somehow being inherent in sport to "rip [one's] top off in exuberance". Not sure how much of your idiotic brain I can tolerate.On the contrary:
So your current position, after your being unable to articulate your own emotions, is that competition combined with physical exertion is wrong.
What about a competitive game of badminton? Right or wrong for girls?
Would you argue that playing a card or board game is sinful? After all, someone wins, hence there is competition.
The key distinction is sport vs recreation.
Why?
Because Pius XI said we had to be careful to protect feminine reserve.
And where sport by nature excites the passions (thereby surrendering feminine reserve: think of the tennis player in the 1990’s going down to her knees after victory and ripping off her top in exuberance), recreations (eg., boardgames, hiking, fishing) do not elicit such passions, and therefore present no threat to feminine comportment or reserve.
Not allowed in a traditional Catholic home.You would make less an ass of yourself if you paid a bit closer attention.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frmsidac.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F07%2F1bigstockphoto_Old_Women_Playing_Cards__398706.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
It brings out their "competitiveness" and manly qualities.
Plus, when they lose and get up from the table angry, it's hard for them to restrain their "boobs".
Are spelling bees sports or recreation? Just wondering on your “key distinction” in light of my personal experience.Do women lose their feminine reserve when competing in spelling bees?
Do women lose their feminine reserve when competing in spelling bees?
Some.
Do women lose their feminine reserve when competing in spelling bees?
You know, some forum software allows for people to start threads and then ban various individuals from participation in them.:baby:
I would actually like to start a serious, rational discussion of issues like this and ban the likes of Johnson from participation in them. I'm interested in discussing issues rationally, applying definitions and logic and distinctions ... according to a scholastic definition. And, no, the intention isn't to limit it to people who agree with me. That would be boring. You can sometimes best arrive at the truth when people who disagree actually help you elicit the proper distinctions. I'm sick and tired of the irrational emoting and huffing-and-puffing.
I'm this close to insisting that someone actually format their argument into a syllogism before I bother responding.
From the beginning, people blurring together the concerns of modesty and competition and physical exertion (that evidently excites the passions). [PS most moral theologians recommend strenuous physical activity precisely in order to TAME and CONTROL and to QUELL the passions].
Some.If I sit around privately wearing pink panties and painting my toenails, does it affect my psyche and make me less manly?
Do all women lose their feminine reserve in playing sports? Hauling a huge load of laundry up the stairs?
I don’t see the physicality element as a “key distinction.”
It’s the striving for mastery or winning over a competitor that contains the potential abuse of releasing the darker side, in men as well.
...and is not a sport, but a recreation.In your opinion is playing tennis a "sport" or "recreation"?
If I sit around privately wearing pink panties and painting my toenails, does it affect my psyche and make me less manly?Yes, the pink is a hormone blocker and feminizes you.
But Sean already stipulated that the competition of playing card and board games is acceptable even though someone wins and someone loses.
…It’s the striving for mastery or winning over a competitor that contains the potential abuse of releasing the darker side, in men as well.
In your opinion is playing tennis a "sport" or "recreation"?Sport:
Yes, the pink is a hormone blocker and feminizes you.Then by the same logic, one would have to conclude women participating in masculine endeavors like sports (vs recreation) become masculinized (as was shown earlier in the TIA article excerpt).
If I sit around privately wearing pink panties and painting my toenails, does it make me less manly?Mr. Johnson,
Sport:I'd be interested in that column (but not interested enough to search for it).
When Bishop Williamson was sequestered in a Wimbledon attic, he wrote an EC on the “Gladiatrixes.”
But Sean already stipulated that the competition of playing card and board games is acceptable even though someone wins and someone loses....because those activities are mere recreation, not sport (ie. They do not typically provoke aggression, imposition of will, and the desire to dominate an adversary as a sport would).
Mr. Johnson,I did not assert physicality is the distinguishing characteristic between sport and recreation.
You asserted the physicality element of sports competition as a "key distinction." I referenced "spelling bees" as an example of how absurd your "key distinction" is, because girls have lost their "feminine reserve" in spelling bees, or any other competition - some referenced card games here. I also referenced the physical exertion of carrying a heavy load of laundry up the stairs. Does a woman lose her feminine reserve in doing so? Perhaps we should ban doing laundry loads of a certain weight to females.
I submit that any rational man would recognize that the physicality of sports is not the "key distinctive." You do your position no favors advancing such shoddy arguments. Indeed, Traditionalism itself - or any truth - can be hurt by such poor intellectual defense. Or by, as you have done, irrelevant argumentation fed by emotion and not reason.
It is the competitive act. COMPETITION that is the distinctive factor in the subject to which we are adverting our minds.
It remains so whether a man contemplates it in pink panties or a three piece suit.
As an aside, I agree with you about women in pants, makeup, etc. We are dealing with intellectual rigor here (I hope), and not simply whether we agree with one another. Unprincipled agreement is easily exposed as inadequate when questioned by a rational interrogation. Prithee, let's strive to find adequate and supportive principles in defending truth.
By pointing out the problems with a man "privately" doing what you say you're perhaps starting to find the right groove to arriving at some kind of principle or truth.
DR
Then by the same logic, one would have to conclude women participating in masculine endeavors like sports (vs recreation) become masculinized (as was shown earlier in the TIA article excerpt).See my tennis/bicycling post above.
This also explains the disproportionately high incidence of lesbianism in women’s sports:
The feminine psyche is damaged.
...because those activities are mere recreation, not sport (ie. They do not typically provoke aggression, imposition of will, and the desire to dominate an adversary as a sport would).Clearly you are not a serious chess player.
But Sean already stipulated that the competition of playing card and board games is acceptable even though someone wins and someone loses.He can stipulate all he wants. His principle - the physicality of sports - doesn't support his position. The loss of feminine reserve that also happens in those competitions undoes him. He hasn't identified the "key distinctive."
I did not assert physicality is the distinguishing characteristic between sport and recreation.Perhaps my error. I will take a look at that.
I lay out the distinction in my previous post to Mark79
Clearly you are not a serious chess player.Do you believe chess was a COMMON female activity 100 years ago?
The distinction between sport and recreation is this:
The former typically encourage aggression, desire to dominate, and elicit a strong emotional response in the participating athlete.
Recreations typically involve none of these.
He can stipulate all he wants. His principle - the physicality of sports - doesn't support his position. The loss of feminine reserve that also happens in those competitions undoes him. He hasn't identified the "key distinctive."Physicality is not my principle, and you are wrong to attribute it to me:
The distinction between sport and recreation is this:Thank you.
The former typically encourage aggression, desire to dominate, and elicit a strong emotional response in the participating athlete.
Recreations typically involve none of these.
Physicality is not my principle, and you are wrong to attribute it to me:So, if I dare point out the unanimous agreements, the inner forum and modest dress are key. Proper formation is crucial.
My principle distinguishes between sport and recreation, and asserts the the former are not permissible for women because they elicit psychological reactions damaging to the feminine psyche, and in violation of the “prudent reserve” Pius XI required .
Physicality is not my principle, and you are wrong to attribute it to me:Again: I submit those same psychological factors are elicited in all competitive endeavors.
My principle distinguishes between sport and recreation, and asserts the the former are not permissible for women because they elicit psychological reactions damaging to the feminine psyche, and in violation of the “prudent reserve” Pius XI required .
Typically… for whom?
I play chess as a matter of life and death (even within the family) and I play tennis and bicycle with women (within the family these days) recreationally.
I submit that the internal forum and modest dress are the key distinctions—hence require proper formation in both regards.
Typically… for whom?Growing up, I played hockey and baseball in city league. I played football in high school, and rugby for four years in college. And I trained jiu-jitsu and MMA for 15 years.
I play chess as a matter of life and death (even within the family) and I play tennis and bicycle with women (within the family these days) recreationally.
I submit that the internal forum and modest dress are the key distinctions—hence require proper formation in both regards.
Again: I submit those same psychological factors are elicited in all competitive endeavors.
You need another principle, imho.
Typically… for whom?Growing up, I played hockey and baseball in city league. I played football in high school, and rugby for four years in college. And I trained jiu-jitsu and MMA for 15 years.
I play chess as a matter of life and death (even within the family) and I play tennis and bicycle with women (within the family these days) recreationally.
I submit that the internal forum and modest dress are the key distinctions—hence require proper formation in both regards.
Growing up, I played hockey and baseball in city league. I played football in high school, and rugby for four years in college. And I trained jiu-jitsu and MMA for 15 years.My sports/recreation background is similar and I can assure you that the emotional and psychological state of mind provoked between chess and soccer/martial arts/crew/etc. is entirely comparable.
I have also played chess my whole life.
I can assure you that the emotional and psychological state of mind provoked between chess and rugby/MMA/etc. is not in any way comparable.
This thread tells me that you guys have too much time on your hands. May I suggest that you go and do some activity with your children?How do you spell ass-u-me?
While you guys were wasting your time here talking about gnats, I just got a date with the two girls in bikinis that keep popping up on the Cathinfo sight. LOL , so much for those people criticizing others who posted pictures of immodest dresses two inches above the knees as being a sin for the poster.
Growing up, I played hockey and baseball in city league. I played football in high school, and rugby for four years in college. And I trained jiu-jitsu and MMA for 15 years.Sean,
I have also played chess my whole life.
I can assure you that the emotional and psychological state of mind provoked between chess and rugby/MMA/etc. is not in any way comparable.
This thread tells me that you guys have too much time on your hands. May I suggest that you go and do some activity with your children?Lol
While you guys were wasting your time here talking about gnats, I just got a date with the two girls in bikinis that keep popping up on the Cathinfo sight. LOL , so much for those people criticizing others who posted pictures of immodest dresses two inches above the knees as being a sin for the poster.
This thread tells me that you guys have too much time on your hands. May I suggest that you go and do some activity with your children?
While you guys were wasting your time here talking about gnats, I just got a date with the two girls in bikinis that keep popping up on the Cathinfo sight. LOL , so much for those people criticizing others who posted pictures of immodest dresses two inches above the knees as being a sin for the poster.
Traditional Catholicism is all relative on this forum LT.:baby:
Matthew has to keep the bikini ads going because Sean, the de facto moderator/theologian is driving-off so many members.
Hopefully Amazon’s “Black Friday” business will keep Cathinfo healthy despite Sean’s efforts.
Some.
Do all women lose their feminine reserve in playing sports? Hauling a huge load of laundry up the stairs?
I don’t see the physicality element as a “key distinction.”
It’s the striving for mastery or winning over a competitor that contains the potential abuse of releasing the darker side, in men as well.
Athletic activity can help every man and woman to recall that moment when God the Creator gave origin to the human person, the masterpiece of his creative work.
Yes, thank you for seeking distinctions.Yes, thank you for inventing your own distinction and attributing it to me, while somehow ignoring the distinction I have laid out no fewer than 5 times in the last page.
I don't see competition as necessarily bad, for males or for females. When I was in school, there was a lot of competition to get the best GPA in my class at High School. Competition can be good spirited and can help PUSH a person to perform better than he might have without it. I might otherwise be complacent with doing "my personal best" (as the new PC term would have it) ... which complacency would lead to my not ACTUALLY doing my best. Competition can push me to find my REAL best.
Now, the feminine nature IS in fact more inclined to turn competition to its "darker side". Why? Because they make everything so personal. It's much easier for a man NOT to resent another man, but rather actually respect him. Men could have their butts kicked in some area, and they can shake the guy's hand sincerely and respect him for his accomplishment. And this loss in turn can motivate him to work harder to come back and beat him ... but, again, with no hard feelings. With females, resentment and jealousy VERY QUICKLY creeps in, and it's very difficult for them to shake it. Of course, I speak only in terms of natural tendencies (due to our fallen natures). Some men are very bad sports and bad losers and get jealous, whereas some women take it very well.
But, even then, this is the case whether it's sports or beauty or academic accomplishment, or anything else.
As you very articulately point out, competition is not the key distinctive, however, when it comes to sport.
I also agree that a certain degree of "physical aggression" is not in keeping with feminine nature. Certainly, girls should not be playing a sport like football, where have the time you're trying to demolish your opponent physically. Other sports can have a certain amount of physical aggression in them, but it's not essential to the game, but just happens incidentally ... whereas in football it's almost essential to the sport. You're SUPPOSED to tackle someone. In these other sports, actions like that are considered fouls. Should two ladies be allowed to "wrestle" on another? I think not. I agree that something like that is also contrary to feminine nature, the attempt to physically dominate your opponent.
But take a sport like volleyball or tennis. There's no direct physical contact there at all. Or softball (although for some unknown reason a disproportionate of female softball players are lesbians). Sports like basketball or soccer are somewhere in between, where the intent of the game is to achieve some objective (score a goal or a basket), but there's contact along the way. It's incidental to your objective however. You're not directly attacking the person but are competing do something with the ball. You're trying to get the ball and not attack the player.
So perhaps the distinction Sean is looking for is "contact sports" ... even though he's been unable to articulate it. And perhaps another thing he's grasping for is the rise of adrenaline that happens during sports ... vs. intellectual competitions. But then, there can be a rise of adrenaline associated even with solitary sports ... like running. And also, as Mark79 points out, in a high-tense chess game.
Sean, your Saint John Paul II had the most to say about sports of any pope. You should heed his wisdom. He's a canonized saint after all.More lies and malice from the Loudestmouth on the forum:
https://www.stmarysmenston.org/john-paul-ii-quotes-about-sport (https://www.stmarysmenston.org/john-paul-ii-quotes-about-sport)
Yes, thank you for inventing your own distinction and attributing it to me, while somehow ignoring the distinction I have laid out no fewer than 5 times in the last page.
It is either malice or incompetence, and neither is going to lead you to truth.
More lies and malice from the Loudestmouth on the forum:
All know I reject the conciliar conanizations (as do you), but hey, for you the ends justify the means, and you would rather burn in hellfire for eternity than lose an argument.
But you lose it nonetheless.
Yes, thank you for seeking distinctions.
I don't see competition as necessarily bad, for males or for females. When I was in school, there was a lot of competition to get the best GPA in my class at High School. Competition can be good spirited and can help PUSH a person to perform better than he might have without it. I might otherwise be complacent with doing "my personal best" (as the new PC term would have it) ... which complacency would lead to my not ACTUALLY doing my best. Competition can push me to find my REAL best.
Agreed. Which is why I used the phrase, "potential for abuse" regarding competition. In using the phrase I allowed for a positive side to competition even for woman, although I am not necessarily convinced that competition in itself is not bad for women.
Now, the feminine nature IS in fact more inclined to turn competition to its "darker side". Why? Because they make everything so personal. It's much easier for a man NOT to resent another man, but rather actually respect him. Men could have their butts kicked in some area, and they can shake the guy's hand sincerely and respect him for his accomplishment. And this loss in turn can motivate him to work harder to come back and beat him ... but, again, with no hard feelings. With females, resentment and jealousy VERY QUICKLY creeps in, and it's very difficult for them to shake it. Of course, I speak only in terms of natural tendencies (due to our fallen natures). Some men are very bad sports and bad losers and get jealous, whereas some women take it very well.
But, even then, this is the case whether it's sports or beauty or academic accomplishment, or anything else.
Agreed again. I appreciate the effort at finding a true distinction in the nature of woman that provides a principled explanation. And as you pointed out, and as I have, this is the case in all competition.
As you very articulately point out, competition is not the key distinctive, however, when it comes to sport.
I also agree that a certain degree of "physical aggression" is not in keeping with feminine nature. Certainly, girls should not be playing a sport like football, where have the time you're trying to demolish your opponent physically. Other sports can have a certain amount of physical aggression in them, but it's not essential to the game, but just happens incidentally ... whereas in football it's almost essential to the sport. You're SUPPOSED to tackle someone. In these other sports, actions like that are considered fouls. Should two ladies be allowed to "wrestle" on another? I think not. I agree that something like that is also contrary to feminine nature, the attempt to physically dominate your opponent.
But take a sport like volleyball or tennis. There's no direct physical contact there at all. Or softball (although for some unknown reason a disproportionate of female softball players are lesbians). Sports like basketball or soccer are somewhere in between, where the intent of the game is to achieve some objective (score a goal or a basket), but there's contact along the way. It's incidental to your objective however. You're not directly attacking the person but are competing do something with the ball. You're trying to get the ball and not attack the player.
So perhaps the distinction Sean is looking for is "contact sports" ... even though he's been unable to articulate it. And perhaps another thing he's grasping for is the rise of adrenaline that happens during sports ... vs. intellectual competitions. But then, there can be a rise of adrenaline associated even with solitary sports ... like running. And also, as Mark79 points out, in a high-tense chess game.
And yet again, I appreciate the attempt to think through this. This is progress.
My comments are in red of course. I find this the easiest way to comment on a long post.
You cannot reject them, since they were infallibly proclaimed by a legitimate pope. These canonizations enjoy the Universal Peaceful Acceptance of the entire Church and therefore cannot be wrong.
There is no argument here to lose.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/0d/e3/5d/0de35d6b613cb1390f2975a76c8982f2.jpg)
That distinction has been pointed out to be meaningless, so I was trying to figure out what you're actually driving at. If you stick with your original position, then I continue to dismiss it.
Thank you for the response. Sorry my original was so long.Pfft...what a bag of wind.
I've never said that anyone had to agree with me. I only ask for a sincere interest in getting at the truth and rational arguments with the appropriate distinctions.
in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.
Pope Pius XI's 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini illius magistri (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html) §68 (same § in which he condemns coeducation):Don’t expect any admission from these Feeneyite heretic infiltrators.
…I also agree that a certain degree of "physical aggression" is not in keeping with feminine nature. Certainly, girls should not be playing a sport like football, where have the time you're trying to demolish your opponent physically.…
…And also, as Mark79 points out, in a high-tense chess game.…
Sean, your Saint John Paul II had the most to say about sports of any pope. You should heed his wisdom. He's a canonized saint after all.I look forward to the next "Cadaver Synod" when they dig that guy up.
https://www.stmarysmenston.org/john-paul-ii-quotes-about-sport (https://www.stmarysmenston.org/john-paul-ii-quotes-about-sport)
in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.
Pope Pius XI's 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini illius magistri (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html) §68 (same § in which he condemns coeducation):If someone here championed immodest attire, I missed the post.
Geremia said:Case closed "in gymnastic exercises and deportment."
Pope Pius XI's 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini illius magistri (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html) §68 (same § in which he condemns coeducation):
Quote from: Pope Pius XI
Case closed.
If someone here championed immodest attire, I missed the post.He says it is also public exhibitionism which impairs girls modesty, not merely their attire.
Don’t expect any admission from these Feeneyite heretic infiltrators.Come on, man, that's trash.
One is only capable of posting pics, and the other just likes to read his own words.
They will conclude the pope was insane, puritanical, or whatever is necessary to submit to their wives.
They are liberal feminists, and should be banned.
Case closed "in gymnastic exercises and deportment."You would require of the pope an enumerated list of all condemned sports?
Come on, man, that's trash.
For example, I said I agreed with your position in general on women but found your reasoning to be defective - to say the least.
And I hope to God you don't smoke because you shouldn't anywhere near fire.
You would require of the pope an enumerated list of all condemned sports?I think that "modesty," especially in the context of "public exhibition," are quite clear.
The principle of preserving feminine reserve and comportment does not suffice?
You will be troubled to learn I sometimes smoke a pipe or cigar.Yes, troubled that you would defile your temple of the Holy Ghost with carcinogens and nervous system toxins.
Don’t expect any admission from these Feeneyite heretic infiltrators.(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.wideopenspaces.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FTC8.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
One is only capable of posting pics, and the other just likes to read his own words.
They will conclude the pope was insane, puritanical, or whatever is necessary to submit to their wives.
They are liberal feminists, and should be banned.
Pope Pius XI's 1929 encyclical on Christian education, Divini illius magistri (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html) §68 (same § in which he condemns coeducation):
Don’t expect any admission from these Feeneyite heretic infiltrators.
One is only capable of posting pics, and the other just likes to read his own words.
They will conclude the pope was insane, puritanical, or whatever is necessary to submit to their wives.
They are liberal feminists, and should be banned.
Note: I hope that everyone understands that "gymnastics" here is a general term for "sport" and is not limited to what is popularly known as gymnastics today.Gratuitous BS.
By this standard, you might judge me a deficient parent for encouraging my daughters in a particular combat (not "sport") martial art. I intend for all the women in our family to be competent in dropping and injuring any inappropriate male (or dyke) activity through "physical contact." Yes, demolish. They also shoot… with purpose.
He says it is also public exhibitionism which impairs girls modesty, not merely their attire.
Dude, this quote from Pius XI clearly undermines your position that gymnastics (aka sports) is illicit per se. Pope XI's only constraint is the protection of modesty ... in public exhibition.Nice try:
I love how when every time Johnson finds himself in a corner, he pulls out the old 'Feeneyite heretic" card ... as if Feeneyism has anything even remotely to do with this subject.
Not at all.I don't see why it would be immoral for women to play football unless they were playing with (or maybe around) men.
I won't judge anyone personally, since I am not privy to the context or to the prudential judgments you have made with regard to you family and your children, of which you are the head. I'm merely about understanding the principles. Their application to your situation is between you, God, and your confessor.
Also, I believe that any caveats can be outweighed by a proportionate reason. I do not object to this type of activity with a view towards the girls being able to defend themselves and their children. There would, however, be no proportionate reason to allow a girl to play football that I can imagine.
Gratuitous BS.
Have a good night Loudestmouth; have to run, but can’t wait to beat up on you some more tomorrow (lol...tgat ought to provoke at least 6-7 Loudestmouth posts within 5 minutes)😂I see you've gone back to being as petty as possible.
I don't see why it would be immoral for women to play football unless they were playing with (or maybe around) men.
What am I missing?
Nice try:
The pope is saying that whatever “gymnastics” is, it is not something which can be permitted if it threatens feminine comportment in public.
Can you contrive some kind of gymnastics which doesn’t do that?
Not at all.Crime rates and morality being what they are, nobody is safe anywhere.
I won't judge anyone personally, since I am not privy to the context or to the prudential judgments you have made with regard to you family and your children, of which you are the head. I'm merely about understanding the principles. Their application to your situation is between you, God, and your confessor.
Also, I believe that any caveats can be outweighed by a proportionate reason. I do not object to this type of activity with a view towards the girls being able to defend themselves and their children. There would, however, be no proportionate reason to allow a girl to play football that I can imagine.
It appears that the girls were out in public, in this picture, but I do not consider playing in an arena where the scheduled event states that it's a girls' match ... to be public. You have to buy a ticket to get in. And the events are not viewable to someone who hasn't entered the arena of his own accord. Secondly, the degree of immodesty here is something might even be tolerable at Mass. These uniforms are not even close to being gravely immodest. Even if these girls walked out to the grocery store like this, truly in public, I would consider it a venial violation of modesty at the most. But with regard to a sport that is clearly billed as a girls' sporting event, I consider this acceptable. Now, if they were wearing those so-called "spanks" which have their butt cheeks hanging out and leaving little to the imagination, yeah, that would be in appropriate even in the relatively closed venue. But, really? These uniforms are just not that bad. What, because someone can catch a glimpse of knee when they're standing up. Even that is mitigated by the fact that they are wearing knee pads.
Now, the coach in the picture appears to have an inappropriate skirt on ... without any whatsoever reason to do so. Now, THAT is a bad example to the girls on the team for sure. Now, I can see it being a problem if the players' skirts were too long over the knee. If they were to go down on their knees, the skirt could actually get caught between the floor and their knee and they could be injured.
I bet that their competition was very badly dressed, and the fact that they beat them sends a message that you don't need to dress like that to be competitive. I think that the excuse for the immodesty in dress is the competitive advantage to be gained from it ... although for girls it's usually an excuse to practice exhibitionism.
The more this thread prattles on, the more it becomes clear that Islam has a leg up on certain CathInfoTradTM.Is that you, Fr. Urrutigoity?
(http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Iran_womensteam2-vi.jpg)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03459/iranian-womens-foo_3459299b.jpg)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03459/iranian-womens-foo_3459300b.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/e6/71/91e671ec9390859426565169a05e8a49.jpg)
The more this thread prattles on, the more it becomes clear that Islam has a leg up on certain CathInfoTradTM.Bonaventure-
(http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Iran_womensteam2-vi.jpg)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03459/iranian-womens-foo_3459299b.jpg)
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03459/iranian-womens-foo_3459300b.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/91/e6/71/91e671ec9390859426565169a05e8a49.jpg)
My biggest problem is with the haughty, self-righteous, Pharisaical attitude of standing in judgment over everyone ... whether or not you have all the facts or can present a rational argument. You refuse to entertain distinctions or degrees of sin or proportionate reasons. You pretend that moral theology is binary, or at least act like it, that either something is a mortal sin or it's perfect, that there's nothing in between. You paint moral theology as black-and-white, whereas in actuality it admits of much gray, with prudential considerations being weighed in. Most of all, you refuse to give anyone of the benefit of the doubt, but immediately stand on your soapbox to denounce these girls as whores ... simply because you can catch a glimpse of knee from their uniforms.Who is "you"?
Trust me, God is much more offended by arrogant judgmental self-righteous Pharisaism than by a glimpse of female knee.
Trust me, God is much more offended by arrogant judgmental self-righteous Pharisaism than by a glimpse of female knee.Once again the writer clearly reveals that he does not understand the problem, he still only sees it as a matter of a few inches of cloth "a glimpse of a female knee"
Crime rates and morality being what they are, nobody is safe anywhere.Fitness and recreation?
I too cannot envision an excuse for females playing football.
I am surprised that this discussion is so heated.
Once again the writer clearly reveals that he does not understand the problem, he still only sees it as a matter of a few inches of cloth "a glimpse of a female knee"
It appears that the girls were out in public, in this picture, but I do not consider playing in an arena where the scheduled event states that it's a girls' match ... to be public. You have to buy a ticket to get in. And the events are not viewable to someone who hasn't entered the arena of his own accord. Secondly, the degree of immodesty here is something might even be tolerable at Mass. These uniforms are not even close to being gravely immodest. (would you allow your daughters to wear to similar outfits to mass or the grocery store?) Even if these girls walked out to the grocery store like this, truly in public, I would consider it a venial violation of modesty at the most. But with regard to a sport that is clearly billed as a girls' sporting event, I consider this acceptable. Now, if they were wearing those so-called "spanks" which have their butt cheeks hanging out and leaving little to the imagination, yeah, that would be in appropriate even in the relatively closed venue. But, really? These uniforms are just not that bad. What, because someone can catch a glimpse of knee when they're standing up. Even that is mitigated by the fact that they are wearing knee pads.(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=52919.0;attach=13501;image)
Now, the coach in the picture appears to have an inappropriate skirt on ...( I don't see much difference in the lengths between the coach and some of the other girls (except the one next to her), why is the coach dressed inappropiate for you and not the others? ) without any whatsoever reason to do so. Now, THAT is a bad example to the girls on the team for sure. Now, I can see it being a problem if the players' skirts were too long over the knee. If they were to go down on their knees, the skirt could actually get caught between the floor and their knee and they could be injured.
I bet that their competition was very badly dressed, and the fact that they beat them sends a message that you don't need to dress like that to be competitive. I think that the excuse for the immodesty in dress is the competitive advantage to be gained from it ... although for girls it's usually an excuse to practice exhibitionism.
Dear Ladislaus,First of all, it'd do you well to actually post the picture he was referring to and not a different one entirely.
Taking into consideration your response today, please asnswer the questions below in red:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=52919.0;attach=13501;image)
First of all, it'd do you well to actually post the picture he was referring to and not a different one entirely.He was referring to the picture I posted, it is the picture that started this thread. The picture you posted was brought up later.
No, as I said, they would be venially immodest at the grocery store or elsewhere. They would only be worn during volleyball games and practices. Wearing them to Mass would exacerbate the sin, although I would not consider this mortally sinful even at Mass.So you are saying that you would not allow your daughters to wear those outfits to mass and the grocery stores? Is it because of the length or because they are shabby clothes?
Why it's wrong for the coach and not the girls illustrates my point exactly. Coach has no proportionate reason for wearing the outfit (she's not playing), while the girls have the proportionate reason of being able to function properly during a volleyball game and not risk injury. I've attempted to explain the notion of proportionate reason. Coach has none, but the girls do.
My biggest problem is with the haughty, self-righteous, Pharisaical attitude of standing in judgment over everyone ... whether or not you have all the facts or can present a rational argument. You refuse to entertain distinctions or degrees of sin or proportionate reasons. You pretend that moral theology is binary, or at least act like it, that either something is a mortal sin or it's perfect, that there's nothing in between. You paint moral theology as black-and-white, whereas in actuality it admits of much gray, with prudential considerations being weighed in. Most of all, you refuse to give anyone of the benefit of the doubt, but immediately stand on your soapbox to denounce these girls as whores ... simply because you can catch a glimpse of knee from their uniforms.You did not address the comment above to anyone, to whom is it addressed?
Trust me, God is much more offended by arrogant judgmental self-righteous Pharisaism than by a glimpse of female knee.
So you are saying that you would not allow your daughters to wear those outfits to mass and the grocery stores? Is it because of the length or because they are shabby clothes?
He was referring to the picture I posted, it is the picture that started this thread. The picture you posted was brought up later.I went back to that thread and checked. He even refers to them wearing knee-pads in the comment. In your pic there are no knee-pads.
You did not address the comment above to anyone, to whom is it addressed?
I went back to that thread and checked. He even refers to them wearing knee-pads in the comment. In your pic there are no knee-pads.
Is this immodest? My opinion is that it is not.The extra-thickness does seem to make a big difference. Normal thin-leggings with a skirt like that would be very distracting, but those aren't really to me. Still, best not to cede ground on cases like that. You give an inch, some girls will take a mile.
(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-sr2gbw/products/679/images/2990/Tulipskirt_Marsala__80962.1519842205.250.250.jpg?c=2)
My biggest problem is with the haughty, self-righteous, Pharisaical attitude of standing in judgment over everyone ... whether or not you have all the facts or can present a rational argument. You refuse to entertain distinctions or degrees of sin or proportionate reasons. You pretend that moral theology is binary, or at least act like it, that either something is a mortal sin or it's perfect, that there's nothing in between. You paint moral theology as black-and-white, whereas in actuality it admits of much gray, with prudential considerations being weighed in. Most of all, you refuse to give anyone of the benefit of the doubt, but immediately stand on your soapbox to denounce these girls as whores ... simply because you can catch a glimpse of knee from their uniforms.TQuote from: Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=52919.msg676022#msg676022)
Trust me, God is much more offended by arrogant judgmental self-righteous Pharisaism than by a glimpse of female knee.
To whomever it may apply. I'm not so much put off by WHAT is being said as by HOW it's being said ... by some folks. There's an undertone of "these dirty whores" in some of the posts on this thread.
I went back to that thread and checked. He even refers to them wearing knee-pads in the comment. In your pic there are no knee-pads.He refers to the coach being dressed inappropriately, the coach dressed inappropriately is the woman at the right end of the first picture, the discussion started with the first picture.
Is this immodest? My opinion is that it is not.By your own analysis, there is no reason for the skirt to be so short, she is not playing any sport that requires a short dress.
(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-sr2gbw/products/679/images/2990/Tulipskirt_Marsala__80962.1519842205.250.250.jpg?c=2)
On both counts. They are above the knee (and shabby). To say that they are venially immodest is not to say that they are OK. People confuse venial sin with no sin. It's still a sin and it offends God, and it's compounded by doing the sin at Mass.You are doing the same thing as the Cushinites who "say" they don't believe in salvation of Muslims, Jєωs, etc., but they spend days teaching people that people can be saved somehow outside of the Church. You spent all this time defending what those girls are wearing while now saying that "to say that they are venially immodest is not to say that they are OK. People confuse venial sin with no sin. It's still a sin and it offends God, and it's compounded by doing the sin at Mass". Anyone that reads this thread will conclude that you approve of those uniforms and that you would be OK with your daughters and anyone's daughters wearing the same outfits to mass or the store. Your nitpicking about mortal sin vs venial during all of this thread was totally off the subject. You should have said from the beginning:
Is this immodest? My opinion is that it is not.Well, I wouldn't wear it. I wouldn't allow my daughters, if I had any, to wear it. It looks like black leggings with a black mini-skirt. It's much too form-fitting. Why not leggings beneath looser and longer (below knee) culottes?
(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-sr2gbw/products/679/images/2990/Tulipskirt_Marsala__80962.1519842205.250.250.jpg?c=2)
Is this immodest? My opinion is that it is not.Immodest and UGLY! The tights do nothing to cover anything. And she is dressed "up" wearing high heels. Irrelevent for the topic - sport.
(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-sr2gbw/products/679/images/2990/Tulipskirt_Marsala__80962.1519842205.250.250.jpg?c=2)
Coach has no proportionate reason for wearing the outfit (she's not playing), while the girls have the proportionate reason of being able to function properly during a volleyball game and not risk injury.Playing sports is not a "proportionate reason" to wear immodest clothing. Women played tennis for centuries (and went swimming) in full dresses. No one is going to get an injury from a skirt that is past the knees.
Secondly, yes, that picture of the mini-skirt with leggings is immodest...borderline mortal sin, imo.
Well, I wouldn't wear it. I wouldn't allow my daughters, if I had any, to wear it. It looks like black leggings with a black mini-skirt. It's much too form-fitting. Why not leggings beneath looser and longer (below knee) culottes?
Playing sports is not a "proportionate reason" to wear immodest clothing. Women played tennis for centuries (and went swimming) in full dresses. No one is going to get an injury from a skirt that is past the knees.
But we're not talking tennis here, rather, volleyball, where the girls often slide on their knees (thus the knee pads). To land on you knees with a skirt between the knees and the floor would create a significant risk of injury.Pius XI gave the standard. Pius XII said ladies should not compromise the standard under the pretext of playing sports.
Well, the point is that the reason short skirts are immodest is because they expose the legs. If the legs are not exposed but covered by thicker leggings that look almost like pants, then that doesn't violate modesty.Ridiculous. Skirts are meant to hide women's forms, as men are not attracted to ONLY exposed legs, but to women's curves. The example you posted, that mini-skirt was not only short but tight. It was a good 6 inches above the knee. If a woman was walking or sitting down, she would be very immodest. But the main problem is the tightness of the skirt.
But we're not talking tennis here, rather, volleyball, where the girls often slide on their knees (thus the knee pads). To land on you knees with a skirt between the knees and the floor would create a significant risk of injury.To play volleyball in this way is manly. You can play fun, recreational, even competitive volleyball without diving and sliding on your knees. It is not a right for women to play in such a way, and such actions are masculine if they cannot be played properly in a skirt.
To play volleyball in this way is manly. You can play fun, recreational, even competitive volleyball without diving and sliding on your knees. It is not a right for women to play in such a way, and such actions are masculine if they cannot be played properly in a skirt.Beautiful. Well said!
Some of you would reject 90% of the Catholic moral theology manuals written before Vatican II ... because you know better.In the 1950s, most women would've been shamed as whores had they worn the mini-skirt w/ leggings combo you posted. They also wouldn't have been playing volleyball in gym class (because they would've been doing something more in line with their gender's natural talents, like "Home Econ" classes). You are the one who is arguing that such dress is "not that bad" and history is not on your side. You're a fashion revisionist.
You can do what you want yourselves, but the problem I have is when you constantly presume to impute sin to others. You need to mind your own business, and let others works out their consciences with their confessors ... who have actually had real training in moral theology.As you already admitted on this thread that you have little, if any, moral theology training, then your blind accusations of prude-ishness are laughable. We live in one of the GREATEST most immoral cultures that may have ever existed in history, and you're defending the slow, slippery-slope slide of Trad girls into moral and fashion lukewarmness as if there were some moral imperative that they be able to dress in ways that are "only a venial sin". This is madness and you are way off on this topic.
To play volleyball in this way is manly. You can play fun, recreational, even competitive volleyball without diving and sliding on your knees. It is not a right for women to play in such a way, and such actions are masculine if they cannot be played properly in a skirt.
I would say that PV is interested in getting to heaven, and refuses to be put to sleep by worldly amusements and liberal standards.
PV,
I just realized you are not of this world... :pray:
You should have become a Holy religious Monk.
Not a Monk specializing in beer making, but probably bread or fudge :incense:
I just realized you are not of this world... (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/pray.gif)I've been to countless church picnics and graduation parties where volleyball is played by men and women. The games were filled with athleticism and great play. Women didn't need to dive around on the ground to help win. (And most men who were good knew how to anticipate the next shot and moved their feet instead of diving on the ground, which is not that efficient of a play).
You should have become a Holy religious Monk.
I have no idea where everyone gets their immodesty standards from. Pius XI settled it already. If the skirt is barely below the knee, then it CANNOT be called decent. What is so complicated about this rule?!
Stop sitting in your theological armchairs denouncing everyone else as sinners, even when you don't know all the facts and details. It's not your role and it's not your business.What people wear socially is public knowledge and is plain for all to see. There are no "facts and details" which explain away immodest dress, except for extreme circuмstances. 99% of the time, what people wear is of their own choosing, so the only defense for immodest dress is a faulty conscience, which is not an moral excuse, because it's a form of ignorance that is morally culpable.
If some guy gets tempted to impure thoughts by a girl with a skirt/pant (whatever it is they're wearing) one inch above the knee while the knee itself is covered with a knee pad, then he's got bigger issues. If someone believes that by wearing such an outfit a girl is practically a streetwalker and is being turned into a whore right before our eyes, then the person has some mental issues.You're arguing against the wind. No one has said the above in any way.
You're arguing against the wind. No one has said the above in any way.He's been doing that this whole thread. To each his own, you can't change the way people process what they see in the world and how they react to it. Ladislaus processes what he sees and hears in the world through a moral theology book. I could post so many contradictions that he has posted here that I could start another thread. It is almost like his only source to make a decision is a moral theology book. One contradiction for example is that he says people here play moral theologian, meanwhile that is all he has been doing during the whole thread. Then he says that it is up to priests to tell us how to dress, and someone posts the rules of modesty by a bishop and another the rule of a saint, Padre Pio, and he totally rejects them. From my experience of 65 years of learning something everyday, there is nothing one can do to help a person who every time he has to make a decision has to consult a manual. Needless to say no one will learn anything from them because the muddle up everything so much that at the end the person listening doesn't even know what the teacher believes. Like I said all along, on this subject of dress for women, he should just listen and just ask questions,but he never will. Like I said, to each his own.
What people wear socially is public knowledge and is plain for all to see. There are no "facts and details" which explain away immodest dress, except for extreme circuмstances. 99% of the time, what people wear is of their own choosing, so the only defense for immodest dress is a faulty conscience, which is not an moral excuse, because it's a form of ignorance that is morally culpable.It is good that he triggered you to respond like you have, I could post here all of your responses from the beginning to teach people modesty, and one would see how you went perfecting the methods of communication to get across to him and others. Keep up the good work.
He's been doing that this whole thread. To each his own, you can't change the way people process what they see in the world and how they react to it. Ladislaus processes what he sees and hears in the world through a moral theology book. I could post so many contradictions that he has posted here that I could start another thread. It is almost like his only source to make a decision is a moral theology book. One contradiction for example is that he says people here play moral theologian, meanwhile that is all he has been doing during the whole thread. Then he says that it is up to priests to tell us how to dress, and someone posts the rules of modesty by a bishop and another the rule of a saint, Padre Pio, and he totally rejects them. From my experience of 65 years of learning something everyday, there is nothing one can do to help a person who every time he has to make a decision has to consult a manual. Needless to say no one will learn anything from them because the muddle up everything so much that at the end the person listening doesn't even know what the teacher believes. Like I said all along, on this subject of dress for women, he should just listen and just ask questions,but he never will. Like I said, to each his own.My religious life consisted of being baptized at birth, First Communion and Confirmation without knowing anything but standing and sitting whenever everyone else did at mass. That was all before the Novus Ordo. I knew absolutely nothing about the faith. Then when I was like 13, I stopped going to mass altogether and went to live in the world till I was 42 years of age, making money and chasing bikini clad girls on tropical beaches. My life was making money, lifting weights to look "buff", and picking up bikini clad girls 18-23 years of age. One day it dawned on me that I was a bad example to my 19 year old niece, there I was bringing different 19 year old girls to Thanksgiving every year (that's right, still doing it at 42). THEN I changed my life completely. I made a 180 degree turn and went to confession, mass and the books to learn the faith. I amassed a library of over $5000 over the next 5 years and later met my wife at mass.
If a priest said that swearing is a mortal sin, then I would stop swearing and confess my mortal sin. No big deal. You are not going to find me spending even one second finding out what the Moral Theology Books say, I could care less. It is not like he is asking me to cut off my arm."It is not like they are asking me to cut off my arm", THAT is my moral theology book.
To answer your question, when I am in doubt about a mortal sin, I go and confess it as a mortal sin, and let God sort it out. And that's the last thought I give it.
"Kill them all, let God sort them out"
If you read how strongly St John Vianney opposed dancing 200 years ago, then ask yourself what he would do with a girl in a miniskirt playing sports, you will come to a definitive answer about the whole issue.:applause:
The BVM held him up as THE model priest. We should listen to her and him.
Is this immodest? My opinion is that it is not.No offense, Ladislaus, but there is NO WAY in which this could be considered modest by a Catholic, much less a Traditional Catholic.
(https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-sr2gbw/products/679/images/2990/Tulipskirt_Marsala__80962.1519842205.250.250.jpg?c=2)
No offense, Ladislaus, but there is NO WAY in which this could be considered modest by a Catholic, much less a Traditional Catholic.
The skirt doesn't come to the knee, it's not modest. Full stop.
I fear that just like with the issue of makeup, you are compromising here out of borderline necessity, because your wife and/or daughters aren't fully operating under your well-educated Trad Catholic ex-seminarian control.
if you honestly find an objection you cannot address, that you must refine your position or abandon it in favor of another. Nothing undermines sincerity more than emotional attachments.
So, as I have said before, if Matthew were to ban everyone except those who thought exactly like myself, I'd probably quickly drop participation in this forum. Without this ability to interact with people of opposing positions, this forum would have very little appeal for me.
I laid out a rational argument for why I would consider this modest (given certain conditions). Go ahead with a rebuttal, but stop the personal attacks and insinuations.Consider my rebuttal:
Ladislaus is a flaming liberal, whose moral permissiveness thus far includes the following:I should have known you'd smell blood in the water.
Why is this bum allowed a liberal-feminist platform to undermine traditional Catholic morals?
I am *solidly* on Sean Johnson's side in your "Jone's Moral Theology" fight, by the way. I should point out to Sean, however, your paragraph towards the bottom of the thread where you state you personally don't believe spousal sodomy is without sin, etc. You're being all rational here, if a bit Jesuitical.
assuming that you completely agree with him, as you just said you did, and it's a very pernicious fruit of your R&R position. What I was most concerned about, rather than the issue itself, and why I kept engaged on the issue, is the false allegation for SeanJohnson that one is morally "in peril" for adopting a position based on an approved Catholic source.I do not make all of Sean's words my own, however.
Nope. This is a combination of pants and skirt where the legs are covered. Pants are inappropriate because they're not masculine and because they can cling to the behind ... not due to the leg part. Skirts are immodest because they expose flesh above the knee. But this combination overcomes both concerns. You cannot see the behind, nor can you see the bare leg, nor is it masculine like pants.Principles can only take one so far, Ladislaus. You are correct that such attire fulfills certain requirements but it's still not feminine and it doesn't pass the common sense test.
People need to understand the PRINCIPLES and the WHYs behind things in order to be able to adapter the principles to new circuмstances.
Ladislaus is a flaming liberal, whose moral permissiveness thus far includes the following:Sean, you are absolutely falsifying Lad's views on the subjects above. It's either due to lack of emotional control or your lack of understanding of Lad's arguments. I think it's both. But you're mischaracterizing his views 100%. You have not the aptitude nor patience for these discussions, so just stop.
1) Moderate makeup not a sin
2) Women in pants neither immodest nor unfeminine
3) Marital sodomy merely venial
4) Stretch pants and body-cling attire not immodest.
If you add all this together, women will dress and be treated like whores.
The skirt doesn't come to the knee, it's not modest. Full stop.
.
The Catholic Church is an authority to be respected. All conservative/Trad Catholic modesty guidelines have consistently excluded skirts such as the one you pictured.
I should have known you'd smell blood in the water.
We're having a discussion.
It sounds like you're only going to get through to Ladislaus with reasoned arguments, not common sense. That seems to be Lad's Achilles' heel.
Nevertheless, all the things they do -- being non-Catholic, living in concubinage, using birth control, women wearing pants, sending kids to public schools -- are not options for me, and I consider such actions sinful. I can pray for them, I can be friendly with them -- but they are still not-to-be-imitated in their sins. Just because I don't formally excommunicate them or usurp authority I don't have in condemning them, doesn't mean they aren't committing various public sins.
But this is now what I'm talking about. Things like being non-Catholic, birth control, living in concubinage, etc. are universally agreed upon to be sinful by anyone who still has the Catholic faith. I am NOT talking about a moral relativism. I am talking about informing one's conscience about matters that are DISPUTED among Catholic theologians and unresolved by the Church. There's no sense in which several of your issues can be said to be disputed among Catholic moral theologians.
Similarly, with regard to doctrine, if someone comes on here and denies the Immaculate Conception, that's not tolerable as a Catholic option, but if someone wants to dispute R&R vs. sedevacantism, that's not the same thing BY ANY STRETCH. Similarly, adhering to and holding as objectively sinful something that's universally regarded as such by Catholics is NOT the same thing as adopting a position on an issue that's CONTROVERTED among Catholic theologians.
Speaking of St. Mary's, it made the news today:
I am surrounded by everything BUT Traditional Catholics. I don't go around formally condemning anyone. It's not my place.
I don't live in St. Mary's KS (actually, if I did, it would make little difference! hahaha. The worldliness of St. Mary's is legendary...)
Speaking of St. Mary's, it made the news today:
https://www.wibw.com/content/news/Two-arrested-in-St-Marys-drug-raid-566750021.html
I'm not a Jesuit, and I'll never be one. I'm more Irish. I don't play games. I look at the practical, final result. I look at the big picture, the practical application.I was wondering why this old thread was brought back to life, so I went back to see who brought it back and why. The answer is that this thread has been taken over to re-hash the "sodomy" discussion. so, I will translate for those reading what I read out of this. I have no horse in this race, I see no enemy in Ladislaus, SJ, or Matthew, so, maybe my translation will better get through or break the ice.
I can't and won't talk millimeters, which men are inflamed to lust by different female body parts and why, or any of that.
I just stick to common man's speech. I call a spade a spade. I'll take good ol' horse sense over highfalutin' book larnin' any day.
I'm also going by standard Catholic teaching here. All Trad chapels, Padre Pio, Marylike standards of dress, etc. have put out guidelines for womens' dress for decades. They always draw the line at the knee. I've never see any of them make allowances for "thick tights in combination with a very short skirt to obscure the butt".
I am a bit frustrated myself. Here you are so educated on all things Catholic, but like a Jesuit you talk yourself into justifying things that most Catholics on-the-street reject for religious reasons. I expressed my FEAR that you compromised your otherwise-solid beliefs and morality on this point, to accommodate some personal need. I'm glad to hear that isn't the case.
I am *solidly* on Sean Johnson's side in your "Jone's Moral Theology" fight, by the way. I should point out to Sean, however, your paragraph towards the bottom of the thread where you state you personally don't believe spousal sodomy is without sin, etc. I can see you were being extremely detached and impartial here, if a bit Jesuitical. But to Ladislaus I would point out: You have to understand why Sean and others react with horror to your conclusions!
I'll take Sean Johnson's "sensus Catholicus" or, "I can't point to a law or reason why you're wrong, but you're just wrong" -- any day. It's that kind of "instinctive", practical, or "emotional" adherence to Tradition that caused almost all Catholics to join the Traditional movement in the first place. Most of us didn't get here because of some rational, dry argument. It was sensational or semi-sensational compilations of abuses, and OTHER emotional appeals (most books of Archbishop Lefebvre swerve into this category, at least to some degree). There are other emotions besides anger by the way: love, satisfaction, fear, joy, nostalgia, appreciation of beauty, honor, nobility, etc.
I still wish you'd stop being a Jesuit. Stick to the timeless mind of the Church and Tradition -- otherwise you're one Modernist book (authored by someone with ",S.J." after their name) away from being led astray with convincing-sounding arguments. I suppose there were many smart, educated men like you in the Church in 1962 -- most of whom were convinced and sold on the New Religion. I guess we should be grateful God placed you later on the Church's timeline...
Seriously -- it wouldn't matter what highly-respected, highly-intelligent, highly-convincing professor got up there and taught my philosophy class how there is no objective reality -- I wouldn't fall for it because of my horse sense. Rational arguments MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do the trick. And looking at the outcome of Vatican II, it looks like rational arguments alone have a POOR track record at best. Again, I thank God for my horse sense/common sense.
But this is now what I'm talking about. Things like being non-Catholic, birth control, living in concubinage, etc. are universally agreed upon to be sinful by anyone who still has the Catholic faith. I am NOT talking about a moral relativism. I am talking about informing one's conscience about matters that are DISPUTED among Catholic theologians and unresolved by the Church. There's no sense in which several of your issues can be said to be disputed among Catholic moral theologians.The above posting by Ladislaus answers both Matthew's posting and my underlined observation above.
Similarly, with regard to doctrine, if someone comes on here and denies the Immaculate Conception, that's not tolerable as a Catholic option, but if someone wants to dispute R&R vs. sedevacantism, that's not the same thing BY ANY STRETCH. Similarly, adhering to and holding as objectively sinful something that's universally regarded as such by Catholics is NOT the same thing as adopting a position on an issue that's CONTROVERTED among Catholic theologians.
I was wondering why this old thread was brought back to life, so I went back to see who brought it back and why. The answer is that this thread has been taken over to re-hash the "sodomy" discussion.
Ladislaus is a flaming liberal, whose moral permissiveness thus far includes the following:
1) Moderate makeup not a sin
2) Women in pants neither immodest nor unfeminine
3) Marital sodomy merely venial
4) Stretch pants and body-cling attire not immodest.
If you add all this together, women will dress and be treated like whores.
Why is this bum allowed a liberal-feminist platform to undermine traditional Catholic morals?
… the ability to decide objective moral law and impose [one's] conscience on others. That prerogative belongs only to the Church …
Nope. This is a combination of pants and skirt where the legs are covered. Pants are inappropriate because they'reCan you please tell me where this information comes from? It is different than other things I've read and I'd like to have a source for this. Thanks.not(edit) masculine and because they can cling to the behind ... not due to the leg part. Skirts are immodest because they expose flesh above the knee. But this combination overcomes both concerns. You cannot see the behind, nor can you see the bare leg, nor is it masculine like pants.