D
DeniseNY
Guest
Slow your roll. All I asked was if it was the second thread on the same subject.
Last edited:
- Status
T
twf
Guest
The Cardinal Vicar can only ever bind the faithful of Rome…that’s it. The way he’s quoted in these accounts, you are almost meant to think the position is some kind of Deputy Pope.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
Because that’s not actually modest. It draws attention to oneself.
J
Jen95
Guest
But what about all the Catholic women who draw attention to themselves (at Mass even) by their bare midriff tops, short shorts, exposed-back sweaters, etc. Let me guess, they’re not drawing attention to themselves, just anyone who dresses conservatively…Jen95:
Because that’s not actually modest. It draws attention to oneself.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
You know, I have attended a lot of Catholic Churches—and I virtually never see this clothing.
J
Jen95
Guest
You are fortunate!
P
phil19034
Guest
I think you are confusing “immodest” with “inappropriate.”ThePuzzledCatholic:
There are Catholics who think that nuns and religious sisters sometimes dress immodestly. Seriously.
I have never met someone who thinks some nuns/sisters dress immodest. But I have met plenty who think some dress inappropriately for their vocation.
J
JulianN
Guest
Good heavens—how would they think that’s any of their business? Unless they’re the mother superior …
Last edited:
A week or two ago, I managed inadvertently and innocently to “hijack” a certain thread, because somehow I read into it that modesty could be an issue in that thread, when if I had troubled myself to read more closely, I would have seen that this wasn’t the case at all. I have felt bad about that since then, and I do apologize to the entire readership for the confusion. I was flagged as having veered off-topic, and rightly so.
However, that isn’t the case here. I am going to try and keep my comments relatively brief and to the point. Simply put, there seem to be three schools of thought in Catholic circles about modesty (and it is usually a one-way topic, i.e., men dressing immodestly doesn’t seem to cause the same “problems” for women, as the other way around):
However, that isn’t the case here. I am going to try and keep my comments relatively brief and to the point. Simply put, there seem to be three schools of thought in Catholic circles about modesty (and it is usually a one-way topic, i.e., men dressing immodestly doesn’t seem to cause the same “problems” for women, as the other way around):
- Some seek adherence to earlier standards of modesty (first third to first half of the 20th century), which basically mandated dresses only (no bifurcated garments), neck-to-knees (and perhaps even longer than that), sleeves to or near the elbows (and, again, perhaps even longer), nothing sheer or tight enough to reveal anything. These are the “Marylike standards of modesty” you will hear of so often. They basically flash-freeze all modesty standards circa 1940, as they would have been on Main Street versus Hollywood.
- Others, while upholding the principle of modesty, make greater concessions to modern fashions, but err on the conservative side of these fashions. Lower necklines, shorter dress hemlines, short sleeves or even sleeveless garments, revealing portions of the back and decollette, and trousers of various types are tolerated, as are reasonably modest shorts and, at the beach or pool, both one- and two-piece swimsuits.
- Others basically adopt the fashions of the larger secular society, sometimes embracing very tight or revealing dress in the name of being “cute”, “fashionable”, even “hot” or “sexy”, and are scornful of any mention of this being problematical for men who wish to preserve custody of the eyes. They will respond that “we want to look pretty” and “if guys lust after us, that’s their problem, not ours — they’ve just got dirty minds and they’re libidinous” (actually, they would use a stronger word than “libidinous”, but that would go beyond the “PG” standards we seek to adhere to on CAF). In other words, they wear whatever they want, and there is no such thing as modesty standards. Many of these women — not all, but many — though, know that what they wear enchants and distracts men, and they like it that way — it gives them a certain power. That may not be the primary reason they dress that way, but they are pleased to have that effect on men, as a side-effect of “looking pretty”.
P
phil19034
Guest
I’m sorry, but I think the dress that priests & religious wear should be a concern of lay Catholics.phil19034:
Good heavens—how would they think that’s any of their business? Bless they’re the mother superior …
They are a visible sign of our religion.
For example:
- it bothers me a little when I see a priest I know wearing civilian clothes out in public. However, I can respect it when he’s visiting his family
- However, it would greatly bother me to know a priest who rarely wears his clerics
- And I am extremely proud when I see a priest in public with his clerics on or wearing a cassock in the parish.
- I am also extremely proud when I see a sister wearing a habit in public too.
- And it frankly pains me to know that in some convents/monasteries (male and/or female) they never wear a habit.
I once was in line to pay for my parking at a parking garage and a priest was in front of me, wearing his clericals. When the priest’s turn came, I stepped up to the counter and paid for the priest. I would do the same thing for a sister.
When they wear their habits/clerical, we know who they are. We can help them or seek their help. But when they dress in regular clothes, they simply blend into the environment and appear no different from the average Christian.
NOW - before someone says “but we should see Christ in everyone,” of course we should. But often, many of use struggle with that, or come short. If we saw more priests/sisters out in public, I know it would help people. Also it’s a sign of their poverty and gives us the opportunity to be charitable to the very people who gave their lives to pray for us.
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
The decision about what a religious community is to wear is up to that community—not the rest of us.
P
phil19034
Guest
You are correct. The decision is up to them. However, that doesn’t mean we must agree with their decision.
I respect their decision, but I do not agree with it.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Precisely! Men and women religious are not beholden to us in that way. They depend on each other and decide together how best to move forward. We lay people literally have no say in the matter unless they ask us for some reason.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
There’s a vast middle ground between dressing like the Amish and dressing the way you described above.
I also have never seen women in the parishes I have attended dress the way you describe.
There’s nothing particularly virtuous about dressing like a time traveler from the nineteenth century.
Last edited:
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
For those who are vegetarian and already don’t eat meat on Friday, this would be a great compromise. lol
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Me, too. Although I wouldn’t put Amish in quotation marks.
But be that as it may, I’ve seen quite a few Plain women whose physical attractiveness isn’t bounded by their modest attire.
In other words, Cary Grant in a sack is still Cary Grant. Or, I guess these days it would be Channing Tatum. Or Jenna Dewan.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, broadly true of most Christians I’d say.
R
Rau
Guest
Could be, though they are quite a small group.
- Status