Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

[faithfully]

Lol! I never thought my signature would be taken so many ways! It refers to my foot size as a reference to global warming.

Anyway I wasn’t blabbing, I just posted it in my sig.

I’m glad you can see the humor. And your statement is perfect… “I never thought my signature would be taken so many ways!” Because at first, I really was… OMG… WHAT? And then I realized… (I think it’s the “proud of it…”) LOL! Oh well, know that every time I read that I laugh…

And it just occurs to me that some women and men show up to church, although not necessarily appropriate, thinking they look nice… and well???

And I’m telling you, I too have seen some clothes that just blow my mind. Because, more than anything, I just really want to know WHAT THE HECK that person was thinking? What kind of hurry where they in? Are they doing double duty and hoping for a date? I don’t know… for whatever reason, I can just let this go. It can be distracting… But I’ll tell you no more distracting, and even LESS distracting than the vocals that some people feel they must wield around and join the choir. Oh Lord have Mercy! My ears are bleeding already.

Hey… many prayers for your Dad… He’ll get work… and Good on you for helping your family! And don’t forget that you further educated and even MORE employable lets you help your family more…

Many Blessings!

ETA: When I’m talking of an outfit that stuns me in church, I’m talking about the time I watched a woman who was too heavy to pull off an intentially short shirt. That just exposed a fat roll… Short shorts, yes, her “cheeks” were hanging out… but OH, Covered by fishnes and wearing some 4" platform strappy sandles… NOT a sundress… or a v-line that a wee bit too low. Remember the scenes in Pretty woman where the girls were working the streets… yeah… clothes like that…

 

[stormy99]

Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

Respect for women in this country is at an all time low, and much of that is because of the way they dress, Going shopping, to class and even to Sunday Mass, in a t-shirt, jeans or shorts, does nothing to enhance the dignity of a woman. Women dress the way they do today because someone, over half a century ago, decided they wanted to dumb down America, and convincing people to be less concerned about how they dress is one way of doing it.

Our society today suffers from an acute lack of critical thinking skills, and there is a definite connection between the way we dress and how we think. If we dress like slobs, we soon begin to think like slobs. No discipline of body – no discipline of mind. This situation did not come about by accident, but was a well orchestrated plan to help destroy our Christian society. In her book "Dressing With Dignity”, Colleen Hammond explains this point in detail.

In her article, “The Dignity of True Femininity”, Dr. Anne Marie McDonnell also illustrates the extent of the problem. She says: *“For a woman to live according to Catholic teaching in today’s society she needs heroic virtue. Every form of media, including television, movies, magazines, books, computers, music, and theater all assault women’s human dignity, often portraying her in a pornographic manner as an object of lust." *

Women need to understand that men react differently than women in regards to modesty. Mrs. Hammond discusses this phenomenon in her book. The following quote illustrates the point.

*”Women must learn that men are “wired” differently and the way a woman dresses can have a definite impact on how a man reacts to her. As an example, if a man is watching a TV talk show or interview, and sees a modestly dressed woman sitting on a chair or couch and she is wearing a dress or skirt that extends several inches below the knees, she is viewed as a total woman and the mans concentration is on her, as a complete person, and on what she is saying or whatever her purpose is for being on that particular show.

However, if you take the same woman and shorten her skirt so that it is two or three inches above the knees, then the man perceives her in a different manner, more as a sexual object. He no longer views her as a whole person worthy of respect. Instead, he sees her as a collection of parts, with some parts drawing more attention than others. This sexual “evaluation” all takes place in split second in the brain, but has the effect of distracting the man from what she is saying, because her appearance is sending a different message. And the more immodest the manner of dress, the greater the distraction.

Even if they are full length and not tight fitting, a pair of slacks on a woman has the same psychological effect of dividing her up into parts”.
*
I would therefore encourage women to reconsider the manner in which they dress, and also the manner in which they dress their young children. How often do we see, even at Sunday Mass, young girls dressed in skimpy outfits, thus accustoming them to immodesty at a very early age.

And, as a side note, I should, at least, mention the disgraceful display of immodesty exhibited by brides and their bridal parties an most Catholic weddings today. Recently, at such a wedding I attended, the comment was made that the bride and bridal party looked more like the Playboy Review than an occasion of “Holy” matrimony.

In conclusion, I would offer a challenge to any woman who reads this article. For two or three weeks, get rid of the t-shirts, slacks and old tennis shoes and wear a long skirt and nice blouse, or dress, and dress very feminine and ladylike (but not extravagantly), and notice how you are treated by other people, men especially.

.

**I won’t give up my jeans, cords, t’s and turtle necks period. I feel as long as you are neat and clean…it’s no body’s business what you wear as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker especially at Mass.

If I had to wear skirts every day all the time…I’d move somewhere I didn’t have to and I am serious about this.

Men are wired different…what a cop out that one is…we’re wired differently than men…so…what excuses or priviledges does that give us none…same for them…’

Nope…books like that undermine women…and most young girls have enough problems any way…let’s just add being a dressed up dummy to them.

stormy**

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Okay, first of all, I’m sorry about your family’s situation and I’m glad you are able to help out. However, I (like all of us on here) will use what I know, what I have experienced, and how I feel about things to determine what I’m going to post. Just as you posted the picture of the out-of-work businessmen in suits during the depression. You wanted to make a point about poor people dressing up. Okay, that’s fine. Can you find a picture of an immigrant factory worker that is 6’6 and wearing a suit???

At this point, I’m going to say I am too old to argue fashion with a teenager that is not my own child…

What does a 6’ 6" man have to do with dressing well? Please don’t quote the one example to justify your point. Yes I understand your husband has trouble with finding a suit because of his size, but that doesn’t really change anything in the argument. Also, I read a nice book from the library recently that was full of photos of the South back in the 30s or so. Guess what? No shorts, no wife beaters, and no t-shirts (not that there’s anything wrong with them). Nearly every single person was wearing slacks, shoes, and a button of up shirt, which is what I wear every day. A lot of them had hats on as well, and they all looked very respectable.

As to your last point, I don’t really see this as being a fashion issue. When It think fashion, I think the trend towards almost exclusively notched lapels in recent years, instead of the combo of notched and peaked. Or the trend towards untucked button up shirts. The problem as I see it, is a desire to dress as casual as possible at all times, rather than to dress respectably at all times. Even construction workers can dress well, just tucking in shirts makes a big difference (I’m talking to you plumbers).

I’m glad you can see the humor. And your statement is perfect… “I never thought my signature would be taken so many ways!” Because at first, I really was… OMG… WHAT? And then I realized… (I think it’s the “proud of it…”) LOL! Oh well, know that every time I read that I laugh…

And it just occurs to me that some women and men show up to church, although not necessarily appropriate, thinking they look nice… and well???

At least I know how my signature can be seen sometimes. I’ll be aware of that from now on.

Replying to the bold, I think that is the crux of the matter. A lot of people truly don’t know how to dress well, and it seems like a chore to them since all they own is t-shirts and jeans. A lot of teenagers love the super big t-shirt look, or the pre-shredded jeans look, or the “prison pants” look. When does casual become indecent after all? Are pre-shredded jeans just another aspect of casual clothing, or are they more than that?

**I won’t give up my jeans, cords, t’s and turtle necks period. I feel as long as you are neat and clean…it’s no body’s business what you wear as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker especially at Mass.

If I had to wear skirts every day all the time…I’d move somewhere I didn’t have to and I am serious about this.

Men are wired different…what a cop out that one is…we’re wired differently than men…so…what excuses or priviledges does that give us none…same for them…’

Nope…books like that undermine women…and most young girls have enough problems any way…let’s just add being a dressed up dummy to them.

stormy**

I understand your sentiments, but you are missing the point! You say as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker at Mass, you are fine, but what about if somebody went to Mass in a swimsuit? A bikini even? Or what if men went to Mass without shirts? If you draw the line there, when do you stop and why?

Modesty and respectable clothing should be everyone’s goal when they get dressed every day. The women who put on tight jeans and revealing shirts, and the “men” who pull their pants up only half way are both doing the same thing wrong. They are putting fashion and popular media before decency.

What do you mean by “dressed up dummy”?

To reiterate in case some of you folks didn’t see it!

I want to be clear on something. I do not believe that more skin = less respect for women. The Muslims are greatly lacking in respect for women, and their women are covered head to toe. Rather, it is a combination of things. The extreme feminist movement, the pornography industry (run mostly by men), planned parenthood, contraception, the dissolution of absolutes, and objective truth and the institution of a relative morality, sexual “freedom”, and many other things. If anything, the greatest offender is the porn industry, the media, and fashion, all of which seek in whole or in part, to make women (and men to a certain degree) out to be sex objects. It is truly rare to see a movie that does not have ONE main female who’s only purpose is to be the object of sexual desire for the lead male.

The more men and women liberate themselves from sexual morality, the more they act in promiscuous manners, and the more “normal” this appears to be.

Modern jokes are mostly sexual, even in kids movies references are made to sexual anatomy. In older movies, marriage was constantly put down, and jokes about wives and husbands was the norm. These days, it is common to see almost pornographic ads for clothing in the mall, or online.

I remember one football ad I saw once that had to do with chips or something. It was all fine and dandy with the characters talking about football and eating chips, when suddenly the camera jumped to a young woman in a seductive pose, using a garden hose to water some flowers. The camera cut back in about 5 seconds. I was astounded at just how blatant this sexual display was. Sadly this is becoming more and more accepted.

 

[LittleSoldier]

@ LittleSoldier:

“Women are not stupid idiots that can be tricked. We know what equality is. We don’t look upon men as the “eternal enemy.” And you seem to know a lot about Sex and the City.”

Way to combine overreaction with false accusation. Either argue with factual material, or don’t argue at all. Nobody wants to hear this kind of stuff.

Please do not change the words I used. Please do not bold my words without stating that you are bolding them. And please, please do not say that “nobody wants to hear this kind of stuff.” You are not everybody. You are one person. Please don’t presume to speak for everyone else. ** And please don’t tell me what to do.** You are not my parent nor my mentor nor the moderator nor God.

Overreaction? To what? That poster does know a lot about Sex and the City. He has discussed that particular show in several threads. And he said that women look upon men as the “eternal enemy.” Those are his words, not mine. I did not overreact. I reacted. That’s all. Here is what he said:

by EdWest2:
And in the 1970s, the Marxist National Organization for Women victimized women by convincing some to become victims of the eternal enemy - men. Those male chauvenist pigs only viewed women as sex objects. Today, Sex and the City shows us how women can act exactly like male chauvenist pigs. This is equality!!??

Now that is an example of someone who is overreacting.

 

[Prayerfully]

What does a 6’ 6" man have to do with dressing well? Please don’t quote the one example to justify your point. Yes I understand your husband has trouble with finding a suit because of his size, but that doesn’t really change anything in the argument. Also, I read a nice book from the library recently that was full of photos of the South back in the 30s or so. Guess what? No shorts, no wife beaters, and no t-shirts (not that there’s anything wrong with them). Nearly every single person was wearing slacks, shoes, and a button of up shirt, which is what I wear every day. A lot of them had hats on as well, and they all looked very respectable.

As to your last point, I don’t really see this as being a fashion issue. When It think fashion, I think the trend towards almost exclusively notched lapels in recent years, instead of the combo of notched and peaked. Or the trend towards untucked button up shirts. The problem as I see it, is a desire to dress as casual as possible at all times, rather than to dress respectably at all times. Even construction workers can dress well, just tucking in shirts makes a big difference (I’m talking to you plumbers).

At least I know how my signature can be seen sometimes. I’ll be aware of that from now on.

Replying to the bold, I think that is the crux of the matter. A lot of people truly don’t know how to dress well, and it seems like a chore to them since all they own is t-shirts and jeans. A lot of teenagers love the super big t-shirt look, or the pre-shredded jeans look, or the “prison pants” look. When does casual become indecent after all? Are pre-shredded jeans just another aspect of casual clothing, or are they more than that?

I understand your sentiments, but you are missing the point! You say as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker at Mass, you are fine, but what about if somebody went to Mass in a swimsuit? A bikini even? Or what if men went to Mass without shirts? If you draw the line there, when do you stop and why?

Modesty and respectable clothing should be everyone’s goal when they get dressed every day. The women who put on tight jeans and revealing shirts, and the “men” who pull their pants up only half way are both doing the same thing wrong. They are putting fashion and popular media before decency.

What do you mean by “dressed up dummy”?

To reiterate in case some of you folks didn’t see it!

I want to be clear on something. I do not believe that more skin = less respect for women. The Muslims are greatly lacking in respect for women, and their women are covered head to toe. Rather, it is a combination of things. The extreme feminist movement, the pornography industry (run mostly by men), planned parenthood, contraception, the dissolution of absolutes, and objective truth and the institution of a relative morality, sexual “freedom”, and many other things. If anything, the greatest offender is the porn industry, the media, and fashion, all of which seek in whole or in part, to make women (and men to a certain degree) out to be sex objects. It is truly rare to see a movie that does not have ONE main female who’s only purpose is to be the object of sexual desire for the lead male.

The more men and women liberate themselves from sexual morality, the more they act in promiscuous manners, and the more “normal” this appears to be.

Modern jokes are mostly sexual, even in kids movies references are made to sexual anatomy. In older movies, marriage was constantly put down, and jokes about wives and husbands was the norm. These days, it is common to see almost pornographic ads for clothing in the mall, or online.

I remember one football ad I saw once that had to do with chips or something. It was all fine and dandy with the characters talking about football and eating chips, when suddenly the camera jumped to a young woman in a seductive pose, using a garden hose to water some flowers. The camera cut back in about 5 seconds. I was astounded at just how blatant this sexual display was. Sadly this is becoming more and more accepted.

Oh whatever Alexander!! …I for one have grown quite tired of trying to justify to my reasons to you…you aren’t going to change my opinion and I’m not going to change yours. :banghead::

 

[Kit15]

I understand your sentiments, but you are missing the point! You say as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker at Mass, you are fine, but what about if somebody went to Mass in a swimsuit? A bikini even? Or what if men went to Mass without shirts? If you draw the line there, when do you stop and why?

I don’t think this really gets us anywhere. We’re talking about jeans and t-shirts. Not bikinis. Even in parishes where people tend to dress on the more casual side, has any of us actually seen a shirtless man in church or a girl in a bathing suit? “So few clothes it may as well be so” doesn’t count.

Even on the suits and dresses side of the spectrum…where do you stop?

I’m also of the “no skirts” disposition. It’s hard to think of it as a modest option when I feel like I’m wearing an open door…if you know what I mean.

 

[LittleSoldier]

**I won’t give up my jeans, cords, t’s and turtle necks period. I feel as long as you are neat and clean…it’s no body’s business what you wear as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker especially at Mass.

If I had to wear skirts every day all the time…I’d move somewhere I didn’t have to and I am serious about this.

Men are wired different…what a cop out that one is…we’re wired differently than men…so…what excuses or priviledges does that give us none…same for them…’

Nope…books like that undermine women…and most young girls have enough problems any way…let’s just add being a dressed up dummy to them.

stormy**

Great post!!

 

[scimitar60]

Sorry If this is considered highjacking a thread, but:

If we cannot even slightly critisice anything that a fellow Catholic is doing; at the fear that we might be a ‘pharisee’, then why did Jesus critisiced the pharisees?

According to some of the posters opinions on what a pharisee is on this thread; it seems Jesus acted like a pharisee at critisicing them.

Just a question, I’m in RCIA. Please no hate.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Please do not change the words I used. Please do not bold my words without stating that you are bolding them. And please, please do not say that “nobody wants to hear this kind of stuff.” You are not everybody. You are one person. Please don’t presume to speak for everyone else. ** And please don’t tell me what to do.** You are not my parent nor my mentor nor the moderator nor God.

Overreaction? To what? That poster does know a lot about Sex and the City. He has discussed that particular show in several threads. And he said that women look upon men as the “eternal enemy.” Those are his words, not mine. I did not overreact. I reacted. That’s all. Here is what he said:

Now that is an example of someone who is overreacting.

I’m pretty certain I didn’t change your words, but simply copied and pasted. Did you think I was bolding your words to create the false impression of aggression in your assertion that the poster knew a lot about Sex and the City? If so, I apologize, but I routinely bold specific parts of a post so I can address it specifically.

I stick to my opinion though. That statement was simple counter with an underhanded accusation tacked on. The only reason you could have for saying that, is that you wish to cast doubt upon the moral standing of the poster, since if they know a lot about the show/movies, they clearly must watch them a lot. I should have said “nobody who likes an honest argument wants to hear that kind of thing.” Perhaps you think I am being harsh, but I took real issue with that statement. In fact, here’s some more things you said that are unfair…

"Unless I’m mistaken, underwear is worn under other clothes. Thong underwear is very comfortable. And yes, people pay for it. Obviously. What difference does it make to you? It’s covered up! Why are you so interested in women’s underwear anyway?"

Why is he so interested in women’s underwear? That’s a laughable and again, UNFAIR attack on this poster’s person. You apparently can’t contradict his argument, so you resort to a suggestion that he has an unhealthy interest in women’s underwear.

"Yes, Catholic women - wake up! Don’t open doors on your own! Let men do it. Pretend to be helpless creatures who need men to make the decisions and treat you with kid gloves and put you high upon a pedestal."

So when men open doors for women, they are basically implying that women are helpless creatures who need to be treated with kids gloves? I suppose you also think it is sexist to say that men are more natural leaders than woman?

I don’t think this really gets us anywhere. We’re talking about jeans and t-shirts. Not bikinis. Even in parishes where people tend to dress on the more casual side, has any of us actually seen a shirtless man in church or a girl in a bathing suit? “So few clothes it may as well be so” doesn’t count.

Even on the suits and dresses side of the spectrum…where do you stop?

I’m also of the “no skirts” disposition. It’s hard to think of it as a modest option when I feel like I’m wearing an open door…if you know what I mean.

The consequences of going overboard with fancy dress for Sunday Mass are far less than that of going underboard (if that is a real saying). Do you think jeans and t-shirts are appropriate attire Sunday Mass? Is a pair of slacks and a dress shirt better? Is a suit better? Or do you consider them all the same, because most people will not. People who understand appropriate clothing and attire will see the progression, do you? Believe it or not, back in the day, it was common knowledge what the difference between a 3 button and 2 button suit was.

 

[stormy99]

What does a 6’ 6" man have to do with dressing well? Please don’t quote the one example to justify your point. Yes I understand your husband has trouble with finding a suit because of his size, but that doesn’t really change anything in the argument. Also, I read a nice book from the library recently that was full of photos of the South back in the 30s or so. Guess what? No shorts, no wife beaters, and no t-shirts (not that there’s anything wrong with them). Nearly every single person was wearing slacks, shoes, and a button of up shirt, which is what I wear every day. A lot of them had hats on as well, and they all looked very respectable.

As to your last point, I don’t really see this as being a fashion issue. When It think fashion, I think the trend towards almost exclusively notched lapels in recent years, instead of the combo of notched and peaked. Or the trend towards untucked button up shirts. The problem as I see it, is a desire to dress as casual as possible at all times, rather than to dress respectably at all times. Even construction workers can dress well, just tucking in shirts makes a big difference (I’m talking to you plumbers).

At least I know how my signature can be seen sometimes. I’ll be aware of that from now on.

Replying to the bold, I think that is the crux of the matter. A lot of people truly don’t know how to dress well, and it seems like a chore to them since all they own is t-shirts and jeans. A lot of teenagers love the super big t-shirt look, or the pre-shredded jeans look, or the “prison pants” look. When does casual become indecent after all? Are pre-shredded jeans just another aspect of casual clothing, or are they more than that?

I understand your sentiments, but you are missing the point! You say as long as you aren’t dressed like a hooker at Mass, you are fine, but what about if somebody went to Mass in a swimsuit? A bikini even? Or what if men went to Mass without shirts? If you draw the line there, when do you stop and why?

I have yet to see anyone in a swim suit or worse come to Mass and if they did they would be met by one of our priests and a deacon who would say, you are not dressed appropriately to enter the church…that is a given

Modesty and respectable clothing should be everyone’s goal when they get dressed every day. The women who put on tight jeans and revealing shirts, and the “men” who pull their pants up only half way are both doing the same thing wrong. They are putting fashion and popular media before decency.

Modesty has a bad connotation for me having had to dress modestly as an LDS and I mean by that hot and uncomfortable…

What do you mean by “dressed up dummy”?

**Young girls now are bombarded by what they should look like…mainly thin gorgeous etc…they need a balance and they need to learn to love who they are…God made them and he doesn’t make mistakes. If we now say…oh you need to wear this or that…and think in a certain limited way…which is patronizing…and remember men can judge you , what message does that send to them? Men don’t rule everything…not at all…women have a place…and young girls need to have confidence lest they make some poor choices and they need help from their parents and the Church.

stormy**

To reiterate in case some of you folks didn’t see it!

I want to be clear on something. I do not believe that more skin = less respect for women. The Muslims are greatly lacking in respect for women, and their women are covered head to toe. Rather, it is a combination of things. The extreme feminist movement, the pornography industry (run mostly by men), planned parenthood, contraception, the dissolution of absolutes, and objective truth and the institution of a relative morality, sexual “freedom”, and many other things. If anything, the greatest offender is the porn industry, the media, and fashion, all of which seek in whole or in part, to make women (and men to a certain degree) out to be sex objects. It is truly rare to see a movie that does not have ONE main female who’s only purpose is to be the object of sexual desire for the lead male.

The more men and women liberate themselves from sexual morality, the more they act in promiscuous manners, and the more “normal” this appears to be.

Modern jokes are mostly sexual, even in kids movies references are made to sexual anatomy. In older movies, marriage was constantly put down, and jokes about wives and husbands was the norm. These days, it is common to see almost pornographic ads for clothing in the mall, or online.

I remember one football ad I saw once that had to do with chips or something. It was all fine and dandy with the characters talking about football and eating chips, when suddenly the camera jumped to a young woman in a seductive pose, using a garden hose to water some flowers. The camera cut back in about 5 seconds. I was astounded at just how blatant this sexual display was. Sadly this is becoming more and more accepted.

 

[LilyM]

But let’s consider this parable:
*Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’ Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests.

But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.

Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen." *Matt. 22: 1-14

Now, first off, the wedding garment in the parable is a metaphor for total preparation, which is primarily interior. You don’t just show up to gain the blessings of such a profoundly important invitation without doing any preparation that recognizes the solemn reason for the celebration. Having said that, the Lord saw the exterior preparation a fitting metaphor for the* interior* preparation. It is an outward sign. We should not judge by appearances, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that the preparation of our bodies for Mass has nothing to do with preparation of our souls.

Where did you get this reading of the parable? In that culture, I’ve read many times, it was the HOST of the wedding feast who GAVE garments, as gifts, to the guests to wear on the occasion. Even today guests at a wedding reception often receive some small gift from the bride and groom.

Thus the guest who didn’t wear the garment the host graciously provided was being extremely and deliberately ungrateful - not to mention lazy or perhaps arrogant.

It has nothing to do with preparation - you don’t prepare to receive a gift! You simply accept it thankfully and put it to good use.

It’s about making sure we are open to using the gifts the Host of the Wedding - Christ - graciously gives us at the feast - the Eucharist.

 

[LilyM]

The consequences of going overboard with fancy dress for Sunday Mass are far less than that of going underboard (if that is a real saying). Do you think jeans and t-shirts are appropriate attire Sunday Mass? Is a pair of slacks and a dress shirt better? Is a suit better? Or do you consider them all the same, because most people will not. People who understand appropriate clothing and attire will see the progression, do you? Believe it or not, back in the day, it was common knowledge what the difference between a 3 button and 2 button suit was.

So excessive pride and vanity is better than excessive spiritual sloth and physical slovenliness? Only a fool would delude himself into thinking so - excess in either direction is equally bad.

 

[Serap]

This thread is STILL alive???

 

[Alexander_Smith]

So excessive pride and vanity is better than excessive spiritual sloth and physical slovenliness? Only a fool would delude himself into thinking so - excess in either direction is equally bad.

Nope, not what I said. I said the “consequences” would be worse to underdress than overdress. By that I mean that it is much easier to deal with someone who is overdressed than someone who is wearing very tight pants, or shorty shorts, or sagging pants, or suggestive clothing, or clothing with profanity or obscene images.

A woman in a $2000 dress that is modest isn’t going to distract me or temp me to sin the way a woman in a tank top and shorty-shorts will, and I think that would apply to most men.

However, you are quite wrong about either direction being equally bad. Very expensive but modest attire may be too much for Sunday Mass, but it does not present an immediate moral danger. Revealing clothing does.

Now, if you take two people who are wearing extremes of either end, but they are both dressed in clothing that properly covers enough skin to be considered modest, then yes, both extremes are equally bad. But if they are both equally bad, why is it that you and others on this thread are so set against the idea of dressing better for Sunday Mass? In fact, some of you are making people like me out to be the bad guys, as if wanting people to dress more respectably is a bad thing.

 

[Serap]

I wore a fitted turtle neck top with fitted black dress jeans to church today AND I taught the Children’s Liturgy of the Word.

 

[mommamaree]

Nope, not what I said. I said the “consequences” would be worse to underdress than overdress. By that I mean that it is much easier to deal with someone who is overdressed than someone who is wearing very tight pants, or shorty shorts, or sagging pants, or suggestive clothing, or clothing with profanity or obscene images.

A woman in a $2000 dress that is modest isn’t going to distract me or temp me to sin the way a woman in a tank top and shorty-shorts will, and I think that would apply to most men.However, you are quite wrong about either direction being equally bad. Very expensive but modest attire may be too much for Sunday Mass, but it does not present an immediate moral danger. Revealing clothing does.

There are so many things wrong with the highlighted statement that I don’t even know where to begin, Alexander. But I will still give it a try…
Why does it appear that you are ranking expensive attire as better than inexpensive attire?
Why does it appear that you are equating expensive attire with modest attire?
Why are you assuming that the onus for not sinning is upon the woman in this scenario? (It is true that we should not present stumbling blocks to our Christian brethren, but when a person sins, they may not point the finger at the other and say “But she tempted me to do it!” That was Adam’s mistake.)
Why do you assume that there is a hierarchy of sinning with regards to attire? It appears that you are saying that ostentatious dress can be a problem, but is less a problem than either over-casual dress, which is less a problem than immodest dress.
How can you be so sure that you are equipped to accurately judge how God views each of these problems, and how can you be confident that God has some sort of ranking for them? The lessons I remember most keenly from my Christian education had to do with God judging the heart, and for us to use prayer and charity to address a person who makes a sinful/scandalous mistake, and trust in the Holy Spirit to convict a person who is sinning. I remember nothing about Christians being instructed to discuss hierarchy of sin/scandal and thereby judge each other (and yes, I do feel that casting aspersions upon the character of others because of their mistakes in dressing is a form of judging).

 

[mommamaree]

I wore a fitted turtle neck top with fitted black dress jeans to church today AND I taught the Children’s Liturgy of the Word.

I wasn’t even able to attend mass today, as I am sitting with my feet up trying to rest my poor pregnant self (40 weeks). My sciatica is killing me, and I have NO appropriate clothes to wear to church anymore. Nothing fits anymore, as my preggo capris (the only thing to fit past 30 weeks) keep rolling off my belly or sliding off my hips, and I run the risk of mooning those behind me. Plus, even with my body modestly covered, the wide eyes and pointing and whispers and raised eyebrows have made me more than a little bit aware of the distraction I present in church nowadays. People are more concerned with whether or not my water is going to break or if they’ll have to call an ambulance to rush me to the hospital in labor than they are with the message of the homily. I think our whole parish will breathe a collective sigh of relief when this baby finally comes.
This immodesty thread, IMHO, has gotten a bit uncharitable and tangential. And from my perspective, it feels so petty and laughable, too. There are people with no food for their bellies as we enter this holiday season. We should keep this in mind as we discuss what clothes are upon their backs. Jesus himself focused upon healing in the heart, and trusted that the outward expressions of faith (including modesty) would follow suit as the person was reconciled to Him. If He had that much faith in our response to Him, shouldn’t we also?

 

[CountrySinger]

I wore a fitted turtle neck top with fitted black dress jeans to church today AND I taught the Children’s Liturgy of the Word.

cue dramatic judgmental Catholic voice

“But you will go to HELL! BURN HER!”

turns off judgmental Catholic voice

Yes, I have a Catholic voice that I use to make fun of the people in my parish.



I went to Mass in jeans, a nice cardigan, and tennis shoes. I take the bus to Mass, and for me to get my bus stop, I walk in mud on the shoulder of the road. I’ve ruined dressy items that way, and I usually arrive about 3-4 minutes before Mass begins, so no time to change. Bus schedules where I live are not very good on the weekends. And no, I don’t have money for a car, or to pay for a cab for both ways back (it would be around $50 for a round trip).

I didn’t know that I shouldn’t have gone through the door. Thank you for your clarification.

I’ll know for next time to not even show up. Yay for sleeping in!

 

[Shin]

Let’s not be contentious…

I will say it is a basic rule of Catholic moral teaching that both the person who tempts and the person who is tempted are responsible, this over all fields and subjects, modesty included.

Some sins are greater than others, some are lesser. Lust is a mortal sin, that condemns souls to Hell, therefor to tempt people to it, is also a mortal sin. Mortal sins can be reduced in culpability, that’s not the issue, what is the issue is that the act itself is a problem of that serious nature.

More than one saint has said how most souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh. Therefore most souls need to work on this area of their salvation and sanctity and their example in this regard before others more than any other sins. It’s the place where there are the most problems, and where people need to do the most work and look to themselves to improve upon.

Who would want to be before the judgement seat of God and see hundreds of people sit in accusation saying, “This person had a part in my damnation.” or, 'This person had a part in the punishment I must now face in purgatory." Who would want to live with that for all eternity?

No one. So… Let’s take it seriously… It’s no joke. . it’s that important…

‘Let the admirable modesty of your Saviour be seen in your countenance, in your movements, and in your apparel.’

St. Paul of the Cross

 

[Shin]

Here, some basics:

NINE WAYS OF BEING ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER’S SIN

1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By partaking.
8. By silence.
9. By defense of the ill done

Something to consider, each one especially when speaking on these subjects.