S
severus68
Guest
It would be simpler and true to listen to Jesus Christ who made so much emphasis on the internal, not on externals whether hyprocritical facades or otherwise.
- Status
E
ethereality
Guest
Perhaps you don’t live in the USA? The general consensus is that “speedos are disgusting” (contrary to bikinis), and swim trunks go down to your knees – nothing like underwear. Really, what are you thinking?
Nope. We can’t wear dresses or skirts or half the things women can wear. Please think more! This is my last post on this matter, since it’s no longer directly relating to this thread’s topic. (Feel free to PM me if you want to continue the discussion.)
B
Baelor
Guest
The USA is not every country. And swim trunks do not uniformly go down to the knees. Many are like in length to boxers, which are incidentally underwear. What were you thinking?
Because it was not clear, I will amend my former statement: Modesty-wise, men can essentially wear whatever they want.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust that you had a pleasant weekend and thankyou for your reponse to my post.
By ‘seductive attire’ I mean sexual provocative clothing that is calculated to enflame evil desire or concupiscence, examples of which are bikini’s, mini-skirts, shorts and tightly fitting jeans. Incontrovertibly, such attire is immodest and inappropriate for Catholic women because it shamefully accentuates body parts and exposes to the gaze others an inordinate amount of flesh. Moreover, women are more visual than men becuase they are manifestly more curvacious. Indeed, it is their shapely figures that make them highly attractive to the opposite sex, which is why they must make every effort to adorn themselves in modest aparrel, so as not make their body parts the chief focus of attention. A well-formed conscience and sanctified common sense ought to inform us of this, but as my fellow Catholic poster fix has observed, many modern day Catholics have become desensitized by the prevailing immoral culture in which they live and move and have their being. Therefore it is hardly surprising that they have a radically defective consience which is, alas, unable to distinguish between modest and immodest clothing. Either that or they are just being obstinately disobedient to what they deem to be the austere and arduous demands of our most *holy *religion as regards clothing choices, perhaps a mixture of both.
Whilst our Catechism does not specifically refer to blouses falling off shoulders, mini-skirts or tight-fitting jeans, a well-formed healthy Catholic conscience would reasonably infer from its wording, that such garments clearly do not fit the bill or measure up. How can, for example, a mini-skirt or bikini, both which garments reveal far too much flesh, be squared with: “Modesty…means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden”; “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing” and “Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies” (paras. 2521, 2522, 2523)? It clearly not possible since both of those voluptuous garments trespass the boundaries of propriety and hence a proper Catholic reserve. Moreover, ostentatious and unseemly clothing hardly evidences a pious mind fixed upon heavenly things. Of course, it goes without remark, that outward modesty which makes itself known in “one’s choice of clothing”, must be accompanied by inward purity and chastity. Nevertheless, it admits of no doubt that the unseemly clothing choices of men and women are indicative of a poor unspiritual character and only those who have become so imbued with the moral relativism of our morally relativistic age would ever seriously deny that.
How terribly sad that so many women and young girls today are no longer demure and ladylike, but are brash and very sexually forward, as evidenced by their indecent aparrel and ‘laddete’ attitudes. Many of us are of the opinion, dear friend, that the legions of scantily clad women nowadays has contributed in no small way to this sad state of affairs, for it has without any doubt encouraged the sexualisation of Western culture and the moral and cultural deterioration which we now sadly witness. If men are failed to be convinced regarding all this then we can only conclude that they have utterly given themselves over to secular thinking.
God bless and apologies for the delay in my response, dear friend, but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Walking_Home,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust that you had a nice weekend.
Desensitzation is always a bad thing since it ultimately results in a radically defective conscience which cannot distinguish between what is modest and immodest - something that is all too evident from many threads on these boards.
My dear friend, you are failing to take into account that fallen men will always be inclined to be lascivious as far as women are concerned as a consequence of concupiscence. This being the case it will always be necessary for them to keep their baser instincts in subjection and for women to adorn themselves in seemly apparel. Our Church is fully aware of this and that is why you have the teaching in the Catechism which speaks of refusing to unveil that which should be hidded and modesty inspiring one’s clothing Choices.
We must live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. As long as man has a wounded nature he will always have a propensity to objectify women, thus steps must be taken to minimise the strength of evil desire and impure thoughts by men keeping their libido in check and by women avoiding doning clothing which voluptuously exposes their bodies. It is a two-way affair rather than a one-way ‘sexist’ one, which seeks to put all of the resposibility upon the gentlman’s shoulders.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Cryto–muslim – view of women.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear fix,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said, my sentiments entirely.
All of this would have been self-evident to former generations of Catholics, but nowadays you are dealing with men who do not think with an authentically Catholic mind about such issues. Moreover, as you quite rightly say, people have come desensitized and so cannot distinguish between what is modest and immodest vesture. Jolly sad, I say.
God bless and thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
On the contrary, dear friend, it is an authentically Catholic view of men *and *women that is fully in harmony with the Tradition of Holy Mother Church down through the ages.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Actually – I have come to the belief – that what you call this “authentic view of men and woman” – engenders and enforces — man to operate in a base/carnal level – and impedes man to rise above it.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear ethereality,
Cordial greetings and a very good. Thankyou for the above contribution. Hear, hear, jolly well spoken.
Our lot is cast in truly desperate times and it is so terribly sad that those who profess religion are no longer informed by a healthy Catholic conscience. Alas, they take their cue as to what is modest or immodest from the prevailing decadent culture, rather than the sound and wholesome teaching of Holy Mother Church. To call Catholic teaching a “crypto-Muslim view of women”, only highlights how bad things have got.
God bless, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Walking_Home,
Hello again.
The authentic Catholic view of men and women, dear friend, boldly faces up to the reality of man’s wounded nature and the presence of concupiscence and follows Church teaching so as to subdue the baser passions. It is this that promotes his pursuit of holiness and thus enables him gradually ‘rise above’ his sinful tendencies.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
B
Baelor
Guest
So if I wear a bikini with no intent to inflame evil desire or concupiscence, I am fine.
The alternative is to prove that every single person who wears such items is calculating the above, and so I ask for this proof if this is the line you would like to take. We both know that arguments on the lines of “No one would wear those things if not to” etc. are unacceptable, so do not even bother trying.
Of course, it could be that you mean something other than you wrote. I can only hope this latter is the case.
What body parts are shamefully accentuated with all bikinis, even ones that have no cleavage, etc.? Or tightly-fitting jeans? How much flesh is an inordinate amount of flesh? There is zero flesh revealed with tightly-fitting jeans, so they must accentuate very sharply the “body parts” in a “shameful” manner.
Point to “curvacious” or one of its synonyms in the CCC or elsewhere and we can settle this right now. If you cannot, I have nothing more to say on this matter.
My well-formed conscience and sanctified common sense compel me to reject “common sense” as an argument. As I have stated on another thread, common sense is explicable, and so the fact that it is common sense is not a substitute for the underlying reason. Which would be…?
That is not a fair statement, because some of the garments you consider immodest the Church herself has not condemned as immodest. Why should a Catholic take your opinion over his own? Simply because you assert that common sense is on your side? Come, now.
This is a false dichotomy, and you should know that. There is, of course, the third option – that faithful Catholics are not required to abide by your standards of dress in order to maintain the full standards of dignity and modesty.
Not good enough. Those same statements could be used to justify the impropriety of revealing calves, faces, hair, etc. Or in the opposite direction, in support of those garments, as one could argue that they do not violate any of those norms and directives. Why is this possible? Because your argument is incomplete. To make it not so, you would need to provide a specific explanation of what bikinis reveal that should remain hidden, etc. Hence my statement on this exact same matter – unanswered, of course – earlier.
Assertions without proof are useless.
One can wear tight-fitting jeans without ostentation.
B
Baelor
Guest
A-ha! Let all the doubters scurry back in defeat! Behold, the prediction I made that was called into question but now manifests itself in its effulgent accuracy:
You have no basis for judging the inner spiritual life of people based on their outward appearance because you are unable to assign a motive with unquestionable accuracy. Nothing else is a satisfactory explanation of the last part of your statement (i.e. moral relativism). You will find that making that claim requires an assertion of motive that you are unable to prove. So I would lay out this claim in its entirety (i.e. Premise: “People wear immodest clothing” to Conclusion: “They are spiritually deformed”) or simply abandon this train of thought altogether.
I oppose immodesty in all forms! I too lament the deplorable state of sexual affairs.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above response.
Intent, dear friend, is wholly immaterial since an immodest garment will always make its appeal to the baser instincts irrespective of the intent of the person wearing the garment, though it may well mitigate their culpability if ignorance or poor catechesis is a factor.
Obviously in the case of a bilkini, body parts such as breasts and legs are accentuated and a immoderate qauntity of flesh is visible to the gaze of others. Would a woman ever think of wearing her underwear in public? Even within the context of a beach she is still shamefully displaying herself to others and men do not cease to be unaffected by concupiscence simply because they are at the beach. By Catholic standards of decency a bikini is clearly unacceptable and goes beyond the boundaries of propriety. Breasts and totally uncovered legs are undeniably objectively sexual and thus are inclined to arouse men and excite impure thoughts. Whilst it is quite true that tightly-fitting jeans do not expose flesh, they certainly do make prominent curves and cling to the legs in manner which is indecent.
The Church Catechism is not required to employ the word ‘curvacious’, but a well-formed conscience, dear friend, will inform us that any vesture which draws attention to our body parts and makes them the focus of attention is unseemly and not suitable for a Catholic who professes religion. The Church does indeed expect us to use our prudential judgment or good old fashioned sanctified common sense in these matters and surely are spiritual immaturity is evidenced by our wanting to be continually spoon-fed about every detail; spiritual maturity enables a man to discriminate between what is modest and immodest and what is seemly and unseemly attire by the application of the general principles of the Catechism and Sacred Tradition. Unfortuanately this pre-supposes that a man does not have a radically defective conscience, which has become so imbued with the moral relativism of the prevailing culture that it cannot function correctly and make sound decisions.
It is not a case of men taking my opinion on what constitutes modest aparrel, but of receiving the consistent teaching of the Church down through the ages, a sample of which I gave in my previous post (#24) from Pope Benedict XV. There is no doubt whatsoever that immodest and sexually provocative garments such as the bikini, mini-skirt and tight-fittings jeans, “shocks every honest man and offends God”. Such apparel is “a grave fault against Christian modesty” and so, I would contend, ought to be given a wide-berth by all respectable and God-fearing Catholic women, and I make no apology for stating that.
The problem today, my dear friend, is that there has been a complete loss of moral sense by multitudes of Catholics who have sadly allowed their clothing choices, and much else as well, to be dictated by the godless immoral culture in their midst. This is tragic and we ought to repent in sack cloth and ashes for this moral failure, allowing the credibility of Holy Mother Church to be tarnished by our laxity.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
B
Baelor
Guest
I agree. With this statement you disagree with this earlier one you made:
Good. So the stomach may be shown? How much leg may be shown? If the top is the equivalent of a broad swath of cloth wrapped around the body, is this acceptable? What if the bottom is a skirt? A sheer skirt?
Uhmm…They are very obviously not “objectively” sexual.
I disagree. The fact that they reveal no flesh whatsoever should be enough to remove the claim of indecency, especially if one wears a shirt that covers the crotch area. Women are not bound to hide even the shape of their bodies; that is absurd. Skinny jeans do not inherently draw attention to the legs in the same way that a shirt that looks like it is painted on draws attention to the breasts. Female anatomy is responsible for this fact.
No more “well-formed conscience” arguments, because no one can do anything with them. They amount to claims of self-evidence, which should be demonstrable easily anyway.
I would hope that spiritual maturity enables all individuals to discriminate between what is modest and immodest.
Moral relativism is not the only form of a defective conscience, nor is it even relevant here.
There is doubt. The fact that you personally are offended does not mean that everyone is or should be. This is not even about moral relativism, it is about finding the appropriate objective standard for modesty. Tight-fitting jeans are not immodest.
It is not going to be rectified by anything other than clear, objective, and reasoned discussion of particular aspects of modesty.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Hello again. Thankyou for the above.
Interior purity and chastity will be evidenced by external modesty in dress. Conversely, unseemly and inappropriate clothing choices evince an inner disorder as well as a complete selfish disregard for others.
Of course it is possible that a proud and immoral heart can sometimes be concealed behind a mask of pretended modesty, this I freely admit, my dear friend. However, generally speaking, those who dress with a proper Catholic reserve and avoid seductive style garments, are expressing a pious interior modesty and a sober outlook upon life - “The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation in others” (Christ in Us, Killgallon and Webber, op. cit., emphasis mine). This is only a restatement of traditional Catholic teaching, not some novel opinion.
Those Catholic women who stubbornly refuse to obey the Church’s arduous demands respecting modest attire, ought to remember that modesty in a woman is a sign that Jesus Christ dwells firmly within her heart. It is a sweet perfume of edification which she is called upon to diffuse. Today’s tarty fashions only serve to dishonour and corrupt a Catholic woman and are indicative of the rampant sexualisation of our culture. The aim of such indecent clothing, as everyone knows fully well, is to seduce and stir up concupiscence, to the detriment of the souls beauty, which is surely the true goal of the life of faith. What, pray, does a mini-skirt and bikini have in common with the earnest pursuit of holiness?
May I ask what sort of clothing do you consider immodest and unaceptable for a Catholic woman?
God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
B
Baelor
Guest
Please prove. With data. Because there are far too many variables at play for you to make such an intellectually simplistic statement.
For example, I am over twenty years old. Until this past calendar year I did not even know that men got sexually aroused looking at women in bikinis or whatever, because I have not a single time in my entire life. This, needless to say, probably discernibly, affects my outlook on such matters. Nevertheless, assume a woman of my age has had the same experience. Would this not affect what she wears? It is not unreasonable for people to consider tight-fitting jeans innocuous (as they are, but let us roll with your own belief on them).
There are clearly modesty “borderline” cases. A woman walking out naked is very obviously is a different category than a woman wearing tight-fitting jeans, and for you to equate them in any way – which that statement most certainly does – is as erroneous as it is offensive.
A proscriptive teaching that I espouse fully. Nevertheless, your opinions on modesty are not necessarily direct consequents.
You are asserting motives. Can you prove that the reason women wear bikinis is purely to “seduce and stir up concupiscence?” Please provide a scientific study which demonstrates this for all women. If you cannot, then let it stand that you feel comfortable making moral judgments about other people without proof.
You probably should ask someone else. Staring at a woman naked produces no physiological response in me, so I am not in a position to tell you what leads other men to lust.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Apparently this guy has never heard of Scotland… or cosplaying.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
People who are so eager to judge appearances really disgust me. They took the form of bullies in high-school and even today, my family plays the fashion police with me being the only one on the Most Wanted list.
And guess what? I say this as a GUY. For the love of GOD, can I not wear my baggy pants and hoods without people assuming that I only have nerdy reasons for being anti-social?
Secondly, people whose eyes are so easily drawn in to what people wear need to wake up to just how weak they are. Frankly, they obviously don’t have a lot on their minds (a bad thing by the way, as it implies a lack of thinking that even an idiot like me finds laughable).
My housekeeper isn’t very attractive yet she wears shorts. You want to know how long I stared at them this morning? You can barely call it a glance before my mind got swamped full with other more pressing issues.
It’s the same with other women. My boss wears short skirts yet I spend more time looking at my screen and doing my job (or glancing at her face to make sure she isn’t looking when I finished early and am now writing something else >.>).
- Status