Is It A Sin?

[catholicguy]

OK, so since you didn't what do you have to say about the wearing of men's clothes by women?

[carrdero]

Not to derail off the subject but I do not agree with Aloysius' statement. I do not believe that GOD wants us to accept our gender either. As GOD sees us, we do not represent man or woman. We are represented as spirit and personality and this is how GOD sees us. We as humans recognize the man and woman persona and this is why there are so many needless expectations of the sexes(for example men should wear pants and women should wear dresses). So I guess to tie this all back to the topic, if GOD does not recognize our earthly shells (read:models) as man and woman but GOD does recognize our spirit and LOVE why should GOD care how we dress them.

[Madonna]

carrdero, I think the ventures into dangerous territory. That completely nullifies male and female roles. With generd comes certain duties and responsibilities. I think God indeed sees our gender. Gosh, read the Pope's stuff on the new feminism. It's beautiful. A huge part of who I am is my sexuality and the fact that I am woman. If our genders weren't important, God would have probably made us so we could just replicate like bacteria.

catholicguy, I guess it depends on what you call men's clothing. Are pants men's clothing? Who decided women couldn't wear pants? What makes clothing male or female? I'm not advocating men wearing dresses or skirts (although kilts are pretty neat). I myself, wear skirts everyday because I find them comfortable and complimentary to the female form. I also wear gym shorts or jeans sometimes. Is that cross dressing?

[Aloysius]

God created our gender. We are bodies and souls united, our bodies are important. Men and women are different. We must become who God wants us to be. If God created us man, God wills us to be man. If God created us woman, God wills us to be woman.

[Dave]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 11:34 AM'] All cross dressing is an abomination; that is what Deut. states. It doesn't list exceptions. The only possible exception I could think of is for a play, as was done in Shakespeare. Others have said that "if it's just for laughs it's OK". Well, is it OK, then to swear, use the Lord's Name in vain, make lude comments, etc., etc. "for laughs"? No, it is not. Therefore, this is no different. It is a sad state to see such licentiousness among even Catholics! I suppose this is no problem now that women everyday wear men's clothes (trousers/pants), even Catholic women do so to Holy Mass! God bless. [/quote]
Ok, when I was in college I once participated in my school's annual womanless beauty pageant. It's strictly for laughs -- no drag queen-type stuff. I needed money, and you could win up to $100. And I won! But money aside, are you gonna go so far as to say that I'm a mortal sinner just because I participated in that event?

As for cussing, making lewd remarks, etc. just for laughs, you're comparing apples and oranges.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 28 2004, 11:01 AM'] Not to derail off the subject but I do not agree with Aloysius' statement. I do not believe that GOD wants us to accept our gender either. As GOD sees us, we do not represent man or woman. We are represented as spirit and personality and this is how GOD sees us. We as humans recognize the man and woman persona and this is why there are so many needless expectations of the sexes(for example men should wear pants and women should wear dresses). So I guess to tie this all back to the topic, if GOD does not recognize our earthly shells (read:models) as man and woman but GOD does recognize our spirit and LOVE why should GOD care how we dress them. [/quote]
Yo...

God not onle RECOGNIZES our bodies he CREATED our bodies and moulded every aspect of our beings, BODY and SOUL.

There is a reason He created us one way or the other. To reject the way God created you is to reject not only God but personal happiness as well.

We are not merely spirit and personality, we are unity of body and soul.

As such we are either Male, or Female. Not neither, not both, not any one WE choose, but as we are created.

Whether or not pants are male garb or female is irrelevant, clearly in today's culture it is acceptable for both. We are not constrained to dress as was the norm in the 11th Century. We can dress as we wish, so long as we are not rejected our created Identity and gender.

[Madonna]

that statement bothered me so much about the separation of body and spirit that I'm going to comment on it again.

To separate the two as such is dualistic. People should take that idea and :toilet:. That's an awful way to live. Not appreciating to physical...that just blows my mind.

[catholicguy]

I hate to break this to you, but, contrary to what others have said, intention does not negate an intrinsically evil act. You are correct as is your upbringing. Wearing clothes of the opposite sex is intrinsically evil, a mortal sin. As was already stated, Holy Scripture clearly states that this is forbidden and an abomination before God: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." (Deut. 22:5). Those who crossdress are equal to homosexuals, both are "abominable before God." Just because someone's intention to be a homosexual is "love" does not mean that he is now acceptable in his action. You are correct in your original thinking, and the Priest is in error. Regardless of the reason, crossdressing is an abominable mortal sin. Thank you for your honesty and humility in this matter. I am sure you have no intention of doing this again. God bless.

[Madonna]

you still never answered what he considered men's or women's clothing.

Both men and women dress and jeans and t-shirts. Which genders clothes is it? Are women trying to look like men, or are men trying to look like women?

And how is it wrong if the woman isn't trying to look male, or the man isn't trying to look female?

I understand in the case where a man goes in drag (makeup, pink frilly dress, heels) things that have never been associated with men.

Otherwise, everything seems like it could go either way.

Since you seem to be so definite on the topic, I'd really appreciate your response.

[catholicguy]

Well, men have worn pants for a long period of time (I am not sure of the actual dates, but definitely since the late Middle Ages). Women have worn pants for 30 or 40 years. I think history alone tells us that pants are men's clothing. Just because the majority of women wear pants that does not mean that it is somehow acceptable and not sinful. I know plenty of women (and girls) who do not wear pants. In any event, I do not really think that anyone should wear t-shirts but I suppose it would be acceptable for a man to wear them if he is working. I cannot see a reason for a woman to [i]want[/i] to wear a t-shirt since they are so unbecoming of feminine beauty. In any event, I do not think anyone would classify such attire as being feminine, but surely it could be classified as masculine. For this reason, t-shirts can be considered men's clothing. It is wrong to crossdress, regardless of intent, because intention does not have a bearing on matters which are intrinsically evil. If a man is a homosexual and he does not think it is wrong and does not "know" it is wrong, then is it therefore not wrong? Of course not. "Good intentions pave the road to Hell."

[p0lar_bear]

Also, is it cross dressing for a Scot to wear a kilt? or was Jesus cross dressing because he wore what would now be considered a dress? In China, women wore pants long before men. Does that mean Chinese men wearing pants are cross dressing? Or that a Chinese woman wearing a skirt is cross dressing?


Oh, and regarding intention...Since you already provided the exception of acting in a play, then you have already allowed an exception based on intention. What is the moral distinction between dressing for a play and dressing for a joke? Can you provide references for that distinction?

[cmotherofpirl]

]First of all nobody defined cross-dressing.

] Are you talking about women wearing pants or men wearing bras. BIG DIFFERENCE.

] Are you talking about something someone does every day or once in their lifetime.
The Bible doesn't say women cannot wear pants, because they were not invented in that culture then.

]Are you talking about someone who cross-dresses as a profession? Remember women used to be banned in the theater, so men took womens roles - are you calling all of those people sinners?

]Is it for laughs, for Halloween, or some deep-seated gender identification problem.

]The bible doesn't define clothes. Men in those days wore long flowing robes and head coverings. Sounds suspiciously feminine to me.

] Where does the Church [ not you] teach homosexuality is equal to cross-dressing?

]How are you going to explain to the whole Scots nation that they are committing mortal sin by puitting on their kilts, or any other nationality where men where long flowing robes - are you going to insult a muslim or an arab and yell them they are dressed like a girl?

]How about priests who stll wear cassocks?

]How about women who live in Alaska, Siberia , China are you going to insist they put on DRESSES when its -20 degrees?

]Are you implying I am sinning by putting on overalls to cut the grass, or get on the roof to clean the gutters, and get under a car to help my sons change the transmission.

THINK

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Madonna]

cmotherofpirl: You're my new best friend. Thank you. My points exactly.

Catholicguy: I am not going to confession for wearing jeans and t-shirts.

[cmotherofpirl]

Where did you get your qualifications to be the cultural fashion police or decide what is masculine and feminine?

You are entitled to your opinon, but not pass it off as any teaching of the Catholic Church.

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[carrdero]

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

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

Madonna writes: With gender comes certain duties and responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

What is wrong with replicating like bacteria? What is wrong with all those creatures who reproduce asexually?

[cmotherofpirl]

You are confusing culture and gender.

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

How masculine or how feminine you act is determined by a mix of choice and culture.

[carrdero]

GOD CONQUERER writes: As such we are either Male, or Female. Not neither, not both, not any one WE choose, but as we are created.

How do you explain hermaphrodites? (I hoped I spelled this correctly)
Also I believe that all people have masculine properties as well as feminine properties regardless of the human from we portray outward. One could easily become over-developed in these properties depending on personal experiences, upbringing and environment. I have never met "a real man" nor have I met "a true woman". In fact there is a certain "pride" that I respect in myself to be able to discern which property (masculine or feminine) that a person is utilizing most based on my present understanding of how a woman or a man would respond. Which in essence really isn't all that impressive I guess.

[catholicguy]

[quote]a]First of all nobody defined cross-dressing.[/quote]

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

[quote]] Are you talking about women wearing pants or men wearing bras. BIG DIFFERENCE.[/quote]

I am talking about both since the case for women wearing pants is stronger than that of men wearing bras as far as definition is concerned (prudence would dictate that both are crossdressing) because the Church has not given these directives but has spoken concerning women's fashions. The Church has said that women's skirts and dresses must cover to the elbow, two fingers below the pit of the throat, and must be more than "scarcely below the knee." The directives give no information concerning pants and certainly not concerning shorts. From this it can be derived that this attire is not suitable for women.

[quote]] Are you talking about something someone does every day or once in their lifetime. [/quote]

I am talking about either, I suppose.

[i]The Bible doesn't say women cannot wear pants, because they were not invented in that culture then.[/i]

Okay. That is correct. That does not really have a bearing in the argument, though.

[quote]]Are you talking about someone who cross-dresses as a profession? Remember women used to be banned in the theater, so men took womens roles - are you calling all of those people sinners?[/quote]

That is an interesting point, but as far as I know that was mostly a British, Protestant practice. I would have to get more information to discuss that, but I suppose the logic still follows. Just because intention is good or acceptable, that does not make the act so. In any event, the rules are usually stricter concerning women dressing as men because women who do this often break modesty as well as crossdressing.

[quote]]Is it for laughs, for Halloween, or some deep-seated gender identification problem.[/quote]

As stated above, this is not relevant. Why would someone break an explicit command of God "for laughs"?

[i]]The bible doesn't define clothes. Men in those days wore long flowing robes and head coverings. Sounds suspiciously feminine to me.[/i]

Those outfits sound feminine to you, but that does not make them so. I am sure you have seen a Priest in a cassock. It would be offensive to pious eyes to see a woman to wear a cassock. A cassock does not include pants, but that does not mean that it is automatically feminine. Such an outfit is extremely masculine with the collar and even the design with the sash. For another example, look at the fashions of the Romans. While the outfits for men and women were similar, there were still types of clothing only acceptable for men and some only acceptable for women.

[quote]] Where does the Church [ not you] teach homosexuality is equal to cross-dressing?[/quote]

This kind of question is a typical, anti-intellectual statement. Both Scripture and the Church teach that homosexuality is an abomination. Both Scripture and the Church teach that crossdressing is an abomination. Any decent examination of conscience has crossdressing listed as a mortal sin. The two are both mortal sins and are both abominable before God. The two acts are equal in kind (not necessarily in degree).

[quote]]How are you going to explain to the whole Scots nation that they are committing mortal sin by puitting on their kilts, or any other nationality where men where long flowing robes - are you going to insult a muslim or an arab and yell them they are dressed like a girl? [/quote]

The Church has never defined which fashions are masculine and which are feminine simply because the fashions are so different in separate cultures, but in each of these cultures men and women have separate clothing. As I stated earlier, just because an outfit does not include pants, that does not somehow mean it is feminine.

[quote]]How about priests who stll wear cassocks?[/quote]

I plan to wear a cassock. I address this in an above answer.

[quote]]How about women who live in Alaska, Siberia , China are you going to insist they put on DRESSES when its -20 degrees?[/quote]

If you have ever seen a movie or a picture from before the 1970s (and probably even after the fact, before feminism polluted these areass), you will notice that the women all have dresses on. They still wear warm clothing underneath, multiple layers of stockings, etc, but dresses are often much warmer than pants (look at Victorian fashions).

[quote]]Are you implying I am sinning by putting on overalls to cut the grass, or get on the roof to clean the gutters, and get under a car to help my sons change the transmission.[/quote]

I would think that the distribution of labor would be such that the men would do labor jobs and women would do the jobs in the home (cleaning inside, laundry, cooking, etc). This has always been done in the past. Further, women who have worked in the fields wore dresses as you probably know. This can be seen with an Order of Nuns that does physical labor and with the peasants of the past who labored in the fields. As far as I know, you watch EWTN. Next time you see the Angelus on there, look at the painting which comes up with the peasants praying in the field. There is a man and a woman. The woman is wearing a denim dress (it might be even nicer than denim) and she even has a bonnet on I believe. She covered her head even outside a church. It is a great painting. My friend owns it, but I do not. In any event, it will come up for a few moments before the Angelus begins. Try looking for it next time. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

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

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:17 PM'] cmotherofpirl: You're my new best friend. Thank you. My points exactly.

Catholicguy: I am not going to confession for wearing jeans and t-shirts. [/quote]
Ditto. lol