T
The_Bucket
Guest
Bob, you need to stop right now with that sort of logical argument. It makes far too much sense to be right.
- Status
P
PatriceA
Guest
Really, it does have a lot to do with where, when and with whom you are wearing a bikini or any other type of swimsuit. I’m not planning on wearing my selection to the grocery store, to a crowded beach, to a cocktail party, etc. But I would like to wear it with my girlfriends or at a small backyard pool party where people are dressed similar. I don’t get why it has to be so rigid, so its either one opinion is right or I’m a bad Catholic. There is a time and place for when it could be appropriate and where it is definitely crossing the line.
K
KBernadette
Guest
Here is just one site with documentation, there are tons more. catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.htmlPlease provide appropriate documentation. All you’ve provided in your first paragraph is an unfounded assertion. Thank you.
The standards aren’t binding as far as know, but they are there for women to measure up against when considering whether or not her dress is modest.
Why must the burqa always be brought up? The burqa covers from head to toe, no one said any such thing. I personally wear a swim shirt and swim shorts that go to my knee. That doesn’t keep with the standards I mentioned but I feel that as long as the upper leg/crotch area and cleavage are not exposed that it is modest for swimming. There are many options for truly modest swim wear.Does the Catholic Church allow women to go to the beach and swim at all? Are we supposed to wear burquas? Wet suits in 120 degree weather? What are we supposed to do? We’re being told we can’t wear bikinis (I don’t wear one anyway) but now we can’t wear one-piece swimsuits either? When I swim (and I swim every single chance I get!) I wear a one-piece high-back tank suit. This isn’t appropriate? This isn’t modest??? Oy vey!!
I hope you don’t wear tank tops and shorts to Mass and confession! If not out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament at least dress modestly for your poor celibate priest!
I live in a place that sees 120 degree summers, I still wear ankle length skirts (linen and cotton knit are excellent fabrics for summer) with elbow length tops. I am often holding small children and know about those hot flashes! I actually feel cooler covered up than with the sun beating down on my skin.
I apologize for using such a strong word. It is hard to tell a person’s intent through typed words, but many of your posts on this thread seem to be seething. I also see a lot of me, me, me in your defenses and that is irksome. Especially on this topic because many Catholic women are so stuck in their ways and the standards set by the world that they dismiss the pleas from men to cover up and ignore what the Church has to say on the matter.
Why did you have to go and say that? Catholics want to love and serve God. I’d die for Him, gladly. That just wan’t nice at all. Really.
Wasn’t trying to be mean, just pointing out the “Me” mentality that is just too prevalent in the issue.
If you would die for Him, might you consider dying to yourself for Him and covering up?
May the Peace of Christ be with you too, sister.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Yeah, those burquas are really liberating.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
They aren’t binding. Thank you. That was not the impression you gave in your original post on this issue, unless I missed it and if I did I apologize.
One of the reasons the burkha was brought up (I’m going to spell it burkha from now on, as there are many spellings and I believe “burkha” makes it easier to pronounce) is because you brought up these archaic appearing (IMHO) dressing restrictions; it seems that the only way to appease certain people in this thread is for women to cover themselves completely from top to bottom. That way no man could accuse a woman of causing his lustful thoughts. Of course that isn’t true because men will have lustful thoughts even if they look at women dressed in burkhas.
It’s hyperbole, in a sense, but hyperbole with a point.
I’m happy you feel cooler covered up. I don’t. I sweat until it drips off my face and leaves my hair soggy and the rest of my body feels like I have a fever of 150 degrees. Then I reek. I am well aware of what 125 degree summers are like. I spent most summers in Palm Springs when I was growing up and much of that time was spent in a car with no air conditioning.
With all due respect, because you feel cooler covered up does not mean that I do. And if I wear a tank top to Mass or Confession that is between God and me. If you don’t like it, please don’t look at me. Should you be looking at me anyway? I won’t be looking at you unless it’s time for the Sign of Peace and if my clothing offends you you can turn away from me. I have worn shorts to Mass. Once.
My priest has absolutely no problem with the clothes I wear to Confession. He is much more concerned about my eternal soul than with what I wear. He is celibate because he chose to be celibate, although it’s quite possible to see a priest who is married and obviously not celibate.
I irk you by saying “me, me, me”? My posts are “seething”? I see those as ad hominems, nothing more. How am I supposed to defend myself without speaking about myself? Look at your post that I’m responding to. It’s full of you saying “me, me me.” “I actually feel cooler when…” and “I personally wear a swim shirt…” and “I feel that as long as the upper leg/crotch area…”
You weren’t trying to be mean, but I irk you by saying “me, me, me” (there, I did it again!) and my posts are seething. So your response is to imply that I (and others like me) will intentionally disregard Church teaching. That is not nice and it’s also not true, at least in my case.
There is no “me” issue here. That’s a straw man.
I will die for God but I will not cover up for you.
Thank you.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m posting here because I want to. If I state more than that I’m afraid I’ll get smacked with a statement about my talking about “me, me, me” again.
Do you think we should leave CAF?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I agree. Thank you, Bob!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Modesty protects the dignity of a woman. It is not repressive or oppressive. But unrealistic clothing standards which have nothing to do with modesty and/or blaming women for men’s lustful thoughts is undignified, repressive, and oppressive.
Please understand I’m not accusing you of stating or agreeing with what I wrote above. I see it as two themes that are running through this thread.
Pax vobiscum.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Look on the bright side-when you end up in eternal hellfire at least you’ll be dressed for the heat.
Actually if I ended up there I would hope for an burkha composed of industrial strength hot pads!
C
CWBetts
Guest
Refraining from wearing a bikini is not unrealistic when more modest swimwear is available. And honestly, do bikinis glorify God?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’ll do my best to answer your question.
IMHO immodest swimwear would be thongs, string bikinis, going topless, being nude (even on a beach where it is legal) and speedos. I also have a problem with men who are very overweight and wear swim trunks and their guts hang over the trunks and when they bend over I see much more than *anyone *would want to see. If a very overweight man wears a speedo the speedo disappears under the adipose tissue and the man appears to be nude. That is not modest. The same goes for women who are very overweight but still insist on wearing bikinis.
Some bikinis are cut very low in the front. I don’t think it’s modest to wear a bikini like that. The bottom part should come up to a little below the navel and the rear should be completely covered. The top should not show excessive cleavage. It should be a bra-style top, not a string bikini top.
For the Olympics and other sports events I don’t see any swimsuits as being immodest.
For Mass immodest wear would be cut-offs, shortalls, tank tops which show the midriff, sleeveless tops which allow the bra straps to show, tee-shirts with obscene messages and/or pictures, tee-shirts that are just not in good taste (my husband had a “River Rat” tee-shirt - this would fit in that category), not wearing a bra (that’s a big one!), excessive body piercing (I don’t mean ears - I have five piercings in my ears. I mean nose, tongue, eyebrow, etc.), hot pants, dresses/shifts/mini skirts that show over 1/3 of the thigh*, skorts that show over 1/3 of the thigh**, see-through blouses, tops that show a lot of cleavage, bra tops, dirty hair, unwashed body, dirt under the fingernails, filthy clothes (I don’t like putting this one in because there could be a good reason why someone is wearing filthy clothes or ragged clothes and the people who are forced to dress in this way should be welcome in the House of God). I also think that teenage boys who wear loose baggy pants that force them to pull them up every 20 seconds or so are not being modest, especially when they are walking to receive the Eucharist.
For general errand-running, any shorts that show the rear hanging out the back or private male anatomy showing out the front (I have seen this more than once), very tight shorts on both men and women, those baggy pants I mentioned in the last paragraph, going bra-less, excessive cleavage showing, and bikinis (I saw a woman wearing a bikini in Costco. She appeared to be in her fifties and also appeared to have spent way too much time in the sun. Her skin was awful; it appeared to be permanently sunburned as it was very dark and very wrinkled; almost etched. The bikini she wore was a very small one. I doubt any men had lustful thoughts about her. She caused a scene. People were gawking and pointing at her and snickering behind her back; I can’t see how she wouldn’t notice the negative attention she was receiving. Nobody smiled at her; nobody gave her a thumbs-up; all reactions that I saw were negative, including mine), thongs or thong underwear that shows above whatever is being worn over the thong.
*I think that mini skirts are fine on younger women, but if I wear one it would be longer than the length I gave above and I would wear dark tights underneath. I also sometimes wear tights under shorts - not because of the modesty issue but because I have a lot of nerve damage and the tights help ease the pain in my legs; even though I don’t wear them for modesty I think they do make my outfit more modest.
**I know that skorts come in different lengths. The ones I wear are the longer ones and I wish they would make them even longer. I have one that hits just above my knee and I will wear that to Mass, especially if I can wear tights underneath. I think skorts are very modest because they are shorts and a skirt, but I don’t think the very short ones are appropriate for Mass.
I don’t know about fishnet stockings. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman wear them. Are they in style?
I hope this helps. I’m sure I’ve missed a lot but this is off the top of my head. Just in case it hasn’t been noticed in my other posts I am older now and have a 12-inch scar on my spine. I wear a high-backed one-piece tank style swimsuit and most of the time I wear a tee-shirt over it because the scar usually shows for a few inches above the back. I’m moving to a much warmer climate and will have my own pool. If I want to I’ll wear a bikini if I’m by myself and only at my own pool. If I have complete privacy I will wear nothing at all. I doubt that I’ll be lucky enough to find a house with that much privacy but it would be nice.
Pax vobiscum.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Before answering your question here I respectfully ask you to address the points and concerns I described in posts #121 and #123.
Thank you.
Pax vobiscum.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved,
Incontrovertibly our Western culture is exceedingly decadent and brash and indeed has been since the moral revolution of the 1960’s. Whatever else happened in that heady decade, immorality obtained a firm foothold as a consequence of a “whole generation with a new explanation” which were hellbent on throwing off the restraints and moral principles of a former much conventional age. It is the height of folly to deny that such a moral revolution took place, a revolution, in fact, that was to change radically the way many people thought about so many issues. What was certain was that things would never revert to the respectable days of old where there was at least general agreement on moral and social conduct by implicit consent of the majority. Alas, we are living in the aftermath of all this and to some extent we have all become deadened to decadence and desensitized by the continual and unrelenting exposure to immorality in literature, films and TV and, of course, salacious fashions and attire. Sadly all too many Catholics have buckled under the pressure and are virtually indistinguishable from their non-Christian neighbours. Moreover, a morbid fear has taken such a hold of many formerly better principled folk, that their only concern appears to be that they do not convey the impression that they are “joyless priggs” or “way too narrow”; they must under no circumstances come across as singular or stuffy. This is very lamentable for we are called as Catholics to be like Daniel of old who refused to compromise and conform to the Babylonian culture in which he was surrounded as a captive (see Dan. 1: 8). He made his mind up not to allow himself to be contaminated with Babylonianism (always a type of the world in Sacred Scripture).
My apologies for the homily, but surely we Catholics ought to take a stand against the moral degeneracy of our age, including its unseemly attire and fashions.
It deeply saddens me to read on these boards Catholics defending culturally unwholesome literature, film and TV programmes and indecent clothing such as mini-skirts and bikini’s which “unveil that which should remain hidden” (CCC, para. 2531). My plea is for us all to set a good example to our children and neighbours and to be models of moral excellence in this crooked and perverse age, among whom we are supposed to “shine as lights in the world” (Phillip. 2: 15). Let us strive to be innocent and blameless as ambassadors of christ.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Incontrovertibly our Western culture is exceedingly decadent and brash and indeed has been since the moral revolution of the 1960’s. Whatever else happened in that heady decade, immorality obtained a firm foothold as a consequence of a “whole generation with a new explanation” which were hellbent on throwing off the restraints and moral principles of a former much conventional age. It is the height of folly to deny that such a moral revolution took place, a revolution, in fact, that was to change radically the way many people thought about so many issues. What was certain was that things would never revert to the respectable days of old where there was at least general agreement on moral and social conduct by implicit consent of the majority. Alas, we are living in the aftermath of all this and to some extent we have all become deadened to decadence and desensitized by the continual and unrelenting exposure to immorality in literature, films and TV and, of course, salacious fashions and attire. Sadly all too many Catholics have buckled under the pressure and are virtually indistinguishable from their non-Christian neighbours. Moreover, a morbid fear has taken such a hold of many formerly better principled folk, that their only concern appears to be that they do not convey the impression that they are “joyless priggs” or “way too narrow”; they must under no circumstances come across as singular or stuffy. This is very lamentable for we are called as Catholics to be like Daniel of old who refused to compromise and conform to the Babylonian culture in which he was surrounded as a captive (see Dan. 1: 8). He made his mind up not to allow himself to be contaminated with Babylonianism (always a type of the world in Sacred Scripture).
My apologies for the homily, but surely we Catholics ought to take a stand against the moral degeneracy of our age, including its unseemly attire and fashions.
It deeply saddens me to read on these boards Catholics defending culturally unwholesome literature, film and TV programmes and indecent clothing such as mini-skirts and bikini’s which “unveil that which should remain hidden” (CCC, para. 2531). My plea is for us all to set a good example to our children and neighbours and to be models of moral excellence in this crooked and perverse age, among whom we are supposed to “shine as lights in the world” (Phillip. 2: 15). Let us strive to be innocent and blameless as ambassadors of christ.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
M
Miss_Linda
Guest
God bless you, Portrait, for your courageous reply. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote. We must not conform to the world’s standards. Truly, following the standards of modesty that the Church has given us is never onerous.
C
crenfro
Guest
Yes.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I would…if any of them were relevant to the issue at hand.Before answering your question here I respectfully ask you to address the points and concerns I described in posts #121 and #123.
Thank you.
Pax vobiscum.
N
nomolos
Guest
Totally agree, in todays society “less is best” attitude is for one reason and one reason only, that is to get attention.St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that women (and men!) should dress modestly. Ummm… I don’t think you could get much more immodest than a bikini!Seriously, could you possibly take away any more of the woman’s clothing? She’d be naked!
Look at how Mary dressed… I’m not saying women should go to that extreme anymore, but there’s a lesson to be learned from how Our Lady presents herself.
N
nomolos
Guest
Didn’t a Muslim woman compete in this past Olympics wearing a special swim suit, also a Muslim woman runner who also happen to place third for a bronze medal?
B
BobObob
Guest
Portrait, it seems like you connect the mere exposure to the body with sexual immorality. This is a false connection that most Christians in America make IMHO.
We are to take a stand against moral degeneracy of our age, but we are to do so by standing on the same moral principles regarding dress rather than the same particulars. What moral principles am I talking about? See post 140. There I quote John Paul II saying:
“Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person.”
The virtue of modesty isn’t about covering up “x” amount of skin, its about properly respecting the body and showing respect for others by one’s dress. However, because what dress (or lack thereof) would play a negative role toward the value of the person, or would be disrespectful (showing up to a person’s wedding nude for example), depends on the culture, age, and situation, the particulars regarding the morality of dress do change. The CCC acknowledges this:
CCC 2524 “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another…”
The funny thing is that here in America, we expose the human body much less than other cultures do, but yet we seem to have much greater problems with lust and pornography here. A priest from Europe that my brother met at Ave Maria said something along the lines that he thought the greater exposure they had of the human body in Europe (such as full nudity on public billboards) lead to fewer problems with lust and porn.
See post 140
T
The_Bucket
Guest
I wouldn’t want to follow the model of secular Europe given its abandonment of Christianity but there’s some truth in that nugget.
It’s the same thing as the alcohol issue here. We restrict it to people over 21 and look at the crazy underage binge drinking, drunk driving and alcoholism over here. Other cultures who slowly exposure younger people to responsible drinking don’t have these widespread problems.
You’re quote JPII once again. Nakedness is not something to be ashamed. There are times and places where being nude really does glorify God. Heck, there are even times and places for racy garments meant to excite sexual response… in the bedroom between spouses.
Again I say I find it hysterical that people in this thread are trying to use doctrine to define moral dress when that’s impossible. Modest dress varies from culture to culture and culture does indeed change. What cannot change is our attitude towards respecting our bodies. Would you consider hard boned corsets meant to change the shape of the female form as modest? Would you consider it respectful to the feminine form? I wouldn’t, yet it was quite the norm in Victorian times and part of garments that covered quite a bit.
- Status