W
Walking_Home
Guest
Ditto.
- Status
Ditto.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
You are welcome, and I am glad to hear that!
D
Debora123
Guest
Good
I have pictures of myself in miniskirts on my profile, and if you look, you can see that everything that needs to be covered up is more than covered up. I think they look nice on me and not inappropriate at all.
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Indeed. I already looked at your album, and all of your photographs seem to be innocent enough (though if I were you, I would not want to show pictures to everyone of my husband and I kissing!). And they were obviously not made with any ill intent.Good
I have pictures of myself in miniskirts on my profile, and if you look, you can see that everything that needs to be covered up is more than covered up. I think they look nice on me and not inappropriate at all.
D
Debora123
Guest
Thanks!
I don’t have any pictures of my husband and I kissing
… unless you were referring to the one of him kissing my forehead, but I see nothing vulgar about that. Thanks for the heads up though!
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
Sure! I must not have paid attention to the details.Thanks!
I don’t have any pictures of my husband and I kissing
T
TrueLight
Guest
Question? Why do you have a bikini picture of yourself on your profile on a Catholic forum?Good
I have pictures of myself in miniskirts on my profile, and if you look, you can see that everything that needs to be covered up is more than covered up. I think they look nice on me and not inappropriate at all.
D
Debora123
Guest
Because as you may have seen by now, I see nothing wrong with wearing a bikini to a swim place.
I practically live at the beach. It’s my passion, my life.
I love that picture of me bc it is me in my element - at the beach, playing in the water.
(As a side note, I made that album when I was brand new to CAF, and before I had any idea that Catholics who thought bikinis were indecent even existed.)
T
TrueLight
Guest
Okay.
The bridal pictures are lovely.
You’re Brazilian right? It occured to me that maybe some of your views are related to culture? Do you think that is the case?
D
Debora123
Guest
Brazil is a tropical place and very warm all year around. Especially where I used to live, in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Everyone’s lives revolve around going to the beach - it’s the all purpose hang out spot.
I’ve lived in the US (florida) for several years now, but other than the fact that the bikinis here have more coverage than the ones in Brazil, I haven’t noticed any general difference in dress. Shorts, tank tops, mini skirts, etc etc are all a cultural norms here as well.
D
Debora123
Guest
S
severus68
Guest
Its ok Debora, leave that picture. Those who are offended by it can cover it with a finger while they look at the rest of your album.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
Yes you have got that right. I am not talking about micro minis, though to be honest I never see anyone wear those in public really, not even in nightclubs.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
You are welcome. Even within America itself, from what I have heard, standards of modesty can vary a bit as well.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Debora,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Apologies for the delay in my response to your post, but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends - I find I usually need it!
If such a garment as the min-skirt is no longer considered indecent and thus an example of immodest attire, then that is because we are now living in the aftermath of the sexual and culltural revolution. Alas, as a consequence of this great social upheaval many people, including, I am sorry to say, some neo-Catholics, have all but lost their moral sense and thus their choice of clothing is no longer inspired by considerations of modesty. Moreover, those Catholics who have adopted a ‘Catholicism Lite’ have undoubtedly been influenced by the prevailing decadent culture a great deal more than they woud probably be prepared to acknowledge.
Therefore, since we have passed through the cultural revolution of the Sixties, a revolution, I hasten to add, that aimed at destroying the once Catholic culture on which Western civilisation was established, it is hardly surprising that we now witness ignorance, even among orthodox Catholics, regarding appropriate and seemly vesture. This current thread bears ample testimony to that.
Whilst each generation has sought to push the envelope as regards unseemly garb (to be expected since man is a fallen being with a propensity to sin), it was only as recent as the Sixties that things took a real turn for the worst and that era has been quite rightly termed the ‘decade of decadence’. Unfortunately, since that time precious little has been done by our Church, in the course of its preaching ministry, to counteract the harmful effects of this sexual revolution by plain and uncompromising talk as to what constitutes a proper reserve in clothing choices, with the result that indecent garments and unchristian fashions become normative, even among the faithful.
It is because man in his fallen estate has cast off restraint and a proper reserve, that he no longer considers the inseemely exposure of body parts an issue of any great moment. In short he has become desensitised to the prevalent immorality in which his lot is now cast. The words uttered by Pope Pius XII are highly pertinent to our own generation, if not indeed more so that when he first spoke them, “The greatest sin of our modern generation is that it has lost all sense of sin” More specifically he stated, “Many women…give into the tyranny of fashion, be it even immodest, in such a way as to appear not even to suspect that it is unbecoming. They have lost the very concept of danger; they have lost the instinct of modesty”. These words ring more true today than ever and could be said to be a text for our times - “lost the instinct of modesty”, aptly sums up what is so fundamentally wrong with the post-conciliar era.
Seeking to rationalise unseemly vesture, such as mini-skirts and tight-fitting clothing that accentuates body parts, on the pretext that we get ‘accustom’ to them over time to the point where they no longer offend, is surely among the most insiduous of sophisms and unbecoming of Catholic argumentation.
Whilst it is not my intention to wound you or anyone else by my remarks ( I also am striving to live up to the arduous demands of our Faith), we cannot mince our words nor, to use the Pauline metaphor, give an uncertain sound upon the trumpet on such a topic of grave importance as modesty in attire. Moreover, it is incumbent upon us Catholics to charitably encourage and admonish one another to dress with proper modesty, so that we provide a robust and credible Christian counter-culture to our morally degenerate world. My plea is that we ardently follow the timeless standards of modesty and warmly and joyfully embrace them, rather than drag our heals.
Finally, I think it important that young women make this distinction: it is one thing to make yourself attractive; it is quite another to make yourself intentionally seductive. Girls know the difference and so do men.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Debora,
Hello again.
Your appeal to Love and Responsibilty to bolster your rationalisation for donning a bikini’s is not such a cogent argument as you appear to think it is. There are, I think, several major problems with your appeal to this passage of JPII:
1/ In the first place these words are not an authoritative utterance, but merely Pope John’s own musing’s upon the topic and as such are not binding upon the faithful. Please note that I am not saying that the whole of Love and Responsibility is completely devoid of any merit, merely that these words of his are not an official pronouncement.
2/ Moreover, it must be said that they are totally at variance with what his predecessors at the Vatican have declared respecting modesty in attire. This is because they are, sadly, entirely out out sync with both Sacred Scripture (I Tim. 2: 9) and the whole of Catholic Tradition, which has always consistently denounced immodest vesture, be it swimwear or day to day clothing. This is surely owing to the fact that JPII lived in the aftermath of the cultural and sexual revolution of which I spoke in my previous post to you, where men ‘have lost the instinct for modesty’. They clearly evince the phenomenal impact of this godless revolution, even upon the hierarchy of the Church, which included, habits, customs and ways of being modern man. Now this revolution introduced new unseemly and seductive styles of clothing and with it a totally new way of being, which gradually replaced the existing order and values which had been cultivated by Christian civilisation. Unfortunately, JPII evidently appears to have been influenced, to some degree at least, by this moral revolution and its prevailing unchristian culture. If this makes us wince, then we need to remember that the special chrism attaching to the papal office does not extend to the Pope’s opinion as a mere private individual, which may be off beam. Let us not fall into the Protestant error of confusing Infallibility with impecability; clearly, if the Pope is capable of sin, then he is certainly capable of making misguided statements respecting modest vesture.
3/ JPII was a very world-affirming type of Pope who was always at pains to be concilliatory and embracing. Nothing wrong with that as such, but it surely needs to be tempered with an uncompromising attitude when it comes to timeless standards and values. Moreover, we do know that the loss of youth to the Church was a great worry to JPII and so he probably endeavoured not to say anything that might, in his opinion, unecessarily alienate them or make them think that the Church was still locked into the supossedly dark and ‘austere’ days of the pre-Vatican II Church. His intentions were undoubtedly good, but many of us feel that he allowed his heart to rule his head a little too much.
4/ The appeal to Love and Resposibility to support justification for the wearing of immodest bikinis, is quite typical of the obsequious submission that neo-Catholic orthodoxy demands to fallibile works, pastoral directives etc of the post conciliar era. However, the very same people habitually dismiss or speak slightingly of papal pastoral directives and ‘formuliac’ teaching of the pre-Vatican II Church, as if these were somehow ‘timebound’ and largely irrelevant. If that is not an example of blatant bias then I do not know what is.
It should concern men that the late JPII passage in Love and Responsibility just cannot be squared with the whole of Catholic tradition prior to Vatican II. Yes, times and styles of dress have indeed changed, but they have changed for the worst on account of the moral and cultural deterioration engendered by the iniquitous permissive Sixties.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
D
Debora123
Guest
D
Debora123
Guest
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
It is always nice to hear that most women still have some sense of decency.
C
centurionguard
Guest
It is my hope and personal beliefs that most women do behave morally decent.
Sadly; its the few women that don’t behave morally that societal media blows out proportion which in turn has most of society believing the worst about women.
Naturally the first to criticize women due to the excesses of societal media are men.
If we men are honest enough to criticize our own gender, a good place to start is to look at our overwhelming prison populations globally.
- Status