L
LJN21
Guest
Theres always a ton of threads on this topic and I’ve yet to see one on “Proper Dress and Behavior for Catholic Men”. Personal responsblity is good.
- Status
S
Shin
Guest
This isn’t a case of two apples, but apples and oranges.
Men have difficulty with lust of the eyes, women have difficulty with modesty of clothes. Each gender has its particular weakness. There’re a ton of threads about men trying to learn to restrain themselves to better chastity…
Which should drive the point home here of how there is a responsibility to help to help the weaker, a responsibility that binds under sin as well as is a call of charity.
If you want to start a thread about modesty in men’s clothing. It’s perfectly alright to, there needs to be some improvement there too, it is simply not as deadly sinful a matter normally.
I for one would like to see men more often going to mass in suits, it is more respectful. I live in the country. It’s rare here.
Men have difficulty with lust of the eyes, women have difficulty with modesty of clothes. Each gender has its particular weakness. There’re a ton of threads about men trying to learn to restrain themselves to better chastity…
Which should drive the point home here of how there is a responsibility to help to help the weaker, a responsibility that binds under sin as well as is a call of charity.
If you want to start a thread about modesty in men’s clothing. It’s perfectly alright to, there needs to be some improvement there too, it is simply not as deadly sinful a matter normally.
I for one would like to see men more often going to mass in suits, it is more respectful. I live in the country. It’s rare here.
L
LilyM
Guest
Exhibit A - Princess Di, before her engagement, was photographed in what would normally be a VERY modest, calf-length, loose skirt. The photographer, of course, posed her with the sun to her back so that the skirt became somewhat see-through, showing off her legs a little. Result? Instant, HUGE, scandal.
Exhibit B - I personally ALWAYS receive more attention when I wear a skirt (and all my skirts are modest - except one that I bought in a hurry and didn’t check the length when sitting down, noticed the second time I wore it, and am certainly never wearing again) than I ever have in pants.
Perhaps it’s something to do with the fact that I feel more feminine and attractive in a skirt, and therefore give off more of that vibe, that people pick up on. Regardless of the whys and wherefores, skirts are NOT the more modest option for me.
S
Shin
Guest
One of the objective standards is the fabric not be too thin.
I also think Princess Di would have -plenty- of experience with photographers and how it works.
Carelessness about clothing is contrary to the virtue of modesty. A person who possesses it, inspects and chooses clothing that works in the situations the person might expect to be in – sitting down, climbing stairs, what have you… this is normal simple care.
… shall I go on?
I also think Princess Di would have -plenty- of experience with photographers and how it works.
Carelessness about clothing is contrary to the virtue of modesty. A person who possesses it, inspects and chooses clothing that works in the situations the person might expect to be in – sitting down, climbing stairs, what have you… this is normal simple care.
… shall I go on?
L
LilyM
Guest
Princess Di was a nobody - a kindergarten assistant - at the time, and had only just started dating Prince Charles. The opposite of the experienced media hound she became in later years. So no, at that time she would have had next to no experience with professional photographers.One of the objective standards is the fabric not be too thin.
I also think Princess Di would have -plenty- of experience with photographers and how it works.
Carelessness about clothing is contrary to the virtue of modesty. A person who possesses it, inspects and chooses clothing that works in the situations the person might expect to be in – sitting down, climbing stairs, what have you… this is normal simple care.
… shall I go on?
And yeah, if I had hours to shop for every piece of clothing I own I’d do as you suggest. Some of us have lives and have occasionally to shop in a big hurry. Besides which this was before my reversion to Catholicism, not that I have ever been notably immodest in any event.
E
estesbob
Guest
We can wear anything we want! We are men after all!!!
A
AntiNovusOrdo
Guest
Am I the only one out there who thinks that a veil adds to the beauty and mystique of a Catholic Woman? There is something so refreshingly feminine about it. Or am I just being weird here?
L
LilyM
Guest
In other words you want them to wear a veil because it makes them more attractive? What would you say if a woman wanted to wear a halter top or a short skirt because it made HER more attractive?
Just sayin’
…
J
JReducation
Guest
A
AntiNovusOrdo
Guest
LilyM, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. The point that I was making that it’s not as if the veil makes them more attractive in a sexual manner(that would be distractive, and personally I find that sort of thing unappealing), but rather it accentuates the inner beauty of a woman. In another words, when I see women veiled, I automatically think of the Blessed Mother because the veil is symbolic of a woman subordinating herself to the order of God. And whenever this is done, this is beautiful as oppossed to what alot of woman out there who dress provocatively. The last thing that I want in mass is to be distracted, especially by immodest dress as I am too intent on focusing on the Lord. And by the way, what is wrong with beauty in a spiritual setting? God is the author of it, that is why the he commanded that all of what pertained to the Temple in the O.T. (priestly vestments including) to be made with great skill and artistry. Hope this helps.
L
LilyM
Guest
God most surely delights in physical and sensual beauty as well as spiritual, which is why He created flowers which have little other purpose, really, than to delight the eye and the other senses.
So by your logic there certainly should be nothing wrong with PHYSICAL beauty in a spiritual setting either. Which means nothing wrong with women (or men for that matter) who show off their God-given beautiful bodies. Not that their intent be to attract or seduce others, simply to rejoice in God’s creation (their bodies) to His greater glory - like displaying beautiful flowers
There are lots of reasons for veiling, attractiveness is low on the scale.
If you’re thinking about how attractive the woman in front of you is - on their inside or their outside - then you ain’t focusing on God and are in fact being distracted from why you’re there, which is His worship.
A
AntiNovusOrdo
Guest
LilyM,
It seems that you got the general drift of what I was saying, but I think you missed the real point. True spiritual beauty does not, indeed cannot distract from God, but rather pulls the worshipper into a more intimate union with God. Another way of putting it is the fact that amongst all of the beautiful things which go on in a mass, i.e. the liturgy, the incense, the symbolic motions of the hands of the priest,ect., all serve to make the worshipper more intent on God. And the same goes for the spiritual beauty of a veiled woman. It only adds to the gestalt of the spiritual experience. It’s not that I am thinking of women at mass,(i.e.their bodies,the dress that they are wearing,ect.) but rather when I see them, it puts my heart,mind and affections in a more worshipful mode. Am I thinking about incense when I smell it, rather on the Lord? Of course not, because this is one of the many things in the mass which help serve as an aid to worship. The same principle holds true with veiled women. You mentioned that there are alot of reasons for veiling and that attractiveness is on a low scale. You seem to be saying here that there has to be some sort of dichotomy between spiritual beauty and the “other reasons” for veiling. But it is all one, whole and undivided because true beauty “attracts” us to Christ and spiritual things. I can personally attest to this at mass. Let me assure you that I am not “thinking” about women or anything else for that matter. My whole affections and feelings are on God. It’s hard to explain, but in a way I am not even thinking about God. It seems to me that when our rational processes get involved too much, then that destroys(or at least impairs)the spiritual experience. Rather I try to put my whole attitude of being in the mode of expecting great things from the great God at Mass. It is an immersing of ones self in Love and grace of His Majesty. I’ll close by saying that all beauty redounds to the glory and honor of God.
It seems that you got the general drift of what I was saying, but I think you missed the real point. True spiritual beauty does not, indeed cannot distract from God, but rather pulls the worshipper into a more intimate union with God. Another way of putting it is the fact that amongst all of the beautiful things which go on in a mass, i.e. the liturgy, the incense, the symbolic motions of the hands of the priest,ect., all serve to make the worshipper more intent on God. And the same goes for the spiritual beauty of a veiled woman. It only adds to the gestalt of the spiritual experience. It’s not that I am thinking of women at mass,(i.e.their bodies,the dress that they are wearing,ect.) but rather when I see them, it puts my heart,mind and affections in a more worshipful mode. Am I thinking about incense when I smell it, rather on the Lord? Of course not, because this is one of the many things in the mass which help serve as an aid to worship. The same principle holds true with veiled women. You mentioned that there are alot of reasons for veiling and that attractiveness is on a low scale. You seem to be saying here that there has to be some sort of dichotomy between spiritual beauty and the “other reasons” for veiling. But it is all one, whole and undivided because true beauty “attracts” us to Christ and spiritual things. I can personally attest to this at mass. Let me assure you that I am not “thinking” about women or anything else for that matter. My whole affections and feelings are on God. It’s hard to explain, but in a way I am not even thinking about God. It seems to me that when our rational processes get involved too much, then that destroys(or at least impairs)the spiritual experience. Rather I try to put my whole attitude of being in the mode of expecting great things from the great God at Mass. It is an immersing of ones self in Love and grace of His Majesty. I’ll close by saying that all beauty redounds to the glory and honor of God.
L
LilyM
Guest
‘All beauty redounds to the glory and honour of God’? So the beauty of a naked stripper redounds to the glory of God? Of course not. Beauty is a double-edged sword, it can redound to evil purposes since we are free to misuse it.
There IS a very necessary distinction that needs to be drawn between creature and creator. Not to say a dichotomy, but in some cases it necessarily goes that far. We are absolutely not pantheists.
We can NOT offer the latria due to God alone - for example the prayers of the Mass - to any creature. We cannot call Mary or any human being other than Jesus divine or a deity - they are not so!
Now getting back to your original comment, as opposed to the backpedalling and explaining-after-the-fact you’ve been doing since.
What you said in so many words in that original comment, was that women who are veiled possess attractiveness and mystique and femininity. In other words, as the comment clearly showed, THEY (the women) are the apparent end object in and of themselves.
God was not in fact even mentioned, nor was Christ, let alone the idea pur forth that this beauty, attractiveness and mystique served in any way to draw you to God, or in fact to serve any holy or spiritual end in any sense.
“True beauty attracts us to Christ and spiritual things”. By whose definition of the term? Certainly not by yours in your original comment, where as I said Christ and spiritual things were not even mentioned.
There IS a very necessary distinction that needs to be drawn between creature and creator. Not to say a dichotomy, but in some cases it necessarily goes that far. We are absolutely not pantheists.
We can NOT offer the latria due to God alone - for example the prayers of the Mass - to any creature. We cannot call Mary or any human being other than Jesus divine or a deity - they are not so!
Now getting back to your original comment, as opposed to the backpedalling and explaining-after-the-fact you’ve been doing since.
What you said in so many words in that original comment, was that women who are veiled possess attractiveness and mystique and femininity. In other words, as the comment clearly showed, THEY (the women) are the apparent end object in and of themselves.
God was not in fact even mentioned, nor was Christ, let alone the idea pur forth that this beauty, attractiveness and mystique served in any way to draw you to God, or in fact to serve any holy or spiritual end in any sense.
“True beauty attracts us to Christ and spiritual things”. By whose definition of the term? Certainly not by yours in your original comment, where as I said Christ and spiritual things were not even mentioned.
A
AngelaBarbara
Guest
Not trying to hijack the thread, here, but just to respond…I hope this is the case and that the person who told me about it was mistaken. Perhaps I can challenge him on it now if you’re certain there are no stores selling undergarments within the territory itself?
I believed it because he to all appears is an honest person, and it fit with the sorrowful act of Pope John Paul IInd removing the fig leaves and loincloths from the nudes in art, and allow partially nude people to participate in his liturgies due to ‘culture’.
Frankly, when I hear Protestants being scandalized by such things upon visits to Rome, calling it ‘not family friendly’ it bothers me as a Catholic. I had nearly nothing to say.
There are only 3 public entrances to Vatican City; the other 3 entrances are not accessible to the general public, and the Swiss Guard are posted at the entrances to the street areas into the Vatican City walls themselves (the area just around the corner from the entrance to St. Peter’s Square, on the way from the Square to the Vatican Museums). You cannot get into these other three areas by foot, by car, or by any other means unless you belong there. So the only other places in Vatican City that you could go to to buy tourist souvenirs would be the Vatican Museums gift shop (definitely not a place to buy tacky undies), the Vatican Post Office (ditto), the gift shop inside St. Peter’s itself (double ditto) and a gift shop near the fountain outside the Sistine Chapel run by nuns (triple ditto).
Giving your friend the benefit of the doubt, he may not realize that Vatican City ends at the stones in the pavement which border St. Peter’s Square, and that the tacky gift shops across the street from the Square are not part of the Vatican’s territory. It’s not like in other countries (and Vatican City is a country) where there is a formal border and passport controls. There is no sign that says, “You are now leaving Vatican City” as you step out of St. Peter’s Square. He may have gone to the tacky gift shop across the street (if so, I know the one he is talking about, but even there I didn’t see undies for sale…I saw some backscratchers, though!) and been confused about which country he was standing in. I could see how someone would be honestly confused about it. I am very confident that no such suggestive item would be sold in Vatican City; it’s just not in keeping with the culture there.
The only things you really see in the gift shops are mostly items that are religious (statues, rosaries, medals, etc), educational (books about history, religion, and art), stationery (postcards, cards, pens, calendars, erasers, etc) and the kind of mementos that you see in every secular non-tacky gift shop (tea towels, coin purses, T-shirts, small puzzles). I may be lacking some categories, but you get the picture. I didn’t see anything disrespectful or obnoxious like shirts that said, “Someone went to the Vatican and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”, or “I’m with stupid → in Vatican City”, and certainly no undergarments of any sort. In fact, I didn’t even see tank tops at the Vatican gift shops, which makes sense, because you can’t enter the buildings there wearing one; your shoulders must be covered, period.
I’ll be there again in October of this year…I’ll look again and give you a full report upon my return!
Remind me, though, or I might forget who to PM regarding the subject.As far as Rome not being “family friendly” I have no idea what others may be talking about. Yes, Rome has lots of graffiti (they invented the word, heh
) but I never saw people acting or dressing immodestly, or doing anything else that might cause offense due to immodesty. The only thing I will mention is that some of the magazines on the newsstands are very racy by our standards, but you really have to be looking pretty closely to see that, and you wouldn’t even notice it unless you stopped at a newsstand to get Italian language periodicals. I could see how kids might be bored in Rome, so maybe in that respect it’s not “family friendly.” Naked statues to me fall under the realm of “art,” but maybe some would be offended.
A
AntiNovusOrdo
Guest
Lilym, I don’t know how else to put it. Iv’e explained myself as much as I could possibly could. For some strange reason you seem to refuse to understand what I am saying(either willingly or by some blind spot, who knows?). You have grossly taken the words in my post out of context and imposed a meaning that is certaintly not my own. I think there are plenty of people on this thread who would definitely agree with the thoughts on my posts.What more can I possibly say? I don’t like the unneccessary combative tone in your last post, as I have said nothing to you to warrant it. It is unconstructive and uncharitable and not conducive to a fruitful dialogue in which people can exchange ideas in good faith, both sides seeking to understand. Now I have nothing personally against you, so it would be greatly appreciated if you would adopt a kindlier more moderate approach and I will glady keep on responding. But if not, then I will have to end it right here.
H
happymommy
Guest
Ok…proper dress for men…
NO short, shorts, very scary!!
No black socks and sandals!!!
I’d say no sandals at all, but I’ll get yelled at by someone so I’ll say, if you insist on wearing sandals, please trim toenails and put some lotion on your feet…dry feet are yucky to look at
If you wear a shrit with buttons, button them up past your chest!! No chest hair peaking out!
NO skin tight jeans, not a good look on anyone…
no sweatpants out in public, again, not a good look on anyone…
No baggy pants that hang down and we see your underwear, that being said, if you choose to wear baggy pants PLEASE remember to wear underwear!!!
Please trim all nose and ear hair
and if you are like my father’s preacher and have crazy eyebrows, please trim those as well ( really the man looks like he has caterpillars on his head)That’s all I can think of right now. If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to let you know. Hope this helps
B
brigid12
Guest
I agree, however I think that it (unfortunately) causes some to have some very uncharitable thoughts so I wonder about my wearing it. I much prefer to express my humility to the Lord outwardly also, however I don’t want my wearing a veil to be the reason for others to feel I’m being “holier than thou”.
Oh, right. I forgot Coldwater Creek.
Good to know they’re pricing them better now (I hope it’s not just for tax season, tho’).I’ll bet that the fashion pendulum will swing back and stores start carrying more dresses soon, plus when we get warmer weather stores always stock more dresses and skirts.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
You forgot one–no Speedos.Ok…proper dress for men…
NO short, shorts, very scary!!
No black socks and sandals!!!
I’d say no sandals at all, but I’ll get yelled at by someone so I’ll say, if you insist on wearing sandals, please trim toenails and put some lotion on your feet…dry feet are yucky to look at
If you wear a shrit with buttons, button them up past your chest!! No chest hair peaking out!
NO skin tight jeans, not a good look on anyone…
no sweatpants out in public, again, not a good look on anyone…
No baggy pants that hang down and we see your underwear, that being said, if you choose to wear baggy pants PLEASE remember to wear underwear!!!
Please trim all nose and ear hair
That’s all I can think of right now. If I think of anything else I’ll be sure to let you know. Hope this helps
H
happymommy
Guest
oh dear!! How could I forget thatYou forgot one–no Speedos.
Another thing that doesn’t look good on anyone… SPANDEX
5
57classic
Guest
Have you considered that getting under a skirt is a lot easier than getting a pair of jeans down???Ditch the jeans for a long skirt. The pants vs. dresses issue aside – they simply cling too close generally.
Also, frankly, the crotches and backsides are emphasized wearing them. They’re pretty much impossible to wear because of this alone, even if you go totally baggy.
He is wrong to say and do as he does, but you too need to look to a wardrobe fix.
- Status