Modesty

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveMaria12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AveMaria12

Guest
I apologize if I have posted this on the wrong thread.

For women, are there set norms of modesty? I’ve came across this quote:

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 XI

I have heard from a priest that there are no set norms for modesty, but they change according to the society (eg. it used to be considered immodest for women not to wear a veil). This makes things more confusing.
 
youtube.com/watch?v=PZHECJJbzPM

At the above link, a Catholic priest gives a sermon with specific instructions on how to dress for Holy Mass, for both women and men. The video was recorded at a Holy Mass on EWTN television.
 
This is probably one of the most discussed, cussed, and debated topics on CAF. Just put the topic of “modesty” through the search feature and see what I mean.

If you want to see what’s appropriate for Mass in the Vatican Churches, look no further than this easy to read sign, which is posted outside of each Church in Vatican City. That really should answer the question once and for all.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9025288&postcount=91
 
Thank you for this. We needed a good “talking to”. I now understand why people defend their attire at Mass (never mind outside of it); "Spiritual blindness and refusal.
 
That is one of the few priests I have ever seen who was willing to take on the “elephant in the room”, modesty"! I wish more priests, parents, teachers, and others, would.

I am pushing 50 y.o., and I cannot remember one time, not once, in all my years, in church, hearing a homily specifically on modesty! In our time, this issue is HUGE!

One thing I think the priest forgot to mention was guys who dress with their underwear hanging out. I’m in Mexico, and its even done here! Seems to be worldwide They even buy colored underwear just to show off. I’m told this trend of showing underwear actually originated in the prisons, where things weren’t the right size.I have heard of cities who have gotten together and made laws in their area that it will be illegal to dress with your underwear hanging out.

I have heard complaints here that clothing manufacturers also play into this, at least here, by making it very difficult to find modest clothing. At times when I was in the US, I had to go to a second-hand clothing store to find modest clothing, because I basically couldn’t find it there. I have had to do the same thing here in Mexico.

I did hear a Mexican priest one time in mass saying how, in the US, people would dress up for mass. The priest compared our going to mass to going before the governor, say. He said, “Would you go before the governor dressed like how you do when you come to mass?” That’s about as specific as he got, though.

Once upon a time, people reserved their best clothing for church.

I’m told Our Lady of Fatima said there would be many fashions which would come which would be very offensive to God, that God doesn’t change, even if we do.

Many saints talked on modesty…St. John Bosco, Padre Pio, St. John Crysostom, Blessed Jacinta Marto. and St. Paul.

We need to start with ourselves and work our way out!
 
OurLadyPray4US said:
youtube.com/watch?v=PZHECJJbzPM

At the above link, a Catholic priest gives a sermon with specific instructions on how to dress for Holy Mass, for both women and men. The video was recorded at a Holy Mass on EWTN television.
Click to expand...
EXCELLENT !! Some of these gals should be pulled out of church by their hair. I won’t describe what I have seen, since I don’t think I can do it without causing some people problems. But we have a real problem and it starts in the home and in the grade schools, even our Catholic grade schools, and goes right through high school. And it isn’t just the girls either, some of their teachers aren’t a bit better.

And I can tell you for a fact that the indecent fashions of the 60s was one of the principle causes for the mass exodous from the priesthood and the religious life. Things are much better today. Those were really awful days.

But unless you can get people to think about modesty and its necessity nothing will get any better.

Linus2nd
 
AveMaria12 said:
I apologize if I have posted this on the wrong thread.

For women, are there set norms of modesty? I’ve came across this quote:

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 XI

I have heard from a priest that there are no set norms for modesty, but they change according to the society (eg. it used to be considered immodest for women not to wear a veil). This makes things more confusing.
Click to expand...
The Imprimatur means that author has permission to publish the work as a Catholic resource. I’d image there is also a complementary Nihil Obstat, which would be reasonable assurance that the advice contained within does not contradict the Faith. However, neither the imprimatur nor Nihil Obstat mean that the teachings are binding.

The modesty advice should be accepted as helpful towards living a faithful live, but not strictly mandatory.
 
I wouldn’t go so far as to follow something that was written in 1956. However, it used to be clearer as to what modest meant. Modesty meant knee length or longer dresses and skirts, nothing skin tight, no low cut tops (although the 2 fingers below pit of throat is a bit extreme because in reality you can’t see anything even with a much larger space). Some people thought it wasn’t ok to be sleeveless in church, but others thought it was ok as long as it wasn’t something like spaghetti straps or strapless tops.
I think the priest is right that standards of modesty change - after all, it used to be scandalous for women to show their ankles. However, there are still standards. Unfortunately, many of today’s styles have ignored any standards and girls aren’t brought up to know what decent clothes even look like.
 
This is precisely how women must dress at holy sites in various parts of the world, including spots like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. If a woman is wearing a sleeveless shirt, short shorts, etc., she can expect to be denied entry. I’m not suggesting that we require the same dress code for women in parishes, but maybe it’s wise to remember this image and the respect garnered by it when dressing ourselves.
 
I think this is a tough subject, but I agree that it’s one that our church leadership should delve into more. I think modesty is a little like the old tongue-in-cheek definition that’s given for what constitutes pornography: “You may not be able to clearly define it, but you definitely know it when you see it.” Styles do change. I’m 62 and I remember when bikinis first arrived on the scene. Every parent was aghast and all 2 piece bathing suits were referred to as bikinis. Now girls wear things that in my day would’ve been called pasties and a “G” string and nobody thinks a thing of it. I’m not sure that boys wearing low pants that show part of their boxers is actually immodest as the boy is well covered and I, at least, don’t find it particularly “sexy” either. I think it’s more like tasteless-- To call something immodest, we need to arrive at a clear definition of what the word means and it needs to be accepted pretty universally–or in our case, at least by a majority of church leadership. To me it’s easier to define immodesty, which I would describe as any clothing or behavior that is clearly meant to cause lust or sexual desire in a fellow human–whether male or female. Someone else may well have a different or better definition.
 
I don’t mind sermons about modesty, IF they are even handed. However-when a priest refers to women “dressed like prostitutes”-I think he took it a bit too far. Is he not guilty of the very thing he is preaching against? (Not recognizing the dignity of another human being, even one you have pre judged as looking like a sex worker?)
Some of these gals should be pulled out of church by their hair
Click to expand...
Really? …barely 5-6 posts in on this topic, and already Violence against women is expressed…

Seriously-this topic does need to be addressed to BOTH men and women…but when it quickly descends in to the above…I am not surprised that some would take issue with it. Why is modestly almost always tangled up with dehumanizing name calling, and threats of violence towards women?

Physician Heal Thyself.
 
TerryJT said:
I don’t mind sermons about modesty, IF they are even handed. However-when a priest refers to women “dressed like prostitutes”-I think he took it a bit too far. Is he not guilty of the very thing he is preaching against? (Not recognizing the dignity of another human being, even one you have pre judged as looking like a sex worker?)
Click to expand...
I don’t think Father is guilty of anything. Yes, some women are dressed like prostitutes in church, that was just a factual statement. Father never said that these women have less dignity just because they are dressed like prostitutes.
 
OurLadyPray4US,
I respectfully disagree. Calling women names like that is one of the oldest methods of attempting to control them- by making them comply via fear of the “sloozie” label. It’s a disgusting method to use, and not very wise in a modestly thread. Taken to its extreme you have old men abusing 8yr old school girls, or religious leaders blaming women for sexual abuse.
…She is Naama Margolese, 8, the daughter of American immigrants who are observant modern Orthodox Jews. An Israeli weekend television program told the story of how Naama had become terrified of walking to her elementary school here after ultra-Orthodox men spit on her, insulted her and called her a prostitute because her modest dress did not adhere exactly to their more rigorous dress code.
Click to expand...
nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In all my years of going to churches of different stripes-even in the inner city, I can honestly say I have never ever seen a woman I would have mistaken for a prostitute.

Really-you guys and gals must belong to some wild parishes to have all these “hoochie mamas” running around…:eek:…or perhaps this priest is being disrespectful and demeaning to his sisters in Christ and daughters of the most high God in order to score a few points with the “blame it on eve” crowd who would wish to drag women out of Mass by their hair.

Sorry-I don’t think calling women names or insulting their dignity will do much to further the modesty discussion.
 
TerryJT said:
In all my years of going to churches of different stripes-even in the inner city, I can honestly say I have never ever seen a woman I would have mistaken for a prostitute.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we really have different experiences. I have seen many women dressed like prostitutes, and many men dressed like gangsters and personal trainers, in church. As a matter of fact, 3 decades ago the only women wearing certain outfits on the street (not for jogging or sports activities) in my neck of the woods were the prostitutes - and today I see women in church, wearing those same outfits. Also, I saw recently this woman with short shorts, fishnet stockings, and high heels in church - yes she was dressed as a prostitute, but that has no bearing on her human dignity, not according to my Catholic faith. Maybe Father has seen similar things. This is not name calling. It is simply a factual statement. “This woman is dressed like a prostitute.” “This man is dressed like a gangster.” And, according to Catholic anthropology, such statement has nothing to do with the dignity of the person. The dignity of the persons rests on the fact that they are created in the image of God, not on whether they are wearing a three-piece suit, business suit, or perhaps a prostitute’s or gangster’s outfit.
 
The 1956 book would have been totally scandalous to the same culture 50 years previous to it, which required dresses to cover the ankles.

Showing leg! For shame!

I would rather people be at worship than not, so I am not going to get all baptized-in-vinegar about it.
 
“This woman is dressed like a prostitute” is not a statement of fact-it is simply a matter of opinion, and is frequently used as a way to control, insult and abuse women,. (as my reference to the orthodox jewish men using the same lingo towards an 8yr old school girl was meant to show.)

Sorry-I am just not impressed when I see men preaching about modestly while tossing that term at women.

Get a new insult already…:rolleyes:
 
TerryJT said:
“This woman is dressed like a prostitute” is not a statement of fact-it is simply a matter of opinion, and is frequently used as a way to control, insult and abuse women,. (as my reference to the orthodox jewish men using the same lingo towards an 8yr old school girl was meant to show.)

Sorry-I am just not impressed when I see men preaching about modestly while tossing that term at women.

Get a new insult already…:rolleyes:/QUOTE

Here ya go:
-A harlot
-Lady of the evening.
-Female Escort
-Paid sex service worker
-Women of the night
-Cat
-Trollop
-Slattern
-Public Ledger

All the same but lessens the impact of the image, no?
Click to expand...
 
All the same but lessens the impact of the image, no?
Click to expand...
Not at all-and that is the point…calling women by any of those names, is meant to demean, abuse, and insult.

I doubt that 8yr old school girl would have felt any less abused had she been spit on and called a harlot instead of a prostitute.

Calling all women-You are welcome ay my Parish, and my pastor won’t call you any names.

He just wants you to meet Jesus.

TerryJT <---------------wondering if females of future generations will ever live in a world where men won’t use religion as an excuse to abuse them.
 
TerryJT said:
Not at all-and that is the point…calling women by any of those names, is meant to demean, abuse, and insult.

I doubt that 8yr old school girl would have felt any less abused had she been spit on and called a harlot instead of a prostitute.

Calling all women-You are welcome ay my Parish, and my pastor won’t call you any names.

He just wants you to meet Jesus.

TerryJT <---------------wondering if females of future generations will ever live in a world where men won’t use religion as an excuse to abuse them.
Click to expand...
Terry are you male or female, I am a female.
I am not insulted nor do I see it as abuse and if they look like a prostitute they look like a prostitute. I wear stilettos and I dress very modestly and eloquently. I was told at 14 by my mother that I could be a prostitute for all she cared ( story: I did not want to sit with her in a park and she believed that I was embarrassed by her - I was actually, it was the fall of grade 9 and I wanted to be cool. I only said “no” and gave no explanation to her request to sit under a tree.)
God gave me the wisdom to know it was her not me. Do you want another story I got lots. Especially ones about people…who are… well …you… know and they do not look like they are… well… you know.
 
AveMaria12 said:
I apologize if I have posted this on the wrong thread.

For women, are there set norms of modesty? I’ve came across this quote:

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 XI

I have heard from a priest that there are no set norms for modesty, but they change according to the society (eg. it used to be considered immodest for women not to wear a veil). This makes things more confusing.
Click to expand...
No need to be confused. Here’s what our present Magisterium says (illustrated to bridge language barriers, no less) about what’s modest and appropriate in Church. The sign in the link is posted outside all the Churches in the Vatican.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9025288&postcount=91

As others on your thread have mentioned, what constitutes modesty does tend to change with both time and culture. Here’s a great post from Br. Jay about that
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10499776&postcount=24
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top