, I am thrilled to see that this forum is exactly what it should be. A place where “striving Catholics” (meaning we are all burdened with Original Sin and know it but are doing our best to be Christians every day) can come together and discuss (albeit at times heatedly) a rather controversial issue in our Church.
So I looked more and Coco Chanel and I changed my stance. She had a stupid philosophy. Some of the clothes is attractive and modest, but her philosophy, and perhaps many of her designs which could be immodest but I don’t want to take the time to “shop” right now, are based on a modernist philosophy. LAME!
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can definitely say that I’ve personally met quite a few men like that. Good, Christian men striving to live chastely and who respect women as daughters of the Almighty God. My husband being one of them, as well as a couple of my best friends. I have NOT however, in person met any man who claims he cannot control his lust when he sees a girl wearing bottoms that go above the knees and a top that shows the shoulders. It is only on this website and/or through word of mouth that I hear of such individuals.
I agree with everything you said, and you said it beautifully! The one bone I have to pick here is your definition of what is and is not modest. Again, that is dependent on culture, and our culture doesn’t consider, for example, every article of clothing that goes above the knees, immodest. Heck, our culture doesn’t even consider it immodest to wear a bikini to the beach, given you have the right body type for it. A girl does not have to be “all covered up” for her to be modest. Not in this part of the world, not in 2011.
True true. But when we go into extremes and try to convince others that they must do so as well, it just becomes out of line and doesn’t really help anyone.
Our Lady of Fatima said this, “Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much…those who serve God should not follow these fashions. Our Lord is always the same.”I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can definitely say that I’ve personally met quite a few men like that. Good, Christian men striving to live chastely and who respect women as daughters of the Almighty God. My husband being one of them, as well as a couple of my best friends. I have NOT however, in person met any man who claims he cannot control his lust when he sees a girl wearing bottoms that go above the knees and a top that shows the shoulders. It is only on this website and/or through word of mouth that I hear of such individuals.
I agree with everything you said, and you said it beautifully! The one bone I have to pick here is your definition of what is and is not modest. Again, that is dependent on culture, and our culture doesn’t consider, for example, every article of clothing that goes above the knees, immodest. Heck, our culture doesn’t even consider it immodest to wear a bikini to the beach, given you have the right body type for it. A girl does not have to be “all covered up” for her to be modest. Not in this part of the world, not in 2011.
If a guy seriously cannot handle being around women wearing something that is decent in this day and age without lusting, then it’s time for him to search for the root of the problem by examining his own perversions… And it is his responsibility.
With that being said, I do believe that most good christian men who think they are lusting are actually just experiencing sexual/physical attraction and they cannot distinguish the difference between that and actual lust. So of course these poor men go crazy thinking they are commuting mortal sins, when they are simply just feeling physically attracted to a beautiful female - something completely natural and good. We are only feeding his confusion when we immediately assume and tell him that the woman must just not be dressed properly enough. Instead, we should knowledge/consider the fact that he may be confused and strive to help him find the line between right and wrong, sexual attraction and lust.
True true. But when we go into extremes and try to convince others that they must do so as well, it just becomes out of line and doesn’t really help anyone.
I assume that she is not actually talking about going around naked, as I assume that most people would not even think about going around in public naked. But note please that this is just an assumption, because she has not said anything about it. My whole point is that Kathleen does not give a lower limit of what is modest. She did not explicitly say that REALLY short skirts are ok, but that is the sort of thing teenage girls are actually wearing these days (and back in my day too). Dear friend, this is the very topic that we are discussing. I am not disagreeing with her, but that is because I have no idea what her point is.
Pardon me, but I am not 2000 years old. My struggle with this topic is barely 14 years old.
I totally agree that some stuff out there is considered quite scandalous in this day and age. But not your basic pair of shorts and tank top on a proper body type where private parts aren’t shown.
Yes, they have given their opinion (opinion being the key word) based on their culture and based on what was considered appropriate during their time. I’m sure a pope from the 1800’s would have a different opinion than one from the 1500’s and one from 21st century.
I definitely agree with you, and of course, I most definitely DON’T let everything show. Neither do I think anyone should. I oppose pornography in everyway and am a big advocate on saving sex for marriage. There are certain parts of a person that should not be shown until the wedding night. I just don’t think the cutoff point should be upper arms and knees, that’s all. Sure, knees and upper arms were considered indecent at some point, but shoot, so were ankles. They are not considered indecent anymore. The truth is, times change, and with that, so does modesty of dress.
Well then, see for yourself. Would you still say women have to dress like this?
That’s very nice of you and thank you so much for the compliment
Walking_Home:
Pardon me, but I am not 2000 years old. My struggle with this topic is barely 14 years old.
Your welcome Debora123, and thank you too!I totally agree that some stuff out there is considered quite scandalous in this day and age. But not your basic pair of shorts and tank top on a proper body type where private parts aren’t shown.
God doesn’t have a set, universal standard of *clothing *modesty that applies to everyone everywhere. If this were the case, the Church would have very specific rules to follow on what is and is not allowed to be worn.
Instead, the catechism says this: "The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening conscientiousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person."
Yes, they have given their opinion (opinion being the key word) based on their culture and based on what was considered appropriate during their time. I’m sure a pope from the 1800’s would have a different opinion than one from the 1500’s and one from 21st century.
As for the Virgin Mary’s clothes…
I know she didn’t have a lot of money, so I doubt she wore really nice clothes or expensive clothes. I’m willing to guess she probably wore what was pretty standard for her time. I would have to conclude she’d do the same today.
I definitely agree with you, and of course, I most definitely DON’T let everything show. Neither do I think anyone should. I oppose pornography in everyway and am a big advocate on saving sex for marriage. There are certain parts of a person that should not be shown until the wedding night. I just don’t think the cutoff point should be upper arms and knees, that’s all. Sure, knees and upper arms were considered indecent at some point, but shoot, so were ankles. They are not considered indecent anymore. The truth is, times change, and with that, so does modesty of dress.
Well then, see for yourself. Would you still say women have to dress like this?
http://www.collectiblejewels.com/VictorianDress.jpg
Because anything less than that was immodest at one point in time. If it doesn’t change, then shouldn’t you think we should all still dress like that?
What about indigenous tribes whose women walk around topless? Would you say those women are completely scandalous? Of course not. Not where they are, and not within their culture, and those men don’t walk around lusting all day because of it. Do you see now how it’s a cultural thing?
That’s very nice of you and thank you so much for the compliment
I’m sure you are a beautiful person as well.
I think I’ve done quite a good job in that department (receiving respect from men), and I am so blessed to have had the wisdom to pick out such a great man to marry and such great male friends to surround myself with. I dress in the way that our culture considers appropriate, and I don’t have a single reason to believe that God would have any complaints in the way I dress.
True, true… and ya can’t always please everyone, right?Your welcome Debora123, and thank you too!
Pretty much everything you just said is well founded and reasonable. However, I am a firm, firm believer that our culture could have (and does have in some circles) its own styles of clothing which are pretty, modest, complimenting to the feminine figure without accentuating it, feminine, preserve mystery and that the Blessed Virgin would want to wear and would like to see her daughters wearing.
By the way, I have a very beloved friend, a wonderful Catholic, who reminds me of you a bit. She also loves her tank-tops and shorts and we have been having the same debate with her for a while now.
I bolded the words I’m referring to below…
I see the same problem with this articulation. The Church has certainly be teaching for 2000 years, but it has not been teaching me for 2000 years. As a man, I do take my responsibility to avoid lust seriously.
I hadn’t realized it before, but this is vanity. (Unless you can justify high heels based on comfort.)
Because some articles of clothing can look decent on someone while not looking all too classy on someone else. We are all of different shapes and sizes, and we usually tend to dress accordingly.
Nope.
No it’s not. VANITY, in the Catholic definition, is more of a selfish, arrogant thing. It involves thinking you’re more wonderful and important than anyone else, and it means putting appearances above everything else in life to a point where it causes harm in one way or another.
*Information obtained from the Catholic Reference website.
Please, I would like to ask that you make your point respectfully.
I would just point out that if you are a typical teenage girl, who interacts with typical teenage boys; you would be getting a certain amount of attention covered head to toe in a potato sack. I know some girls dress a bit wild at that age. But don’t think that just because people notice you that you are being immodest.I am a fairly regular Catholic teenage girl. I enjoy going out and looking for clothes, at least, when I can find something modest enough. Recently, I have been trying to find a website or a store where I can get modest clothes. I have had some luck, but most of the things I have found seem more like things that my mother would wear.Does anyone know of a store/website where I can find clothing that is modest,but fits with my age a bit more? Any help is most appreciated!
NOT THE POTATO SACK THING AGAIN!!!:banghead: