Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jul 14th 2013 new
Source, please?

Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Read my first sentence again.
I read it. And it is no more convincing now than it was several hours ago.

A husband insisting his wife wear revealing clothes she is not comfortable in is disordered, as it is a one-sided and decidedly non-unitive use of the sexual pleasures.

Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: You should have let me know you were going to be in Seattle. I would have met you for coffee. Besdies it would have given me an excuse to visit my daughter, not that I need one.
How about it on the 21st? Next weekend! I will be there again then. And to give you fair notice, I will be in tow of my 11 and 10yo who are really excited about the trip.

If you like we can private message and see if we can arrange a brief meeting.


Jul 14th 2013 new
The source? The very best - Chelsea, well, actually, Chelsea quoting St Thomas Aquinas himself:

St. Thomas Aquinas points to the Law as objectively binding on Christian men and women, except in a case of necessity (necessity is not synonymous with ease or convenience, by the way).

"As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive."

There's nothing in the very short text of Deuteronomy 25:2 to allow one gender to wear another gender's clothes

5 A woman must not wear mans clothes, or a man go clad like a woman; all such doings are hateful to God.

so where did he come up with the idea that in certain practical circumstances it is OK after saying that cross-dressing is expressly forbidden? Is it OK in certain practical circumstances to abort? The exception must come from his own theological reasoning or perhaps from some authoritative text that he read. In any case, he has drawn exceptions to the 'mandatory-ness' of the verse based on necessity. But what is necessity? It used to be the custom for a young slim woman to play Peter Pan because apparently young slim men weren't Peter Pannish enough. Can this still be done? Costume parties (especially gala things to raise money for charity)? Not OK?

He also says that outward apparel should be according to the general custom. Has he fixed 'general custom' in stone? Or has he left that to continuing natural and supernatural revelation?


Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: I read it. And it is no more convincing now than it was several hours ago.

A husband insisting his wife wear revealing clothes she is not comfortable in is disordered, as it is a one-sided and decidedly non-unitive use of the sexual pleasures.

Again, Jerry is "right". For a husband to insist that his wife wear a particular outfit so that he can be "turned on" is obviously distorted. So is "role playing" (wife wearing french maid outfit, ect.) for the husband's pleasure. I can't believe this is even a discussion because it is so obviously wrong on ALL levels. JPII said the opposite of "love" is "use". "USING" your spouse for your own pleasure is the OPPOSITE OF LOVE, plain and simple.

In regards to the original post whether a christian woman should wear a bikini. There are "modest" two piece bathing suits (tankini's) and the one Taylor Swift wore that was all of the rage last summer. Then there are immodest two piece suits; the stringy ones Elizabeth pointed out earlier. When I was in my twenties I wore a bikini to "sun worship" (I can't believe I did this!!). Bikini's are almost impossible to swim in so they are definitely not "swim wear". If you are going to the pool to swim, wear a one piece. If you are going to the pool to worship the sun, talk to your dermatologist and he will talk you out of it. So practically speaking, there is no reason ANYONE would ever need to wear a bikini, unless they ignore the warnings of dermatologists everywhere.

I live in the valley of the sun where there are many opportunities to worship the sun, year round. My daughter is a lifeguard and they are required to wear rash guards to protect their skin from the sun. They are not allowed to wear bikini's (bikinis aren't practical). So to answer your question, a Christian woman, or any woman for that matter, should not wear a bikini, for practical reasons. PROTECT YOUR SKIN by STAYING COVERED (even when swimming) and "watch your kids around water" (too many child drownings in Phoenix).
Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said: Yes!


So, I say, enjoy your bikinis. There are a lot more important issues to worry about! Like what comes out of our mouths :-)


Gerald, I support your view. This whole business is silly. 'Nuff said.
Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: Key words -- in your opinion. Alas, it's not your opinion, my opinion, or anyone else's opinion that matters. We need to be seeking out the objective standard of modesty, not leading them astray with our personal opinions.

Do you consider the admonitions of the Blessed Virgin to be examples of false modesty? In 1917 she warned the children at Fatima: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." While she doesn't specifically mention what styles of dress will offend the Lord, I can't image what could be much worse than a bikini.

For more information on modest dress, see http://www.fatima.org/essentials/requests/mid.pdf References to some guidelines issued by the Church may be found at
http://www.olrl.org/virtues/modcrus.shtml
http://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/modnorms.html

If you do a forum searchfor modesty in dress, there have been some posts int he past with links to sermons by several priests on this matter. Look especially for posts by Bernard-2709.

For much more information, search for <modesty Fatima> using your favorite search engine (you may need to remove the angle brackets).







If I might interject - the fuller quote from Our Lady about "fashions" suggests that she was not necessarily talking ONLY about clothing:

"Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same."

"The Church has no fashions." In other words, the Church doesn't follow what "worldly" people consider "fashionable". Granted this can refer to clothing, but (it seems to me) it can also refer to certain kinds of entertainment, ways of thinking, and so on.

Just my two cents.
Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: I read it. And it is no more convincing now than it was several hours ago.

A husband insisting his wife wear revealing clothes she is not comfortable in is disordered, as it is a one-sided and decidedly non-unitive use of the sexual pleasures.

Here is that sentence again.

"To force a spouse to do something sexually which they find distasteful is always wrong."

So what do you find unconvincing about that?

If you believe that the sentence is wrong, you must of necessity believe its opposite: So do you believe or think it is okay to force a spouse to sexually do something which they find distasteful?

I cannot believe you would answer yes to that. But by saying my first sentence was unconvicing that is exactly what you are saying.

Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: The source? The very best - Chelsea, well, actually, Chelsea quoting St Thomas Aquinas himself:

St. Thomas Aquinas points to the Law as objectively binding on Christian men and women, except in a case of necessity (necessity is not synonymous with ease or convenience, by the way).

"As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deuteronomy 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive."

There's nothing in the very short text of Deuteronomy 25:2 to allow one gender to wear another gender's clothes

5 A woman must not wear mans clothes, or a man go clad like a woman; all such doings are hateful to God.

so where did he come up with the idea that in certain practical circumstances it is OK after saying that cross-dressing is expressly forbidden? Is it OK in certain practical circumstances to abort? The exception must come from his own theological reasoning or perhaps from some authoritative text that he read. In any case, he has drawn exceptions to the 'mandatory-ness' of the verse based on necessity. But what is necessity? It used to be the custom for a young slim woman to play Peter Pan because apparently young slim men weren't Peter Pannish enough. Can this still be done? Costume parties (especially gala things to raise money for charity)? Not OK?

He also says that outward apparel should be according to the general custom. Has he fixed 'general custom' in stone? Or has he left that to continuing natural and supernatural revelation?


Say a woman is riding a horse, which pretty much guarantees she is wearing pants of some description. Is she wearing men's clothing or horse-riding clothing? A policewoman has to wear pants as (I imagine) trying to do police work in a dress presents difficulties. Is she wearing men's clothing or police officer clothing? That said, a woman showing up to a wedding in a tuxedo or a man showing up in a dress is a problem.

I suppose one could object to women becoming police officers on various grounds, but then it is a sin of society to allow women to become police, not the sin of the policewoman for wearing pants.
Jul 14th 2013 new
Depends on the individual woman and just how modest the bikini is...if you can have a modest bikini, that is rolling eyes
I am and was Christian and I did it! Had 3 of them....no string jobs but they were definitely bikinis. I had 7 kids in 10 years with the last being born when I was just 31 years old. Husband and I owned a beach home and I spent summers at the beach with the kids. After the last baby was born I lost 100 lbs of accumulated baby fat and exercised into what I thought a healthy 31-year-old woman should have looked like. Proud...yep! Carried away....possibly!! Got it out of my system that summer and went back to one-piecers the next year. angel

I really do wonder, though, if a woman in a bikini even gets noticed on a beach full of other bathing-suited...including bikini-wearing...women. That is, of course, unless it doesn't fit right embarassed
Posts 51 - 60 of 164