C
- Status
R
RedSoxWife
Guest
No one is arguing that we shouldn’t all be charitable and kind and prayerfully live our lives following God’s will. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if the outside also reflected the inner conversion that was taking place all the while? They aren’t mutually exclusive!
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
I probably shouldn’t do this, but I’m a bit tempted to be a devil’s advocate here.
For some reason, St. Francis (of Assisi, not St. Francis de Sales whose sense of decorum would have rebelled at such a display, I’m sure
) has been in my mind today. And I feel like wickedly pointing out that at the climax of his conversion, St. Francis was stark naked - not exactly modest!(And St. Bonaventure, of course, makes sure no one misses the point that this stripping of Francis’ clothing corresponded to his stripping himself of everything in order to follow God.)
But, in all seriousness, I object to Colleen Hammond and to the priest in the OP, not because they promote modesty, but because they seem to me to make clothing a matter of much more importance than it really is.
I think it’s pretty clear that most of the saints wore the ordinary clothing of their day, as their state in life (and even their social class) dictated-- whether they were religious, free, slaves, kings, middle-class, or poor.
Absolutely there should be standards of modesty, but those are naturally defined by the culture in which one lives. Thus it is reasonable to expect that people in this day and age refrain from wearing clothing that appear to flaunt (within this culture) those areas of the human body that this culture sexualizes.
But I simply cannot see what is accomplished by demanding that modesty means dressing in the custom of people from a particular time period in a particular culture (and of a certain class!) in the past. This is placing undue importance on externals.
S
Shin
Guest
St. Gianna died for the sake of her child’s life in the womb, taking a more risky surgery rather than the abortion and less risky surgery.
Saints are made saints for various reasons, and if you took a photo of St. Augustine at some points in his life – it would not be a good photo or example. They can have serious imperfections, depending on the path they took, and sometimes only come their greatest holiness at the end. I don’t know St. Gianna but there is this. In most of her photos she is wearing a dress I will also note.
Here is the official notification from Cardinal Siri:
“When we see a woman in trousers [that is, pants], we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.”
The first signs of our late arriving spring indicate this year a certain increase in the use of men’s dress by girls and women, even mothers of families. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now there seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing, at least on pleasure trips, to wear men’s dress [men’s trousers - that is, slacks/pants]. The spreading of this behavior obliges us to give serious consideration to the subject, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly give this problem all the attention it deserves, as befits those aware of being answerable to God… The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly, it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly, it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children’s eyes… In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men’s dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man’. Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside. Then let us add that a woman wearing men’s dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it were inferior [to masculinity] when in fact it is only diverse. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident. These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men’s dress… Experience teaches us that when woman is de-feminized, defenses are undermined and weakness increases… The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and - in the long run - irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted. Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother’s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem is determined more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women? Why, we ask, ever since men have been men - or rather since they became civilized - why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to differentiate and divide the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man? To sum up, wherever women wear men’s dress, it is be considered a factor, over the long term, in disintegrating human order."
(Notification Concerning Men’s Dress Worn by Women, Cardinal Siri, 1960 A.D.
“A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.”
(Deut. 22:5)
“By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 inches below the knee. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to confession.” [Sign on door of (St.) Padre Pio’s church]
“[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 material are improper” [Sacred Congregation of the Council (under Pope Pius XI), January 12, 1930]
**
S
Shin
Guest
“Yet, no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin.” (Pope Pius XII, “Moral Problems in Fashion Design”, 1957)
“More basically, the immorality of some styles depends in great part on excesses either of immodesty or luxury. An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization.” (Pope Pius XII, “Moral Problems in Fashion Design”, 1957)
Matters of cultural change that are erroneous or problematic are not always picked up on, even by those in high office.
It takes a real sense of prudence and caution to realize what is happening and go against the times.
I think it is hard or impossible in the true sense of it, to go too far with modesty. And I have not I think, known people yet, who have ever striven for modesty as if it were a treasure beyond price, which it is.
But I wish to know such people.
“More basically, the immorality of some styles depends in great part on excesses either of immodesty or luxury. An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization.” (Pope Pius XII, “Moral Problems in Fashion Design”, 1957)
Matters of cultural change that are erroneous or problematic are not always picked up on, even by those in high office.
It takes a real sense of prudence and caution to realize what is happening and go against the times.
I think it is hard or impossible in the true sense of it, to go too far with modesty. And I have not I think, known people yet, who have ever striven for modesty as if it were a treasure beyond price, which it is.
But I wish to know such people.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
I’m not trying to start an argument
; for the purpose of simply explaining what the priest meant, I shall remain opinionless. You are free to agree/disagree with the priest; that is not my concern. Someone did not understand what the priest said so I just wanted to clarify. What don’t you understand about the priest’s logic? Perhaps if I put it this way, with what I understand to be the priest’s thoughts in red:Heterosexual activity is not intrinsically evil, but can be; homosexual activity is never good. Heterosexual activity can be wrong depending on the context and status of the persons involved.
The same way, the priest meant to say that for women the sinfulness of wearing a dress/skirt/blouse depends on many factors including modesty, while it is always a sin to wear pants.
You may not agree with that, and there could be many reasons to argue against it. I just felt that when someone said that there was a lack of understanding that it ought to be clarified; does it make sense now (again, you can still disagree with him but does the trail of thought make sense)?
Pax.
O
Ohiomom
Guest
Everyone has to answer to God regarding how they live. Women in western culture lived and worked in skirts for years doing much more labor intensive work and with no central air conditioning. When you look at the changes in culture, religion, morals in the 21st century I just think that it can be valuable question some of the things we may have grown up doing without thinking such as wearing pants.
A
adstrinity
Guest
I understand the reasons for skirts in the past, a woman could squat and pee, but, modernly, a dress is much more cumbersome what with the invention of indoor plumbing.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
Uh-huh…
IMO…a sin is a sin is a*** sin.***To equate what a person wears with the sins of sodomy and fornication is extreme to say the least. I still have to wonder what is going through that priest’s mind to insult members of his parish such as he did. He should be more concerned with their souls than what they wear…keeping in mind that we are NOT talking about short shorts and low cut tank tops which are clearly objectionable in church…but which I HAVE seen in my NO parish.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
Saints are made saints because they practiced heroic virtue. Sometimes this practice of virtue came after a great conversion from a life of sin, as in the case of St. Augustine.
Your post made me curious and I looked up St. Gianna Molla. I do not think it is fair to compare her to St. Augustine. She apparently lived the virtues throughout her life. Evidence of this (besides the information you can find here in JPII’s Homily at her canonization) is that she was made a confessor (somebody correct me if this is the incorrect term) and not a martyr. That is to say, I believe, the Church calls us to imitate her life (not just the manner of her death.)
And this is a woman who occasionally wore (modest) pants!
Frankly, my understanding is, the decline in sexual mores in Western Civilization did not begin in the 21st century or even the 20th, but in the 19th century. And they had very little to do with fashion. Rather the groundwork for the sexual revolution was laid, when Protestants (the majority of American society, and some European societies) stopped considering children a good in marriage, and started embracing contraception.
This laid the foundation not only for the “sex without strings” attitude we encounter today, but for the notion that children are to be avoided and for the eugenicist philosophies of Planned Parenthood and their ilk. The tart-y fashions we see today (and pants do not have to be tart-y, and some skirts are very tart-y) are the reflection of our decline, not the cause.
Which is not to say that choosing to witness your faith by dressing in a way that you feel upholds better standards even than are considered modest within your society is bad-- quite the reverse!
I don’t, however, think it is a good or true to thing to imply that everyone else ought to take up this practice on pain of sin.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Sorry, but I have never in my whole life seen a whore that wore pants. They wear dresses, because dresses attract men for sex.
The “problem” with pants is that they make women look gender-neutral - not sexy.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
And the priest’s point is that he views it as a sin. I’m kind of middle-of-the-road on the issue myself but the priest’s point is that (provinding that wearing pants is a sin; this is the questionable part) the sins of wearing immodest but clearly feminine clothing and wearing pants are comparable respectively to fornication and homosexual acts. Now, he could have said it more nicely and clearly, but it obviously to get people to start talking about it; if something is not talked about there is no way it will ever be resolved one way or the other. He should be most concerned with their souls. Not taking care to dress appropriately can lead others and oneself into sin (although this is from immodesty rather than pants). So the clothes one wears do matter; whether pants do or do not generally or do or do not depending on specific circumstances is the question up for debate here, which I am not attempting to answer. Someone seemed confused about the priest’s trail of thought so I sought to clarify. I’m not here to argue the priest’s side. Nor am I here to argue against it; just explain it.Uh-huh…
To equate what a person wears with the sins of sodomy and fornication is extreme to say the least. I still have to wonder what is going through that priest’s mind to insult members of his parish such as he did. He should be more concerned with their souls than what they wear…keeping in mind that we are NOT talking about short shorts and low cut tank tops which are clearly objectionable in church…but which I HAVE seen in my NO parish.
Pax.
L
Lainey63
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping:Sorry Shin but with all due respect, I must strongly disagree with you
In this world of “appearances” when seaming is a lot more important than being, no doubt your argument of “how you look outside reflects what you are inside” may be sustained…
But precisely what makes us christians and Catholics (and therefore, ave raris for most) is that we dont stop in “seams”
How many times the Holy Bible quotes Jesus reproaching Phariseas for “looking” but not being holy?
So more than worrying about what Mrs. Doe or Mss. Jeannie wore on Sunday Mass you should attend how the soul is…
A mere suggestion: Instead of preaching girls to wear skirts and boys trousers why dont we try harder to preach on the real sense of chastity, on the Sacraments, etc?
It’s close time we start BEING Catholics and not work so hard in LOOKING like someone’s idea of them
O
Ohiomom
Guest
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
I think here we will have to agree to disagree, as I imagine my interpretation of and attitude towards Fatima (and toward private revelation in general) is not consonant with yours.
Suffice it to say, my only point was that I don’t think fashions and morality (particularly sexual morality) are quite as closely linked as you suggested in your original post— as the well-covered and outwardly upright Victorians (even before the Lambeth Conference in 1930s) were happily embracing the seeds of our current moral decline.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
I understand perfectly what you were doing. Despite your explanation, what the priest said does not make sense to me, although I can see what he is trying to say. In the first place, adultrey, although heterosexual in nature, is intrinsically evil–hence the Commandment against it. Fornication is intrinsically evil. Both of these are heterosexual acts, but are intrinsically evil in themselves. Same with homosexual acts or bestiality. They are all intrinsically evil in themselves. There are no mitigating factors. But a piece of clothing is morally neutral–how it is worn or used can be evil or not, as you said, depending on many factors. Clothing in itself is not intrinsically evil. That’s where he loses me. An intrinsic evil is an intrinsic evil, whether it is an unnatural act or not. The act, in itself, is evil. But pants are not intrinsically evil. He has no business trying to compare the two.I’m not trying to start an argument
Heterosexual activity is not intrinsically evil, but can be; homosexual activity is never good. Heterosexual activity can be wrong depending on the context and status of the persons involved.
The same way, the priest meant to say that for women the sinfulness of wearing a dress/skirt/blouse depends on many factors including modesty, while it is always a sin to wear pants.
You may not agree with that, and there could be many reasons to argue against it. I just felt that when someone said that there was a lack of understanding that it ought to be clarified; does it make sense now (again, you can still disagree with him but does the trail of thought make sense)?
Pax.
In reality, all this priest is saying is that he doesn’t like pants on women and thinks pants are sinful. He is just trying to justify his position, and making no sense in doing it. I think his analogy is faulty. So my answer is still no, and has nothing to do with whether I agree or not.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
I am incredulous. If I am understanding this thread correctly, there are folks who believe that the act of a woman wearing slacks or shorts instead of a skirt or dress is a sin? Is that correct? If that is so, then in their opinion, I’ve been sinning nearly every day for the past ten years or so since it has probably been about that long since I’ve regularly worn a skirt or dress and I’ve sinned since by simply getting dressed in the morning? Do I understand that correctly? If that is so and my understanding is correct, I am incredulous. Wow. That is just…well, a very odd concept to me.
S
slyboots
Guest
stores.shop.ebay.com/Bohemian-Groove__W0QQ_armrsZ1QQ_fsubZ19053157
On Ebay large size womens clothing. Yeah it’s bohemian. But it is feminine and suitable to be worn to Mass.
On Ebay large size womens clothing. Yeah it’s bohemian. But it is feminine and suitable to be worn to Mass.
O
Ohiomom
Guest
I actually don’t think it is an if=then proposition but I a lot of current fashions and morality as growing out and a consequence of the general changes in a variety of areas (music, politics, religion, movies, families, right movements etc) that have taken place in our world.
J
JSSebastianoP
Guest
I’m sorry I misunderstood you
. I was trying to be neutral, so when you started writing to me to attack the priest’s position, I tried to explain myself. I think that the priest really does think he’s doing it for the best (even if in actuality he’s not). And I agree about the clothes not being intrinsically evil; that’s why the debate is going on… But as strange as it sounds we are talking about the act of women wearing pants. I think that we would both agree that (again, cultures differ) in our Western culture it would be sinful for a man to wear a dress or a skirt (with the exception of kilts/togae for certain cultural/temporal divides). And we would probably also agree that a woman should not wear a man’s clothes (correct me if I’m wrong). So, in reality what we are debating about is (in the Western world or the world in general - two different questions) are pants men’s clothes or women’s clothes or both? That is really the debate going on - that of the semantic application of ‘pants’. I hope someday, the matter will be settled one way or the other…Pax.
Pax.
- Status