Priest says makeup is a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ashleyxo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LightBound said:
And all men should dress like Jesus šŸ˜ƒ

Sola Skirtura is not a Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Of course, Sola Scriptura is not catholic teaching. The article contains the following

THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS. WHAT ARE THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS?
ā€œA dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingersā€™ 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.ā€ (The Cardinal vicar of Pope Pius XI)

1.Marylike is modest without compromise, ā€œlike Maryā€, Christā€™s Mother.

2.Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees. (NOTE: Because of market conditions, quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.)

3.Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.

4.Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics, laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.

5.Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh colored fabrics.

6.Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.

7.Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed and after assuming a sitting position.

Iā€™m sure there are dresses available I market which are not exactly Mother Mary like but still meets the above description.

Modesty in dressing usually applies to women, not that it doesnā€™t to men.

Remember your priest? he wears Jesus like dress. I donā€™t know looking at him makes you grin.
 
jackydarapper said:
Mild make up shouldnā€™t be concern. But I believe, the Priest wouldā€™ve meant it for using excessive make up to attract men or women. All women should dress like Mother Mary. Check this link:catholicmodesty.com/MarylikeStandardsofModestyinDress.html
Click to expand...
There is nothing inherently virtuous about dressing like someone from first century Palestine.
Mary was from first century Palestine and of course wore what she wore because that was the fashion at the time, not because it was virtuous.

Now if you are talking about Mary as queen of Heaven, where do we get the sun to clothe us along with a crown of twelve stars? Not at the local Target. šŸ˜ƒ
 
Sarcelle said:
There is nothing inherently virtuous about dressing like someone from first century Palestine.
Mary was from first century Palestine and of course wore what she wore because that was the fashion at the time, not because it was virtuous.

Now if you are talking about Mary as queen of Heaven, where do we get the sun to clothe us along with a crown of twelve stars? Not at the local Target. šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
Hereā€™s another link for you to understand what Iā€™m saying.

catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm

There are many different ways in which we can sin or cause others to sin such as: our words, actions, neglects and immorality; however, in this day and age the most frequent way we cause ourselves to sin is by our immorality by being immodestly dressed.

Sexual self-consciousness, shame and the covering up of the body follow the Fall in the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:25; 3:7; 3:10-11). The wisdom of biblical literature warns against the snares of feminine shamelessness (Prov.2:16;5:3; 7:5-27). In the New Testament modesty in looks, words and general behavior is inculcated (Matt. 5:28; Eph. 5:3-20; 2 Peter 2:14). General sexual modesty - ā€œa gentle and quiet spiritā€ - sshould characterize the Christian woman (1 Tim. 2:9-12; 1 Peter 3:1-6)

Saint Thomas treated modesty (pudicitia) as a part of chastity, not a distinct virtue from it. All kinds of things could be and were considered in St. Thomasā€™ context - words, looks, touches, embraces, kisses, fantasies, the nude in art, dress, reading, bathing, dancing, theatrical shows in recent times, movies and television shows (Before Vatican II, each year we had to stand up in Church and Make a vow to God not to go to indecent movies which consisted of anything that was on the Banned List at the back of the Church which would now be ratings such as PG, R, X, XX, XXX. Are these vows being made in any Church now?)

There is a saying that in proportion to the amount of flesh mortal sin seems to increase. This being the case, one would assume that at least our Catholic women and girls would have the good sense to ALWAYS wear clothes that tend to conceal, rather than reveal or call attention to the body. This moral dress code should be Universal, just as our Church is Universal or Catholic. There should be no excuse for moral dress codes being different just because a person lives in a different country; either a person is dressed decently or he is not! True Roman Catholics should wear decent clothes that would show they are conscious to the fact their bodies are ā€œtemples of the Holy Ghostā€. ā€¦ read more from the mentioned link.

If youā€™re still not getting my point, I donā€™t know if you ever will.

God Bless You
:getholy:
 
ashleyxo said:
Recently, during a youth talk in my parish, a priest told us that wearing makeup-if it looks obvious-is a sin if itā€™s not worn only on special occasions. :eek: I never heard this before but everyone seemed to agree. Could someone clarify? I always see girls with cosmetics on.
Click to expand...
Wearing make-up per se is NOT a sin!
 
jackydarapper said:
Of course, Sola Scriptura is not catholic teaching. The article contains the following

THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS. WHAT ARE THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS?
ā€œA dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingersā€™ 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.ā€ (The Cardinal vicar of Pope Pius XI)

1.Marylike is modest without compromise, ā€œlike Maryā€, Christā€™s Mother.

2.Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees. (NOTE: Because of market conditions, quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.)

3.Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.

4.Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics, laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.

5.Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh colored fabrics.

6.Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.

7.Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed and after assuming a sitting position.

Iā€™m sure there are dresses available I market which are not exactly Mother Mary like but still meets the above description.

Modesty in dressing usually applies to women, not that it doesnā€™t to men.

Remember your priest? he wears Jesus like dress. I donā€™t know looking at him makes you grin.
Click to expand...
Oh boyā€¦you are new to these kinds of threads, arenā€™t you? Every time modesty comes up, some well-intended person posts a link to a site that insists women shouldnā€™t be wearing pants because they are immodest, menā€™s clothing, or that every man is some poor idiot that canā€™t help but look at a womenā€™s crotch because of the lines created when sheā€™s wearing pants. Hence my comment about the Church not being ā€œsola skirturaā€ Along with those sentiments are that women should dress like the Blessed Mother, so my comment and grin was towards the idea that if all women need to dress like Mary, all men should dress like Jesus didā€¦and Jesus didnā€™t wear trousers, jeans, or a business suit. Do you get it now? Also, please be cautious about posting links to certain sites when it comes to ā€œmodestyā€ā€¦many are very critical, if not downright hostile, about the Mass in Ordinary Form, Vatican ll, the present and past few Popes. In other words, they are not faithful to the Magesterium and posting links to such pages are against forum rules.
 
jackydarapper said:
Honestly, I wanted to ignore the typo. But, it now made me laugh :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Glad you got itā€¦it was not a typoā€¦the Catholic Church has no official teaching against women wearing pants, so they arenā€™t ā€œskirts aloneā€ when it comes to ladiesā€¦even inside the Vatican Churches:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Since we can hope and pray that modesty (in terms of clothes) derail has been wrapped up, we can get back on track with the OP regarding the use of cosmetics.

Leah Darrow would be an excellent Catholic role model for young women when it comes to makeup (among other things young Catholic ladies are interested in and encounter in their daily lives). She is faithful to the Magesterium, too!

leahdarrow.com/
 
Lea101;14509674 said:
I personally think the priest said that because he personally does not like the idea of it (some think makeup is an insult to God).
Click to expand...

To be completely honest,so do I.
Iā€™ve seen many photos of women meeting Pope Francis or Pope John Paul II wearing make up (ncluding Queen Elizabeth) and Iā€™ve never heard them say anything like what this priest said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top