B
Big_Dummy
Guest
I see this as a romans 14 thing, if you know it will cause a person to sin, then yes.
If you can wear on to the glory of God, then no.
If you can wear on to the glory of God, then no.
- Status
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
Amen, KBernadette!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Ed,
Cordial greetings and I heartly concur with all that you have said above. It is a sad reflection of the morally degenerate times in which our lot is cast that we have to try to convince Catholics about immodest attire. This would not have been an issue of debate prior to the 1960’s.
Western culture is exceedingly decadent nowadays and indeed has been since the moral revolution of the 1960’s. The things which once offended tender Christian consciences, and non-Christian consciences for that matter, sadly offend no more, as some of the contributions to this thread have made all to clear. Are we not in awful danger of becoming deadened to decadence and all forms of unbefitting conduct that should not once be named among us as Catholics?
If I have understood our Catechism correctly then our Church has spoken quite plainly on this issue of modesty in our clothing (CCC, paras. 2521-2523). Moreover, St. Paul in one of the Pastoral epistle’s says to young Timothy, “women should adorn themselves *modestly *and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9). If Sacred Scripture and the Church have spoken unequivocally, why are we having this debate? Incidently, the word “modesty” here in I Tim. 2: 9 denotes a sense of shame and a recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. This is not to say that women should balk at all fashion, only fashion that is decidedly indecent and not in good taste, such as the bikini and mini skirt. It is so very important that a woman’s attire is expressive of an inner modesty and of a sober outlook on life. Low cut garments revealing cleavage, mini skirts and bikini’s just do not fit the bill for the Catholic woman and are a very bad testimony for our most holy Faith.
Finally, it is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive, but quite another thing to make herself seductive; woman do know the difference and so do we men.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
E
edwest2
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you, Portrait. I have watched, personally, from 1968 with the beginning of the sexual revolution. I knew Hippies that acted as if they were part of a strict, ultra-orthodox religious sect. They had regulation hair, regulation clothing, regulation Peace symbols (patch on jackets and necklace), and regulation behavior. Fornication became “natural acts.” A Hippie friend of mine told me, “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”
This was a clear break with the past, even a few years prior. After that point, Catholics, like me, who had grown up with modesty and restraint in speech and action, politeness, especially to strangers, and a media that was mostly reflective of Catholic values, were very gradually exposed to perverse additions to our society. In the 1970s, adult bookstores, swinger magazines offering opportunities for adultery and fornication, underground newspapers promoting anarchist and Marxist viewpoints, and the National Lampoon and underground comix promoting perverted sexuality, appeared. Those things that had been hidden were now appearing in non-mainstream sources.
It was a period of confusion because, as in a few years prior, the media and fashion worlds presented beauty, elegance and romance. Real love. Television could be watched by the entire family.
Starting in the 1970s and gradually getting worse in every decade after, the ‘volume control’ on sexual innuendo, sexually provocative clothing and overt sexual behavior, was very gradually turned up. Too many Catholics, myself included, were not too bothered by early examples. We felt that calling mini-skirts scandalous and speaking out against offensive material, especially in movies, meant that even though self-proclaimed artists were still demanding their ‘creative freedom’ there was still a bulwark against excesses.
That changed in the 1980s as No-Fault Divorce provided one more reason to break up families. In the 1960s, divorce was rare, in the 80s, we were told to just tolerate it. Too many Catholics, like frogs in cool pots of water, missed the fact that the heat was gradually being turned up under each little pot. Today, the water is boiling, but they have spent decades in the little pot. It’s hard for them to imagine anything’s wrong.
Young people, who don’t have a real historical frame of reference, think everything is OK for the most part. They are convinced that certain behaviors and even certain types of clothing are normal or average.
This is Ancient Decadent Rome 2010. Along with what Pope Benedict has described as the problem caused by Indifference, we Catholics are constantly told: Hey, What’s the big deal? The current strategy of some groups that want things that are against Church teaching is to wait us out; i.e. “Ah, in ten or twenty years, those religious types will calm down and we’ll just do what we want.” We Must Be on our guard against this trivializing of the sinful. We must understand those who tell us: Hey. What’s the big deal?
Just like the pornographers who just needed to convince a few judges that Adult Bookstores should exist, we are living through a time where all that’s needed is to convince a few judges that something else should exist.
God bless,
Ed
P
PatriceA
Guest
I love it how when someone has a different opinion on an issue, the other side always says the different opinion is full of emotion and anger… There is nothing in that response that is extreme or overly emotional.
P
PatriceA
Guest
So by your definition of that standard, a Catholic lady wouldn’t be able to compete as a swimmer in the Olympics? And the last time I checked, that standard was for proper mass attire. Not swimming attire.
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
PatriceA, the Imprimatur issued September 24, 1956 by the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII was the standard of modest for dress at all times, not merely for attending Mass:
E
estesbob
Guest
Which would have been considered a very immodest standard 100 years before;
In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
was looked on as something shocking.
Now heaven knows, anything goes.
Cole Porter
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
EsteBob, I agree. I believe these are the bare minimum standards of acceptable modesty.
The Catechism defines the purpose of modesty as “protecting the intimate center of the person” and “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”. I just do not see how wearing a bathing suit falls in line with that.
The Catechism defines the purpose of modesty as “protecting the intimate center of the person” and “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”. I just do not see how wearing a bathing suit falls in line with that.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
And women wearing pants was also considered immodest; and if you subscribe to that idiot Ron Conte’s viewpoint, it’s mortally sinful and worse than wearing a tiny miniskirt since it’s an affront to gender.
Times change. Public definitions of fashion, modesty, morality, etc. change. The Church’s has not, but she has never given us a checklist of what we can and cannot wear and for good reason. After all, women being barechested or nearly so in central Africa is certainly fine. Not so much in the West.
Modesty of heart is far more important than of dress. Certainly there are lines that you can’t cross in action and argue that your mind is pure… like wearing a string bikini/thong and sauntering around. As I wrote in the other thread on this, that’s just screaming “LOOK AT WHAT I’M NOT WEARING.” But wearing a simple one piece or even a two-piece that blends you right in with everyone? I’d think that to hit the exact definition of modesty; you’re blending in with the societal norms of fashion without crossing a line.
Wearing something ridiculous like those insane swim/workout long skirts and all that business screams “LOOK AT WHAT I’M WEARING.” Is it more modest than the bikinis? Well yeah. But it’s also less modest than a decently fashionable one piece or two piece tankini type because you’re trying to attract attention to yourself, no matter how much you try to argue “well no I’m not, I’m just trying to wear what God wants me to wear” you know darn well that people are going to talk and stare.
Look, it’s like unmarried people who shout from the rooftops, “I’m a virgin and I’m proud of it” and define themselves by it. That too is immodest, though obviously to a much lesser degree than those who are dressing and acting slutty or being cads. If you’re single/unmarried and chaste, good for you because that’s hard in this day and age, though it is what God calls you to do. Defend and extol that position if someone inquires privately, but demur and say that such discussion is not appropriate if asked in public.
The same goes for dress. If you have a problem with short shorts, short skirts, any kind of pants for women, then don’t wear them! But don’t wear stuff that is going to draw attention the other way around either by opting for Christian-style burqas, Amish dress or something like that. And certainly don’t argue that men are incapable of not lusting, women are responsible for men’s lust, etc. That’s a very Islamic mindset; don’t intentionally be an object of sexual desire, unless you’re a spouse, but don’t be insane about it either.
Modesty is about simplicity of act and dress, right? So don’t overcomplicate it so much with threads like this!
Times change. Public definitions of fashion, modesty, morality, etc. change. The Church’s has not, but she has never given us a checklist of what we can and cannot wear and for good reason. After all, women being barechested or nearly so in central Africa is certainly fine. Not so much in the West.
Modesty of heart is far more important than of dress. Certainly there are lines that you can’t cross in action and argue that your mind is pure… like wearing a string bikini/thong and sauntering around. As I wrote in the other thread on this, that’s just screaming “LOOK AT WHAT I’M NOT WEARING.” But wearing a simple one piece or even a two-piece that blends you right in with everyone? I’d think that to hit the exact definition of modesty; you’re blending in with the societal norms of fashion without crossing a line.
Wearing something ridiculous like those insane swim/workout long skirts and all that business screams “LOOK AT WHAT I’M WEARING.” Is it more modest than the bikinis? Well yeah. But it’s also less modest than a decently fashionable one piece or two piece tankini type because you’re trying to attract attention to yourself, no matter how much you try to argue “well no I’m not, I’m just trying to wear what God wants me to wear” you know darn well that people are going to talk and stare.
Look, it’s like unmarried people who shout from the rooftops, “I’m a virgin and I’m proud of it” and define themselves by it. That too is immodest, though obviously to a much lesser degree than those who are dressing and acting slutty or being cads. If you’re single/unmarried and chaste, good for you because that’s hard in this day and age, though it is what God calls you to do. Defend and extol that position if someone inquires privately, but demur and say that such discussion is not appropriate if asked in public.
The same goes for dress. If you have a problem with short shorts, short skirts, any kind of pants for women, then don’t wear them! But don’t wear stuff that is going to draw attention the other way around either by opting for Christian-style burqas, Amish dress or something like that. And certainly don’t argue that men are incapable of not lusting, women are responsible for men’s lust, etc. That’s a very Islamic mindset; don’t intentionally be an object of sexual desire, unless you’re a spouse, but don’t be insane about it either.
Modesty is about simplicity of act and dress, right? So don’t overcomplicate it so much with threads like this!
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Then don’t swim. Ever. Because that’s a totally reasonable position to have.
Also, don’t exercise, play competitive sports that require a uniform, do physical labor in a hot environment or live in central or south Africa. Also, take care not to time travel back to metropolitan 1920s when sexual mores and dress was similar to what is is today, but just not talked about much.
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Yeah that’s a really reasonable and healthy attitude to have. No swimming allowed and you can only exercise in your own home. Meanwhile we men can work hard outside barechested and hit the beach whenever we please or heck, even just walk the streets without shirts at all.
Man, that sounds pretty good actually. The outside world would become a boys club again and women would be relegated to their homes. Sweet.
Man, that sounds pretty good actually. The outside world would become a boys club again and women would be relegated to their homes. Sweet.
P
PatriceA
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
“Times change.”? No they don’t. People allow, or don’t allow themselves to be affected by what outsiders call fashion or trends.
As a Catholic, I’m sick and tired of references to other time periods, what might be acceptable in Africa or using the Muslim card as some sort of argument.
There’s nothing complicated about it - women were convinced to show 90+ % of their bodies on public beaches because a handful of people decided to make it “normal.” It took time, but by constant advertising, depictions in movies and other ways, they said it’s OK. They were wrong.
God bless,
Ed
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Way to be immodest, cause men to lust and probably be hellbound, PatriceA.
Meanwhile, I’ll just casually strip down to my shorts, play some soccer, jump in the pool and then grab a beer afterwards and hang out by the beach. All places I won’t be bothered by good, respectful women who know their place.
Meanwhile, I’ll just casually strip down to my shorts, play some soccer, jump in the pool and then grab a beer afterwards and hang out by the beach. All places I won’t be bothered by good, respectful women who know their place.
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
T
The_Bucket
Guest
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Old_Time_Swimming_Photograph.jpg
Look at the woman on the left! Just covering her shoulders while bathing and this is 1915! Scandalous and immodest!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/BathingSuit1920s.jpg
And this! From the 1920… my goodness! It almost looks like a tankini from today’s culture. How horrendous.
imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/beemer4pam/1945_001.jpg
From the 1940s! This is beyond the pale. A two piece suit. This woman is clearly a heathen.
Folks, keep in mind the suits back in the 1800s for women did not allow them to swim. If they waded beyond the shoreline, they actually wore a rope tied to something on the beach so they could get back because the clothing was so heavy. And, keep in mind that much of the clothing was not simply for modesty but to reduce sun exposure because it was fashionable to be as lilly white as possible. Men wore suits that covered their chests as well, but it was never considered immodest to be barechested; it was just symbolic of being lower class because it meant you were a laborer.
You can be modest and wear a bathing suit. You can be modest and even wear a two piece. You can also be irrational and never swim and only exercise in your home where men won’t be tempted by your form.
And obviously my wife, the mother of my two children, is an immodest heathen and a terrible Catholic because she wears modern but modest bathing suits, we take out kids in the water all the time and she wore a wedding dress that only covered her shoulders. Never mind the fact that we were actually chaste before marriage and follow the Church’s truths on birth control. She wears regular bathing suits. She’s definitely immodest and hellbound.
P
PatriceA
Guest
Its just not because of the fashion industry. The swimsuit has also evolved for safety reasons and for competition. Some of the extreme examples that people have posted in this thread are not allowed at my local YMCA because they can endanger a swimmer that may not be the most skilled swimmer.
- Status