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.
It’s a shame that some people think so little of themselves and the Church that they have to be reminded to dress appropriately.
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
MagdalenaRita:
The business clothes I typically see men in are either suits, polo shirts and dress slacks, nothing too immodest there.
Click to expand...
Right. I’m just making the point that men don’t have the experience that women in our society have. We don’t talk about men’s bodies the way we do for women, and a man wearing full coverage isn’t going to be seen as dressing weirdly or be unable to wear many normal men’s outfits. So men don’t really get how women are just tired of our bodies being such a focus.
Click to expand...
True. But more young men are starting to wear tank tops a lot of places. If that trend continues to grow, you will see more and more discussions about male dress.

The facts are, that mainstream male dress is still modest. Though, there are MANY in the fashion industry who are trying to change that by pushing for tighter clothes on men, sleeveless shirts, etc.

So I really don’t think it will be too long before this discussion begins to level out. Perhaps in our lifetime.
 
phil19034 said:
the fashion designer purposefully designed it to have subtle sex appeal, then the wearer is unwittingly promoting the fashion designer’s philosophy.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t this be too broad though? I would assume any hemline above the ankles were seen as scandalous back in the day, and efforts to shorten it would be seen as someome attempting to have some sort of sex appeal. But a woman of this century wearing a knee length skirt or even a few inches higher wouldn’t be promoting such philosophy because this, like fashion in general, evolves.
 
The Standards previously issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompili, on 24 September 1928 are: " A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper."
 
phil19034 said:
If a woman wearing one doesn’t feel it’s sexy and feels it is totally modest & professional, however, the fashion designer purposefully designed it to have subtle sex appeal, then the wearer is unwittingly promoting the fashion designer’s philosophy
Click to expand...
Don’t you think this is mental gymnastics? Since there seems to be some agreement that (and I’ll use my own examples) the dress and outfits I posted aren’t immodest, we now have to know what the desingers intent was? I think that’s quite obvious when someone like Versace shows a gown on the catwalk, but everyday business wear for women? Not so much.
 
So you’ve answered my question (that wasn’t initially directed to you) that you simply would not believe that many many men do become subjected to impure thoughts because of fully bare shoulders.

The line would be at shoulders, so that men and women have the same standard of dress.
 
Lou2U said:
but he’s suggested men are unable to control themselves, and that’s the fault of women
Click to expand...
It is not that they are unable to control themselves but that we are not to tempt one another. In that way we are showing Christian love (charity) one to another. We are all human and can easily fall and for some yes it may be easier to fall than some one else.
 
Last edited:
He might have thought it was the best way to get the message out that women should dress appropriate when attending Mass and not just the particular lady. She may not have been the only one, but he was using her as an example. If he just told her, then he would not have gotten his message to women to dress appropriate for Mass. Men need to also dress appropriate to Mass, we are in God’s house after all.

Fortunately we don’t seem to have this problem in the Parish I attend. Women and men dress appropriate for the most part, then again it is a small town parish, so that could have something to do with it.
 
Yes

Personally speaking, my Church clothing is what I would wear to a job interview, so no bare shoulders.
 
Lea101 said:
Wouldn’t this be too broad though? I would assume any hemline above the ankles were seen as scandalous back in the day, and efforts to shorten it would be seen as someome attempting to have some sort of sex appeal.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is entirely true.

People dressed more practical back in the day. So someone shortening their clothing without a practical & logical reason would be suspect.

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.

But today, since most clothing is purchased, we are buying clothes often WITHOUT totally understanding the motivation of why the designer did what they did.

Remember, the rich and noble class ALWAYS had fancy dresses, etc that some today would consider sexy, revealing, boardline immodest, etc.

As far as the common person was concerned, it was not uncommon for woman to raise her dress to walk through a puddle of water, etc.

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?
 
Last edited:
Asinner said:
you simply would not believe that many many men do become subjected to impure thoughts because of fully bare shoulders.
Click to expand...
You brought up a scenario. One man telling me that my shoulders are causing a problem.

If I’m in a culture where bare shoulders are indeed seen as scandalous by the vast majority, I would throw on a jacket. Or leave that culture, lol.

I don’t think shoulders are a problem at all though. I hold the opinion that forms of modesty would vary depending on the situation and culture you’re in. That being said, I think some sort of line needs to be drawn because I don’t think middle eastern women who refuse to veil (as a form of protest against being controlled by men) are sinning by going against their culture.
 
DeniseNY said:
40.png
phil19034:
If a woman wearing one doesn’t feel it’s sexy and feels it is totally modest & professional, however, the fashion designer purposefully designed it to have subtle sex appeal, then the wearer is unwittingly promoting the fashion designer’s philosophy
Click to expand...
Don’t you think this is mental gymnastics? Since there seems to be some agreement that (and I’ll use my own examples) the dress and outfits I posted aren’t immodest, we now have to know what the desingers intent was? I think that’s quite obvious when someone like Versace shows a gown on the catwalk, but everyday business wear for women? Not so much.
Click to expand...
No, I actually think this perfectly describes the problem we have today.

We often do not know what the designer’s intent was. A LOT of fashion designers (just like people in the theatre and the TV/film industries) try to influence culture by introducing small changes, little by little.

The more we wear a type of clothing, the more it becomes normalized and once it becomes normalized, then the fashion designers are able to take the next step. Until one day, we a culture wearing something that was not acceptable 20 years ago.
 
Lea101 said:
If I’m in a culture where bare shoulders are indeed seen as scandalous
Click to expand...
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. I don’t use the word “scandalous” in part because Western culture has basically abandoned the concept of scandal entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top