St. Joan of arc: A Justification For Cross-dressing?

 

St. Joan of Arc in men's dress: an exceptional case of necessity which does not justify women dressing as men in general.

Prologue:

Our February 17 blog post got a number of interesting comments as feedback. One of the comments came in the form of a question as a direct message. I provided a brief response and promised to develop it further in relation to the now-new-normal of those intent on destroying what is distinctly Catholic morals in dressing for women. 

The question was:

"What about St Joan of Arc? She dressed like a man.” 

So, what about St. Joan of arc who dressed like a man?! Let us get into the details… 

St. Thomas Aquinas on Cross-dressing

St. Thomas explains thus:

…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 (Dt. 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. (S.T. II-II, q. 169 art. 2, rep. 3rd obj.)

The law forbidding crossdressing which he cotes reads thus: 

A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God. (Deuteronomy 22:5) 

St. Joan of Arc's Case

Can the case of St. Joan of Arc qualify as an exception to the rule based on the principle St. Thomas Aquinas outlined?  

A few things to note:

• She had a divine mission that required her to be among soldiers. 
• She is recorded to have complained about the lack of safety in women's clothing.
• She was compelled to use a men's dress to safeguard her chastity. 

Now, St. Thomas indicated that in case of necessity, a woman may put on men's dress without sin. From the facts noted about St. Joan of Arc one thing is clear: she was in dire necessity and this necessity was definitely recognized by the Church in raising her as a model of sanctity and virtue.

Her's then was an exceptional case. And, in principle, exceptions do not make the rule. 

Counter-Catholic New-normal

Few things are obvious in the Counter-Catholic New-normal of the agents for the destruction of what is distinctly Catholic morals in dressing:

• Making the exception the rule in the bid to affirm so-called gender equality.
• The exception-made-the-rule is not to safeguard virtue, but to promote vice since the general design is aimed at provocation of sensual pleasure and curiosity. 

Now, the decided promotion of cross-dressing as a normative custom is not an individual false exercise of freedom but a moral issue with far reaching consequences for society. 

• We see erosion and confusion of natural gender roles.
• Moral relativism is fostered, immodesty being the happy beneficiary.
• Traditional family and social order is undermined

Summing Up

In principle, based on direct scriptural prohibition, cross-dressing is sinful. But, in exceptional cases of genuine necessity it may be without sin. This exception, however, cannot become the rule and it is criminal to manufacture lame excuses in the bid to enjoy the suspension of the law as normative always and everywhere.

St. Joan of Arc's case is considered an exception, not a general justification for cross-dressing. Her wearing of men's clothing was accepted because of necessity, not as a norm. So, her example cannot be considered a justification for women dressing as men in general.

Those who promote the custom of women dressing as men as a social ideal are either active or passive agents of the secularist agenda to destroy anything distinctly Catholic in all ramifications, including morals in dressing.