Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Debora123]

No, but women are being irresponsible when they dress provocatively in public, especially around less disciplined men.

I don’t consider shorts and a tank top provocative, and neither does the culture we live in. And once again, shouldn’t we be making threads about how men should be more pure of heart than about women having to cover up more than what is considered decent?

No, there are standards - intuition alone should dictate them to the enlightened Catholic, so I don’t know why there’s any argument here to begin with. This isn’t some Great Mystery; it’s fairly simple stuff. At least if we’re not appealing to the standards of Britney Spears or Katy Perry. Are you?

Oh good, then what ARE those standards?

I wasn’t even aware of this comment by JPII, but I literally paraphrased it earlier. Again, I have no idea what there is to argue about here. Perhaps you should be clearer and more concrete. If it’s only about the psychology behind why a person dresses a certain way, or why a person judges another according to how they dress, which is not what I’m arguing (and isn’t the topic headline), then why are you responding to my posts to begin with?

Huh?? You lost me. This is what happens when someone jumps in the middle of a thread without having read what’s all been said and what everyone’s views here are.

 

[Debora123]

Apart from a few other posts, this thread is a lost cause. The line between modesty and immodesty isn’t blurred by God; modesty is both clearly taught in Scripture and by the Church, and also a matter of common sense. Any argument to the contrary is wrong and very suspect. You can try to blur the line if you like, and dance all around the topic and play the philosopher - but none of it will change God’s objective reality of what modesty is. That’s my final statement on this thread.

Once again, if you think modesty is such a black and white issue, and that there actually is some type of universal dress code that the Catholic Church goes by, I’d like to know what it is.

It seems YOU are the one dancing around the issue, considering I’ve made this request multiple times and you’ve failed to provide me with anything.

 

[Debora123]

---

The “line” to some is not less than skirts to the ankles/ sleeves to the wrist/ covered up to the throat—even a snood. A few place the “line” at obliterating the female form altogether under layers of long loose clothing. Others the “line” is at mid-calf/ 3/4 sleeves/ a couple of inches from the throat. To others the “line” is knee length/ short sleeves/ a few inches from the hollow of the throat. Now —there are also the “sola skirtura/no pants” --which can fall within any of the above.

So really – where is this “objective reality” of modesty --when the modesty pushers are doing their own blurring and dancing.

EXACTLY!!

 

[Debora123]

Mark, you still have not made any comments on this:

Sgh…

You still don’t understand. But that’s good that I know that now, so I can explain something that I’ve already explain 9 million times on this thread. Let me break it down for you:

Ok, so the catechism quotes above that yes, modesty is important, and protects dignity, and yadda yadda yadda… no one here, let me repeat NO ONE here condones immodest clothes. What we are arguing about is WHAT is considered modest/immodest. Because as we all know, there is no Universal, Church based standard of modesty.

For example. There is no Catholic rule saying “modesty means having the knees covered up at all times, making sure sleeves come down to the elbow, neck line must cover collar bones, etc etc…”

Rather, the Church teaches that modest varies from culture to culture:

Catechism section 2524 - The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.

Which makes sense, because in some cultures, women walk around completely topless, and yet it is not immodest bc it is their cultural norm. While a few dozen years ago, it was considered immodest to show an ankle bc the cultural norm was to have long dresses that covered almost every inch of a women.

See? Modesty changes depending on cultural norms… and on time and place. The Church has no universal standard of what is modest.

The JPII talks about it in his book:

Pope John Paul II -------in Love and Responsibility:

While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgment on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.

I think I made very good points here, and I see you’ve skipped right through all of them.

 

[severus68]

I’m saying, it’s an indication of that - though not a certainty.

So basically you say you have the truth and that our disagreeing with you is an indication that we are loose/have loose morals.

I wonder if you would say such things face to face.

Well, you may think you have the moral high ground on immodest dress but you certainly appear not to have the slightest idea what being a Christian is about.

 

[severus68]

There aren’t just two sides to this argument. There are maybe 2 poles, with lots of room in between, and then there is God’s will for us.

When we forget God’s will, most of these debates turn into tug of war.

We should all be struggling, personally - not with each other, but with our own defects, weaknesses, gaps, proclivities that have developed over the years to understand God’s will in our own personal life. Sometimes what gets in the way of unity with God’s will is our indifference, our vanity, our pride, our laziness, our temporal desires, etc.

The Catholic Church tells us this struggle toward unity with God - toward true holiness - is a life long task and requires effort, and humility, and beginning again. It requires the development of an interior life, fueled by prayer and the Sacraments, and other wonderful things our Catholic Church has given us, like a spirit of sacrifice, Scriptural reading, etc.

Again, when we see just “two sides”…we need to remember the shape of the Cross and the vertical and horizontal directions its shape reminds us to consider in our daily life of choices.

Edward,

I personally have no issue with just what you say above and I do not think the others “on my page” would say any different.

 

[TrueLight]

---

You say one thing — “Obviously God knows the heart and we are not to judge based on how they dress” —then you go and do just that with your following statements—“not being good witnesses to gospel”.

Because sometimes your heart may be in the right place, and you don’t realize the significance of certain actions.

After reading Deborah’s posts, I do believe her heart is in the right place.

I single out Deborah because this thread seems to have become Deborah and her supporters vs the “Party of Modesty” as we are being called.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m derisive of people who judge others by their looks. If you have a problem with that, you can either come to their defense (at the risk of your integrity) or stop being like every other member of the Party and getting all riled over a label I simply use for the sake of a speedy discussion.

LOL okay.

I’m not riled up. This thread has become really silly. And a bit tedious.

Enjoy!

 

[Edward_H]

If you had shown a scintilla of evidence that you understood my (i.e., It’s God’s will, not your or my will that counts) position, I’d respond substantially to you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Because sometimes your heart may be in the right place, **and you don’t realize the significance of certain actions. **

After reading Deborah’s posts,** I do believe her heart is in the right place.**

I single out Deborah because this thread seems to have become Deborah and her supporters vs the “Party of Modesty” as we are being called.

---

Keep in mind that —each one of us is responsible for our own thoughts and actions. While you say— you believe Deborah’s heart is in the right place–it still looks like you are holding her responsible --for the thoughts of someone else.

This thread is not only about Deborah—but about every other person–whose mode of dress–is looked down upon by the “party of modesty”.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you had shown a scintilla of evidence that you understood my (i.e., It’s God’s will, not your or my will that counts) position, I’d respond substantially to you.

1. Please don’t assume that God’s will means that He wants to be everyone’s seamstress.
2. Please note that Jharek’s post isn’t solely directed to you.

P.S.

I thought it was the devil who wore Prada and wrote fashion articles.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

LOL okay.

I’m not riled up. This thread has become really silly. And a bit tedious.

Enjoy!

I’m just rather annoyed by other people’s annoyance over a meager label. (I could even argue further that it’s at least more neutral than “Party of Sex”, not that the latter would care).

 

[Edward_H]

1. Please don’t assume that God’s will means that He wants to be everyone’s seamstress.
2. Please note that Jharek’s post isn’t solely directed to you.

P.S.

I thought it was the devil who wore Prada and wrote fashion articles.

Nothing in my note indicated that I thought Jhraek’s post was solely directed to me. He included me again in a bucket, and I so I responded.

And too many numerous times I have stated that it’s our own personal struggle to understand and to do God’s will. If after great discernment someone concludes that God wants them to be a stripper, then that decision (of love, of filial obedience) is between them and God.

A minor point I have been trying to introduce is the effortful, personal, life long struggle we need to engage in daily to do the will of God, even if that means our will, our desires, our weaknesses have to take the back seat.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And too many numerous times I have stated that it’s our own personal struggle to understand and to do God’s will. If after great discernment someone concludes that God wants them to be a stripper, then that decision (of love, of filial obedience) is between them and God.

No offense but you’re either making a false comparison or you might need to get a better example.

 

[severus68]

Nothing in my note indicated that I thought Jhraek’s post was solely directed to me. He included me again in a bucket, and I so I responded.

And too many numerous times I have stated that it’s our own personal struggle to understand and to do God’s will. If after great discernment someone concludes that God wants them to be a stripper, then that decision (of love, of filial obedience) is between them and God.

A minor point I have been trying to introduce is the effortful, personal, life long struggle we need to engage in daily to do the will of God, even if that means our will, our desires, our weaknesses have to take the back seat.

Edward,
I think you have been trying to be more charitable and I have been trying to respond accordingly. Why did you have to insert that stripper comment. It appears that anyone who dresses in a way YOU consider immodest, you consider a stripper or worse.Yes, we all have our personal struggles to do the Lord’ will.

It is not a minor point that we all have our

 

[Art321]

Source please.

You people say this but offer absolutely nothing to back this up, though I’ve requested it several times.

It has not been “proven,” as you say, bc no one backs up their claim or uses any catholic doctrine to back up their claim.

Can you refute the many points I’ve made to back up MY claims? No one’s done that either. They just skip right over them and go back to proclaiming their beliefs without any basis whatsoever.

First, I apologize for responding so late. Now, I made that statement because of what Blessed Jacinta Marto said. She is one of the three children that saw the Virgin Mary at Fatima.

She personally recalled that Our Lady said, Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much.

This is something that came from the Mother of God so I do consider this enough proof to back up my statement.

 

[Art321]

1. I’ve never been treated like a sexual object. I am married to a great man and have great guy friends.
2. Can you tell me what these clothes are that you speak of?
3. If you think a man treats a women like a sexual object, than shouldn’t we be focusing on THAT, instead of on telling women to cover themselves all up? Covering up more won’t change any man’s heart, and I’ve made this point many times, to which everyone just ignored.

-I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. It always boggles my mind that there are infinitely more threads urging women to cover up their bodies more than is normal, than there are threads urging that men treat and respect all women.

Now the immodest clothes that I speak off were things like the miniskirt and short shorts. I was focusing more on these. I do believe that we must can to the root of the problem and find an answer to it. But here is what I don’t understand.

Let’s say for a moment that all men in the world have conquered this problem. Do you really think that would still justify women and men for that fact to be wearing such immodest clothes?

Shouldn’t we all wear clothes that truly shows the dignity of the human person in a more profound way?

By dressing modesty, one does more than just change his or her appearance. They show humility to the world in a more profound way. God’s love and light shines through them to get to others that are lost and that are longing for Chirst.

I hope the sentence above helps to explain more about modesty to you Wanderer. It’s more that just covering up. It’s a virtue that brings purity, which it return brings humlity.

In short, Modesty is the secret to regard our bodies as beautiful gifts from God, miracles of His handiwork, chosen by Him to be His living temples on earth and to be glorified forever in heaven.

 

[Art321]

By the way, I love the dress. I really think it is modest. Very colorful too!

 

[severus68]

First, I apologize for responding so late. Now, I made that statement because of what Blessed Jacinta Marto said. She is one of the three children that saw the Virgin Mary at Fatima.

She personally recalled that Our Lady said, Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much.

This is something that came from the Mother of God so I do consider this enough proof to back up my statement.

I would be very interested in an authoritative link on this please.

 

[GraceDK]

I would be very interested in an authoritative link on this please.

Why would you? Its not a binding statement of faith. Its a matter of private revelation which shouldn’t be quoted as anything else since we as Catholics are not bound by it.

Now is it possible that the Virgin Mary said such a thing. Maybe… or maybe not. At any rate people can always abuse such statements and try to explain to others what precisely she must have referred to.
I could eg. say, I dont think she spoke about bikinis but only about men running around without a shirt, even in town (happens where I live at least), and men wearing pants where you can see their underwear and even sometimes their vertical smile.

See, I have just made my very own interpretation, and it has no relevancy to anyone else.