Is Wearing Immodest Clothing a Sin?

[heart4home]

So what did you mean by this:

“My point is, don’t assume that all men who stare at her will be Christian or be looking at her with charity.”

Exactly what I said, don’t assume all men will be looking at her with Charity. Some will, some won’t.

 

[severus68]

What if this were a thread about women wearing trousers while reading Harry Potter?!?

Can you imagine ?

Harrry Potter that evil, satanic man child waving his wand ? I wont even start about a woman wearing trousers instead of a pretty, pink frock with ribbbons in her hair.

 

[severus68]

I haven’t followed NFP or foreplay threads but the modesty and veil threads usually end in the same “blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.”

The veil threads are especially tedious; sometimes feel like saying, “Yes, you are allowed to (but not required) to veil. We already know why you want to do it and why you’re hesitating to do it. If you’re having problems with it, it really is that simple to use a hat instead, or pins, or a scarf, or bin it (frankly I think mantillas look ugly on young women).”

We have been told and preached to about how women should and should not dress and how they incite men to lust and sin with ‘immodest’ dress and how we who disagree are wrong and even blinded by Satan, at nausem. So why are they so frequent? when one is closed by the moderators, other springs up.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It’s amazing how judgemental we can all be about the people we think are being judgemental. Rather than mocking those we disagree with, trying to understand their position and then if we still disagree, engaging in reasoned argument is far more beneficial to all concerned. I include myself as someone who fails to do this often. It is easy to see “your enemy” as a simple sterotype. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw a car at the grocery store with a pro-Obama bumper sticker and a secure the border bumper sticker. My wife and I both noticed it and found the combination odd. Then I reflected on the fact that although I voted for Bush II (twice) there was a great deal that I strongly disagreed with him on. Likewise, I would do well to remember that many of those who support Obama don’t agree with him on everything. Same goes here. Just because someone favors veiling for example, it doesn’t mean they automatically homeschool, hate women, are insecure in their own sexuality, or anything else. It simply means they support veiling and they may do so for any number of reasons.

Pax Christi

 

[JoArtist]

I really think that they are just trying to make lite of a subject where it ends up in people ripping each other apart and accusing other people of not really being Catholic for having a different opinion.

 

[austenbosten]

It’s amazing how judgemental we can all be about the people we think are being judgemental. Rather than mocking those we disagree with, trying to understand their position and then if we still disagree, engaging in reasoned argument is far more beneficial to all concerned. I include myself as someone who fails to do this often. It is easy to see “your enemy” as a simple sterotype. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw a car at the grocery store with a pro-Obama bumper sticker and a secure the border bumper sticker. My wife and I both noticed it and found the combination odd. Then I reflected on the fact that although I voted for Bush II (twice) there was a great deal that I strongly disagreed with him on. Likewise, I would do well to remember that many of those who support Obama don’t agree with him on everything. Same goes here. Just because someone favors veiling for example, it doesn’t mean they automatically homeschool, hate women, are insecure in their own sexuality, or anything else. It simply means they support veiling and they may do so for any number of reasons.

Pax Christi

Yes just because people have different views doesn’t mean they are “The baby-eating bishop from Bath and Wales” (sorry had to throw a Blackadder joke in there). People are way too quick to judge others and stereotype them…especially (like in my case) when some people are brash when discussing issues and sometimes people focus on something that truly is irrelevant to the speaker and ignores the real message the speaker is trying to say.

But people read into what they want to read into…like you said there Dan Daly, there will be Liberals who will look at the “Secure the Border” bumper sticker and think he’s a rotten racist…and completely ignore the Obama sticker and Conservatives will think he’s another illegal-lovin commie for having the Obama sticker and completely be oblivious to the “Secure Border” sticker.

 

[Jordan719]

It’s amazing how judgemental we can all be about the people we think are being judgemental. Rather than mocking those we disagree with, trying to understand their position and then if we still disagree, engaging in reasoned argument is far more beneficial to all concerned. I include myself as someone who fails to do this often. It is easy to see “your enemy” as a simple sterotype. I was reminded of this the other day when I saw a car at the grocery store with a pro-Obama bumper sticker and a secure the border bumper sticker. My wife and I both noticed it and found the combination odd. Then I reflected on the fact that although I voted for Bush II (twice) there was a great deal that I strongly disagreed with him on. Likewise, I would do well to remember that many of those who support Obama don’t agree with him on everything. Same goes here. Just because someone favors veiling for example, it doesn’t mean they automatically homeschool, hate women, are insecure in their own sexuality, or anything else. It simply means they support veiling and they may do so for any number of reasons.

Pax Christi

Good post.

 

[L_piperatus]

I will add, the best thing we can do is to learn what exactly does our Church teach about the virtue and the specific norms of modesty. There are specific instructions out there, issued by our Popes, Bishops, and Priests. The best we can do is to educate ourselves and follow those instructions. If anything is still unclear after reading the instructions of our Catholic clergy, we can always go and ask our priests for further clarification. That way, we can be sure to stay on the correct path, because the teaching authority of our Church comes from Christ, and its teachings are preserved from error through the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[LemonAndLime]

What happens is someone starts the thread, someone new posts not knowing what is to befall him/her and is ‘hammered’. Then I can’t help myself but jump in. No reasonable person should respond and post on such threads.

And yes ankles should be covered, I insist. Also, wear socks. No toe cleavage!

Good thing I’m not a reasonable person then! But of course, those socks can’t be ankle socks. Since the 1960s those socks keep getting shorter and shorter until you are practically showing the full monty!

What if this were a thread about women wearing trousers while reading Harry Potter?!?

Can you imagine ?

…

LemonAndLimes servant - “Help, someone fetch the smelling salts! L&L has fainted after reading Catholic90’s post!”

 

[severus68]

[Q

UOTE=LemonAndLime;8698757]Good thing I’m not a reasonable person then! But of course, those socks can’t be ankle socks. Since the 1960s those socks keep getting shorter and shorter until you are practically showing the full monty!

You and me then.
…

LemonAndLimes servant - “Help, someone fetch the smelling salts! L&L has fainted after reading Catholic90’s post!”

 

[manualman]

Good thing I’m not a reasonable person then! But of course, those socks can’t be ankle socks. Since the 1960s those socks keep getting shorter and shorter until you are practically showing the full monty!

Did you even read Dan Dalys post? Are you really so disrespectful of the concerns of others that you would assert that toe cleavage and boob cleavage are morally equivalent in terms of their effects on the opposite sex? Surely not?

Is it not possible to have different opinions without mockery and dismissal?

 

[austenbosten]

Did you even read Dan Dalys post? Are you really so disrespectful of the concerns of others that you would assert that toe cleavage and boob cleavage are morally equivalent in terms of their effects on the opposite sex? Surely not?

Is it not possible to have different opinions without mockery and dismissal?

Apparently not, sigh…this is probably my biggest problem with being a member of the church. The bitter feuds and total lack of respect amongst parishioners while being part of an parish that preaches respect and love

 

[severus68]

Did you even read Dan Dalys post? Are you really so disrespectful of the concerns of others that you would assert that toe cleavage and boob cleavage are morally equivalent in terms of their effects on the opposite sex? Surely not?

Is it not possible to have different opinions without mockery and dismissal?

I see your idea of being respectful does not apply to some here - the modesty police and arbiters . We can “attack” back in the same manner or speak with levity.

 

[severus68]

Apparently not, sigh…this is probably my biggest problem with being a member of the church. The bitter feuds and total lack of respect amongst parishioners while being part of an parish that preaches respect and love

Perhaps you should look at yourself.

Actually, this is a forum, CAF, not a parish church.

 

[manualman]

I see your idea of being respectful does not apply to some here - the modesty police and arbiters . We can “attack” back in the same manner or speak with levity.

If you reread the whole thread, you’ll find me attempting to charitably rebut those who attempt to totally transfer men’s responsibility for their own chastity to women and how they dress, nor have I ever attempted to draw arbitrary modesty lines in the sand. In fact I consistently criticize the idea of attempting it.

But at the same time, I also reject the assertion that people should dress themselves with no regard for the effect it has on others.

My criticism of L&L’s quote is that it mocks the entire concept of charitable concern for others manifested in clothing choices. Worse, it treats the entire issue with a flippancy not warranted. Levity I enjoy. Flippancy, not so much.

 

[austenbosten]

Perhaps you should look at yourself.

Actually, this is a forum, CAF, not a parish church.

And actually I wasn’t even referring to CAF I was just stating something I’ve noticed when I was a church-goer…perhaps you should not go about this forum thinking everything is being directed at you.

Good Grief!

 

[severus68]

If you reread the whole thread, you’ll find me attempting to charitably rebut those who attempt to totally transfer men’s responsibility for their own chastity to women and how they dress, nor have I ever attempted to draw arbitrary modesty lines in the sand. In fact I consistently criticize the idea of attempting it.

But at the same time, I also reject the assertion that people should dress themselves with no regard for the effect it has on others.

My criticism of L&L’s quote is that it mocks the entire concept of charitable concern for others manifested in clothing choices. Worse, it treats the entire issue with a flippancy not warranted. Levity I enjoy. Flippancy, not so much.

Actually, I was fine with your posts and thus even responded to you rather civilly. I dont think any of us were being flippant to mock just because we disagreed. For me, it was about a poster who insulted and vilified me in his posts. I see the moderators have deleted his and all responding posts.

I agree, we can disagree in a respectful manner.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Did you even read Dan Dalys post? Are you really so disrespectful of the concerns of others that you would assert that toe cleavage and boob cleavage are morally equivalent in terms of their effects on the opposite sex? Surely not?

Maybe it seems ridiculous because you’re more of a breast man. There are more men who find the breasts sexually attractive but there are quite a few men who are really attracted to feet. Things like ankle bracelets, ankle socks, or toe rings could present a serious near occasions of sin. So what is the cut-off? Why should a woman be interested in trying to hide her breasts but then completely forget about her toes, hips, ankles, nape of her neck?

 

[severus68]

And actually I wasn’t even referring to CAF I was just stating something I’ve noticed when I was a church-goer…perhaps you should not go about this forum thinking everything is being directed at you.

Good Grief!

My apologies, I thought you were confused. Really, they are not?

 

[Havard]

My criticism of L&L’s quote is that it mocks the entire concept of charitable concern for others manifested in clothing choices. Worse, it treats the entire issue with a flippancy not warranted. Levity I enjoy. Flippancy, not so much.

100% agree here with the levity vs flippancy distinction. Although I happen to agree with more of L&L’s views on this issue, I’m very much against disrespecting opposing views by mocking them.