Especially for converts is the lack of clarity or different priests giving different opinions online regarding sin. For example, for a former Protestant like myself, when I read a trad priest online state things like leggings on very young children is mortally sinful, or going to the beach or pool is mortally sinful, Disney movies are sinful etc this quite rightly frightens people because none of this stuff seems to the average person to even be close to mortally sinful. So you have this confused convert walking around wondering what other normal everyday things COULD be sinful because it seems like everything is all of a sudden.
I feel kind of like I'm being gaslit by people saying yeah your scrupulous when I never was before becoming Catholic and having all of this seemingly innocent stuff in my life end up somehow being gravely sinful. So then I go to confession with a huge list of sins or questions about potentially sinful things in my life that I could be missing just to be sure since all the other "mortal sins" listed above weren't totally obvious to me or 99.9 percent of other Catholics.
Yeah, you are not wrong.
You should focus less on the sermons by priests online and more on good, level-headed saints like St Francis de Sales. I think reading "Intro to the Devout Life" is a must for you. I think it'd help even things out, as you grow in the Faith.
The priest is right and he is wrong. He is right that neglecting the modesty of your children is grave matter. What he misses is that you have to know it is wrong. So in a lot of cases it is not mortal sin. His problem is his approach. He should instead be preaching how neglecting modesty as a parent is gravely wrong. If the parents keep doing it, THEN it is mortal sin.
Coming from a Prot world, you didn't get much of an education in sin. I'm in a Prot heavy place. Protestantism is more of a big social club more than a religion. I know of a Catholic who sent his kids to public school. Very Prot heavy town. His kids were around the second grade. He discovered that the kids were being taught about faggot lifestyle of just being an option. He sent the evidence via email to all of the other parents. They did absolutely nothing because that would upset the Prot social apple cart. So he pulled his kid and made the sacrifice for private school.
So I'm not surprised that you would experience this culture shock. Yes, don't aclimate your little kids into dressing like sluts. That will then be the norm for high school and your teenagers will fornicate.
Also, Disney movies are trash and promote feminism. The older ones are ok, but today they are a horror.
But again, the approach was wrong by the priest.
I second the recommendation to read St. Francis de Sales for a more balanced approach.
I'm not talking about kids dressing like adult streetwalkers, I'm talking about way prepubescent children wearing a normal shirt and leggings like all other normal children do and nobody even thinks twice that it could be immodest because a normal person doesn't sexualize little children. I've ran this same question through three different priests with assurance it's not by any means a sin for a small child to dress like this. So who do I believe! See this is the confusion that makes me almost want to give up. I just want to raise my kids normally and not have them go off the deep end and hate me when they are older for forcing them to dress like Laura Ingalls Wilder because in the opinion of one priest leggings are sinful. These priests likewise said Disney is fine and it's better they watch these things when you can guide them they the morality then have them see them later and not have the teaching opportunity.
Do you know what our friends and family would think if we told them that the beach was sinful to visit? They would say I've lost my mind. Beaches and pools can be occasions of sin for SOME people but unless it's a proximate occasion one isn't bound to avoid it. I've checked this one out too and again he said obviously don't go where there's like drunk spring breakers but there's nothing inherently sinful about these places.
I guess my frustration lies with the extreme voices out there that don't realize how much damage they cause to people like me.
One of my children had a lesbian teacher in third grade. I was worried and asked a priest and he said I didn't have to remove her from school because she wasn't preaching her lifestyle to the kids, and homeschooling was mentally impossible for me at the time due to stress and suicidal thoughts. I hope I didn't sin by listening to him but I dont think my child even knew anything. I only found out by looking at the teachers Facebook page
@TandJ I feel for you, I really do. As a cradle Catholic I had my Faith handed to me by my two knowledgeable parents, who never were of the Laura Ingalls mentality. I wasn't sheltered, although I was homeschooled. In the world but not of it kind of thing. I was taught to know the evils surrounding us, and recognize that they are evil, but also taught that I would be in the world when I grew up, and would have to deal with them. If you make your kids the weird ones at school, and their experience with Catholicism is being ostracized by their peers and being made fun of ALL the time, of course they are going to hate it, and leave whenever they get the chance. But public school is really no place for your kids, I've seen some of my Catholic peers go to public school, and they left the Faith when they were 16ish. On the pools issue, if you have little boys it really is not the best thing to bring them to these places; little dudes grow into big dudes who like girls. They are going to be exposed to it, sure, but deliberately putting them in a dangerous occasion of sin is not wise I think.
I cannot imagine becoming a convert in this day and age, it would be mega stressful, what with the situation in the Church, our own little stagnant trad parishes with their healthy accumulation of weirdos, and the many, many conflicting things people will tell you to do. Praying for you!
It's a real problem, and I don't see an answer. We're supposed to trust our priests, yet our priests contradict each other, and you never know if what you're hearing is a teaching or mere opinion.
Immodesty is a problem though, and I can't imagine why you'd want to dress your kids in leggings. If I understand your objection correctly, I think you are mistaken: you are failing to distinguish between what's "normal" (modest) and what's "vulgar" (commonplace, and oftentimes immodest). If 90% of the population dresses one way, that doesn't necessarily mean it's "normal". It's worth pointing out, we don't live in a Catholic society. More probably, when 90% of the population says "these clothes are ok", what's happening is that this 90% of the population is completely ignorant and doesn't know immodesty when they're looking right at it. Or, maybe they know immodesty and just don't care. Or, worse, they know it and they nevertheless deliberately choose immodesty over modesty.
Disney is no longer fine. As James said, the newer films promote feminism and liberalism. Even the older stuff is questionable. But the newer stuff isn't even that great, artistically speaking.
I'm not going to attempt to pass judgement concerning the sinfulness of these things, but I don't see why any of this would even be desired. I do see your fear that your children are eventually going to rebel, and I am not sure how to answer that. But why would you want to get your children into the habit of dressing in a way that's ugly and un-Catholic, or filling their minds with garbage from Disney movies?
Regarding beaches, that is difficult. There unfortunately are no modest beaches as far as I'm aware (unless you're rich and own your own private beach), but I do think it sounds unreasonable to say that all beaches are off-limits always. Maybe go to the beach in the early morning, or during the off-season or something? Far less crowded and less immodest, though the water might be a bit colder and there won't be any lifeguards. That's how I personally like it though; you get the whole beach more or less to yourself. (Except I don't have children.)
As far as leggings go, don't have your children wear them because they will be habit when they get older and then it is immodest. I worked in a school and on certain "dress down" days, the girls would almost all wear leggings or ultra-skinny jeans as pants. It's like wearing underwear to school. Let's just say that anyone seeing them from the rear doesn't get a fun sight. No way do you want your teen daughters (or adult ones!) looking like that, even if the rest of society thinks it's normal. Nor would you want them looking like that as adults.
For teenage girls and young women it is immodest. For older women it's ridiculous. Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
Quote from: Melkor on April 12, 2021, 08:46:38 AM
@TandJ I feel for you, I really do. As a cradle Catholic I had my Faith handed to me by my two knowledgeable parents, who never were of the Laura Ingalls mentality. I wasn't sheltered, although I was homeschooled. In the world but not of it kind of thing. I was taught to know the evils surrounding us, and recognize that they are evil, but also taught that I would be in the world when I grew up, and would have to deal with them. If you make your kids the weird ones at school, and their experience with Catholicism is being ostracized by their peers and being made fun of ALL the time, of course they are going to hate it, and leave whenever they get the chance. But public school is really no place for your kids, I've seen some of my Catholic peers go to public school, and they left the Faith when they were 16ish. On the pools issue, if you have little boys it really is not the best thing to bring them to these places; little dudes grow into big dudes who like girls. They are going to be exposed to it, sure, but deliberately putting them in a dangerous occasion of sin is not wise I think.
I cannot imagine becoming a convert in this day and age, it would be mega stressful, what with the situation in the Church, our own little stagnant trad parishes with their healthy accumulation of weirdos, and the many, many conflicting things people will tell you to do. Praying for you!
Melkor I appreciate your opinions but like I said there's no other option for my younger kids. Catholic school is out and homeschooling will push me over the edge. Like I feel I'm pretty close to self admission to a psych unit TBH. So no there is no other option unless one of you fine people will volunteer to school my kids for me
I kind of wish that maybe it would be better if trads were normal 50's trads instead of the brand we see today. How come trads in other countries are not like here in the US? Like in France for example they don't care about the "pants" issue and stuff like that. Maybe I need to explore the eastern Catholic rite or something because I think there's going to be a breaking point with me being an American trad. I just want to be happy and I don't see that as a possibility with traditionalism and it really saddens me
Quote from: TandJ on April 12, 2021, 02:22:21 PM
I kind of wish that maybe it would be better if trads were normal 50's trads instead of the brand we see today. How come trads in other countries are not like here in the US? Like in France for example they don't care about the "pants" issue and stuff like that. They are actually normal. Maybe I need to explore the eastern Catholic rite or something because I think there's going to be a breaking point with me being an American trad. I just want to be happy and I don't see that as a possibility with traditionalism and it really saddens me
50's Catholics are the reason we are in this mess.
Quote from: Melkor on April 12, 2021, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 12, 2021, 02:22:21 PM
I kind of wish that maybe it would be better if trads were normal 50's trads instead of the brand we see today. How come trads in other countries are not like here in the US? Like in France for example they don't care about the "pants" issue and stuff like that. Maybe I need to explore the eastern Catholic rite or something because I think there's going to be a breaking point with me being an American trad. I just want to be happy and I don't see that as a possibility with traditionalism and it really saddens me
50's Catholics are the reason we are in this mess.
Well something is currently wrong when a huge amount of trads struggle with scrupulosity as well
Quote from: TandJ on April 12, 2021, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Melkor on April 12, 2021, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 12, 2021, 02:22:21 PM
I kind of wish that maybe it would be better if trads were normal 50's trads instead of the brand we see today. How come trads in other countries are not like here in the US? Like in France for example they don't care about the "pants" issue and stuff like that. They are actually normal. Maybe I need to explore the eastern Catholic rite or something because I think there's going to be a breaking point with me being an American trad. I just want to be happy and I don't see that as a possibility with traditionalism and it really saddens me
50's Catholics are the reason we are in this mess.
Well something is currently wrong when a huge amount of trads struggle with scrupulosity as well
I agree that scrupulosity seems common among trads who post to forums. But this does not necessarily mean that it is common among trads.
In my experience, my real life interactions with trads are quite different from the ones online. Also, the more extreme, more vocal people are more noticeable which makes it seem like there are more of them than there are.
I've been participating in trad forums for over a decade and it is almost inevitable that a discussion of modesty will become unpleasant and involve personal attacks. Some people will accuse others of scrupulosity while other people make accusations of moral laxity. This sort of thing is not at all helpful for those trying to figure out what one ought to do.
I am a convert too, so I know what you mean about it being especially hard for us to know who to listen to. I have found that this has gotten easier over time, so perhaps you will find this too.
QuoteI just want to raise my kids normally
Well, that's good to know. So if you want to do that let's define "normal":
Normal girls are no longer virgins by 18.
Normal girls support abortion.
If you add single moms to barren women, that is greater than 50%.
Normal girls end up on anti-depressants.
Normal girls don't marry before 30, if at all.
Normal girls think sodomy and fags are just another option.
Normal girls think a boy calling himself a girl is sane.
Normal girls are ardent socialist/fascist/statist to some degree.
Normal girls get tatted up.
Normal girls have a body count over 20, if not 50.
Normal girls end up becoming obese.
Normal girls can't pair bond and end up divorced if they can find a simp to marry her.
Normal girls, if they become moms, work and kennel their kids in strangercare.
Normal girls cuss like sailors.
It's a long list if you want to properly train your kids to be normal. But there's a lot of help. Give them a smart phone and a netflix subscription and they'll be trained properly.
Do I have your attention? Normal is demonic today. Now, we have a problem with the pendulem swinging to extremes. On one hand is the demonic beliefs everywhere, and this side is dangerous to women because they are hyper conformists and don't want to be ostracized by team girl. The other side are the bunker Trads. This side thinks I'm an evil man because I would take Trad teens swing dancing. Of course all of that cohort are now married with kids and still Trad, except one late blooming former bunker Trad, though he actually got engaged at one time.
So find priests and a chapel that have found the virtuous mean. There should be socializing and fun outside of the religious ceremonies. However, I never completely reject the bunker Trads because the greatest danger today is what you call "normal". But they are not without fault because a number of their kids turn 18, announce everyone is crazy, and lose the Faith. Find the virtuous means.
And dressing your little kids in tights only (why not add a skirt?) is slut training for high school. The bunker Trad was correct with that. Beach and pool? They are fine as a family outing.
QuoteOne of my children had a lesbian teacher in third grade.
Wait...... WHAT?
Where was the father?
Convert here from a mix of Baptist, Methodist, and later, Evangelical Superfun rockband "church" background.
Never really been scrupulous; if anything, the opposite. My cradle Catholic wife, however, fought it for years until we had enough kids that she had no time to think about everything being a sin. I think it's more a personality thing, or how one was raised, than conversion.
But, as far as folks like Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea, I learned pretty quickly to take him and those like him with a chunk of salt and trying to figure out what he was getting at rather than face value.
I have no desire for 1950's facades. JFK was a 1950's Catholic, and he got a nice funeral despite the fact that he was a known, habitual philanderer.
Fairly happy with the current paradigm. It's dangerous, and unknown, and that leaves plenty of room for sainthood when God decides it's go-time. Comfort is for the damned.
Quote from: james03 on April 12, 2021, 09:35:36 PM
QuoteOne of my children had a lesbian teacher in third grade.
Wait...... WHAT?
Where was the father?
If you are asking where was my husband he's the one who asked the priest what to do about it. We actually got the opinion of a couple good priests who all told us the same thing.
Then I support your husband's decision. The responsibility and authority for getting the kids and wife to heaven rests solely with the husband, unless the wife acts to sabotage the husband. I disagree with the priest and advise parents not to normalize sodomy around their kids. However your husband made his decision. Your job is to obey and support your husband. Which means don't worry about whether it was a sin, because for you, it is impossible to be a sin. The responsibility for this decision rests with your husband alone, though in this case he obeyed a priest. So even he is good to go.
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 08:12:56 AM
Then I support your husband's decision. The responsibility and authority for getting the kids and wife to heaven rests solely with the husband, unless the wife acts to sabotage the husband. I disagree with the priest and advise parents not to normalize sodomy around their kids. However your husband made his decision. Your job is to obey and support your husband. Which means don't worry about whether it was a sin, because for you, it is impossible to be a sin. The responsibility for this decision rests with your husband alone, though in this case he obeyed a priest. So even he is good to go.
What?!
Responsibility does not rest solely on the higher divinely-appointed authority. And the lower cannot simply pass the blame upwards, and be off the hook. All who go along with it are participants in the sin and therefore guilty of the sin. The hand is damned along with the head, after all. (Though in this case, I don't really see a sin. Lesbian teachers are certainly not the ideal, but many things are not ideal. So long as the teacher wasn't open about it in front of the kids, it doesn't appear to be any more of an issue than having some other not-ideal person as a teacher.)
Quote from: james03 on April 12, 2021, 09:27:50 PM
QuoteI just want to raise my kids normally
Well, that's good to know. So if you want to do that let's define "normal":
Normal girls are no longer virgins by 18.
Normal girls support abortion.
If you add single moms to barren women, that is greater than 50%.
Normal girls end up on anti-depressants.
Normal girls don't marry before 30, if at all.
Normal girls think sodomy and fags are just another option.
Normal girls think a boy calling himself a girl is sane.
Normal girls are ardent socialist/fascist/statist to some degree.
Normal girls get tatted up.
Normal girls have a body count over 20, if not 50.
Normal girls end up becoming obese.
Normal girls can't pair bond and end up divorced if they can find a simp to marry her.
Normal girls, if they become moms, work and kennel their kids in strangercare.
Normal girls cuss like sailors.
It's a long list if you want to properly train your kids to be normal. But there's a lot of help. Give them a smart phone and a netflix subscription and they'll be trained properly.
Do I have your attention? Normal is demonic today. Now, we have a problem with the pendulem swinging to extremes. On one hand is the demonic beliefs everywhere, and this side is dangerous to women because they are hyper conformists and don't want to be ostracized by team girl. The other side are the bunker Trads. This side thinks I'm an evil man because I would take Trad teens swing dancing. Of course all of that cohort are now married with kids and still Trad, except one late blooming former bunker Trad, though he actually got engaged at one time.
So find priests and a chapel that have found the virtuous mean. There should be socializing and fun outside of the religious ceremonies. However, I never completely reject the bunker Trads because the greatest danger today is what you call "normal". But they are not without fault because a number of their kids turn 18, announce everyone is crazy, and lose the Faith. Find the virtuous means.
And dressing your little kids in tights only (why not add a skirt?) is slut training for high school. The bunker Trad was correct with that. Beach and pool? They are fine as a family outing.
James. Hello.
I do not post often. I'm not an author. I have not worked in oil fields.
Do a list for normal boys now.
I'm 55 now and I've tried to get a fix on what 'normal' is for a reasonable adult for some time.
The list for the girls is sadly accurate, but I think the [rejection by the group of girls] starts to separate polite normal from trashy normal. Polite normal people are all around. I realize 85% of what they believe is a lie, but almost all of the "best" people lost the ability to form a deep thought long ago.
I'll recommend Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" to the OP. He really gives a reasonable perspective on our [individual] place in all this sin business.
Quote from: Daniel on April 13, 2021, 08:24:17 AM
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 08:12:56 AM
Then I support your husband's decision. The responsibility and authority for getting the kids and wife to heaven rests solely with the husband, unless the wife acts to sabotage the husband. I disagree with the priest and advise parents not to normalize sodomy around their kids. However your husband made his decision. Your job is to obey and support your husband. Which means don't worry about whether it was a sin, because for you, it is impossible to be a sin. The responsibility for this decision rests with your husband alone, though in this case he obeyed a priest. So even he is good to go.
What?!
Responsibility does not rest solely on the higher divinely-appointed authority. And the lower cannot simply pass the blame upwards, and be off the hook. All who go along with it are participants in the sin and therefore guilty of the sin. The hand is damned along with the head, after all. (Though in this case, I don't really see a sin. Lesbian teachers are certainly not the ideal, but many things are not ideal. So long as the teacher wasn't open about it in front of the kids, it doesn't appear to be any more of an issue than having some other not-ideal person as a teacher.)
Being a prudential decision, James is correct. If the husband were to command sin, then you would be correct and the husband's authority, in that instance, would be null.
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
QuoteDo a list for normal boys now.
I'll give it a whirl:
Normal boys are addicted to porn.
Normal boys are addicted to video games.
Normal boys have never been in a fight.
Normal boys can't bench press their body weight by the time they graduate high school.
Normal boys don't lead women in a relationship.
Normal boys are friend zoned by girls.
Normal boys don't know how to change a tire or change the oil on a car.
Normal boys have never been hunting or fishing.
Normal boys turn up their nose at choice North Carolina leaf.
If you don't want your boy to turn out "normal", an embarrassingly low priced book with the award winning cover (winning "Troll of the Decade") is available on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694/ (https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694/)
QuoteI'm 55 now and I've tried to get a fix on what 'normal' is for a reasonable adult for some time.
Going to Church and saying your prayers.
Spoiling grand babies if you have any.
Catfishing or bass fishing with a buddy.
Working on your car or in your shop.
Gardening.
Responsible enjoyment of adult beverages.
Riding motorcycles.
Avoiding females and their feminine wiles.
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 05:52:55 PM
QuoteI'm 55 now and I've tried to get a fix on what 'normal' is for a reasonable adult for some time.
Going to Church and saying your prayers.
Spoiling grand babies if you have any.
Catfishing or bass fishing with a buddy.
Working on your car or in your shop.
Gardening.
Responsible enjoyment of adult beverages.
Riding motorcycles.
Avoiding females and their feminine wiles.
You forgot one...
still raising babies in your forties ;)
*Note: I'm not *technically* in my forties, but I will be soon, and my youngest is not even two, so....
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 05:48:55 PM
QuoteDo a list for normal boys now.
I'll give it a whirl:
Normal boys are addicted to porn.
Normal boys are addicted to video games.
Normal boys have never been in a fight.
Normal boys can't bench press their body weight by the time they graduate high school.
Normal boys don't lead women in a relationship.
Normal boys are friend zoned by girls.
Normal boys don't know how to change a tire or change the oil on a car.
Normal boys have never been hunting or fishing.
Normal boys turn up their nose at choice North Carolina leaf.
If you don't want your boy to turn out "normal", an embarrassingly low priced book with the award winning cover (winning "Troll of the Decade") is available on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694/ (https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Red-Pill-Guide-Men/dp/1708960694/)
I hate the way people take try to take over the beautiful word "normal" to mean its opposite when that is statistically average. Good (of all kind) beauty and truth were the norm in nature and in man before the fall. Some abnormality crept in as punishment - mental and physical illness and deformity. But evil men promote sin, moral abnormalities, ugliness and lies, making them average and then claiming they are "normal".
Quote from: MundaCorMeum on April 13, 2021, 09:57:35 PM
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 05:52:55 PM
QuoteI'm 55 now and I've tried to get a fix on what 'normal' is for a reasonable adult for some time.
Going to Church and saying your prayers.
Spoiling grand babies if you have any.
Catfishing or bass fishing with a buddy.
Working on your car or in your shop.
Gardening.
Responsible enjoyment of adult beverages.
Riding motorcycles.
Avoiding females and their feminine wiles.
You forgot one...
still raising babies in your forties ;)
*Note: I'm not *technically* in my forties, but I will be soon, and my youngest is not even two, so....
I had my last child (#7) a few weeks before my 43rd birthday. Seven years later my first grandchild was born. I now have 10 grandchildren and am likely to have more. None of this would have been at all remarkable in most periods of human history, but few people think of this as "normal" now.
I really like the distinction that Non Nobis is making between statistical norms and moral norms.
Quote from: james03 on April 13, 2021, 05:52:55 PM
QuoteI'm 55 now and I've tried to get a fix on what 'normal' is for a reasonable adult for some time.
Going to Church and saying your prayers.
Spoiling grand babies if you have any.
Catfishing or bass fishing with a buddy.
Working on your car or in your shop.
Gardening.
Responsible enjoyment of adult beverages.
Riding motorcycles.
Avoiding females and their feminine wiles.
Good work friend.
I'm somewhat reasonable.
I hope everyone goes through the lists and checks off things. Good or bad, we all check some boxes. All I can hope for some days is that my (4) children witness the perseverance of their parents authentic journey. I have difficulty with
almost anyone who went to church non stop from childhood through adulthood. Little old ladies in adoration being a notable exception. I have trouble with non-catholics because I'm blunt and don't listen to their non-truths without retort. At least with the huddled masses of sad existence (normal listers)...that hole that only God can fill isn't filled yet. A lot of those struggles point them in the right direction someday.
The OP/Scrupulosity problem is real for cradle catholics, too I think.
Other than living by example (reasonable adult list), how do we live in today's church? Parish life? That is all that is reasonably available to me, and to the vast majority of the <100% of Catholics who go to mass.
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
I've never understood looking to laity for spiritual and moral formation, regardless of their YouTube views or how they come across.
Information on things which are ancillary, I get. I mean, we are all here on this forum. But in general, moral, theological, and spiritual formation should come from one's priest, good spiritual writers, etc.
Anyone looking to laity to form their spiritual worldview are in for a real disappointment.
Quote from: Gardener on April 14, 2021, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
I've never understood looking to laity for spiritual and moral formation, regardless of their YouTube views or how they come across.
Information on things which are ancillary, I get. I mean, we are all here on this forum. But in general, moral, theological, and spiritual formation should come from one's priest, good spiritual writers, etc.
Anyone looking to laity to form their spiritual worldview are in for a real disappointment.
TandJ looked to her holy priest but then was directed reasonably to her husband and from there to dangerous laity Coulombe. I would be getting more confused.
Do all trads' own priests have enough wisdom, knowledge, and time to handle every difficulty causing scruples in some trads in these bizarre unCatholic times? Some people have trouble talking to some priests, and don't do as well as others in getting help that makes sense to them.
So they listen online to good priests, but the advise is not indivualized and might make some people too scrupulous. Or they listen to priests who are not so good, or to laity.
Good books are great but also need to be selected wisely.
Forums have a place; not for individual judgement or spiritual direction, but for helping people understand what they should learn mainly from real Catholic authorities (where they get their general formation, as you said).
Unfortunately confusion and error creeps into forums along with real help. But there is real help too.
Pray for light. Trust in God's mercy in confession.
Quote from: Gardener on April 14, 2021, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
I've never understood looking to laity for spiritual and moral formation, regardless of their YouTube views or how they come across.
Information on things which are ancillary, I get. I mean, we are all here on this forum. But in general, moral, theological, and spiritual formation should come from one's priest, good spiritual writers, etc.
Anyone looking to laity to form their spiritual worldview are in for a real disappointment.
I sense your dislike of Mr. Coulombe but at the time there was NO OTHER Catholic who had an ounce of joy that I could listen to. I was at the end of my rope and hearing just this one happy Catholic helped me stay Traditional. He already explained his reasoning and I believe him. If it weren't for Greg inserting a bit of humor on here I probably wouldn't be here as well. I need happiness in my life not constant stress
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
Yes you've said all this previously. He clarified and apologized for the scandal. I still like him and find his personality very hard to beat. He's effective at evangelizing even though he is only a layman. But if you have recommendations for me to listen to who is a priest I'm open to it
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
Yes you've said all this previously. He clarified and apologized for the scandal. I still like him and find his personality very hard to beat. He's effective at evangelizing even though he is only a layman. But if you have recommendations for me to listen to who has a decent personality and is a priest I'm open to it
Apologizing for causing a scandal is like saying, "I'm sorry I got caught." It's not an apology. He's a LARPer who is more interested in the appearance of things than their substance. Even as far back as 2004 he was defending the idea of messing around with Tarot cards. I've seen interviews with the now deceased Anton LaVey (Church of Satan founder). He had a decent personality as well. Most shysters do.
If you are scrupulous, you should stick with spiritual writers like St. Francis de Sales and listen to your priest on how to approach resolving that issue.
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AMCharles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
What evidence do you have to support these accusations? The link which showed his answers when given an opportunity to defend himself, seems to show that he is not guilty of many things he has been accused of.
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Gardener on April 14, 2021, 11:39:08 AM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
I've never understood looking to laity for spiritual and moral formation, regardless of their YouTube views or how they come across.
Information on things which are ancillary, I get. I mean, we are all here on this forum. But in general, moral, theological, and spiritual formation should come from one's priest, good spiritual writers, etc.
Anyone looking to laity to form their spiritual worldview are in for a real disappointment.
I sense your dislike of Mr. Coulombe but at the time there was NO OTHER Catholic who had an ounce of joy that I could listen to. I was at the end of my rope and hearing just this one happy Catholic helped me stay Traditional. He already explained his reasoning and I believe him. If it weren't for Greg inserting a bit of humor on here I probably wouldn't be here as well. I need happiness in my life not constant stress
Not sure what you mean by joy. Peppy, perhaps? Not all doom and gloom?
If so, you might enjoy the videos from the FSSP parish in Littleton, CO. Fr. Nolan is pretty funny:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCowKIe4fG3k7UNUGX-6pvgg
Quote from: Gardener on April 14, 2021, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
Yes you've said all this previously. He clarified and apologized for the scandal. I still like him and find his personality very hard to beat. He's effective at evangelizing even though he is only a layman. But if you have recommendations for me to listen to who has a decent personality and is a priest I'm open to it
Apologizing for causing a scandal is like saying, "I'm sorry I got caught." It's not an apology. He's a LARPer who is more interested in the appearance of things than their substance. Even as far back as 2004 he was defending the idea of messing around with Tarot cards. I've seen interviews with the now deceased Anton LaVey (Church of Satan founder). He had a decent personality as well. Most shysters do.
If you are scrupulous, you should stick with spiritual writers like St. Francis de Sales and listen to your priest on how to approach resolving that issue.
Thank you Gardener, I respect your opinion and I will do that and I also appreciate your charity in responding, however I don't think it's fair of what you are saying about him. For criticizing his clothing... if it's one things trads like to do is criticize a persons apparel and here we have a man who actually attempts to dress like a decent human with self respect and he's mocked. He posted another apology today, went to confession and vows to seek spiritual direction from a good priest. If Gods forgiven him shouldn't we?
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 03:13:09 PM
Quote from: Gardener on April 14, 2021, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on April 14, 2021, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 13, 2021, 12:58:23 PM
Well thank you and that info supports what another holy Priest told me one time when I worried whether I was too sick to attend Mass or not. He told me if my husband said I too sick was then I should stay home. This relieves me to have to not worry about this kind of stuff. My husband has already forbidden me from listening to certain Catholic YouTubers because they can cause anxiety or stress about the state of the Church, but to stick to Charles Coulombe and other reasonable and generally joyful Catholics. His conscience is certainly more reliable than mine
Charles Coulombe is an occultist who does online Tarot Readings, and is an apologist for actual witches.
That might be the source of confusion right there. :pray3: :pray3: :pray3:
Yes you've said all this previously. He clarified and apologized for the scandal. I still like him and find his personality very hard to beat. He's effective at evangelizing even though he is only a layman. But if you have recommendations for me to listen to who has a decent personality and is a priest I'm open to it
Apologizing for causing a scandal is like saying, "I'm sorry I got caught." It's not an apology. He's a LARPer who is more interested in the appearance of things than their substance. Even as far back as 2004 he was defending the idea of messing around with Tarot cards. I've seen interviews with the now deceased Anton LaVey (Church of Satan founder). He had a decent personality as well. Most shysters do.
If you are scrupulous, you should stick with spiritual writers like St. Francis de Sales and listen to your priest on how to approach resolving that issue.
Thank you Gardener, I respect your opinion and I will do that and I also appreciate your charity in responding, however I don't think it's fair of what you are saying about him. For criticizing his clothing... if it's one things trads like to do is criticize a persons apparel and here we have a man who actually attempts to dress like a decent human with self respect and he's mocked. He posted another apology today, went to confession and vows to seek spiritual direction from a good priest. If Gods forgiven him shouldn't we?
Forgiveness does not always equal forgetting, and it certainly doesn't undo the damage he has created for his carefully cultivated public image in the Trad Catholic milieu.
This isn't a situation where he made one mistake. He has been messing with Tarot for apparently the last 17 years at least, as far back as at least 2004. This is a problem.
It's not like he dropped an F-bomb on a live podcast and immediately apologized and promised to be more aware of his language. He was messing around with the occult, and participated in at least two yearly Tarot readings (2020 and 2019) with that group in California and as joined by Dr. Stephen Hoeller, a "bishop" in the Gnostic Church, so called.
To just be like, "oh well, he said he was sorry. Moving on now. Let's not forget how good he made us feel!" is insanity. That prominent trad bloggers are just blowing this off is indicative of how far down the crapper their minds have gone.
As for apparel, I could care less what he wears in general, or anyone. But let's be honest: it does form a part of a whole, and for him it seems appearance is tantamount to "being" something. My 6 year old thinks the same way. For Coulombe, he is trying to cultivate the image of an educated, dapper, traveled, authoritative person who is somehow an authority on Catholicism and helping lead us back to that historical Shangri-La of sensible culture. That's LARPing.
Here is a pertinent audio sermon by Fr. R on the subject of scrupulosity. (He also notes that it's particularly prevalent among trads.) I'm posting it because I just happened to listen to it last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Jba8_4KMA
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:33:54 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
You don't get my argument.
They don't look good on anyone.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:33:54 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
You don't get my argument.
They don't look good on anyone.
Ok, well playboy has done marvelously well over the years for showing things that apparently no one can "pull-off." There are about 10 different country songs on the sexiness of tight jeans. Guys like women in tight clothes/pants/etc...if they look good in them. If you are trying to argue that no man finds women in tight pants attractive, you are dead wrong.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:46:11 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:33:54 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
You don't get my argument.
They don't look good on anyone.
Ok, well playboy has done marvelously well over the years for showing things that apparently no one can "pull-off." There are about 10 different country songs on the sexiness of tight jeans. Guys like women in tight clothes/pants/etc...if they look good in them. If you are trying to argue that no man finds women in tight pants attractive, you are dead wrong.
Quit trying to figure out what I'm saying by what I didn't write. People always try to do that and it's ... well, stupid. Let's just say that your attempted interpretation of what I did not write is... dead wrong.
Some people like heavy metal, but it doesn't mean that it sounds good.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 08:21:17 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:46:11 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:33:54 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
You don't get my argument.
They don't look good on anyone.
Ok, well playboy has done marvelously well over the years for showing things that apparently no one can "pull-off." There are about 10 different country songs on the sexiness of tight jeans. Guys like women in tight clothes/pants/etc...if they look good in them. If you are trying to argue that no man finds women in tight pants attractive, you are dead wrong.
Quit trying to figure out what I'm saying by what I didn't write. People always try to do that and it's ... well, stupid. Let's just say that your attempted interpretation of what I did not write is... dead wrong.
Some people like heavy metal, but it doesn't mean that it sounds good.
Some things, like music, are subjective to taste.
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 08:21:17 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:46:11 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 14, 2021, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 14, 2021, 07:33:54 PM
Quote from: The Curt Jester on April 12, 2021, 09:47:02 AM
Also, hint: it's not an attractive look either way. Ultra-tight clothes accentuate your physical condition, so if you're overweight, you look even more so. If you're skinny, then you'll look like you never eat.
This is a bad frame of mind, and I have seen it used in the "pant" argument way too many times. There are plenty of women who are not too skinny or fat. They look like models and look great in leggings/tight jeans/etc. If looking at that part of a woman's body wasn't desirable, then a lot of businesses would be out of business...The reality is that you shouldn't do it because it is immodest. To even lightly imply that it is bad in part because you don't "look hot" in leggings, suggests to some, that girls who look good in them have a free pass.
You don't get my argument.
They don't look good on anyone.
Ok, well playboy has done marvelously well over the years for showing things that apparently no one can "pull-off." There are about 10 different country songs on the sexiness of tight jeans. Guys like women in tight clothes/pants/etc...if they look good in them. If you are trying to argue that no man finds women in tight pants attractive, you are dead wrong.
Quit trying to figure out what I'm saying by what I didn't write. People always try to do that and it's ... well, stupid. Let's just say that your attempted interpretation of what I did not write is... dead wrong.
Some people like heavy metal, but it doesn't mean that it sounds good.
Whatever you say...
I think what The Curt Jester means by 'good' is that wearing such leggings are not inherently attractive (or they shouldn't be, but we are creatures of rebellion), and are not conducive to feminine beauty. I am not saying guys won't look, or find themselves not attracted to a girl wearing them, but it is a lustful, unnatural (in that it is sinful) kind of attraction.
Quote from: TandJ on April 14, 2021, 02:28:33 PM
I sense your dislike of Mr. Coulombe but at the time there was NO OTHER Catholic who had an ounce of joy that I could listen to. I was at the end of my rope and hearing just this one happy Catholic helped me stay Traditional. He already explained his reasoning and I believe him. If it weren't for Greg inserting a bit of humor on here I probably wouldn't be here as well. I need happiness in my life not constant stress
TandJ, you're all good here. Absolutely NO BLAME or guilt on you! I had no idea about him, except a lot of Catholic Monarchists respect him, and he was not my cup of tea. I have taken many wrong detours in the struggle to practice the Faith.
I know I went to at least two rosary/ evangelizing events back in the day featuring "Fr." Ken Roberts, author of
From Playboy to Priest. He was hilarious! Of course he was defrocked for "misconduct" which had been covered up by the gay mafia from the 1960s on, and etc.
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal.
I was raised thinking that there was no such thing as objective aesthetics. I think this is part of the relativism that infects secular society. I learned much later that objective aesthetics was the traditional/classical view. It took me a long time to understand this and incorporate it into my thinking.
I too took Curt Jester's comments that way and agree with him. There was a time, however, I would not have been able to do this.
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.
Quote from: TandJ on April 15, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.
Tight pants are never acceptable in public though. Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.
Quote from: Melkor on April 15, 2021, 12:24:25 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 15, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.
Tight pants are never acceptable in public though. Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.
Obviously!! Lol
Lol. 😂
Quote from: Melkor on April 15, 2021, 12:24:25 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 15, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.
Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.
and you're talking about aesthetics...lol
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on April 15, 2021, 05:48:15 PM
Quote from: Melkor on April 15, 2021, 12:24:25 PM
Quote from: TandJ on April 15, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Daniel on April 15, 2021, 06:37:21 AM
I think Melkor's right. My take on The Curt Jester's statement is that he was simply making an objective aesthetic appeal. Tight clothes magnify the body's imperfections, whereas modest clothes hide the imperfections. Some men might subjectively find these imperfections to be attractive, but this doesn't undermine the argument.
I don't think it's a bad argument, but, if I'm understanding it completely, I don't entirely agree. Because I'd say that tight clothes are no worse than walking around naked. Not that I'd recommend walking around naked, but, my point is that I don't think tight clothes generally make a woman look any worse, physically, than she actually is, physically. (I suppose it's possible that they could, though.)
I think the bigger issue is not in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body's imperfections, but in the fact that tight clothes draw attention to the body, period. This in itself results in a sort of ugliness. Not because the human body is inherently ugly (it's not), but because the human person is more than just a body. Good clothes should draw the right amount of attention to the body, the right amount of attention to the soul, and the right amount of attention to the spirit. Tight clothes, however, draw all the attention to the body. And worse, they often sexualize the body.
This, I think, is why we find tight clothes to be repulsive. Because we're not materialists, and because such clothes are not suitable for women (or even for human beings in general).
Same goes for pants on women, probably. I can't place my finger on it, but something about it just doesn't seem fitting to her nature. (I suspect a great part of it is that pants make women look like men. Especially in our society where you can't even always tell at a glance whether the person standing right in front of you is a manly woman or a girly man. This shouldn't be happening. And if people wore appropriate clothing then I'd think this would rarely happen.)
Both FR. Ripperger and Longua say it's not a sin. The Deuteronomy verse most likely meant tranny dress. My daughters and I wear both skirts and pants depending on what we are doing. Always skirts to mass.
Sweats or baggy jeans are fine.
and you're talking about aesthetics...lol
Never said they looked good. They have no aesthetic appeal, but that doesn't make them sinful.
Just my 2 cents...I don't see a problem with skinny pants or leggings if long tunic, duster coat or sweater is worn over them. My employer has a rule against them but not traditional pants. There are some Catholics who believe all women in pants are going to hell. My late mom was in the Legion of Mary. She had advanced arthritis. She wore pull on stretchy loose pants and a tunic because that was the only way she could dress herself.
There are 2 things to avoid:
Wearing clothing suitable for a man. Pant suits come to mind.
Wearing clothing that is sexually arousing. Women can't understand how strong the male sex drive is, especially in younger lads.
So taking this into consideration, leggings with a long sweater/tunic that covers up the butt is not a problem for me. I actually like that look on women. Has a cozy feminine vibe.
You aren't trying to be masculine with this mode of dress, and since the arse is covered up, there's no extra temptation.
I wear loose pants 99 percent of the time then long skirts to mass. I never have a problem telling a man from a women who is in jeans. I suppose about every 1/5000 people you cannot tell their sex by appearance but that has nothing to do with their pants and has to do with their look and voice as a whole. I do have a problem with men wearing skinny jeans or mid-thigh shorts sitting directly in front of me at mass though. It doesn't affect me sensually but I am disgusted and distracted the entire time.
There is such a thing as pantsuits for women with feminine detail and colors. They also button on the other side. There's no mistaking a woman for a man. In the 1940s, skirted suits were the norm.
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Modesty is a virtue, not a style.
Form fitting fashions or fashions associated with specific signaling associated with them are usually immodest.
However, as PPE, such things might be acceptable when being used as such. I don't know much about leather clothing besides boots.
Quote from: james03 on May 02, 2021, 03:13:10 PM
Wearing clothing that is sexually arousing. Women can't understand how strong the male sex drive is, especially in younger lads.
It is a struggle with my eyes just to walk from the parking ramp to my office some days. I often want to take Our Lord literally when He says to pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin. The styles that some women wear publicly is just shameful (this goes for form-fitting leggings too). I don't think it's sinful to appreciate beauty in a woman, but many these days leave very little for the imagination in their normal wear.
It is honestly a rarity to see a woman wearing a nice spring/summer dress anymore that doesn't reveal too much. My heathen wife only wears dresses on special occasions. Most of the time it's sweat-pants, jeans or t-shirts like most women. I feel like a crotchety old man complaining about this.
Quote from: Insanis on May 19, 2021, 07:38:14 PM
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Modesty is a virtue, not a style.
Form fitting fashions or fashions associated with specific signaling associated with them are usually immodest.
However, as PPE, such things might be acceptable when being used as such. I don't know much about leather clothing besides boots.
You need tight leather pants if you're gonna ride a bike. Leather everything.
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:55:58 PM
Quote from: Insanis on May 19, 2021, 07:38:14 PM
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Modesty is a virtue, not a style.
Form fitting fashions or fashions associated with specific signaling associated with them are usually immodest.
However, as PPE, such things might be acceptable when being used as such. I don't know much about leather clothing besides boots.
You need tight leather pants if you're gonna ride a bike. Leather everything.
Sounds like its a practical necessity for that hobby, rather than stemming purely from vanity.
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:55:58 PM
You need tight leather pants if you're gonna ride a bike.
That would be PPE.
So unless you are going ride for immoral reasons, you got to protect yourself properly.
But, keep in mind that it may not be modest in some circumstances and to perhaps really examine exactly how you look. It may be fine, but you don't want to use it as an excuse to show anything off.
Quote
Leather everything.
Socks? Skivvies?
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Yes they are. I know some trads will say if a girl can't wear a skirt doing activity then they need to give that activity up, well looks like males have to quit motorcycles
QuoteYou need tight leather pants if you're gonna ride a bike. Leather everything.
You probably do. I only wear a leather jacket and I got hit in the leg one time by some sort of bug at about 80 mph. That definitely hurt.
QuoteIt is honestly a rarity to see a woman wearing a nice spring/summer dress anymore that doesn't reveal too much.
Ironically that girl will get noticed by all the men, though it won't be lust. She'll be regarded as high value.
Quote from: TandJ on May 20, 2021, 10:49:22 AM
Quote from: Tennessean on May 19, 2021, 07:31:04 PM
Are tight leather trousers on men immodest? I want a pair.
Yes they are. I know some trads will say if a girl can't wear a skirt doing activity then they need to give that activity up, well looks like males have to quit motorcycles
For the folks who say such things there's likely no way to get a motorcycle to their mother's basement, nor could they afford one with their incomplete online theology degree and tweed jackets aren't suitable for PPE anyway. However, "leathers" are more for the speed bike racers. Anyone riding a bike that's worthy of a man can get away with a good leather jacket/gloves, boots, heavy jeans w/ chaps, and a proper helmet.
Modesty is situational, as Fr. Ripperger explains in this video, specifically starting around 17:00 in:
[yt]https://youtu.be/4gkdySmRPQA[/yt]
Just for fun I was reading the FSSP El Paso bulletin and this was their dress policy: " † Church attire: as the weather gets warmer, please remember that men should come to church in formal attire. Women should choose attire that corresponds to their feminine dignity without being immodest (low-cut shirts, sleeveless, etc.) or distracting to others."
I think it's very well done and puts the burden on the men rather the women (seemed that way to me at least). I'm a huge fan of the really well run FSSP parishes that keep a check on bad behavior. I loved listening to Fr. L's sermons before they were removed from YouTube. He seemed to really try to check the reactionary people.
Quote from: TandJ on May 20, 2021, 01:44:39 PM
please remember that men should come to church in formal attire.
I think I know what is intended if it is a regular parish, but it will take just one person to show up in true formal attire to have that policy rewarded.
A formal outfit isn't what most people think.
One dandy in opera pumps coming to mass and suddenly it is back to informal wear or business casual.
(A suit, matching jacket and trousers, is informal in western culture. Informal does not mean casual.)
Quote from: james03 on May 20, 2021, 01:23:15 PM
QuoteYou need tight leather pants if you're gonna ride a bike. Leather everything.
You probably do. I only wear a leather jacket and I got hit in the leg one time by some sort of bug at about 80 mph. That definitely hurt.
Oh man, the rain can hurt too.