Is Wearing Immodest Clothing a Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well if people really truly think the clothing does not matter then would anyone object to a priest wearing a speedo when holding Mass? or how about a nun wearing a string bikini 24/7?

You people would literally have no problem with that? You’re fine with your teacher teaching your kids in a see-through shirt and hot pants? When you’re bf/gf husband/wife goes to get a massage, you’re okay with the masseuse wearing nothing but oil on their bodies?

None of you people care about modesty in what we wear and only “hey you just need to be a good person” well then…WHY WEAR CLOTHING?

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:7-10[/BIBLEDRB]

You know folks…we are living AFTER the Fall…not before, but oh what do I know and who cares…it’s just the Bible…if you got it flaunt it! if it feels good do it! If some of my weaker Christian brethren can’t help themselves I’ll be happy to send them to Hell…wow really great Christian charity here folks. My clothing is more important than someone’s soul, wow what a way to have concern for others :rolleyes: :nope:
 
severus68 said:
Well aren’t Speedos made for a purpose - for speed.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen a male Olympic swimmer wear a "Speedo’ in decades. When a guy wears a Speedo these days, it ain’t to swim faster. LOL.

It really is amazing that this issue gets so heated for some people. There are wacko assertions on BOTH sides:
  1. No, women are not solely responsible for the lustful failings of men.
  2. Yes, women DO have an effect on men (and how those men perceive them) by what they wear and should think about it when they choose their clothing looks.
Does anybody really object to either of those statements above???
 
manualman said:
I haven’t seen a male Olympic swimmer wear a "Speedo’ in decades. When a guy wears a Speedo these days, it ain’t to swim faster. LOL.

It really is amazing that this issue gets so heated for some people. There are wacko assertions on BOTH sides:
  1. No, women are not solely responsible for the lustful failings of men.
  2. Yes, women DO have an effect on men (and how those men perceive them) by what they wear and should think about it when they choose their clothing looks.
Does anybody really object to either of those statements above???
Click to expand...
Absolutely not and that’s been my position this entire time…We as Christian Brothers and Sisters should do our utmost to respect each other and treat others with dignity and decency.

Some think I’m a whacko and want a “modest clothing law” I do not, I’m simply saying “Hey do you mind helping some of us guys out by not wearing that? Thank you so much.” and I love how I get attacked for asking such a thing.
 
manualman said:
I haven’t seen a male Olympic swimmer wear a "Speedo’ in decades. When a guy wears a Speedo these days, it ain’t to swim faster. LOL.

It really is amazing that this issue gets so heated for some people. There are wacko assertions on BOTH sides:
  1. No, women are not solely responsible for the lustful failings of men.
  2. Yes, women DO have an effect on men (and how those men perceive them) by what they wear and should think about it when they choose their clothing looks.
Does anybody really object to either of those statements above???
Click to expand...
Yes. I object to statement 2. Because it complete gives men a free pass. So - it’s either people have an effect on people, or there should be a 3rd statement about men having an effect on women.

I really, really don’t understand how all threads about immodest dress fall solely on women. What - men don’t have to be modest?
 
I’ll agree to that #3 readily. I’m not sure women have precisely the same sort of visual temptation threshold men do, but I have no ability to test that uncertainty, so if you say it is, I’ll take your word for it. And you might have noticed my mention of men’s Speedos? 😉

But I just realized that I never directly answered the OP thread title. It’s a great candidate for one of my favorite answers:

Not every bad idea is a sin. But lack of sinful status doesn’t make a bad idea a good one.
 
Folks, here are some teachings from our Popes and Bishops from the 20th century - quoted from catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html :

Standards of Modesty in Dress - Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII

“The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.”

Pius XII to Catholic Young Women’s Groups of Italy

“One can not sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity.”

Pope Benedict XV - encyclical letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921), commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order.
 
Here’s a letter from the Vatican’s Congregation of the Council, dated 1930 - quoted below in its entirety (letter posted on website catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html )

1930 Letter of the Congregation of the Council

By virtue of the supreme apostolate which he wields over the Universal Church by Divine Will, our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, “Women … adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety … and professing godliness with good works.”

Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls – which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause.

Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, while cordially commending the action of the Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely uprooted from human society.

In order to facilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by the mandate of the Most Holy Father, has decreed as follows:

Exhortation to Those in Authority
  1. The parish priest, and especially the preacher, when occasion arises, should, according to the words of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iv, 2), insist, argue exhort and command that feminine garb be based on modesty and womanly ornament be a defense of virtue. Let them likewise admonish parents to cause their daughters to cease wearing indecorous dress.
  2. Parents, conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religious and moral, to their offspring, should see to it that their daughters are solidly instructed, from earliest childhood, in Christian doctrine; and they themselves should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example, love for the virtues of modesty and chastity; and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty.
  3. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.
  4. Superioresses and teachers in schools for girls must do their utmost to instill love of modesty in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dress modestly.
  5. Said Superioresses and teachers must not receive in their colleges and schools immodestly dressed girls, and should not even make an exception in the case of mothers of pupils. If, after being admitted, girls persist in dressing immodestly, such pupils should be dismissed.
  6. Nuns, in compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious, must not receive in their colleges, schools, oratories or recreation grounds, or, if once admitted, tolerate girls who are not dressed with Christian modesty; said Nuns, in addition, should do their utmost so that love for holy chastity and Christian modesty may become deeply rooted in the hearts of their pupils.
  7. It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.
  8. In the pious associations of women those who dress immodestly should not be admitted to membership; but if, perchance, they are received, and after having been admitted, fall again into their error, they should be dismissed forthwith.
  9. Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from acting as sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.
Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect
Congregation of the Council
Rome, January 12, 1930
 
_Jenn said:
Yes. I object to statement 2. Because it complete gives men a free pass. So - it’s either people have an effect on people, or there should be a 3rd statement about men having an effect on women.

I really, really don’t understand how all threads about immodest dress fall solely on women. What - men don’t have to be modest?
Click to expand...
Jenn…honey some of us on here are MEN…MALES and when we talk we are sometimes talking as MALES. That does not mean that we view women as inferior, that does not mean we believe that only women should dress modest.

When I say “could women please dress a little more modestly” I’m speaking as a MAN, not some asexual, politically correct, always have to say something about the men and women equally so I’m not offending anyone or stepping on anyone’s toes…NO! I’m speaking as a man.

Yes…YES YES YES YES YES YES!😃

Men should also be held accountable to modest dressing practices as well and you women would do a great service to men if you help your fellow men who are telling other men to:

Pull their pants up, not wearing graphic T-shirts that say offensive things, flip flops in inappropriate places like Church, banana hammocks, male bikinis (yes they exist and thank goodness it’s not popular here in the US), baggy clothes ect. ect.

Men should dress respectable and modest and so should women.

However to #3, it’s hard to defend that position when surveys have shown men view pornography more than women…why? because men are wired differently, I know it may be hard for some to accept that males and females are DIFFERENT, but it’s the truth. Men get easily more aroused by women physique more than women get aroused by men’s physique and women can have children and men cannot. Women have a tendency to be more compassionate and comforting than men…the world is not the purely equal world some of the moral relativists and liberal atheists want to make it out to be. When men view on average 2 hours of pornography a week compared to the 15 minutes of women, you cannot say that “Men and women are equal in the visual stimulation dept.” There is no Victor’s Secret that has titillating underwear for men…nope plain old boxers or briefs no imagination at all. There is no magazine called Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue: Women’s Edition…there are vastly fewer pornography catered to women because…surprise women don’t view as much porn as men. Next time you go buy a newspaper from the stand or a magazine from the rack, try and count all the different “Visual stimulating” magazines for Men designed purely to “stimulate”…ask yourself why in the ads that show Women’s legs and a bottle of pepsi, does it not show some guys hairy legs?

This is a fact and many people want to bury their heads in the sand and try and ignore it with this fallacy of pure equality, that men and women are hardwired differently for sex.
 
The following is a beautiful quote (see: catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html ) from an encyclical letter by Pope Pius XII - it talks about the virtues of temperance, prudence, modesty, and the necessity to flee the temptations and seductions of immodesty and impurity:

Sacra Virginitas
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY
March 25th, 1954
  1. The educators of the young clergy would render a more valuable and useful service, if they would inculcate in youthful minds the precepts of Christian modesty, which is so important for the preservation of perfect chastity and which is truly called the prudence of chastity. For modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex, since it brings the soul to show due reverence to the body, as being a member of Christ[101] and the temple of the Holy Spirit.[102] He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions.
  2. Modesty will moreover suggest and provide suitable words for parents and educators by which the youthful conscience will be formed in matters of chastity. “Wherefore,” as We said in a recent address, “this modesty is not to be so understood as to be equivalent to a perpetual silence on this subject, nor as allowing no place for sober and cautious discussion about these matters in imparting moral instruction.”[103] In modern times however there are some teachers and educators who too frequently think it their duty to initiate innocent boys and girls into the secrets of human generation in such a way as to offend their sense of shame. But in this matter just temperance and moderation must be used, as Christian modesty demands.
 
L_piperatus said:
Folks, here are some teachings from our Popes and Bishops from the 20th century - quoted from catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html]
Click to expand...
:clapping: Here Here!

This is why I’m beginning to love the Roman Catholic Church, the Popes and Bishops are like referees at a game where they call the shots, sometimes we don’t like them or agree with them, but either way when the ref says “foul” we all must obey otherwise the game falls into chaos.

Look I don’t like telling women that I wish they dress more modestly, but I also don’t like that I can get so easily tempted…God made me this way and many of my Christian brothers this way…it’s not our fault we didn’t have a choice in the matter. If we could give up that part of the brain that connects to our eyes and temptation and lust when we see a woman wearing revealing clothing…don’t you think we wouldn’t hesitate at a moments notice to surrender it? It’s not right women ask us men to be considerate of them but not return the consideration.
 
The following quotes give the specific how-to-dress instructions when visiting Catholic churches and pilgrimage sites, instructions issued by our Catholic Bishops and Priests, and by the Vatican - quote from ncregister.com/daily-news/modesty-at-mass-is-a-must1/ . Although these instructions deal with a specific case only - how to dress for Holy Mass, that specific case is a very important one, and has the potential to inform our decisions about proper dress elsewhere, too. Quote:

**Modesty at Mass Is a Must **
The importance of dressing for God, not the culture

by JIM GRAVES 09/29/2011

Jose Guadalupe Martin Rabago, the archbishop of Leon, Mexico, has called on Catholics to dress respectfully when attending Mass. …posters were placed at the entrances of Leon parishes requesting that women not enter wearing miniskirts, sleeveless shirts or low-cut blouses. The archbishop said, “If you have any respect for [a church], dress appropriately. This is not a misogynist attitude of any sort. I am simply asking for the dignity and decorum that this place calls for, that is all.”

He added that men, too, need to be respectful in their choice of dress before entering a house of worship.

Davao, Philippines, Archbishop Fernando Capalla has made a point of reminding his parishioners of the code, stating, “Everyone should be able to dress up simply and decently [but not necessarily] elegantly for Mass. … Beach wear and working-out outfits are not for solemn and sacred celebrations like the Mass.”

…[at] the National Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Sacramento, Calif… …dress-code signs, similar to those at the Vatican, at the church entrances… The sign indicates that shorts, bare shoulders and tight clothing are not appropriate for church.

Here’s what the Vatican expects from us, and here’s why - quote:

More than just making a request, the Vatican has insisted that tourists visiting St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome adhere to a strict dress code. Pictorial signs explaining the dress code are on display at entrances; men and women in shorts or with bare shoulders (e.g. wearing tank tops) are routinely turned away by the Swiss Guards.

The primary motivation for such policies, say those in leadership roles in the Church, is to promote the virtue of modesty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers several paragraphs on the topic of modesty (2521-2524), saying in part: “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. … Modesty inspires a way of life that makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.”

Many of the popes have spoken out about the importance of modesty, including Pope John Paul II in his book Love and Responsibility: “Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person … can arouse in him merely a disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/modesty-at-mass-is-a-must1/#ixzz1fnjd223Y

And here’s a reader’s comment to the article, regarding how this parishioner’s priest enforces modesty at wedding ceremonies:

I love that our pastor makes it quite clear that ANY of the bridal party with bare shoulders or exposed cleavage or otherwise dressed inappropriately for the occasion, will be cause for him to leave the church and there will be no wedding. He has walked out before on a stunned bridal party that tested him. It’s not that difficult to cover up for an hour.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/modesty-at-mass-is-a-must1/#ixzz1fnlf1aUc
 
austenbosten said:
:clapping: Here Here!

This is why I’m beginning to love the Roman Catholic Church, the Popes and Bishops are like referees at a game where they call the shots, sometimes we don’t like them or agree with them, but either way when the ref says “foul” we all must obey otherwise the game falls into chaos.

Look I don’t like telling women that I wish they dress more modestly, but I also don’t like that I can get so easily tempted…God made me this way and many of my Christian brothers this way…it’s not our fault we didn’t have a choice in the matter. If we could give up that part of the brain that connects to our eyes and temptation and lust when we see a woman wearing revealing clothing…don’t you think we wouldn’t hesitate at a moments notice to surrender it? It’s not right women ask us men to be considerate of them but not return the consideration.
Click to expand...
Yes Brother, and I think the Catholic Church will ultimately stand out as a sign of contradiction to the secular world. Similar to what happened with artificial birth control (ABC) - when everybody else caved in the secular world, and even the Protestant denominations authorized the use of birth control pills, our Popes (Pius XI and Paul VI) issued encyclical letters condemning ABC. Then, everybody in the secular world ridiculed our Popes. I see us going down the same road with immodest dress. We should all brace ourselves for hatred and ridicule coming our way, and just stand strong and faithful to the teachings of our Popes and Bishops.
 
L_piperatus said:
Yes Brother, and I think the Catholic Church will ultimately stand out as a sign of contradiction to the secular world. Similar to what happened with artificial birth control (ABC) - when everybody else caved in the secular world, and even the Protestant denominations authorized the use of birth control pills, our Popes (Pius XI and Paul VI) issued encyclical letters condemning ABC. Then, everybody in the secular world ridiculed our Popes. I see us going down the same road with immodest dress. We should all brace ourselves for hatred and ridicule coming our way, and just stand strong and faithful to the teachings of our Popes and Bishops.
Click to expand...
Thank you, thank you, thank you. My heart swells with joy that I am not completely alone in this matter. I am happy to share in the hatred, contempt, and ridicule if I know there are a few of my Christian brothers and sisters who agree with Scripture, Apostles, Popes, and Bishops.

:console:
 
austenbosten said:
Absolutely not and that’s been my position this entire time…We as Christian Brothers and Sisters should do our utmost to respect each other and treat others with dignity and decency.

Some think I’m a whacko and want a “modest clothing law” I do not, I’m simply saying “Hey do you mind helping some of us guys out by not wearing that? Thank you so much.” and I love how I get attacked for asking such a thing.
Click to expand...
40.png
austenbosten:
You know folks…we are living AFTER the Fall…not before, but oh what do I know and who cares…it’s just the Bible…if you got it flaunt it! if it feels good do it!** If some of my weaker Christian brethren can’t help themselves **I’ll be happy to send them to Hell…wow really great Christian charity here folks. My clothing is more important than someone’s soul, wow what a way to have concern for others
Click to expand...
Weakness – is no excuse – for transferring/sharing/shifting responsibility for our own sin to another person. To in anyway --make another accountable for our sin-- would deny our own dignity and freedom – even when we express this negatively.
POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY
Click to expand...
Personal Sin and Social Sin
Click to expand...
  1. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt.** But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people**. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed.** Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual** as merit for virtue** or responsibility for sin**.
Click to expand...
As a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is, in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit, weakening his will and clouding his intellect.
Click to expand...
 
Walking_Home said:
Weakness – is no excuse – for transferring/sharing/shifting responsibility for our own sin to another person. To in anyway --make another accountable for our sin-- would deny our own dignity and freedom – even when we express this negatively.
Click to expand...
Funny because I agree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to each other. If you were struggling with temptation, how do I honor you by going into great detail of my sexual escapades and bringing you to areas that lead to temptation like nightclubs when we are hanging out? Or do I make sure that we do activities that do not endanger you into falling into temptation like watching a ball game or play a game of cards and talk about topics not related to women or sex. A friend who loves their friends would never try and tempt them to sin regardless whether it’s conscience or not.

Look you clearly don’t like me or agree with anything I say or have said. That’s fine, I was hurt by the things you’ve said last night but I’m over it. Now I’m asking that you let it be. Nothing good or constructive is coming out of this, it’s only breeding hostility towards one another.
 
austenbosten said:
Funny because I agree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to each other. If you were struggling with temptation, how do I honor you by going into great detail of my sexual escapades and bringing you to areas that lead to temptation like nightclubs when we are hanging out? Or do I make sure that we do activities that do not endanger you into falling into temptation like watching a ball game or play a game of cards and talk about topics not related to women or sex. A friend who loves their friends would never try and tempt them to sin regardless whether it’s conscience or not.

Look you clearly don’t like me or agree with anything I say or have said. That’s fine, I was hurt by the things you’ve said last night but I’m over it. Now I’m asking that you let it be. Nothing good or constructive is coming out of this, it’s only breeding hostility towards one another.
Click to expand...
That is like saying – the establishments where --liquor is sold and served are to be closed – to “honor” the alcoholics-- who are tempted to drink. Each one of us – is responsible for our own sin-- no ifs ands or buts— and we should not try to find ways around this.
 
Walking_Home said:
That is like saying – the establishments where --liquor is sold and served are to be closed – to “honor” the alcoholics-- who are tempted to drink. Each one of us – is responsible for our own sin-- no ifs ands or buts— and we should not try to find ways around this.
Click to expand...
So you condone pornography and prostitution because if some men sin as a result, then so be it. That’s like saying establishments that sell sex are perfectly okay because those who have addictions or may develop one, well so be it let them burn…even though there are no perfectly good reasons to have them open. Okay glad to know where you stand 👍

Seriously this isn’t going anywhere and you are doing nothing but twisting my words. So this will be the last time I will respond to your comments. We can’t agree at all on this issue and we’re kicking a dead horse.
 
austenbosten said:
So you condone pornography and prostitution because if some men sin as a result, then so be it. That’s like saying establishments that sell sex are perfectly okay because those who have addictions or may develop one, well so be it let them burn…even though there are no perfectly good reasons to have them open. Okay glad to know where you stand 👍

Seriously this isn’t going anywhere and you are doing nothing but twisting my words. So this will be the last time I will respond to your comments. We can’t agree at all on this issue and we’re kicking a dead horse.
Click to expand...
It is disingenuous of you to turn what I said into – condoning porn and prostitution. A man who turns to porn and/or prostitution-- does it of his own free will – and here I am not saying I approve/condone either porn and prostitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top