Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Lost_Wanderer]

But I need to ask. By your logic, then what is the purpose of modesty?

It is with questions like this where I hold the dictionary as my guide on definitions. The definitions and synonyms of the word “modesty” that I have read tell me that there is more about character than it is about dress.

Modesty is simply not drawing any unwanted attention to yourself. You can say clothes can do that but I say clothes are not a sufficient source of information to assume anything and do not attract attention as much as actions and words do.

Your actions (e.g. bawling in public) and words (e.g. speaking heresies) are a lot easier to read than your appearances (yet this is still not saying a lot as we have to take into account the whole picture). They are also within the realm of personal control.

 

[Debora123]

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.

That’s fine, YOU can think miniskirts and “short” shorts (what you consider short may not be what I consider short) are not decent. Maybe that’s how you were brought up. Maybe you live in a colder, more conservative part of the world. But where I live, in my world, the basic, average length miniskirts and shorts are completely normal and perfectly decent if worn in the right time/place.

My point is, as much as YOU can think they’re evil, you have to realize that this is your opinion and not something that was condemned by the Church. And so it’s actually very out of line for you to hold others accountable for something that is merely your opinion and not backed up by the Church.

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?

Ohhhhh Goooood grief… sigh

Once again, please please please please prove to me that a mini skirt, shorts, and bikinis are immodest. And please read my dozens of other posts where I explain over and over again why they are not. Your side has yet to refute those posts and even attempt to explain to me why my points are void and why those articles of clothing ARE immodest according to the CC.

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.

Please see above.

 

[Debora123]

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.

Thank you thank you thank you. The only reason they use that quote so much is because it’s all they have.

 

[Debora123]

In mass this Sunday I happened to notice how many teen- age girls that were not dressed properly. Shorty shorts,tube tops and one girl had a see thru blouse on. I have a teen aged daughter and son. When I see them wearing something that is not appropriate for mass I make them change! I sometimes get a why argument but I try my best to make them understand that it is distracting and disrespectful!

I think it is the parents responsibility to educate their children. The next day i spoke with my pastor and asked him if he could put something in our Sunday bulletin. He immediately agreed.
Some might argue that at least they go to mass ,I think it’s important for them not to forget that they are in the house of our Lord!
We might as well not be here if we don’t speak up for the things that matter!

No one here is condoning this type of dress in Church.

 

[Portrait]

---

Oh yea —the negative connotation of “feminism”. Not at all surprised surprised by this “argument”. And of course “feminist” is thrown at --Traditional women who have woken up and realized --that women are treated as second class–and downright denigrated within the “Trad” movement by “Trad” men who long for the days when women were property. Seems to be – the “Trad” movement is open to that type of mentality. So --not at all surprised.

By the way – who guided your “conversion” into Catholicism.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well.

Sorry old chap, but I have never met any traditional Catholic men who treat either their wives or other women like chattel. On the contrary, they behave like perfect gentlemen towards the ‘weaker sex’ and are respected by women, save, of course, for some resentful femenists who have an inclination to always feel aggrieved about something or other.

My mentor on my journey to Holy Mother Church was a traditionalist priest. He is a very learned and pious man who radiates a warmth and a love and a zeal for our holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well.

Sorry old chap, but I have never met any traditional Catholic men who treat either their wives or other women like chattel. On the contrary, they behave like perfect gentlemen towards the** ‘weaker sex’ **and are respected by women, save, of course, for some resentful femenists who have an inclination to always feel aggrieved about something or other.

My mentor on my journey to Holy Mother Church was a traditionalist priest. He is a very learned and pious man who radiates a warmth and a love and a zeal for our holy religion.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

The “weaker sex” —that is just what “Trad” men want women to believe and keep them. Of course once the the “weaker sex” realizes she is not “weak”—out then its “feminism”.

Was this “Trad” priest — SSPX, sede, etc.

 

[Portrait]

Walking_Home:
Dear Walking_Home,

In his First Epistle St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7) - “Likewise you husbands, live consideratetly with your wives, bestowing honour upon the woman as the weaker sex…”.

No, he is just a traditionalist priest.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Walking_Home,

In his First Epistle St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7) - “Likewise you husbands, live consideratetly with your wives, bestowing honour upon the woman as the weaker sex…”.

No, he is just a traditionalist priest.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

I do not believe the Church interprets the weaker sex as you “Trads”.

If you are the “fruit” of this “Trad” priest’s work – I’d say there is also the work of one “Trad” bishop somewhere in the background. This being the SSPX bishop Williamson. Your posts reek of this bishop’s type of mentality.

 

[Debora123]

---

I do not believe the Church interprets the weaker sex as you “Trads”.

If you are the “fruit” of this “Trad” priest’s work – I’d say there is also the work of one “Trad” bishop somewhere in the background. This being the SSPX bishop Williamson. Your posts reek of this bishop’s type of mentality.

As Catholics, we all know that we don’t take every word of the bible completely literally. That is why we have the CHURCH to lead us.

WalkingHome, I wouldn’t bother. I just wouldn’t even bother…

 

[Debora123]

You know, I was just thinking…

If I viewed men in the same light as some other folks here view them, I don’t think I’d ever go to a male gyno again. Or better yet, I’d just never go to a male doctor at all, ever again.

 

[Portrait]

---

I do not believe the Church interprets the weaker sex as you “Trads”.

If you are the “fruit” of this “Trad” priest’s work – I’d say there is also the work of one “Trad” bishop somewhere in the background. This being the SSPX bishop Williamson. Your posts reek of this bishop’s type of mentality.

Dear Walking_Home,

Hello again.

Here is the traditional Catholic interpretation of the passage in I Peter 3: 7: “They (husbands) should make allowance for the natural physical weakness of women, and give them the regard which is due to them as ‘co-heirs of the grace of life’” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1953, p. 1179). No Catholic, traditional or otherwise, would twist the meaning of this text to imply that the natural physical weakness of the female sex serves as justification for treating women with contempt. On the contrary, it a reason for treating them with honour and respect.

Undeniably, the militant secular feminist claim for all-round equality with men has made a very significant contribution to the virtual extinction of what used to be refered to as ‘gentlemanly behaviour’. Thus it is becoming less rare for men to offer their seats on a crowded train/bus to a woman as a woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration on account of her being the “weaker vessel”. The mindset of some women is so warped that they consider such chivalry towards them as an affront. How very sad, especially when it is misguided Catholic women who think this way. However, the legacy of secular feminism is a topic for another thread and is not under review here.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Catholic41506]

As Catholics, we all know that we don’t take every word of the bible completely literally. That is why we have the CHURCH to lead us.

WalkingHome, I wouldn’t bother. I just wouldn’t even bother…

From the CCC:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

 

[Walking_Home]

You know, I was just thinking…

If I viewed men in the same light as some other folks here view them, I don’t think I’d ever go to a male gyno again. Or better yet, I’d just never go to a male doctor at all, ever again.

---

Well Debora123–when taken into account–that a man who posted in this very thread and made one of the most vile references towards women being trash --is a male nurse-- I would not want this type of “nurse” any where near my girls in an examining room.

 

[Portrait]

From the CCC:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

Dear Catholic41506,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above, dear friend.

Jolly good observation that and this is precisely the sound manner in which traditional Catholics approach Sacred Scripture. Indeed, it is the approach taken by H. Willmering S.J. in his exegesis of I Pet. 3: 7 in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, to which I refered in my post to Walking_Home.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dear Walking_Home,

Hello again.

Here is the traditional Catholic interpretation of the passage in I Peter 3: 7: “They (husbands) should make allowance for the natural physical weakness of women, and give them the regard which is due to them as ‘co-heirs of the grace of life’” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1953, p. 1179). No Catholic, traditional or otherwise, would twist the meaning of this text to imply that the natural physical weakness of the female sex serves as justification for treating women with contempt. On the contrary, it a reason for treating them with honour and respect.

Undeniably, the militant secular feminist claim for all-round equality with men has made a very significant contribution to the virtual extinction of what used to be refered to as ‘gentlemanly behaviour’. Thus it is becoming less rare for men to offer their seats on a crowded train/bus to a woman as a woman, open the door for her, or treat her with any special consideration on account of her being the “weaker vessel”. The mindset of some women is so warped that they consider such chivalry towards them as an affront. How very sad, especially when it is misguided Catholic women who think this way. However, the legacy of secular feminism is a topic for another thread and is not under review here.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I notice that your quotes are all from before 1960 and and from 1921. So should we dress as people dresses in the 1950s or in 1900 according to your modesty rules?

Generally women are weaker than men pound for pound. Going on about women being the weaker sex is not all about physical strength and smacks of a condescending attitude. You brought up the’weaker sex’ thing so it is in context to speak of feminism. Feminism is about advocating equal rights for women so a man can also be a feminist BTW. There should be mutual courtesy. Both men and women should give up their seats to a pregnant woman, to a disabled person, open a door for a person with hands full etc. What is wrong with full equality celebrating the differences? Why should not both men and women honour and respect everyone?

 

[severus68]

---

Well Debora123–when taken into account–that a man who posted in this very thread and made one of the most vile references towards women being trash --is a male nurse-- I would not want this type of “nurse” any where near my girls in an examining room.

I would not want him anywhere me or anyone else I know.

 

[severus68]

I wont enter this debate fully, because I have other things to do, but I don’t mind calling myself a Catholic feminist. The women’s movement have done a whole lot of good and achieved many rights that should have been basic rights under Christian patriachy but weren’t, such as equal expectations from men and women when it comes to sexual standards, admitting and respecting that women sexuality, although different from men’s is as strong as men’s (including sexual drive and longing) that we have, or should have equal rights to jobs, equal wages for the same work (this is not achieved yet, even in the most western of countries) equal education and equal right to keep one’s name etc, right to seperate from abusive husbands, and have a say in reproductive decisions. Some really bad changes have happend in feminism but feminism grew out of a real need for equality (and no its not right that equality has always been self evident in the Church… Only more recent documents use this word as well as other very positive words about women and their role, not only as home makers). I am glad I am a post 2. Vatican Council Catholic. I find myself modest, but you will not hear me painting feminism as such as a bad thing only, and I think the sooner Catholic men start recognizing the wound of women of devaluation throughout history the sooner we can get on with peace and harmony also in families.

Well said.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Well Debora123–when taken into account–that a man who posted in this very thread and made one of the most vile references towards women being trash --is a male nurse-- I would not want this type of “nurse” any where near my girls in an examining room.

I would not want him anywhere me or anyone else I know.

---

Yes–I fully agree.

 

[severus68]

From the CCC:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

‘That is why the Church stresses the importance of knowing the literary genres of Scripture: “In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, inter alia, to ‘literary forms for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts,’ and in other forms of literary expression” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 12). In short, we are not to take the Bible literalistically, but literarily.’

The above is an extract of an extract of an article written by Tim Gray.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0076.html

Literarily is not the same as literally.

 

[Joan1969]

We’ve gone over this quote many times here on the thread before you came in.

I agree, there are some clothes out there that are immodest and our culture condemns them for what they are. Wearing a thong to the beach, showing an access of cleavage at a super market, walking down the street with shorts that are so short you can see the skin where leg and torso meet, etc etc… those are not the norms of our culture, and wearing such things IS immodest…

Hi Debora,

This thread has been going on a long time, and much has probably been said repeatedly. Even so, and hoping you’re not yet tired of the exchange, I still have to ask about how you see the Fatima quote.

You are going with the standards of the culture here. What the culture considers “edgy”, inappropriate, or over the top is what you disapprove. Why would these be the standards of Christ? Why would Our Lady have said He would be “offended very much” by fashions that would only be disapproved a short time by a segement of the culture, then quickly get seen as normative as standards continually get flouted?

Is it only social disapproval that concerns you? If a generally-accepted fashion is also provocative, isn’t that more important than whether some old lady finds it unsuitable? Some fashions are always going to provoke, no matter how “social standards” change. Wouldn’t that be what concerned Jesus, who spoke of lust in the heart as sinful?

Just some thoughts.

God Bless,
Joan