Common sense tells me that abortion is wrong, but I can also justifying it on another basis. Thus, common sense is touching on something deeper. Furthermore, what I am to do if someone disagrees with me on attire? I, for example, feel that women should not show any part of their bodies at all, dressing like
this when in the presence of others. Another may disagree. How does one know whether the standards for modesty he possesses are based on common sense or a disordered perspective?
So modesty should not be valued
per se, because you are approaching it from a utilitarian perspective.
Dear baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.
The moral sense of the faithful has always informed them that certain garments are indecorous and so, dear friend, it is not a matter of personal preference or whether someone agrees or disagrees with you as regards your clothing choices. The reason why certain apparel has always been deemed as trespassing the boundaries of propriety is because the good collective moral sense of the faithful has declared it to be the case. Thus our good sanctified common sense will indeed guide us correctly as to which garments/fashions are seductive and therefore inappropriate for those professing religious faith. The only reason why there multiple threads on modesty on CAF is that there has been a relativisation of standards since the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and this has, sadly, impacted considerably many contemporary Catholics. Now this relativistic mindset has weakened in consciences the notions of good and evil, sin and grace, vice and virtue, and, by analogy, standards of modesty with respect to dress. Thus the ‘New Morality’ allows and encourages all manner of immodest styles of clothing to be worn without any sense of shame, even at Holy Mass now. Not surprisingly those who do put their head above the parapet and raise a standard are accused of being ‘modesty police’ or of having an issue with overscrupulosity, which is, of course, arrant nonsense. It simply means that they have resolutely refused to succumb to the debased standards of the world, unlike so many who have allowed their moral sense to become radically defective by the moral and cultural deterioration in their midest. The only “disordered prespective” is in such people, my dear brother, because they have ceased thinking with an authentic Catholic mind.
Modesty like charity or patience should be valued for itself, but these always express themselves in practical actions, in the case of modesty that includes doning seemly attire that does not offend public decency. Catholics of all people should be setting an example here and not tarnishing their Church’s credibility by aping the worlds seductive clothing styles, such as mini-skirts and tightly-fitting garments that accentuate body shape. This is deplorable and we ought hang our heads in shame for such conformity to the godless world. After all does not modesty inspire “a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies” (CCC, para. 2523)? It certainly should inspire “one’s choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2522), but this is precisely what is not happening in contemporary Catholicism, as more of the faithful adopt the relativistic thinking of our relativistic times.
With regards to a group of heterosexual females being unclad in private, no they would not be sinning because they are in private and not displaying themselves to public view. As for homosexual males in private, surely there would be, in their case, a very real risk of them being incited to acts of gross indecency and sodomy, since sexual desire would be very likely excited.
No upholder of Catholic standards of modesty would insist that all women should be clad in a Burka, dear brother, but our moral sense does guide us as to the exposure of an inordinate amount of flesh. A bikini is obviously inappropriate even within context of the beach (men at beaches do not automatically become immune to concupiscence) as it is an example of a voluptuous garment - effective wearing underwear in public - and has no place among pious Catholic women. Again mini-skirts are tarty garments that expose an excessive quantity of flesh and are calculated to be sexually arousing to men, reducing a woman to being a temptress, which was one of the intentions of Mary Quant, their inventor. Can a pious Catholic woman desirous of pursuing holiness and pleasing God really wear such a garment?
A well-formed conscience would say a decided no.
A well-formed conscience
and the extrinsic tradition of the Catholic Church, including the Catechism and bible, will guide us aright in our clothing choices, provided we have not sold out to the godless spirit of the age and become imbued with the rampant immorality in our midst.
God bless and thankyou for a charitable discussion, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
) is not a wrong thing to make. The example of the criminal justice system was jut one example in a list that she provided for the sake of clarifying what she meant. Maybe I am wrong about this, but I honestly don’t get anything beyond that from her posts.