Catholic priest blasted for asking 'ladies' to dress modestly to 'protect the

  • Thread starter Thread starter Latinitas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
Also: let’s remember: back in the day MOST women (except the rich) made their own clothes. So what they wore TRULY was a reflection of their thoughts and ideas.
Click to expand...
Which was influenced by the culture, which I’m sure you would agree. Queen wears white long ago, is now the norm for women to wear white for weddings.
phil19034 said:
So the question really was: what is the purpose / motivation of raising the hemline. Was there a practical / logical reason? Or was it to tempt a man?
Click to expand...
I think such questions can be relevant in some areas. E.g. A tight, low cut dress. We all know the intention behind such a design. And the intention didn’t change into something innocent or neutral.

But in areas like a sleeveless dress or a knee length skirt…let’s say in the year _____, Jane Doe invented such an attire to seduce men. Poor men who didn’t see much of women fell prey. Past forward to 2019, where such clothes are commonplace and are seen as ‘typical’. More revealing clothes are seductive, the knee length skirt isn’t. Would Mary at Mass be promoting Jane? Or has the attire evolved and now meant something else?

One can be nitpicky and say this Jane didnt exist, but I’m referring to the reasoning in the argument.

Another example is makeup. There was a time where women wouldn’t dare to touch it because only women of ill repute (prostitutes) wore it. Now things like red lipstick is seen as a symbol of timeless class.
 
Asinner said:
That’s what I’m trying to tell you, that many many men in the West do become subjected to impure thoughts because of bare shoulders, and this becomes an occasion of sin
Click to expand...
Do we have any proof that the vast majority of men feel this way? Asking because it seems like i can easily find a bunch of men who would find bare shoulders okay (assuming the outfit is appropriate in other areas-no cleavage, ridiculous slit to the upper thigh etc) and even classy if we’re talking about ball gowns and such.

And for my second point, if such a statistic were to exist, is it immoral for women to defy that because shoulders are a basic part of a body that has no sexual value? Is it immoral for Saudi Arabian women to refuse burqas despite most men feeling aroused with women without it?
 
Or, perhaps, we are discouraging someone who needs Jesus the most because (gasp) they are wearing sweatpants.
 
Lea101 said:
40.png
phil19034:
Also: let’s remember: back in the day MOST women (except the rich) made their own clothes. So what they wore TRULY was a reflection of their thoughts and ideas.
Click to expand...
Which was influenced by the culture, which I’m sure you would agree. Queen wears white long ago, is now the norm for women to wear white for weddings.
phil19034 said:
So the question really was: what is the purpose / motivation of raising the hemline. Was there a practical / logical reason? Or was it to tempt a man?
Click to expand...
I think such questions can be relevant in some areas. E.g. A tight, low cut dress. We all know the intention behind such a design. And the intention didn’t change into something innocent or neutral.

But in areas like a sleeveless dress or a knee length skirt…let’s say in the year _____, Jane Doe invented such an attire to seduce men. Poor men who didn’t see much of women fell prey. Past forward to 2019, where such clothes are commonplace and are seen as ‘typical’. More revealing clothes are seductive, the knee length skirt isn’t. Would Mary at Mass be promoting Jane? Or has the attire evolved and now meant something else?

One can be nitpicky and say this Jane didnt exist, but I’m referring to the reasoning in the argument.

Another example is makeup. There was a time where women wouldn’t dare to touch it because only women of ill repute (prostitutes) wore it. Now things like red lipstick is seen as a symbol of timeless class.
Click to expand...
you have valid points here and I agree. I also agree that clothing that has become “normalized” as modest (even if it wasn’t modest years ago) is modest today.

What I’m referring to are the motivations of clothing changes / innovations happening today
 
Lea101 said:
Do we have any proof that the vast majority of men feel this way?
Click to expand...
The proof is covering shoulders has been a standard of dress for both men and women, especially for worship, since time immemorial. We don’t need a statistical study and a survey of men who aren’t equipped to examine themselves fully (I doubt even I could); society figures these things out.

The only reason that this standard has change very recently is that Western culture has abandoned all notions of sin and Christian morality.
 
Porn. It exists because men are very highly visually stimulated. Read some of the torments that Saints have endured by the evil one. In the cases of male Saints, many are sexually charged.

However, how many eyebrows would be raised if a priest asked only men to dress modestly for fear of stimulating Father?
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
What I’m referring to are the motivations of clothing changes / innovations happening today
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would be an appropriate point when referring to today’s changes/standards.

Which is why i tell my liberal friends that modesty is not always about skin. Which they don’t seem to get sometimes.

Naked baby: innocent, nothing wrong.
Baby wearing lingerie: I’m calling CPS and possibly assaulting whoever that dressed her up that way.
 
Asinner said:
The proof is covering shoulders has been a standard of dress for both men and women, especially for worship, since time immemorial. We don’t need a statistical study and a survey of men who aren’t equipped to examine themselves fully (I doubt even I could); society figures these things out.

The only reason that this standard has change very recently is that Western culture has abandoned all notions of sin and Christian morality.
Click to expand...
You seem to be arguing that bare shoulders would show sin/lack of morality…? Modesty is relative.
Asinner said:
The proof is covering shoulders has been a standard of dress for both men and women, especially for worship, since time immemorial
Click to expand...
Standards of dress change. Early Christians didn’t wear pants. Bright red and purple clothes weren’t common and could have been seen as prideful/inappropriate.

Even veiling was a practice, and the Church acknowledged that it isn’t a sin to show your head now.

‘people used to cover them’ isn’t a good response when we’re talking about a man lusting over a shoulder in 2019.
 
Lea101 said:
40.png
phil19034:
What I’m referring to are the motivations of clothing changes / innovations happening today
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would be an appropriate point when referring to today’s changes/standards.

Which is why i tell my liberal friends that modesty is not always about skin. Which they don’t seem to get sometimes.

Naked baby: innocent, nothing wrong.
Baby wearing lingerie: I’m calling CPS and possibly assaulting whoever that dressed her up that way.
Click to expand...
Correct. It’s not really about skin. It’s about the message voluntary or involuntary being sent to others.
 
LumineDiei said:
A post like this does nothing but further the idea of a “rape culture”. It implies that men can’t control themselves around women, regardless of what they are wearing. How very demeaning to males.
Click to expand...
As a man who views himself as a devout Catholic, I will admit that I cannot control myself and will subconsciously look everytime I pass someone dressed like that. Even if I think they are ugly.

When it triggers a lustful thought in my mind, I start praying or shake it off. But I will look and it’s not something that I’m consciously doing.

What I can control is whether I do a “double take” or turn around to stare. But my eyes catching sight is practically involuntary.

Which is EXACTLY what the fashion designers know and want to happen.
 
Last edited:
Asinner said:
bare shoulders are a near occasion to sin for many, many men, not just a few.
Click to expand...
A sharply dressed man, one who pays attention to the little details, whether suit, uniform or golf casual is attractive to me. So should the men in my parish all have to wear albs?
 
Lea101 said:
You seem to be arguing
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing at all. I was hoping to make some people aware of a perspective they may not have considered before. That men have a different perspective, view things differently, and have a unique struggle and trial that isn’t always obvious. I was hoping to get these people interested in working with men for the common goal of bringing everyone closer to Christ. And to be clear, I never accused women, even any category of women, of sin.

I have failed in my endeavors, through my own deficiencies.
 
But the question is, must they wear sweatpants?
Do they own no other clothes except a pair of sweatpants?
People need not wear a tuxedo or a gown to Mass, but a modest pair of nice clothes would seem to be in order. I don’t think that is asking too much.
 
What about someone who works in a manual industry and comes right from work?
 
They might. They might not. You’re missing the point. Given a choice between someone who needs to hear the word but isn’t ‘properly’ dressed vs. that person avoiding church, (or worse feeling marginalized when they try to come), I’d rather see him in church.
 
This 1000 times.
If just one person is turned away from Christ because someone else doesn’t like how they are dressed, we have failed as Christians.
 
I am not missing the point at all.
I don’t want people not to attend church because they only own a pair of sweatpants to wear.
On the other hand, it is possible to dress nicely without spending a gob of money in the process.
 
It’s not about money. He/she might be a millionaire, but feeling blue or in desperate of Jesus’ solace.

I wouldn’t want him to avoid church because fellow parishioners make him feel unwelcome or marginalized because of his attire. He should come in shorts vs. not attending at all
 
Latinitas said:
More modesty wars. It’s unbelievable to me that this is even controversial. Wearing modest clothing to Church is now apparently a radical idea.
Click to expand...
The only womanly body meant to be shown off in Mass is the one of Holy Mother Church!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top