Are there some some objective standards for modesty?

[LoveGod102]

And that is the point. What happens when someone fails to comply with a church dress code?

Are they turned away for being inappropriately dressed? Denying someone access to Mass because you don’t approve of how they are dressed. Surely, to so that would be in itself a sinful act?

Do the congregation look at them disapprovingly going. “Tut, tut” under their breath, knowing that the person has broken the dress code? Surely that is setting the congregation up to commit sin at Holy Mass by judging their neighbour?

Dress codes work in clubs and restaurants, because a person can be reasonably turned away for failing to comply. This cannot happen at Mass.

Dress codes work for employees who can be given formal warnings for breach of contract. This obviously cannot happen at Mass.

The Church can teach about modesty, but then it is best left to individuals to make up their own minds, according to their own conscience, about how they ought to dress for Mass. Let each person concern himself only with how he (or his children) dress for Mass and not give a second thought to how others dress for Mass.

Did Jesus mention anything about dress code during his Sermon on the Mount?

the sermon on the mount is not everything Jesus said. And, at that time, I don’t think immodesty was nearly as much of a problem as today. The Jewish people knew that they were not supposed to wear revealing clothing. Why would He say what they already knew, and (as far as I know) mostly obeyed?
Jesus did say that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And He said to love your neighbor as yourself. We are not loving our neighbors if we wear things that we know are likely to lead them into the sin of lust, nor are we loving ourselves by setting ourselves up to be thought of as objects. Just use common sense. Don’t wear something that is super short or reveals your breasts, or something that is very tight. In our culture, these are the things that tend to temp men to lust. I don’t know about other cultures.

That said, a strict dress code for Mass, is probably not a good idea, for the reasons you mentioned. I do think, however, that women should be told to not come wearing obviously revealing clothing.

 

[Brendan_64]

the sermon on the mount is not everything Jesus said. And, at that time, I don’t think immodesty was nearly as much of a problem as today. The Jewish people knew that they were not supposed to wear revealing clothing. Why would He say what they already knew, and (as far as I know) mostly obeyed?

Even the prostitutes? Surely they would have dressed in such a way as to advertise their ‘wares’? Sexual immorality and immodest dress is not a new phenomena.

 

[aTraditionalist]

I think the word charity gets thrown around a lot as a trump card in most conversation. In the spirit of charity, I believe that a lot of folks feel off the hook for having a uncomfortable conversation. We, as a church, need to balance charity with a standard. We do welcome all as they are but we need to help people behind us to improve themselves both temporally and spiritually. There must be a standard and it needs to be enforced within reason. If the world and the church look the same, then I suspect a deeper problem.

 

[LoveGod102]

Even the prostitutes? Surely they would have dressed in such a way as to advertise their ‘wares’? Sexual immorality and immodest dress is not a new phenomena.

I said it wasn’t nearly as much of a problem. Not that it wasn’t a problem at all. While peopled did commit sexual sins, I do not believe that society accepted those things as being fine, like they do today. Most if not all of the Jewish people KNEW that was wrong.

 

[LoveGod102]

I think the word charity gets thrown around a lot as a trump card in most conversation. In the spirit of charity, I believe that a lot of folks feel off the hook for having a uncomfortable conversation. We, as a church, need to balance charity with a standard. We do welcome all as they are but we need to help people behind us to improve themselves both temporally and spiritually. There must be a standard and it needs to be enforced within reason. If the world and the church look the same, then I suspect a deeper problem.

I completely agree. Charity doesn’t mean ignoring the sins of other people. Even if you don’t say anything when you see someone dressed immodestly, you could at least say a prayer for them.

 

[Brendan_64]

There must be a standard and it needs to be enforced within reason.

So how would you enforce it? Refuse entry to someone whose dress does not meet the standard?

Turn someone away from Mass because of how they’re dressed? I certainly wouldn’t want that on my conscience.

 

[pnewton]

We, as a church, need to balance charity with a standard.

Balancing principles with rules is not a balance. Standards are what can result from a balance. Perhaps standards are needed in some places for some situations. The balance of charity, in this case is modesty. I do not think the Catholic Church will ever set universal standards. Therefore, the better approach is teaching about the importance of modesty. Just like all people need to be welcomed in the Church, a pastor might find it needed to teach specifically on modesty. I would hope that all here would be supportive of such a message.

 

[DMC12]

Even the prostitutes? Surely they would have dressed in such a way as to advertise their ‘wares’? Sexual immorality and immodest dress is not a new phenomena.

prostitution was punished with death, I doubt they were as open as now. probably even they dressed modesly to avoid problems, and the main problem was the prostitution, if they ceased their prostitution they might as well go back to normal clothes in case they indeed wore inmodest clothes.

 

[dshix]

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?

I have come to the thread a bit late in its course, and I can see that others have correctly answered the question, but there is something that has not been said that will give you a broader picture.

The Church teaches us that there are “positive laws” and “negative laws,” both of which are equally binding, but are followed in a different way.

Negative laws are the "thou shalt not"s. “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not steal.” These are black and white, yes or no, clear-cut commandments. There are, of course, deeper meanings to these, such as the Catholic teaching that it is against the fifth commandment to become excessively angry or to hurt somebody, because it is against the spirit of the commandment. However, these commandments are clear and obvious.

Positive commandments are commands that order a good action, such as charity or humility. The faithful are still required to obey them just as they are required to obey negative laws, but HOW the commandments are obeyed is largely reliant on prudential judgement. There is not and never can be a clear-cut, literal ‘rule’ for positive laws because of this.

The third and fourth commandments are positive laws. No commandment says “thou shalt not fail to make your bed as a child”. It is “Thou shalt honor your father and your mother.”

Modesty is a positive command. Every person is bound to follow it as their conscience calls them. There is not and can not be any dogmatic document that tells us how to be modest.

 

[severus68]

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

A cloister is not a jail but yes, if anyone has problems with self control, he should stay away until he learns it.

 

[severus68]

the sermon on the mount is not everything Jesus said. And, at that time, I don’t think immodesty was nearly as much of a problem as today. The Jewish people knew that they were not supposed to wear revealing clothing. Why would He say what they already knew, and (as far as I know) mostly obeyed?
Jesus did say that anyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And He said to love your neighbor as yourself. We are not loving our neighbors if we wear things that we know are likely to lead them into the sin of lust, nor are we loving ourselves by setting ourselves up to be thought of as objects. Just use common sense. Don’t wear something that is super short or reveals your breasts, or something that is very tight. In our culture, these are the things that tend to temp men to lust. I don’t know about other cultures.

That said, a strict dress code for Mass, is probably not a good idea, for the reasons you mentioned. I do think, however, that women should be told to not come wearing obviously revealing clothing.

We are not loving our neighbour when we do not look at her as a person whatever she is wearing.

 

[severus68]

I said it wasn’t nearly as much of a problem. Not that it wasn’t a problem at all. While peopled did commit sexual sins, I do not believe that society accepted those things as being fine, like they do today. Most if not all of the Jewish people KNEW that was wrong.

Immorality has been around since the Fall. The fact is that people hid their sins or avoided out of fear.

 

[Butaperson]

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.

I have heard it preached in my Traditional Catholic church that preventing lust is only a small portion of the reason for modesty. The primary purpose of modesty is to respect ourselves as temples of the Holy Spirit, to give the proper respect to the fact that we are children of God. For the reasons you cited above, it is quite silly to ask modesty of woman solely to prevent temptation; the purpose is respect and Christian dignity.
“Modesty is not covering ourselves in a potato sack, although that would surely prevent lust. Modesty is covering what should be covered so that we do not cheapen ourselves, and giving the dignity and beauty to our appearance that properly reflects the light of the Holy Spirit inside”.

 

[Butaperson]

And that is the point. What happens when someone fails to comply with a church dress code?

Are they turned away for being inappropriately dressed? Denying someone access to Mass because you don’t approve of how they are dressed. Surely, to so that would be in itself a sinful act?

Do the congregation look at them disapprovingly going. “Tut, tut” under their breath, knowing that the person has broken the dress code? Surely that is setting the congregation up to commit sin at Holy Mass by judging their neighbour?

Dress codes work in clubs and restaurants, because a person can be reasonably turned away for failing to comply. This cannot happen at Mass.

Dress codes work for employees who can be given formal warnings for breach of contract. This obviously cannot happen at Mass.

The Church can teach about modesty, but then it is best left to individuals to make up their own minds, according to their own conscience, about how they ought to dress for Mass. Let each person concern himself only with how he (or his children) dress for Mass and not give a second thought to how others dress for Mass.

Did Jesus mention anything about dress code during his Sermon on the Mount?

One time I attended a wedding mass in a Traditional Catholic church with a mandatory dress code. Because it was a wedding, there was a handful of people there who weren’t Catholic, just there for family. I saw several woman in short, tight dresses and other such attire; they probably weren’t totally aware of Catholic dress code or just didn’t own anything else formal. They weren’t turned away from the mass, they weren’t glared at disapprovingly. When they say “mandatory”, it doesn’t mean “mandatory”. It mostly means “If you are coming to celebrate the mass as a practicing Catholic, you ought to dress like this”. I’m sure they understand when it comes to people who don’t know how to dress, or simply can’t for whatever reason.

Nobody is turned away from the mass. It’s really just suggestions. Because after all, in a Catholic church, there are not going to be many people who come into church deliberately disrespecting the dress code and find it no big deal. So it’s about charity, not judging people, and assuming that everybody who has the means to follow the dress code will follow it.

 

[DMC12]

We are not loving our neighbour when we do not look at her as a person whatever she is wearing.

And we are loving our neighbour when we help them in their problems.

I think the main problem here is that we are not on the same page, maybe what you think we mean by immodesty is diferent from what at least i mean by it.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think the main problem here is that we are not on the same page, maybe what you think we mean by immodesty is diferent from what at least i mean by it.

And that is the issue. What is immodest to one person is not immodest to another. Or do we want to go down the road of Saudi Arabia and enforce the Burka?

There are no objective standards for modesty, other than keeping ones sexual organs covered. Every other standard is subjective.

 

[thewanderer]

And that is the issue. What is immodest to one person is not immodest to another. Or do we want to go down the road of Saudi Arabia and enforce the Burka?

There are no objective standards for modesty, other than keeping ones sexual organs covered. Every other standard is subjective.

And even that is not an absolute. It is not at all immodest to uncover ones sexual organs within marriage to your spouse, or at a visit to the doctor for medical purposes, so even here, with this almost universal rule, we come to the point where we must realize that even this is not an objective standard of modesty in the strict sense (though I do agree that in the vast majority of instances this should, at a minimum, be followed.)

 

[aTraditionalist]

So how would you enforce it? Refuse entry to someone whose dress does not meet the standard?

Turn someone away from Mass because of how they’re dressed? I certainly wouldn’t want that on my conscience.

This thread in general has taken a turn towards the dramatic. Let’s be realistic here before the big, bad, traditionalist sounds like he lacks in charity. The percentage of immodestly dressed people is fairly small in my experience. Most, if not all, of the offenders are middle class teenagers/young adult females. They are not wearing rags nor are they dressed in a prostitutes garb (although it’s hard to tell sometimes). These are people that seem to have the means of purchasing some “church clothes”. I’m even willing to bet that some off them even own something that would pass as modest. My observations of them, and this includes their obvious lack of interest and reverence, is that they don’t care about where they are at. Their age ranges tend to indicate that they were “forced” to go. From a kneeler, I shouldn’t see a butt cheek or a dress that leaves next to nothing to the imagination. If anyone makes an argument to the contrary, then I’ll let those statements speak for themselves.

On the other hand, if a genuine new comer whom is scandalously dressed were to enter looking for answers, then I would easily imagine that human being being enveloped in more Charity, then they have ever felt in their life. There is a distinct difference though between the truly ignorant/needy and those with means that just don’t care. For those that don’t care, maybe they don’t believe, had poor faith formation, or just bad role models. Maybe it’s something else altogether, I don’t pretend to know what compels people to do things in life. Make no mistake though, nobody is advocating Burkas or any other form of female oppression.

If a priest (or lay person) pulls somebody aside after mass and asks that they be more appropriately dressed on the following Sunday, what’s the harm? Most people don’t want any static and will simply comply. If that person lacks the means, then you would of discovered someone in true need that is trying to grow spiritually and quietly reaching out to the Church.

With almost everything, you need a measurable standard in life. This charity business is getting out of control. I am not showing my children charity by not correcting them when they fail to achieve the standards of my household. I would be failing them, as I would be failing others for not instructing them on other worldly matters. It is possible to instruct, and admonish in a charitable fashion. It is more charitable to potentially save someone from hell then to sit by in the name of charity.

 

[dshix]

This thread in general has taken a turn towards the dramatic. Let’s be realistic here before the big, bad, traditionalist sounds like he lacks in charity. The percentage of immodestly dressed people is fairly small in my experience. Most, if not all, of the offenders are middle class teenagers/young adult females. They are not wearing rags nor are they dressed in a prostitutes garb (although it’s hard to tell sometimes). These are people that seem to have the means of purchasing some “church clothes”. I’m even willing to bet that some off them even own something that would pass as modest. My observations of them, and this includes their obvious lack of interest and reverence, is that they don’t care about where they are at. Their age ranges tend to indicate that they were “forced” to go. From a kneeler, I shouldn’t see a butt cheek or a dress that leaves next to nothing to the imagination. If anyone makes an argument to the contrary, then I’ll let those statements speak for themselves.

On the other hand, if a genuine new comer whom is scandalously dressed were to enter looking for answers, then I would easily imagine that human being being enveloped in more Charity, then they have ever felt in their life. There is a distinct difference though between the truly ignorant/needy and those with means that just don’t care. For those that don’t care, maybe they don’t believe, had poor faith formation, or just bad role models. Maybe it’s something else altogether, I don’t pretend to know what compels people to do things in life. Make no mistake though, nobody is advocating Burkas or any other form of female oppression.

If a priest (or lay person) pulls somebody aside after mass and asks that they be more appropriately dressed on the following Sunday, what’s the harm? Most people don’t want any static and will simply comply. If that person lacks the means, then you would of discovered someone in true need that is trying to grow spiritually and quietly reaching out to the Church.

With almost everything, you need a measurable standard in life. This charity business is getting out of control. I am not showing my children charity by not correcting them when they fail to achieve the standards of my household. I would be failing them, as I would be failing others for not instructing them on other worldly matters. It is possible to instruct, and admonish in a charitable fashion. It is more charitable to potentially save someone from hell then to sit by in the name of charity.

At my FSSP parish, we have a very high standard of modesty. However, this by no means makes us exclusive. No one will say a word of question or stern reproof to a newcomer who is immodestly dressed, since our goal is to bring that person in in a spirit of Catholic charity.

Once the person starts coming more often, the pastor will usually take them aside and privately, personally, ask them to dress more modestly. Additionally, if the newcomer(s) have young ladies who also dress badly, often the girls of the parish will have a direct positive influence on the new girls and encourage them to dress more modestly.

Invariably, it works. If a frequent parishioner began, out of the blue, to wear very raunchy clothing, no doubt that everyone knowing that person directly would be surprised and concerned, and ask them what is wrong.

The culture takes care of it.

In a parish where the culture is not geared towards modesty, it is necessary for the pastor to cultivate it, ideally by interacting one-on-one with particular people, and gradually influencing the entire congregation to the change.

 

[camerons]

If you dress to incite lust id say that’s objectively bad. It depends on why you wear what you wear and probably who’s around.