Are there some some objective standards for modesty?

[fpt]

i know the catechism says that modesty varies from place to place and culture to culture.

but aren’t there some standards everyone should follow?

or what about when modesty changes in a given society?

for example, people thoughts ankles provoked lust in the middle ages/renaissance but not breasts.

in certain periods, hair was considered erotic

attire for certain activities used to be considered immodest, gymnastics outfits, ballet outfits, swimsuits

now in our culture, what makes us say that tight pants, mini skitrs, and bikinis are immodest?

isn’t it almost like a moral vacuum?

**
Only for information in order to feed the thread. Good reading**

Why is there such controversy over modesty?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=845193

Modesty advice
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=839479

 

[pnewton]

Saint Padre Pio would throw young ladies out of his confessional for not dressing to his standards.

I bet Pope Francis never did.

 

[aTraditionalist]

You’re right. I bet he never did either. Be careful not to compare them.

 

[pnewton]

You’re right. I bet he never did either. Be careful not to compare them.

I am not comparing them. However anecdotes and common stories about this or that saint is not relevant. It is not Catholic doctrine or any exercise of Catholic authority. If an incident like that happened, we do not know why. Did Padre Pio overstep himself? Did he regret it? Where there other issues? Etc. This St. Pio story comes up often on these modesty threads and it is simply not relevant to Church teaching, even if it did happen. Saints are not only imperfect, they sometimes have really character flaws.

 

[aTraditionalist]

I’m not doubting the saints humanity, but are you proposing that Saint Padre Pio was out of line to demand modesty? His dress code was posted on the front door of the church and it was hardly taxing on the individual. If he had serious imperfections, why would God bless him with miracles during his lifetime? Near instant canonization? It’s not my business what the Holy Father does or does not do. On the other hand, when a saint teaches or chastises, I pay attention.

 

[pnewton]

On the other hand, when a saint teaches or chastises, I pay attention.

First, what is taught and why is someone chastised? The details are not present. Second, assuming the story is true, St. Pio was** not** teaching. St. Pio was** not** chastising anyone but one person. Was it only because of the dress, or was it something that the dress represented or some revelation he had? If he wanted such a code, his authority did not exist beyond parish boundaries. From what I understand, he sometimes had a special insight that would not apply to any other priest.

I would never say St. Pio was out of line. However, I recognize the fact the he was capable of imperfection. I am only saying this story has zero relevance to Church teaching or the question here about objective standards.

For most priests, weighing whether a soul might be damned for all eternity versus him making some point about his opinion on propriety would be a no-brainer. Turning someone away from confession is pretty serious business.

 

[severus68]

I’m not doubting the saints humanity, but are you proposing that Saint Padre Pio was out of line to demand modesty? His dress code was posted on the front door of the church and it was hardly taxing on the individual. If he had serious imperfections, why would God bless him with miracles during his lifetime? Near instant canonization? It’s not my business what the Holy Father does or does not do. On the other hand, when a saint teaches or chastises, I pay attention.

Saints were not perfect. Throwing someone out of the confessional would not have been very charitable (if that is in fact what he did).

 

[severus68]

Saint Padre Pio would throw young ladies out of his confessional for not dressing to his standards. I don’t believe that modesty is relative to the individual. What about nuns or other religious? I understand that everyone is in a different faith place and has a different sum of money to work with, but I’ve seen people dress better for court than for church. I ask people to do the best they can with what they have. Just remember you’re in the presence of the Living God at Mass.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Our God who cares about what we are and do, not what we wear.

 

[pnewton]

James 2

“My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?”

 

[vz71]

Saints were not perfect. Throwing someone out of the confessional would not have been very charitable (if that is in fact what he did).

Pio had a talent for seeing inside people.
If he threw someone out, it is likely there was more going on than anyone but God knows.

 

[severus68]

Pio had a talent for seeing inside people.
If he threw someone out, it is likely there was more going on than anyone but God knows.

We have been told here that he did it because of dress so I was just addressing that.

 

[DMC12]

Our God who cares about what we are and do, not what we wear.

I believe that applies when speaking of that not everyone can have expensive clothes, some will dress with ragged clothes because that is what they can get, not of someone walking around almost naked.

but really, what is the problem? why such controversy over such a simple matter, if a person is willing to see someone with lust no matter what they wear they will still do it, but there are persons who for whatever reasons they might have find it dificult to dont look with lust at someone even if they try, and if you dress inmodestly you share the guilt.

 

[Brendan_64]

but there are persons who for whatever reasons they might have find it dificult to dont look with lust at someone even if they try, and if you dress inmodestly you share the guilt.

No you don’t. The guilt is entirely with the person who is lustful.

There are certain cultural/ethnic groups within our society where the women dress in a way that would be considered slightly provocative by many outside that group, but to them it is simply how they dress. In their view they are simply wearing their best clothes and looking their best.

Are these women to share the guilt of a man who looks upon them lustfully? They are doing their best to wear their best and look their best for Mass. If some man take s it the wrong way and cannot control his lust, then that is entirely his issue, and the guilt is his alone.

 

[severus68]

I believe that applies when speaking of that not everyone can have expensive clothes, some will dress with ragged clothes because that is what they can get, not of someone walking around almost naked.

but really, what is the problem? why such controversy over such a simple matter, if a person is willing to see someone with lust no matter what they wear they will still do it, but there are persons who for whatever reasons they might have find it dificult to dont look with lust at someone even if they try, and if you dress inmodestly you share the guilt.

Never seen anyone walk around in church near naked.

No, everyone is responsible for his/her own sins.
Humans have been given a lot by God, some self control is not difficult. If self control cannot be exercised, then I would suggest being cloistered until it is learned.
If we look at others as persons, lust should come in.

 

[LilyM]

No you don’t. The guilt is entirely with the person who is lustful.

There are certain cultural/ethnic groups within our society where the women dress in a way that would be considered slightly provocative by many outside that group, but to them it is simply how they dress. In their view they are simply wearing their best clothes and looking their best.

Are these women to share the guilt of a man who looks upon them lustfully? They are doing their best to wear their best and look their best for Mass. If some man take s it the wrong way and cannot control his lust, then that is entirely his issue, and the guilt is his alone.

Am I to blame for pouring a beer for someone who I know is alcoholic?

If I attend a church in a short short skirt, it is morally certain that there will be at least one man (or possibly woman) who will be looking at my legs and butt lustfully rather than attending to the prayers of the Mass. Unless I am a complete imbecile, I know this will be the outcome.

Knowing this, I cannot then be a second Cain and claim that I am not my brother’s keeper when I knowingly, without good reason, offer him an occasion to sin. There is no good reason for wearing a short short skirt or a top cut down to the navel anywhere in public let alone Mass - apart from literally having no other more modest clothing available through no fault of your own.

 

[Rau]

Am I to blame for pouring a beer for someone who I know is alcoholic?

If I attend a church in a short short skirt, it is morally certain that there will be at least one man (or possibly woman) who will be looking at my legs and butt lustfully rather than attending to the prayers of the Mass. Unless I am a complete imbecile, I know this will be the outcome.

Knowing this, I cannot then be a second Cain and claim that I am not my brother’s keeper when I knowingly, without good reason, offer him an occasion to sin. There is no good reason for wearing a short short skirt or a top cut down to the navel anywhere in public let alone Mass - apart from literally having no other more modest clothing available through no fault of your own.

They may look in admiration, not lust!

Other than the merits of avoiding extremes, such as you describe, this debate inevitably fails to arrive at any standard of modesty.

 

[Brendan_64]

Am I to blame for pouring a beer for someone who I know is alcoholic? Prohibition on the grounds that alcohol might end up being sold to an alcoholic?

If I attend a church in a short short skirt, it is morally certain that there will be at least one man (or possibly woman) who will be looking at my legs and butt lustfully rather than attending to the prayers of the Mass. Unless I am a complete imbecile, I know this will be the outcome.

Knowing this, I cannot then be a second Cain and claim that I am not my brother’s keeper when I knowingly, without good reason, offer him an occasion to sin. There is no good reason for wearing a short short skirt or a top cut down to the navel anywhere in public let alone Mass - apart from literally having no other more modest clothing available through no fault of your own.

Is it morally wrong to sell alcohol at all knowing that the chances are that one person may walk in who, without your knowledge, has a drink problem and buys a can of beer?

Are men particularly susceptible to lust while they are at Mass? Because if they are not then, following your line of argument, women should not wear short skirts anywhere at all where men are present, because there may be at least one man who may look lustfully on them, and they are therefore guilty of offering him an occasion to sin. Sin is sin, whether it is inside or outside of a church building.

Any man who cannot tolerate looking at a woman wearing a short skirt without being overcome with feelings of lust has a problem. Sure there are men who have ‘issues’ but it is they who have the problem, and it is they who are responsible for their own sin.

So where do you draw the line then? No skirts allowed to be worn in public above the knee, 2 inches above the knee, 3 inches above the knee? What about men who find women’s calves a temptation? Skirts to the ankle? Or perhaps ban skirts and dresses completely and insist that all women wear trousers?

If a man spends his time eyeing up women in short skirts at Mass then he some serious self control issues that he needs to address.

 

[DMC12]

Never seen anyone walk around in church near naked.

No, everyone is responsible for his/her own sins.
Humans have been given a lot by God, some self control is not difficult. If self control cannot be exercised, then I would suggest being cloistered until it is learned.
If we look at others as persons, lust should come in.

so you say it’s better to put someone in “jail” than to stop vanity from people?

 

[Brendan_64]

so you say it’s better to put someone in “jail” than to stop vanity from people?

If someone can’t control their own behaviour then they do need help. If that means being cloistered (voluntarily) then so be it.

 

[vz71]

I cannot say there is one.

But watch the thread.
Eventually there will be those that justify immodest dress and actions.

Perhaps there should be a standard to prevent the slide down the slope.