Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Muze]

Little to go on. But then we don’t know how St Joseph was dressed. We know he was a “just man.”

But…I think it would be safe to assume she dressed appropriate to her state in life, given the total absence of any mention of her dress. Perhaps, contrast between how Mary the Mother of Jesus was referred to and how Mary Magdalene was described.

It just seems odd to make Mary #6 (5?) on the list, when there is zero evidence to support it. Detracts from its credibility.

 

[Edward_H]

There is nothing wrong with a women choosing to dress modestly, but who defines what that is? If your goal is to not arouse men how can you be sure what arouses them. Different things arouse different men. Some men are aroused by women in skirts, some by a womens voice, or perfume. Some have fetishes for earlobes, or feet, will you wear sandals? LOL Do you get my point?

The woman of course decides. I do think there are some commonly held opinions on certain aspects of immodesty, accepting some of your points.

Modesty, though some by their form of argument seem to actually be effectively trying to deny its existence, is the result of ‘attentive’ decisions.

As Catholics, we should live perhaps a bit more attentively. We can influence others, positively or negative. This isn’t scrupulosity, though there are some here who are quick to call anything scrupulosity.

Living attentively means we give effort to our influence on others. Just as how we conduct ourselves in professional meetings…use of refined language vs. profanity, listening to others, vs. castigating others, etc. Our dress can have influence on others.

I am in the Marine Corps reserve…and we learn from day one that how we carry ourselves…how we move, our gestures, our dress, our carriage influences our Marines. I accept this “onus” as part of my accepting to be a Marine officer. It’s not scrupulosity.

It’s commonsense.

It really is the same thing with modesty.

 

[Walking_Home]

The woman of course decides. I do think there are some commonly held opinions on certain aspects of immodesty, accepting some of your points.

Modesty, though some by their form of argument seem to actually be effectively trying to deny its existence, is the result of ‘attentive’ decisions.

As Catholics, we should live perhaps a bit more attentively. We can influence others, positively or negative. This isn’t scrupulosity, though there are some here who are quick to call anything scrupulosity.

Living attentively means we give effort to our influence on others. Just as how we conduct ourselves in professional meetings…use of refined language vs. profanity, listening to others, vs. castigating others, etc. Our dress can have influence on others.

I** am in the Marine Corps reserve…and we learn from day one that how we carry ourselves…how we move, our gestures, our dress, our carriage influences our Marines. I accept this “onus” as part of my accepting to be a Marine officer. It’s not scrupulosity.

It’s commonsense.

It really is the same thing with modesty.**

---

And some marines become rigorist and rigid --that they end up tyrants. Same goes for other branches of the military. So yea --this would include ideas on “modesty”.

Again stop being “more Catholic” than the Church.

 

[Edward_H]

---

And some marines become rigorist and rigid --that they end up tyrants. Same goes for other branches of the military. So yea --this would include ideas on “modesty”.

Again stop being “more Catholic” than the Church.

Jawohl. Mein wandering rigorist

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You have a considerable gap in your understanding of what judging is and is not, biblically and otherwise.

There is judging mentioned in the Bible, pertaining to ones final disposition.

There is also evaluation of others.

There is also evaluation of self.

Language is my major mmkay? If I were to take any definition, I’ll take that of a dictionary first over that of any religion. Furthermore, it’s quite glaring that you get all defensive about being told you’re judging when in fact, if you read more carefully, you’ll find that I’m criticizing a particular type of judgment.

You’re judging women based on their looks. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are, only a fool would put so much faith in his eyes.

To quite a wise Jedi Master: “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

You know, in my opinion, human sight is the least worthy of human faith out of all our five senses. We are never to judge people by appearances. We are never to judge books by their covers.

Things are never what they seem.

What you apparently have missed from my posts above is a consistent series of mere questions to consider…both for men and women.

They’re not as consistent as they are repetitive and the same thing is going to go for the responses I’ve already given your “question” (responses you have deliberately ignored).

I haven’t judged anyone on the first or second forms of judgement I have just laid out. My questions are intended to deepen the discussion around the 3rd area of judgement. Self-examination. Such questions allow one to do their own evaluation as to their own acts.

Your questions were loaded with judgmental premises that presumed an ill-intention. C’mon, stop fooling yourself. You deny that you’re judging yet you are also trying to come up with a defense for judging. That sounds a lot like a kid denying he ate cookies while wiping choco chip smudges off his face.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I’m trying to recall any evidence that says that Mary dressed modestly

Why, of course, the Blessed Mother dressed modestly! One does not need a verse to know that She did. Though to be honest, I sometimes wonder how St. Joseph was able to live chastefully with such a sweet and beautiful lady.

 

[cviolette]

---

That is what the “Modesty Police” does to women. Do Not let them get to you – or you will end up paranoid. Again — do Not let any “self professed arbiter of modesty” — mess with your mind.

To continue:

You may find the following helpful. It is from Consoling the Heart of Jesus by Br. Michael Gaitley, MIC. This book is endorsed by EWTN’s Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Fr. Groeschel.

You see – even a “good intention” is used by the Satan to to cause unrest—for that is what Satan wants. And Satan will use any instrument to push his agenda — even people who “think” they “are doing good” —but what they are actually doing is — pushing people further away from peace and closer and closer to the edge.

Think of what happened to Luther. He developed scrupulosity–which contributed to his downfall.

My spiritual director discussed this with me. When returning to my religion, I went full force and then crashed pretty hard going in the opposite direction. I still tend to overdue things. Gave up romance novels, tv, most internet (except email and a couple religious websites), daily mass, rosary, adoration, church groups, spiritual books). He told me that it is okay to watch tv and to enjoy life. I did get carried away with the modest clothing but was working on adding back some of my regular clothes. Now I am just going to find some balance in my life.

 

[Edward_H]

Why, of course, the Blessed Mother dressed modestly! One does not need a verse to know that She did. Though to be honest, I sometimes wonder how St. Joseph was able to live chastefully with such a sweet and beautiful lady.

Did they breathe oxygen in those days? I can’t find the verse.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Did they breathe oxygen in those days? I can’t find the verse.

Now, be nice, Mr. H.!

 

[Edward_H]

Language is my major mmkay? If I were to take any definition, I’ll take that of a dictionary first over that of any religion. Furthermore, it’s quite glaring that you get all defensive about being told you’re judging when in fact, if you read more carefully, you’ll find that I’m criticizing a particular type of judgment.

You’re judging women based on their looks. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are, only a fool would put so much faith in his eyes.

To quite a wise Jedi Master: “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”

You know, in my opinion, human sight is the least worthy of human faith out of all our five senses. We are never to judge people by appearances. We are never to judge books by their covers.

Things are never what they seem.

They’re not as consistent as they are repetitive and the same thing is going to go for the responses I’ve already given your “question” (responses you have deliberately ignored).

Your questions were loaded with judgmental premises that presumed an ill-intention. C’mon, stop fooling yourself. You deny that you’re judging yet you are also trying to come up with a defense for judging. That sounds a lot like a kid denying he ate cookies while wiping choco chip smudges off his face.

Put up…or… Please provide the intact statement of mine judging “women based on looks.”

Go.

You can save time and typing by skipping jedi, and other trivialities.

 

[Irish_Kathleen]

Let us all remember that the Blessed Mother dressed in a style that was the typical of Her day. Do any of you think we should be dressed like that now? Once again, I am sick of these people who think a sleeveless dress, high 4 inch heels, dresses that do not cover the knee, swimsuits, ballet outfits, skating dresses, gymnatic outfits etc. are immoral or immodest need to take a look at their scrupulosity hang-ups. BTW quotes from saints about modest dress hundreds of years ago are just that, quotes on dress 100 years ago.

Why is it that all of lthe popes never removed the great art work in the Vatican and elsewhere in Italy? And Yes they were mostly nudes. The human body was created by God, period. Obviously we are not going to wear a swimsuit to mass. We wear things according to the event. But sleeveless dresses, high heels and skirts above the knee are not immoral to wear to mass.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Put up…or… Please provide the intact statement of mine judging “women based on looks.”

Go.

You can save time and typing by skipping jedi, and other trivialities.

Interesting. So you consider 1 Samuel 16:7 a mere triviality? Thanks. That tells me a lot about how comfortable you are with its principle.

I am proposing that they ask themselves why are they showing so much of themselves…is it an act of charity, or an act of vanity, indifference, rebellion, or vanity?

But get real. A woman showing cleavage in Holy Mass is her own act of immodesty.

How is dressing sexily (showing 3/4+ of ones legs, showing midriff, showing cleavage, showing all shoulders and most back) an act of charity?

If we’re’ showing cleavage out of vanity, or pride, that’s not an act of holiness.

Period.

So when a Catholic woman decides to show skin, she really needs to be mindful of WHY she is doing what she is doing.

• Is that act, that free act, an act of love?
• Is it motivated by love of God and neighbor?
• Is it instead motivated by vanity?
• Is it instead motivated by pride?

As evidenced above, you immediately set up a very limited and narrow-minded set of reasons for dressing up. Such presumptions in fact ignore the reality of human taste and awareness of fashion’s superficiality (be you for or against “modesty”).

Again, and I tire of repeating this, there can be an infinite number of reasons for why women choose clothing. Such reasons however, cannot and can never be discerned purely based on appearances. You sir have just presented numerous false dichotomies based on your shallow perceptions.

 

[Edward_H]

Interesting. So you consider 1 Samuel 16:7 a mere triviality? Thanks. That tells me a lot about how comfortable you are with its principle.

As evidenced above, you immediately set up a very limited and narrow-minded set of reasons for dressing up. Such presumptions in fact ignore the reality of human taste and awareness of fashion’s superficiality (be you for or against “modesty”).

Again, and I tire of repeating this, there can be an infinite number of reasons for why women choose clothing. Such reasons however, cannot and can never be discerned purely based on appearances. You sir have just presented numerous false dichotomies based on your shallow perceptions.

Thanks you made it easy for me.

• I am proposing that they ask themselves
• How is dressing sexily
• If we’re’ showing cleavage out of vanity, or pride, that’s not an act of holiness.
• So when a Catholic woman decides to show skin, she really needs to be mindful of WHY she is doing what she is doing.
• Is that act, that free act, an act of love?
• Is it motivated by love of God and neighbor?
• Is it instead motivated by vanity?
• Is it instead motivated by pride?

Questions and conditionals.

In all your language training, did you learn the differences between asking questions and drawing definitive conclusions / judgments?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Questions and conditionals.

In all your language training, did you learn the differences between asking questions and drawing definitive conclusions / judgments?

For someone who claims to take things from an intellectual standpoint, are you aware of the erroneous premises you have based these loaded questions and false conditionals on?

 

[Edward_H]

For someone who claims to take things from an intellectual standpoint, are you aware of the erroneous premises you have based these loaded questions and false conditionals on?

Well…bear with me…glancing back…I don’t see such a claim of mine being intellectual.

And I think you’re trying to pull in some long forgotten, not well mastered material from an undergrad logic class. Maybe time to brush up.

Your mumblihood aside, my questions and proposals above are clearly not definitive judgments. QED.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well…bear with me…glancing back…I don’t see such a claim of mine being intellectual.

O rly? Well, let me refresh your memory. It’s clear that it seems to need that a lot. Oh wait! What do we have here? You just stated an example of you trying to come off as smart.

And I think you’re trying to pull in some long forgotten, not well mastered material from an undergrad logic class. Maybe time to brush up.

For another example folks, look to post #18

I am not judging (if you haven’t yet noticed wanderer, when someone else accuses someone else of judging it is almost always a sign of an argument slipping through their fingers), I am taking the problem a bit deeper than perhaps you want it to be taken. Into the moral realm. Instead of the pat, cheap, sociological, women studies realm. I am not interested in playing in that thin little space, where the questions, answers and concepts can all fit on the front side of a small post-it note.

Your mumblihood aside, my questions and proposals above are clearly not definitive judgments. QED.

No, they are based on definitive judgments. That’s my point… or have you not yet figured out what a false dichotomy is?

You like to paint a picture where I’m not reading your posts but it sounds more like you’re just impressing yourself on me. This is the second time I’ve had to expose the fallacious basis of your “questions and proposals”.

 

[Edward_H]

O rly? Well, let me refresh your memory. It’s clear that it seems to need that a lot. Oh wait! What do we have here? You just stated an example of you trying to come off as smart.

For another example folks, look to post #18

No, they are based on definitive judgments. That’s my point… or have you not yet figured out what a false dichotomy is?

You like to paint a picture where I’m not reading your posts but it sounds more like you’re just impressing yourself on me. This is the second time I’ve had to expose the fallacious basis of your “questions and proposals”.

Sorry. You’re making no ground. Let me try to another tact.

The type and style of questions that I have repeatedly written in this thread, are similar if not identical to questions one finds in an ‘examination of conscience.’

They spur thought and consideration; examination of conscience questions do not judge…they propose a look, they suggest consideration. They are not particular or even general judgments.

Go back and look.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The type and style of questions that I have repeatedly written in this thread, are similar if not identical to questions one finds in an ‘examination of conscience.’

I couldn’t care less if these were questions asked at the next Vatican council. What I am deconstructing here is your mere thought process. Obviously, you are either deliberately being blind to it or sadly unaware of how one makes the questions and proposals you insist are pure.

Go back and look.

I’d rather you go back and think.

Why would you ask about the intentions of women without first presuming that these were the only intentions out there? Why would you even tie these intentions with certain forms of dress?

Here, let me demonstrate what you’re trying to do.

Say I walk past somebody and I’m wearing my signature attire of big hoodie and cargoes. This person thinks just like you and makes the same questions, proposals, conditionals etc.

“Is he wearing those clothes out of vanity, pride, or an attempt to intimidate people?”

“Is he wearing them because he thinks it might rain or to shield his eyes from the sun?”

Obviously such questions are based on narrow premises that don’t consider how superficial appearances are in the first place. They immediately assume something that is not necessarily even true before the actual asking/proposing.

Again, for the umpteenth time: You can’t judge a book by its cover.

 

[Edward_H]

I couldn’t care less if these were questions asked at the next Vatican council. What I am deconstructing here is your mere thought process. Obviously, you are either deliberately being blind to it or sadly unaware of how one makes the questions and proposals you insist are pure.

I’d rather you go back and think.

Why would you ask about the intentions of women without first presuming that these were the only intentions out there? Why would you even tie these intentions with certain forms of dress?

Here, let me demonstrate what you’re trying to do.

Say I walk past somebody and I’m wearing my signature attire of big hoodie and cargoes. This person thinks just like you and makes the same questions, proposals, conditionals etc.

“Is he wearing those clothes out of vanity, pride, or an attempt to intimidate people?”

“Is he wearing them because he thinks it might rain or to shield his eyes from the sun?”

Obviously such questions are based on narrow premises that don’t consider how superficial appearances are in the first place. They immediately assume something that is not necessarily even true before the actual asking/proposing.

Again, for the umpteenth time: You can’t judge a book by its cover.

Peace to you.

 

[Portrait]

Lumen Gentium reminded us, among many other things, that the bar is much higher on our, the lay’s, responsibility for the salvation of all souls.

Some Protestants (and increasingly many Catholics) have a adopted a “me and Jesus” approach to living our Christian life…“I got my salvation, you get yours.”

Coupled with this low-shooting form of apostolate is the insidious “don’t judge” approach, which completely confuses people, and causes even more distance between the people of God. It causes hesitation, fences, territory and all sorts of opportunity for pride.

Dear Edward H,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Our lot is cast in an age of unprecedented moral laxity and it is an undeniable fact that the godless spirit of the age has infilitrated Holy Mother Church. Alas, the Church has, since Vatican II, become just too open to the modern world with the result that many of the faithful no longer think with an authentic Catholic mind with respect to such issues as modesty in the choice of attire. Unfortunately, virtue is no longer prized as it once formerly was by the faithful.

The ‘me and Jesus’ approach to Catholic living is indeed quite common nowaday’s within our Church, especially among the youth, though not exclusively by any means. Much of the blame for this must surely rest with neo-Catholic orthodoxy and what might be termed the Novus Ordo mindset (often very conservative as regards the essential moral/doctrinal propositions, which is why it is so apt to deceive), which tends to swim with the stream by imbibing as much of a worldly outlook as possible by the embracing of a ‘Catholicism Lite’. This inevitably results in many of the faithful making some rather catastrophic errors of prudential judgement when it comes to such issues as modest choice of clothing and diverse entertainments (e.g. music and films etc.). This most lamentable state of affairs has been engendered by a monumental failure on the part of many trendy priests and spiritual directors, who have recalcitrantly refused to provide sound guidance that is thoroughly consonant with the whole tenor of traditional Catholicism. Such people have betrayed an entire generation of Catholics with their warped and fallacious thinking, under the mistaken belief that the old rigorous Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II Church, with its insistence on sanctity and separation from the world, is now an embarassment and obstacle to the mission of the Church in the 21st. century. Moreover, those who dare to challenge the accepted orthodoxy are contemptuously dismissed as being hidebound traditionalists who not, improbably, have an issue with ‘overscrupulosity’, which supposedly makes them judgemental of others.

The existence of multiple threads on such topics as modesty in dress and rock/pop music, evinces the deep impact of the neo-Catholic orthodox mindset upon the post Vatican II Church.

Jolly good posts Edward, keep up the good work, old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax