Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Portrait]

Portrait;8010797:

Well then I guess according to you, all knowing supreme being amongst humanity, I lost my moral sense. So has every other Catholic I know bc the only people I have ever met in my life who think anything that shows the knee is not only immodest, but evil, are the few people on this forum.

I am an immoral, sexualized product of society bc I like an evil little article of clothing known as the mini skirt. Yep, good job.

I love how you ramble on and on saying the same things but never really refuted my points.

Dear Debora,

Thankyou for your response to my post.

As I am sure you can appreciate, it is extremely difficult when admonishing our brethren about their clothing choices not come across as being holier-than-thou, even when one has done ones level best to be charitable in their presentation of Catholic truth. Moreover, the impersonal nature of the internet does not aid our efforts to be humble towards those we feel are erring. In Forums such as this, men have tendency to write in a more trenchant way than they would speak to each other* inter parties*, and the anonymity provided by ‘screen names’ can lead certain types into a false sense of security and, sometimes sadly, a complete loss of inhibitions and courtesy. So, dear sister, I assure you that I bear you know personal ill-will and proffer my sincere apologies for any offence that I may have caused. Please accept that I am motivated by a love of our most holy Faith and desire, once again, to see tradtitional standards of Catholic modesty upheld by all the faithful in our crooked and perverse world. A good Catholic does not refrain from telling his erring brethren the truth that they would prefer not to hear; “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (cf. Gal. 4: 16), I sincerely hope that that is not so. Dealing truthfully with one another is surely not a breach of charity, but is rather a mark of integrity.

You will, I think, find if you re-read my post again, that I have addressed and rebutted your arguments, albeit in a discursive fashion.

The only point that I did not specifically address, so far as I can see, is the one about indigenous native tribes going topless. The fact that this does indeed occur does not ipso facto therefore make it right or acceptable. This is fallacious argument, for you must remember that you are speaking of unenlightened savages who live in lands where the Gospel day has not shed its glorious ray and where men are steeped in ignorance and all manner of superstition. Christian missionaries throughout the ages have, in converting these poor savages to the Faith, quite rightly taught them to cover themselves according to Christian (not Western) standards of decency, which are universal and applicable to all men. The hanckneyed argument of missionaries indiscriminately imposing an essentially Western culture, including dress or language, upon the heathen needs to treated with a great deal caution. Cultural insensitivity is one thing, imposing universal Christian standards of decency and a proper reserve is quite another. As with most things, it is important to distinguish between things which essentially differ. In any event, not infrequently these horror tales of ‘missionary oppression’ have a hidden agenda, usually the complete vilification of our most holy religion by the enemies of Christianity. So let us not be too hasty in identifying with that ‘cause’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Debora123;8011093:

Dear Debora,

Thankyou for your response to my post.

As I am sure you can appreciate, it is extremely difficult when admonishing our brethren about their clothing choices not come across as being holier-than-thou, even when one has done ones level best to be charitable in their presentation of Catholic truth. Moreover, the impersonal nature of the internet does not aid our efforts to be humble towards those we feel are erring. In Forums such as this, men have tendency to write in a more trenchant way than they would speak to each other* inter parties*

, and the anonymity provided by ‘screen names’ can lead certain types into a false sense of security and, sometimes sadly, a complete loss of inhibitions and courtesy. So, dear sister, I assure you that I bear you know personal ill-will and proffer my sincere apologies for any offence that I may have caused. Please accept that I am motivated by a love of our most holy Faith and desire, once again, to see tradtitional standards of Catholic modesty upheld by all the faithful in our crooked and perverse world. A good Catholic does not refrain from telling his erring brethren the truth that they would prefer not to hear; “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (cf. Gal. 4: 16), I sincerely hope that that is not so. Dealing truthfully with one another is surely not a breach of charity, but is rather a mark of integrity.

You will, I think, find if you re-read my post again, that I have addressed and rebutted your arguments, albeit in a discursive fashion.

The only point that I did not specifically address, so far as I can see, is the one about indigenous native tribes going topless. The fact that this does indeed occur does not ipso facto therefore make it right or acceptable. This is fallacious argument, for you must remember that you are speaking of unenlightened savages who live in lands where the Gospel day has not shed its glorious ray and where men are steeped in ignorance and all manner of superstition. Christian missionaries throughout the ages have, in converting these poor savages to the Faith, quite rightly taught them to cover themselves according to Christian (not Western) standards of decency, which are universal and applicable to all men. The hanckneyed argument of missionaries indiscriminately imposing an essentially Western culture, including dress or language, upon the heathen needs to treated with a great deal caution. Cultural insensitivity is one thing, imposing universal Christian standards of decency and a proper reserve is quite another. As with most things, it is important to distinguish between things which essentially differ. In any event, not infrequently these horror tales of ‘missionary oppression’ have a hidden agenda, usually the complete vilification of our most holy religion by the enemies of Christianity. So let us not be too hasty in identifying with that ‘cause’.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Are you for real??? I have read your posts and wondered about how you greet and end your posts with great courtesy but the substance is always rather strange, extreme, condescending and condemning. Even JPII does not escape your criticism. Now you come up with this tirade.

Let me enlighten you. The Church does not today refer to non Christians as savages and heathens, even those who bear their breasts. You have been terribly insulting, to say the least. BTW some of these breast bearing and loin wearing “savages” are even Christians. I will not even comment on your historical inaccuracies. Christian standards of decency? No, these are your arbitrary, warped standards which you would have everyone embrace.

 

[Portrait]

Portrait;8010927:

Oh, and YOURS are???

So you/re telling me that the blessed late pope john paul II was wrong about this little detail, and that you are right. Uh huh. You must think extremely highly of yourself.

I didn’t even finish reading this, sorry. You lost me when you told me that the blessed pope was wrong and that you were right.

Have a good day.

PS - having someone who doesn’t even know me judge my morality based on what I wear is infinitely more offensive than wearing a bikini to the beach.

Dear Debora,

Are you contending then that the Pope can never err, even as a private individual theologian or thinker? Of course JPII could have been mistaken as regards this passge in* Love and Responsibility* and to think otherwise is surely most uncatholic as well as just being plainly wrong.

By not reading my post in its entirety, you simply exemplify the very point I made in the paragraph which treated of the ‘blatant bias’ of much neo-Catholic orthodoxy.

As I have said before the weekend, your motive for wanting to don a mini-skirt (sheer comfort in the hot Florida sunshine) is completely irrelevant to our discussion. The only questions of importance are: is this garment an example of seductive style clothing or is it not? and is it likely to present an unecessary occasion of sin to men by exposing too much of the legs? We could also proceed to ask if such voluptuous style clothing sits comfortably with the “seemly apparel” about which St. Paul spoke (see I Tim. 2: 9)? and does such clothing even enhance the dignity of the human body?

Whether or not a Catholic woman wears a seductive garment is not a trifling matter. Owing to the natural differences in the genders, women are far more prone to be occasions of sin, and, being the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7), to be treated with less dignity or respect. Being attired in seemly apparel and dressing with a proper reserve, goes a long way in overcoming all this and that is precisely why St. Paul spoke as he did about women dressing modestly and soberly. It is really that simple.

Dearly beloved sister, you must try to understand that, whilst not all men are tempted in the same way or to the same extent, generally speaking, the sight of thighs being exposed (with or without tights) is a source of temptation for the vast majority of males. In any case, mini-skirts make it well-nigh impossible for a woman to preserve modesty, especially when she stoops down or bends.

If men have more physical strength than women and are stronger in their bodies, they are certainly weaker in the area of sensuality. If the man is to use his superior strength to protect and defend a woman physically, then it is clearly incumbent upon the woman to use her strength in the area of sensuality, that is to say, by her chaste conduct and choice of modest attire). As someone has aptly remarked, “Women are the guardians of chastity for the world”. Needless, to say, this does excuse a man for any want of custody of his eyes (Job 31: 1).

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mark_David]

I’m quite amazed that this thread is as long as it is. How much could be said for this topic? It’s a given that modest clothing for women is a virtue. But then, that’s probably hard for many to comprehend in these hypersexualized, “liberated” times. True liberation is through Jesus Christ and His teachings by Scripture and the Church.

 

[centurionguard]

I’m quite amazed that this thread is as long as it is. How much could be said for this topic? It’s a given that modest clothing for women is a virtue. But then, that’s probably hard for many to comprehend in these hypersexualized, “liberated” times. True liberation is through Jesus Christ and His teachings by Scripture and the Church.

I totally agree with you this thread has bleed itself out of proportion.

But then again unless Moderators intervene due to lack of charity, this thread can go as high as a thousand posts.

 

[MissRose73]

I went to Sunday evening Mass at the local diocesan cathedral, and did see some females of various ages going to up to Communion wearing shirts or dresses that were either: sleeveless, tank style, spaghetti strap, tight fitting, good amount of shoulders or backs exposed. Yes, it was a hot day outside too. I still wore a nice dress that was short sleeved, it went to the middle of my knees and I wore tights with a nice pair of shoes. I also chose to wear a veil. I found out only 2 other women veiled and they were much older than me.

It made me wish in my mind that the transcript of Father Dominic’s ETWN sermon on modesty was reprinted in the church bulletin and/or read out.

 

[Portrait]

Portrait;8011681:

Are you for real??? I have read your posts and wondered about how you greet and end your posts with great courtesy but the substance is always rather strange,
extreme, condescending and condemning. Even JPII does not escape your criticism. Now you come up with this tirade.

Let me enlighten you. The Church does not today refer to non Christians as savages and heathens, even those who bear their breasts. You have been terribly insulting, to say the least. BTW some of these breast bearing and loin wearing “savages” are even Christians. I will not even comment on your historical inaccuracies. Christian standards of decency? No, these are your arbitrary, warped standards which you would have everyone embrace.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response to my post.

The Church has only ceased refering to non-Christians as the heathen/savages in the post Vatican II period and this was probably owing to the influence of politically correct ideology, which is another debate altogether. ‘Savage’ only means primitive and uncivilised, which is exactly what many indigenous peoples are, hence the term ‘savage tribes’. Such terminology is only an affront to those who are imbued with a politically correct mindset. Certianly, no one would have found them offensive in pre-Vatican II Church. As a matter of fact the term ‘heathen’ is used in Radio Replies,published in the late 1930’s, by Fathers Rumble and Carty (the “radio priests”) who were popular apologists for the Church. It is a moot point that we are now more enlightened and so, quite rightly, refrain from using such terminology to describe non-Christians. What we surely have today is an unhealthy idee fixe about the avoidance of certain forms of expression that are deemed to be insulting to certain groups - it is called political correct ideology and has succeded in making life jolly miserable for most people because everyone now lives in fear of offending everyone else.

It is a sad indictment upon the Church that it fails to admonish those indigenous natives, converted to our Faith, to observe standards of decency and modesty that are a consistent part of Catholic tradition, which can easily be demonstrated by an appeal to various papal utterances and pastoral directives.

With respect to my alleged ‘historical inaccuracies’, can you kindly bring to my notice what you consider these to be, dear freind. If I it can be shown that I am gulity of such then I will gladly acknowledge it or them.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I’m quite amazed that this thread is as long as it is. How much could be said for this topic? It’s a given that modest clothing for women is a virtue. But then, that’s probably hard for many to comprehend in these hypersexualized, “liberated” times. True liberation is through Jesus Christ and His teachings by Scripture and the Church.

Dear Mark David,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

As the old adage goes, ‘there is none so blind as those that refuse to see’.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

I assume you are referring to morality according to Portrait. Its all getting a little wierd. I will henceforth only respond to those who make some sense even if they disagree with me. Maybe I will just get out out of here and start a new thread on the proper length of skirts (kilts included).
[/quote]

 

[TrueLight]

The only point that I did not specifically address, so far as I can see, is the one about indigenous native tribes going topless. The fact that this does indeed occur does not ipso facto therefore make it right or acceptable. This is fallacious argument, for you must remember that you are speaking of unenlightened savages who live in lands where the Gospel day has not shed its glorious ray and where men are steeped in ignorance and all manner of superstition. Christian missionaries throughout the ages have, in converting these poor savages to the Faith, quite rightly taught them to cover themselves according to Christian

That is crazy talk. Are you serious?

To call people savages because they are different from you smells of racism.

Who else are savages?

 

[severus68]

You may rather right about Kipling. Portrait is either having fun at everyone else’s expenses or is living in Bizzarro’s world.
[/quote]

 

[Portrait]

That is crazy talk. Are you serious?

To call people savages because they are different from you smells of racism.

Who else are savages?

Dear TrueLight,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

The term ‘savage’ simply means primitive and uncivilised which is precisely what many indigenous peoples are, hence the phrase ‘savage tribes’ The point you are making is that the word ‘savage’ has become encrusted with politically correct ideology, to such an extent that it has become, quite wrongly, virtually synonymous with racialism. This does indeed have to do with belief in the superiority of a particular race and the prejudice that is based upon this. However, this novel meaning would have been utterly foreign to our Catholic forefathers who employed the term, as I do, simply to mean those people’s to whom the lamp of grace had not shed its glorious ray and who, consequently, were still very wild and uncivilised. As a matter of fact it was a deep love for the poor heathen, steeped in darkness and superstition, and obedience to the Great Commission, that was the impetus to the whole missionary movement, especially in the 19th century. However, Christian missions is not the topic currently under review, so I will not spend any further time discussing it so as not deviate from the thead subject matter.

To answer your question, I suppose a very cruel or barbarous individual could be termed a savage, in terms of their inhumane treatment of others.

Trust that that helps to clarify things a little.

Waarmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The point you are making is that the word ‘savage’ has become encrusted with politically correct ideology, to such an extent that it has become, quite wrongly, virtually synonymous with racialism.

This does indeed have to do with belief in the superiority of a particular race and the prejudice that is based upon this.

This descendant of savages would like to point out that Statement #1 and #2 are contradictory.

However, this novel meaning would have been utterly foreign to our Catholic forefathers who employed the term, as I do, simply to mean those people’s to whom the lamp of grace had not shed its glorious ray and who, consequently, were still very wild and uncivilised.

There is no difference between what Portrait calls the ‘novel’ meaning and what he thinks is the meaning our ‘Catholic forefathers’ went by.

The current understanding is a slur word used against people of non-Western cultures to label them as barbaric and uncivilized.

The understanding of the word in the past, according to Portrait, is… to label them as barbaric and uncivilized.

Such mentality, of course, is the very seed of racism. Couple that with denial and you’ll get shameless racism of the imperialist variety.

To answer your question, I suppose a very cruel or barbarous individual could be termed a savage, in terms of their inhumane treatment of others.

You… suppose…

Right then, let’s go by that meaning. Taking into account the crimes of the Spanish clergy and monarchy against my people during their 300-year reign here… I would say the term fits them more than it did my ancestors.

Anyone else care to throw in the actions of the British Empire and the East India Trading Company?

 

[Debora123]

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.**

I second that.

 

[Debora123]

**(in reference to portrait) **

Are you for real??? I have read your posts and wondered about how you greet and end your posts with great courtesy but the substance is always rather strange, extreme, condescending and condemning. Even JPII does not escape your criticism. Now you come up with this tirade.

Let me enlighten you. The Church does not today refer to non Christians as savages and heathens, even those who bear their breasts. You have been terribly insulting, to say the least. BTW some of these breast bearing and loin wearing “savages” are even Christians. I will not even comment on your historical inaccuracies. Christian standards of decency? No, these are your arbitrary, warped standards which you would have everyone embrace.

I agree. I have stopped reading Portrait’s posts as soon as he criticized the Blessed JPII.

 

[Debora123]

Agreed 100%. I almost think maybe he’s a troll.

Nevertheless, I am done reading/acknowledging his posts, and I think others should be too.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Puh-leeeeez Phil…

For your information, I (and probably most women out there) don’t wear mini skirts for the “evil” reasons YOU and many others on this site have taken upon themselves to assume.

Puh-leeeeeez, don’t make judgmental assumptions about me which just so happen to be completely FALSE.

Thank you.

What are you 12? What kind of response is that? Last time I imitated somebody in an argument was when I was 10 or something.

You seem to be missing the point that modesty is not entirely about intentions, and that there is a certain level of modesty in attire completely independent from action and intention.

One could not argue that a priest wearing a cassock was dressed less modestly than a man wearing just swimming trunks, or that a woman in a bikini was dressed more modestly than a nun in her traditional attire.

Yes certain types of clothing change based on different situations, but the key is the functional aspect of the clothing, and how well it is being served, as compared to the potential vanity of the wearer (who may also just be misinformed). Maybe I’m wrong, but a bikini is functionally the same as a one piece swim suit, but shows a lot more skin, and more cleavage. Maybe women don’t like having to deal with a one piece style, but is that really worth showing so much extra skin, and potentially wearing something that is immodest?

I have no doubt that the girls I know who wear bikinis on the beach, and shorty-shorts during the summer have no evil intentions at all in their decision to dress the way they do, and I certainly don’t have any disregard for them, or show any less kindness or respect to them because of it. No doubt you will continue to decry my words as being judgmental, but liberals call me racist, and homophobic, so I really don’t care what you say as it is only a way for you to attack me without having to back it up with anything.

You say that modesty is “dependent” on culture, yet the line from the CCC states:

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

They vary. That is all. They are not dependent, as this implies that the culture decides what is modest or immodest, which is not the case. The culture can be infused with impure fashions, and thus be very wrong in it’s concept of modesty. The problem is that our culture today has no firm conception of modesty in the first place, and as a result, the idea that our culture can be be used as a judge of modesty is false.

Thank you, and you are correct. I wear miniskirts that are modest in 21st century standards here in Florida.

Can you prove a miniskirt is modest? (Not saying it isn’t, just asking) Even more so, can you even tell me what 21st century standards are?

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.

I looked at the album, and they look like a very nice couple, and I was not offended. I do not take offense at women wearing bikinis just because I think a bikini is an immodest fashion.

Portrait;8010797:

Well then I guess according to you, all knowing supreme being amongst humanity, I lost my moral sense. So has every other Catholic I know bc the only people I have ever met in my life who think anything that shows the knee is not only immodest, but evil, are the few people on this forum.

I am an immoral, sexualized product of society bc I like an evil little article of clothing known as the mini skirt. Yep, good job.

I love how you ramble on and on saying the same things but never really refuted my points.

Sarcasm and and personal attacks are completely unnecessary. A very large percentage of Catholics use birth control which is a grave evil. I wouldn’t rely on the average Catholic for approval of anything I wear.

Oh and stop referencing yourself like that. It’s not an argument, and I’m pretty tired of hearing it since anyone can say the same thing when accused of pretty much any such infraction.

I went to Sunday evening Mass at the local diocesan cathedral, and did see some females of various ages going to up to Communion wearing shirts or dresses that were either: sleeveless, tank style, spaghetti strap, tight fitting, good amount of shoulders or backs exposed. Yes, it was a hot day outside too. I still wore a nice dress that was short sleeved, it went to the middle of my knees and I wore tights with a nice pair of shoes. I also chose to wear a veil. I found out only 2 other women veiled and they were much older than me.

It made me wish in my mind that the transcript of Father Dominic’s ETWN sermon on modesty was reprinted in the church bulletin and/or read out.

Yeah the whole “it’s too hot” argument never flies with me. People should never let a bit of personal comfort override their sense of modesty and decency.

When you use sarcasm, it shows you have no real argument to make. That is clearly not the type of attire he was referencing.

Btw I should mention that those women are wearing very beautiful and very modest clothes. Quite an uncommon sight where I live.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

I agree that the word “indigenous” is a pretty poor choice when there are better words to use. I’m sure we all understand his meaning.

If a people has no knowledge of Christ, or His Church, there will probably be many aspects of their culture that are evil, or at least highly deficient. It doesn’t mean they are evil, they simply have not been taught. To believe their clothing is somehow completely independent from any other custom they may have, is absurd. It can be immodest just as easily as for anyone else.

Also:

“1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One could not argue that a priest wearing a cassock was dressed less modestly than a man wearing just swimming trunks, or that a woman in a bikini was dressed more modestly than a nun in her traditional attire.

A priest at a beach and a nun at the arcade draw more intention to themselves than their “immodest” occupants. From my experience, that is a proven fact.

Yes certain types of clothing change based on different situations, but the key is the functional aspect of the clothing, and how well it is being served, as compared to the potential vanity of the wearer (who may also just be misinformed).

To presume vanity is already a mistake. This presumption is based on nothing but a shallow evaluation of people’s appearances. The Party of Modesty shouldn’t even think of declaring itself guiltless of being shallow when this is always their first argument.

You say that modesty is “dependent” on culture, yet the line from the CCC states:

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

They vary. That is all. They are not dependent, as this implies that the culture decides what is modest or immodest, which is not the case. The culture can be infused with impure fashions, and thus be very wrong in it’s concept of modesty. The problem is that our culture today has no firm conception of modesty in the first place, and as a result, the idea that our culture can be be used as a judge of modesty is false.

The word “vary” in of itself is enough to destabilize whatever absolutist standard the Party of Modesty holds dear regarding the form of modesty.

In the same way, different languages destabilize whatever standard for an “absolute word” for any object.

Furthermore, no matter what you say, you cannot deny that context plays greater power than clothing. A nun would not look out of place in a convent but she will stand out sharply in a shopping mall (this I verified myself).

With that in mind, context IS dependent on culture (and numerous other factors that reduce a lone analysis of clothing to little to no significance). Culture is the overall bacgkround picture of a certain group of people. Therefore, if you want people to stand out from that background in the most awkward and tasteless way, dress in something in opposition to that culture.

I looked at the album, and they look like a very nice couple, and I was not offended. I do not take offense at women wearing bikinis just because I think a bikini is an immodest fashion.

Doesn’t excuse you from the the materialist crime of putting higher values on the superficial and the temporal.

Yeah the whole “it’s too hot” argument never flies with me. People should never let a bit of personal comfort override their sense of modesty and decency.

Funny, I know plenty of fashion fanatics who say the same thing.
“People should, like, never let a bit of personal discomfort override their sense of coolness and hotness.”

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If a people has no knowledge of Christ, or His Church, there will probably be many aspects of their culture that are evil, or at least highly deficient. It doesn’t mean they are evil, they simply have not been taught. To believe their clothing is somehow completely independent from any other custom they may have, is absurd. It can be immodest just as easily as for anyone else.

I can tell you right now that I have seen just as many evils from the Christianized European West as I do in the Non-Christian East. While you may point out our crazy rituals and bloody human sacrifices, you guys had racism, bigotry, imperialism, political intrigue, persecution of non-Christians, genocide, tyranny etc.

Please do not tell me that these people had no knowledge of Christ. As a matter of fact, these people twisted such knowledge for their nefarious ends. At the very least, my “heathen” ancestors had only ignorance to blame.