The tradition of the groom wearing black is a visual sign that a husband must die to himself, to lay down his life for his bride as Jesus laid down his life for His Bride, the Church.
The bridal attire should reflect the Church and Her holiness. However, white was not commonplace in the Western world until about a hundred years ago, or thereabouts, when a woman marrying into royalty (whose name I cannot recall) chose a white gown. Prior to that, the bride simply wore a beautiful dress, and of course, a veil or hat. And blue was often a preferred color for brides, in honor of the Blessed Virgin.
Yes, exactly. Queen Victoria popularized the white wedding gown. Prior to that, white court gowns were always worn by debutantes appearing for their first presentation at court, but brides might choose to wear any color from red or yellow to black, brown, or gray on their wedding day.
As for men’s dress, a typical man would wear his Sunday best, whatever that was, for a solemn occasion such as a wedding, wearing the same suit for a wedding as for a funeral. Yes, black would have been a popular choice, since if a man could only afford one “Sunday best” suit, it would need to be black, a color appropriate for every formal event.
Fascinating discussion. The replies so far are indistinguishable from various conservative Muslim decrees. Go read some and see.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at what the Catechism has to say about modesty:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm
You know what? Nothing about covering arms, dress length, etc. It uses the word “intuition” and talks about cultural norms (i.e, what might be modest on the beach would be immodest at work, or what might be modest in Paris might not be modest in a small town in Italy). Clearly unless you dressed in full niqab (head to toe black garment, with a small slit for the eyes–or maybe a veil over the eyes to satisfy the scrupulous), you will always find people who say “your dress is too short, your sleeves are too short, you’re showing too much cleavage,” etc.
I think the motto of the UK coat of arms is appropriate here: “Honi soit qui mal y pense” --basically “Evil to him who evil thinks.” Lady Godiva was modest, and she was covered only by her hair. Modesty is mental. You can be as covered up as you want and still be immodest. And vice versa.
Let’s start with Lady Godiva: Most medieval scholars agree the ride never took place. The story materialized at a Benedictine abbey about 200 years after the woman supposed to be the heroine of it died. There is not a single contemporary account that indicate this very remarkable event ever happened, even though this fine woman’s generous donations to the church did receive various mentions. As for the “Peeping Tom” subplot, it didn’t show up in writing until another 400 years after the original fable was written.
If you are referring to that story as an instructive fable, however, then tell the story as it was intended to be told! According to the fable, Lady Godiva was the virtuous wife of a noble who was oppressively taxing the people of Coventry, England. She rode through the town naked, as the story goes, because her recalcitrant husband had sarcastically responded to her pleas to reduce the onerous tax rate by saying that he’d reduce the tax rate on the day she rode through the town naked at midday. By virtue of her care for the people, she decided she would do it. Out of respect for her modesty and the generosity of her act on their behalf, however, the people of the town shuttered their windows, that she might complete the ride on their behalf
with no loss of her modesty, not because being naked was modest all of a sudden but because her modesty was preserved by those who out of respect would not look upon her in her nakedness. The addition of Peeping Tom to the story only reiterates that it was a moral violation to have looked upon her, the understanding being that decent people would let her make her ride in modest privacy.
Please, then, let us not use the Godiva story to imply that Christendom has ever believed the specious “anyone telling a Christian woman what is and is not modest is a step away from encasing her in a burka” argument. “Modesty is mental”? Where did you find that in the encyclicals of any of the Popes? In the writings of the Doctors of the Church? In the Catechism. You didn’t.
Yes, there is a cultural element to what is and is not considered modest in a given area, which makes this a matter that requires discernment in light of local conditions. As St. Paul said of the practice of women covering their heads, “But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16) The clear implication is that the discernment of what is appropriate dress for a Christian in some particular locale lies with the local church, not merely with each individual person.
One of the earliest posters on this thread advised consultation with one’s pastor on these matters. I would say that this and a general reckoning of the standards of dress among those Christian women in one’s locale who take the faith seriously in the totality of their choices would be a good indication of the local standards of modesty, both in the amount of the body covered and the amount of extravagance deemed acceptable in light of the singular nature of the event.
The OP does well to take modesty into consideration, since the standards of culture in the US as a whole are to be as sexually provocative as possible. She ought not make this into a matter of anxiety, however, you are very right about that. She ought to do her best and allow those who will be looking at her to take custody of their own eyes and hearts, as well. It is impossible to dress so that no one can sin even in their imaginations.
)
