Questions about Rules

[SeekerJen]

I do not believe that your position on modesty is extreme. I do not have children, but if I did and i had a daughter, I can guarantee you that she would not be wearing clothes from any of the popular retail stores in the malls. Many people think those fashions are cute and stylish. The word that usually comes to my mind is sluty.

All of it is slutty? I just purchased a knee-length, short-sleeved cotton dress with a boatneck and A-line skirt from the Gap. Then I bought a very soft corduroy blazer from H&M. My absolute favorite tiered cotton skirt, knee-length and very full, is from Charlotte Russe. Super cute with T-shirts for weekdays (I work in a lab). I found the most adorable short-sleeved linen blend blazer at Forever 21, which is nice over a shell and paired with a skirt or summer-weight dress pants. I have beautiful A-line skirts, all knee-length, from Old Navy, H&M (good selection this summer), New York & Co., and Target (also good selection this year).

The Gap had tons of cute button-up shirts and cardigans that I would have wanted had the sleeves not been too long. H&M had a lot of very cute cardigans as well. When I went into American Eagle yesterday, they had cute hoodies and blouses on display.

There are a lot of fashionable and modest options at the mall. They’re not going to be available at say, Abercrombie, but they’re out there. Some of them, especially at jam-packed stores like Charlotte Russe or Forever 21, are harder to find, but they do exist.

 

[mommyof4]

Yes and yes. And don’t let anybody tell you different.

Wow So convincing!

Pax Christi tecum.

Hey, works for me!

 

[RyanML]

All of it is slutty? I just purchased a knee-length, short-sleeved cotton dress with a boatneck and A-line skirt from the Gap. Then I bought a very soft corduroy blazer from H&M. My absolute favorite tiered cotton skirt, knee-length and very full, is from Charlotte Russe. Super cute with T-shirts for weekdays (I work in a lab). I found the most adorable short-sleeved linen blend blazer at Forever 21, which is nice over a shell and paired with a skirt or summer-weight dress pants. I have beautiful A-line skirts, all knee-length, from Old Navy, H&M (good selection this summer), New York & Co., and Target (also good selection this year).

The Gap had tons of cute button-up shirts and cardigans that I would have wanted had the sleeves not been too long. H&M had a lot of very cute cardigans as well. When I went into American Eagle yesterday, they had cute hoodies and blouses on display.

There are a lot of fashionable and modest options at the mall. They’re not going to be available at say, Abercrombie, but they’re out there. Some of them, especially at jam-packed stores like Charlotte Russe or Forever 21, are harder to find, but they do exist.

I stand corrected

 

[peary1]

I would appreciate some help with a couple of things. I would like a definitive answer on two questions that seem to cause arguments. Are women allowed to wear pants, and are Catholics allowed to celebrate Halloween? Me being a woman and with Halloween approaching, I would like to make principled decisions about these things.

Thanks so much!

**In the United States and other first-world countries, women are allowed to wear pants.

Catholics celebrate All Saints Day, Nov. 1st. All Hallow’s Eve, October 31st, is the Vigil of All Saints Day. As far as Halloween is concerned, it is not a feastday of any sort, particularly with the type of festivities that have been introduced into it. Catholics do not ‘celebrate’ Halloween.**

 

[estesbob]

Hey, works for me!

You think like it could be a double whammy sin if a woman went treak or treatin wearing pants???

 

[mommyof4]

You think like it could be a double whammy sin if a woman went treak or treatin wearing pants???

Could be, especially if dressed like a wizard…

 

[strugglingalong]

Cardinal Siri’s comments mainly object to the wearing of men’s clothing by women. He says himself that that point is his main concern, more than how revealing pants in general are.

It is no longer 1960. Pants are no longer men’s clothes only.

Pants were men’s clothing. Women began wearing them. Now pants are not considered men’s clothing only. Why? Because women started wearing them and now over time they wear them a lot. So pants are not mens clothes only because they’ve worn them so long that they have assimilated them. That doesn’t seem a good proof as to why they are not men’s clothes since it is predicated on the idea that pants were mens clothes but women assimilated them over time.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Were ordinary people who wore the clothing of the time during the 1700s and early 1800s immodest? (Dresses for women, while long, revealed quite a bit of cleavage; men wore tight breeches.)

Sure they could be considered immodest.

How do you explain the higher standards of morality (particularly sexual morality) accepted by secular society at that time, if the fashions were immodest?

High standards or high standards in practice? Just because they expected a higher standard does not mean they practiced it.

How do you reconcile the “no-pants” argument with current Church teaching (specifically CCC 2521 and 2524)?

Actually the Catechism states that what ought be revealed should remain hidden. That is what many argue in regard to pants that pants, particularly when they are tight, reveal the form of the body. It just isn’t about skin showing, it is also about the form of the body. It can be argued that pants do not conceal the form of the body the same way skirts/dresses which are modest do.

…But I should know better than to expect any rational response, as I’ve gotten none thus far.

It’s always good to get a little unnecessary jab in there. It’s good to paint your opponent as irrational.

(Which is why I am disinclined to spend time on the NOR article; I’ve read its clones many times and none of them address the above; they all simply posit a universal dress code–which is whatever the author thinks is appropriate.)

Actually, the NOR I referred to is well thought out, very Thomistic and explains the reasons very ably. Perhaps only us irrationals think that way though… who knows

The argument is often made is that men who value this dress code have better attitudes towards women than those who don’t, but the response “I don’t know what to say if you have a legitimate reason to wear pants; you’re just out of luck; you can either “sin” or put yourself at risk” seems to me to be an attitude that reveals more concern for the letter of the law than for women, God’s creatures.

Forgive me, I am still appalled; I generally assume that Catholics, even the misguided ones, still generally have a more correct outlook on the world, but now I have to wonder. I would think that men, especially, having devoted so much thought to what women ought to wear, would have had womens’ well-being more in mind.

I’m guessing you appalled that I was unable to say whether a woman should wear pants to avoid risk or wear a modest dress and be in risk. Just because I’ve not thought of that and am unsure what the solution is does not mean I do not care about women. In fact, that is the very reason why I am not quick to say I know the solution. In my mind two things occur to me: (1) is to protect someone’s purity as much as possible and (2) to protect their physical well-being. What does one do when they can’t see a clear way to safeguard both? That is where I found myself and am not sure. Why that it is appalling that someone may find a situation, an extreme situation, difficult is but confusing to me. If I didn’t care I would say, “Nope wear the modest dress that places your self at risk.” Now that would be appalling.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[peregrinator_it]

strugglingalong, I’ve reached a frustration point with this discussion, so forgive me if I don’t reply in full. I’ve bracketed the two bits of your quote together below because I think they indicate a facet of this issue that you have not addressed.

High standards or high standards in practice? Just because they expected a higher standard does not mean they practiced it.

Actually the Catechism states that what ought be revealed should remain hidden.

I note that where you respond to the Catechism above, you do not address CCC 2524 that states that culture plays a role in modesty of dress. Modesty in dress (not the virtue itself) is relative to culture and era. Thus, as you note with your very first quote above, revealing less skin/shape in dress than we do today does not necessarily produce virtue. One needs to take both Catechism passages together.

Lest you take the above paragraph as the sum total of my thoughts on the matter, I’ll direct you to my reply on your other thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4142261&postcount=29)) and my previous posts listed below.

…But I should know better than to expect any rational response, as I’ve gotten none thus far.

It’s always good to get a little unnecessary jab in there. It’s good to paint your opponent as irrational.

Believe or not, that was not intended as a jab, (although I can see why you might be offended at the word “rational”) but as a reminder to myself not to “get my hopes up” (as when I posted the above you had left the bulk of my original post (except in mockery), this and this unaddressed.)

I apologize for offending you. It has been my experience that posters who propounds the “no-pants” simply ignore counter-arguments.

But, I think it would be fair of you to hold yourself to the same standards of discourse that you require from other people. As far as I’m concerned you (still) owe me, and every woman in a dangerous situation not of her own making an apology for this-

I wonder how women in earlier ages survived attacks in their dresses and skirts? It’s a wonder they didn’t all die off in their dresses!

which belittles the very real threats and dangers we face.

In my mind two things occur to me: (1) is to protect someone’s purity as much as possible and (2) to protect their physical well-being.
SNIP and REARRANGE
I’m guessing you are appalled that I was unable to say whether a woman should wear pants to avoid risk or wear a modest dress and be in risk.

In sum, it sounds to me as though your argument is – a “good” dress code = modesty and modesty = purity. This strikes me as literally backwards. (Purity of heart already cultivated in the soul inspires standards of modesty which inspire a dress code, seems to me to be what the Church teaches.)

When this equating of purity with particular garments leads you, a man (and I believe in the traditional view that part of the duty of a man, particularly a Catholic man, is to protect women) to be unable to make the judgement that physical safety is more important than clothing, I can’t help but be appalled. I find an attitude that can’t place human life at higher priority than ordinary clothes appalling.

 

[strugglingalong]

I note that where you respond to the Catechism above, you do not address CCC 2524 that states that culture plays a role in modesty of dress. Modesty in dress (not the virtue itself) is relative to culture and era. Thus, as you note with your very first quote above, revealing less skin/shape in dress than we do today does not necessarily produce virtue. One needs to take both Catechism passages together.

Sure. I think culture plays some role but to reduce modesty to cultural norms is not what the Faith extols. One cannot say that just because a culture lets people walk around without clothes that it is modest de facto because of the culture. That ignores the reality of Original Sin and fallen human nature. People will always experience temptation and they need the grace of God to overcome it but it is the Faith which tells us we need to remove the occasions of sin also. To dress immodestly is to place others in an occasion of sin, something the Faith does not suggest we do - primarily out of charity. In sum, yes culture plays a role to an extent but culture is not the entire role of modesty as if what a culture says is modest is modest.

In sum, it sounds to me as though your argument is – a “good” dress code = modesty and modesty = purity. This strikes me as literally backwards. (Purity of heart already cultivated in the soul inspires standards of modesty which inspire a dress code, seems to me to be what the Church teaches.)

Yes but the question is whether one can have purity of heart, and achieve it, when they are walking around either causing or seeing occasions of sin? Yes, I think some can added by grace and perhaps their own human nature that is not as susceptible perhaps to that particular fault. However I think modesty assist in the cultivation of purity of heart. You’re asking someone to cultivate purity of heart as a precondition to a culture of modesty (correct me if I am wrong here, please). Whereas I am saying that modesty is essential in assisting people in their pursuit of purity of heart.

We cannot easily separate the external from the internal. The external assists in the pursuit of the internal - or the external can be a serious cause of setback in the pursuit of the internal.

I am not saying modesty leads to purity of heart on every occasion for everyone. What I am saying is that modesty protects the person and modesty assist in purity of heart (instead of immodesty being an occasion of sin leading people away from purity of heart).

When this equating of purity with particular garments leads you, a man (and I believe in the traditional view that part of the duty of a man, particularly a Catholic man, is to protect women) to be unable to make the judgement that physical safety is more important than clothing, I can’t help but be appalled. I find an attitude that can’t place human life at higher priority than ordinary clothes appalling.

Again, I am not equating particular garments with purity. I am well aware of the darkness and wretchedness of the human heart that can be impure even when surrounded by modest people. However you cannot separate modesty from purity of heart in the way you seem to be doing. Your words seem to lead easily to the view of saying as long as one’s heart is pure the external isn’t that important.

In addition, purity deals with the safety of one - and other people’s - souls. Modesty is a help and is associated with this desire for purity. To put this up against physical safety makes sense to me. What if you had to wear a bikini or else some one was going to kill you? Would it be ridiculous to say you could not do it and would have to be killed? I know a bikini is not the same as pants but I am just saying that it is not ridiculous to say that protecting purity, and modesty is a help in this regard, is just that important. Most souls, the Saints tell us, go to hell because of sins of the flesh.

And, incidentally, I am not afraid of rational counter arguments.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

I beg to differ. Tight hose and early breeches would not be considered modest dress for men today!

(And dresses for women between 1500 and 1800 generally show way more cleavage than I’d be comfortable with.)

Addressing this argument, I’d say that those were not modest back then either. Revealing cleavage or parts of the body that ought to remain hidden - revealing the form of the body - is immodest in all generations because it can lead others to desire the body itself. So I think here you’re trying to make a cultural argument but I think the principles of modesty still stand that the form of the body should not be revealed.

I don’t know what dresses between the 1500’s and 1800’s you’re referring to since we have officials in Rome in the early 1900’s saying a dress cannot be considered immodest that comes down lower than 2 inches, I think it is, from the neck. I don’t think those officials were inventing that idea. I think it was the Catholic standard they were trying to protect.

There was a trend that started early - perhaps around or after the French Revolution - to slowly move away from modest dress. The changes began subtly and slowly. I think the things you mention above show small concessions that began to be made. That doesn’t make them acceptable.

Beyond the fact that it is Church teaching that modesty is expressed in different ways in different cultures, (CCC 2524) a good dress code is not the equivalent of modesty. (There’s more to it as previous posters have noted; clothes are not mentioned in the CCC’s definition of modesty.)

To say that modesty is expressed in different ways in cultures is not to deny that some principles exist for modesty for all cultures. We’re dealing with fallen human nature that is common to all cultures. Yes, it may differ from culture to culture in some respects but cultural expectations are not the whole of modesty. For example, the form of the body should not be revealed is an objective principle that does not vary by culture.

What’s more, what one wears must be determined by suitability to the task and prudence as well as modesty (i.e. one wouldn’t wear a tuxedo to work.) (And there’s no way I’d wear a skirt to weed-whack the back yard.)

Sure, some suitability to the task but I think most people take this too far. For example, there are very orthodox nuns in Michigan who wear their habits to play soccer. They do just fine with it. I’ve met many a woman who has found they can do many tasks in a modest dress (just as many nuns do). We have to be careful we’re not making circumstance an excuse for comfort or personal preferences. I can see it with say riding a bike or something where the task absolutely cannot be accomplished. This could be used to say that a bikini is modest on the beach which it is not since it violates objective principles of modesty (not revealing what ought not be revealed) and since you can swim in an outfit that covers your whole body.

I do think the issue of pants goes beyond modesty to the aspect of genders. A modest dress/skirt is more feminine, at least in our culture, than pants.

Where I live is (not a safe area, but it’s the area that fits my budget) I would feel pretty unsafe walking around in a skirt. As a woman living alone, I won’t wear clothes that I don’t feel comfortable running or fighting in; thus pants and sensible shoes are the most prudent choice of clothing.

I think if one satisfies both modesty (within one’s culture) and prudence one is on the right track.

I think here I’d suggest pants that are more modest since there are some pants that aren’t modest (those that are too tight, too low cut, etc.). As long as they aren’t tight and clinging, it may not be a bad alternative.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

The change the USCCB made was to its own publication, the Adult Catechism, NOT to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I cited.

Regardless, perhaps you can prove to me how the Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible it its explanation of the Faith? All I am saying is that it is a particular explanation of the Faith but the text itself is not necessarily free from errors. Or would you say it is infallible in its entire text?

Police safety tips say not to wear clothing (including, of all things, long scarves) that an attacker could use to drag or haul you. Further, a skirt would make it difficult for me to fight someone off without exposing myself.

Having recently had an unpleasant run-in (with a man with a gun) I’m inclined to take the police safety tips seriously.

Point taken. Again, reiterating what I said at the end of my last post, I think if pants must be worn then looser, more modest ones are best. I do think modest dresses/skirts are the best option from a modesty as well as from a gender perspective but I think if in your situation they would expose you to grave danger then a modest pant choice may be best.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

There’s a bunch of responses, probably more than you want to read. But there you have it.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[RyanML]

There’s a bunch of responses, probably more than you want to read. But there you have it.

Pax Christi tecum.

Every time I see a priest or religious in a cassock or habit I want to run up to them and thank them. Have you ever had folks come up to you and tell you they appreciate the witness of your modesty? Just curious

 

[strugglingalong]

Every time I see a priest or religious in a cassock or habit I want to run up to them and thank them. Have you ever had folks come up to you and tell you they appreciate the witness of your modesty? Just curious

Actually I experience that desire to thank people when I see women in the world dressed modestly and in a very feminine manner. They may not draw attention in the way the world says but they do radiate charity and beauty.

But I can see it with priests and religious too.

Pax Christi tecum.