Proper Dress and Behavior for Catholic Women

[Matrix_Refugee]

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.

Agreed. For once I’d like to see a thread discussing this sort of thing, with topics like, say…

–Wearing a nice suit and a tie to Mass (I’ve always been attracted to Mormon guys, not that I’d go out with them, but I always think to myself, “Why can’t Catholic men dress as nicely as their Mormon brethren?”)

–Being more attentive to personal hygiene (Guys, no matter how much cologne or Axe you put on, it does not cover the smell of not taking a shower for a few days. Trust me. No woman wants a guy who smells like a clothes hamper.)

–Eating right, whether it’s to stay healthy or to overcome bad health decisions (Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit; build it up with the right materials. Real women don’t find beer guts attractive).

–Common courtesy (which has sadly become uncommon)

–Modesty of the eyes (Please, don’t check out the other chicks if you’ve got a lady with you. We really hate that. We do. Nothing kills the moment like seeing you eying that little tootsie in the tight dress when you don’t think we can see you doing it. Pornography comes under this, too.)

–Treating a woman like she exists above her collarbone (I know too many sophomoric guys who want to have a bunch of kids and think that’s all there is to married love as a Catholic, and are as clueless about women as their lower-standard cousins who just want to copulate as much as they can. Real women have minds, and a real man will find and marry a woman who cultivates her mind as well as her body. Simply put: go ahead and talk to that quiet, geeky girl with the glasses, carrying the stack of books).

 

[LoveVatican2]

Having said that, there is a limit to what a woman can do without giving up more than it is appropriate to give up.

I don’t think you’re taking this far enough. Women shouldn’t have to give anything up! Haven’t you ever heard the old adage, “never give up?” It’s just as applicable to dress as it is to sports.

Women should just wear whatever (if anything) they want. If other people have problems with it, that’s tough.

 

[Ottaviani]

I don’t think you’re taking this far enough. Women shouldn’t have to give anything up! Haven’t you ever heard the old adage, “never give up?” It’s just as applicable to dress as it is to sports.

Women should just wear whatever (if anything) they want. If other people have problems with it, that’s tough.

really? How about wearing something really scandalous and diverting attention from the sacrifice of the Mass. That’d be cool:thumbsup:

 

[Extempore]

Women should just wear whatever (if anything) they want. If other people have problems with it, that’s tough.

Good! I was starting to worry that folks might become “insulted” by my tasteful fig-leaf hippy earth kilt…

You have taken a load off my mind.

 

[Ottaviani]

Good! I was starting to worry that folks might become “insulted” by my tasteful fig-leaf hippy earth kilt…

You have taken a load off my mind.

Exactly how many fig leaves are you talking about here

 

[Extempore]

Exactly how many fig leaves are you talking about here

Do you have a problem with the number?

Tough!

 

[Ottaviani]

Do you have a problem with the number?

Tough!

You’re right. Don’t give anything up!

 

[ConservativeOne]

Here’s a little quote from that catholicplanet.com site:

<<Hillary Clinton will be U.S. President, under God’s Providence, but for the sake of the unborn, not because God wants women to lead men. She will be President by the time of the Warning in April of 2009, and she will change her mind about abortion and become pro-life.>>

'Nuff said?

1. WOW! Where on that website did you see THAT posted?
2. I will say the facts about Padre Pio are true. He used to advise that women burn their pants (if I got it right). And there have been pamphlets on “Marylike Dress” - printed / distributed with Catholic Church Bishop’s Imprimatur - long before websites. Women are instructed to dress modestly in a female dress code, wearing pants ONLY for sport events that require. Shorts, below the knee. No sleeveless dresses.

It’s frightening - thinking how we justify what we do, in all innocence - perhaps wanting to be comfortable/fashionable - not wanting to offend God - but probably do.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think you’re taking this far enough. Women shouldn’t have to give anything up! Haven’t you ever heard the old adage, “never give up?” It’s just as applicable to dress as it is to sports.

Women should just wear whatever (if anything) they want. If other people have problems with it, that’s tough.

No. If you go back to St. Paul’s teaching concerning meat that has been sacrificed to idols, he says we are bound to refrain even from that which we are at liberty to have when we will scandalize the weaker ones by having it. Even though we are freed by grace, we must sometimes freely allow ourselves to be yoked by charity.

If I were in a parish with what I considered an extreme standard of modesty, I would not comply with the norm because I believed I was bound to do so by modesty, but I might very well comply because I felt bound to do so by charity towards those who would be scandalized by what I knew to be permissible.

Does that make sense?

 

[LJN21]

1. WOW! Where on that website did you see THAT posted?
2. I will say the facts about Padre Pio are true. He used to advise that women burn their pants (if I got it right). And there have been pamphlets on “Marylike Dress” - printed / distributed with Catholic Church Bishop’s Imprimatur - long before websites. Women are instructed to dress modestly in a female dress code, wearing pants ONLY for sport events that require. Shorts, below the knee. No sleeveless dresses.

It’s frightening - thinking how we justify what we do, in all innocence - perhaps wanting to be comfortable/fashionable - not wanting to offend God - but probably do.

An Imprimatur doesn’t mean he was right that pants are evil, just that the opinion pants are evil doesn’t go against Church teaching. I find it really hard to believe God is offended by mere cloths, instead I think God is offend when people dress like a hooker to attract that kind of attention and I think he is offended when Men can’t control their eyes.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

1. I will say the facts about Padre Pio are true. He used to advise that women burn their pants (if I got it right). And there have been pamphlets on “Marylike Dress” - printed / distributed with Catholic Church Bishop’s Imprimatur - long before websites. Women are instructed to dress modestly in a female dress code, wearing pants ONLY for sport events that require. Shorts, below the knee. No sleeveless dresses.

If anyone told me to burn my pants, I’d tell him about the times the wind caught under my skirts or the time that a guy at work peeked up under my hemline when I was standing on a ladder.

Come to think of it, many traditional Asian garments (Chinese and Pakistanti, for instance, and I remember seeing a photo of Shinto shrine maidens in Japan wearing these lovely tunic/pants combinations) for women include modest pants of some sort.

And that phrase “Marylike clorhing” always makes me wonder “What do mean by that? A long flowing robe with bare feet or sandals with golden roses on them? Not very practical if you’re working or you’re not used to it.” I want to think I heard a funny story about a garment manufacturer back in the 1940s, that was run by some Jewish people, who decided to cater to the Catholics by producing a line of women’s clothing that they called “Marylike”!

 

[estesbob]

Exactly how many fig leaves are you talking about here

666

 

[Salonika]

EasterJoy:

If I were in a parish with what I considered an extreme standard of modesty, I would not comply with the norm because I believed I was bound to do so by modesty, but I might very well comply because I felt bound to do so by charity towards those who would be scandalized by what I knew to be permissible.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but that’s not what I would do or I would end up with two dress codes one for Church and one for the rest of the time. And why? Because I do not believe that particular items of clothing are evil in themselves and because in some situations wearing"female dress" can be immodest.
I am not prepared not to do tasks around the house because pants are immodest to some. Nor am I prepared not to go walking in the bush or visit the sights because my skirt may blow up and cause some one to be scandalised. I’m not prepared to give up riding my bike on the road.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, but that’s not what I would do or I would end up with two dress codes one for Church and one for the rest of the time. And why? Because I do not believe that particular items of clothing are evil in themselves and because in some situations wearing"female dress" can be immodest.
I am not prepared not to do tasks around the house because pants are immodest to some. Nor am I prepared not to go walking in the bush or visit the sights because my skirt may blow up and cause some one to be scandalised. I’m not prepared to give up riding my bike on the road.

St. Paul was particularly clear that a Christian might have one set of dietary standards in one setting and a different one elsewhere, depending on the demands of charity.

But you are right. I would choose clothes so as not to scandalize, but I would defend those whom I think dress modestly, if they were attacked. I couldn’t sit still and let someone defame another person who wasn’t doing anything wrong. I don’t think St. Paul would allow it, either. I would have to admit, “I dress like this because dressing less strictly would be too likely to upset or scandalize you.” In fact, if the attack on the innocent person were too severe, I might have to start dressing the same way she does, so as to not leave her to suffer unjust scorn alone.

Again, you have to serve charity’s demands first, whether or not that sends the stones in your own direction.

Sorry, though: I wouldn’t wear bike pants to church for you! Come to think of it, maybe not even on a bike!! (Sometimes, vanity and extreme modesty chart the same course!)

 

[Salonika]

EasterJoy:

Sorry, though: I wouldn’t wear bike pants to church for you! Come to think of it, maybe not even on a bike!!

Don’t worry the bike ride would be after Church - wouldn’t bike to church because I could end up all sticky and this wouldn’t be very pleasant for the people around me.

 

[LoveVatican2]

No. If you go back to St. Paul’s teaching concerning meat that has been sacrificed to idols, he says we are bound to refrain even from that which we are at liberty to have when we will scandalize the weaker ones by having it. Even though we are freed by grace, we must sometimes freely allow ourselves to be yoked by charity.

If I were in a parish with what I considered an extreme standard of modesty, I would not comply with the norm because I believed I was bound to do so by modesty, but I might very well comply because I felt bound to do so by charity towards those who would be scandalized by what I knew to be permissible.

Does that make sense?

Don’t use that condescending tone, it does not become you.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Here in the very cold northern Rockies, modesty at Mass is not a problem because everyone is bundled up for about nine months of the year. However, asking women to wear a flimsy dress with just pantyhose to cover their legs while the men get to wear woolen pants would be downright cruel. I go proudly to Mass in a nice pant suit and long underwear and I don’t think God is offended. After all, He is in charge of the weather.

 

[57classic]

Don’t use that condescending tone, it does not become you.

I read and re-read what you quoted. It didn’t appear condescending to me.
I think what Easter Joy was trying to say was just as at a formal dinner party, if the host sees a guest make a mistake, say with the silverware, the compassionate host will do the same as will all civilized guests, in order that the less knowledgeable guest will not feel shame.
Easter Joy, am I close?

 

[Marie22]

**Oh I love this thread because its really hard for me, being a High School student and being in a public school environment and dressing modest. But for me - my parents raised me to respect myself not only in the way I dress but also in how I act.

So for me - modesty is just getting the right size for your body whether your a small, medium or large. And for pants something not to tight but also not to baggy - for me I buy pants some what tight because as the day goes on they loosen up! I personally take pride in what I wear everyday and I think its fun… And that’s why when I go to college I am planning on studying Fashion Design and really promote modesty.

Also I am not a big fan of long skirts, I think either a little above the knee or slightly below it.

Marie22 **

 

[EasterJoy]

I read and re-read what you quoted. It didn’t appear condescending to me.
I think what Easter Joy was trying to say was just as at a formal dinner party, if the host sees a guest make a mistake, say with the silverware, the compassionate host will do the same as will all civilized guests, in order that the less knowledgeable guest will not feel shame.
Easter Joy, am I close?

Well, kind of, except I wouldn’t go so far as to say that people with stricter or less strict standards of modesty than what I have are necessarily mistaken. We are not living in times when our standards are so nicely laid out as that. I do the best I can, but I’m not claiming to own the gold standard.

I’m not talking about a situation where the person is just an eccentric dresser, let alone that she’s wearing something I thought just plain morally wrong. I’m talking about a situation where she is being made to suffer, where she’s getting the cold shoulder, that kind of thing, for wearing clothes that I do not think are immodest, even if they are less strict than the prevailing standard. There is avoiding giving scandal to others who have stricter standards, which is a good, and then there is enabling those who are self-righteously and viciously judgemental, which is no longer good.

And this could go both ways. If I were at a parish where no one ever wore a mantilla and then someone showed up wearing one and was getting disapproving stares and snide remarks, then I’d consider wearing one, too. If she’s done nothing wrong, if she’s getting judgment she doesn’t deserve and in an uncharitable manner, if talking to those who are giving her trouble doesn’t do anything, she should not be allowed to suffer alone.

Don’t use that condescending tone, it does not become you.

I didn’t mean to be condescending, espcially by the “does that make sense?”. It’s just that I realize that what makes sense to me is too often more or less nonsensical to people that I consider very normal and intelligent. I kind of have a quirky brain, and I know it.

And again: this is just what I think I would do. I’m not saying it is the right thing to do for anyone in the same situation, as the dinner party example would be.