I do realize this has been a very long thread, and I will be happy to say my piece and agree to disagree with you if you just don’t want to go into it anymore. With well over 700 posts in the thread, there is no way to sort through them all. Clearly minds are not changing very fast here- still, I needed to make my case. I hope it will be helpful and original. I can’t sort through everything that has gone before.
Understandable. It’s just frustrating, that’s all. but it’s not your fault.
The problem with the thread and the topic seems to be lack of authority. We Catholic posters are all agreed that God is the ultimate authority, but we’re not agreeing on what He wants. I would suggest three different sources of authority to use here, and make my case from them.
Well that’s the thing, there is no authority. There is no universal Catholic standard. Purposefully. The only authority is that we do what is appropriate for the time and place in our culture. This is what the Catechism tells us.
Catholics agree that God speaks through His Church, which includes our latest Catechism and the Bible. The Catechism is not very specific, but it does refer to the dress as an occasion for modesty. (“Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity…It inspires ones choice of clothing…”)
Right, and no one here is denying that.
We Catholics also believe that God can speak by means of visionaries, like at Fatima. If we accept the vision, then we are free to use its statements as an authority.
Yes, and I’ve already explained why the one sentence long revelation doesn’t do much, as it doesn’t go into any sort of specifics whatsoever. One person could look at that and think she was referring to one article of clothing, someone else could look at it and think she was referring to something else.
You quoted Fatima correctly. In interpreting it, I think I give a reasonable method below.
The most direct and easily-verified authority is actually men themselves. Modesty in women’s dress is oriented towards the sexual purity of men; we are modest so as not to provoke (it is not a shame thing). So if it is possible for a clothing style to provoke impurity in a reasonable portion of men, then it should not be worn by a Christian woman. This is true whether or not the provocation is desired, and it is true even if the provocation does not cause loss of self-control in the man (which it won’t; humans don’t function that way).
This is impossible. Every man is different. Muslim men think it’s indecent for women to show their hair. Men from back in the day used to think it was indecent to show an ankle. The more we cover up, the more the little things are going to start “inciting lust.” Purity will come from their HEARTS, it won’t come from women covering up more and more as the men become more and more sensitive to the body parts that get covered up.
Even if it were the case (that we should always just ask men), it wouldn’t do much to help your argument, as the vast majority of American men wouldn’t think shorts and bikinis are indecent. Honestly, I’ve never in my life met anyone who thinks bikinis are immodest… with the exception of the very conservative Catholics on this forum.
So why not turn to men to figure this out? What kinds of clothing make them see a woman as an object of lust (“hot”)? This is not like homosexuality; almost all men are very free about sharing what sorts of things they find provocative in that sense. That gives us a working standard; we don’t need the Church to give us a checklist. I would submit these standards have not changed significantly in at least 50-60 years, and that they will never change in the foreseeable future. I base this on my observations of what is presented to men as “sexy” in the media, and what the men I know might say to me.
My husband thinks I’m hot. Nothing wrong with thinking a member of the opposite sex is physically attractive. Nothing wrong with being sexy.
What we also need to realize here is that there is a big difference between sexual attraction and lust. Just because a man thinks a women looks hot and sexy doesn’t mean he’s lusting. It just means he finds her attractive and is sexually attractive to her.
Past standards, like “showing the ankle” (perhaps immodest 130 years ago; certainly not “several dozen” years ago), may have provoked then but no longer do so. Knees and elbows can also be placed in this category. ** I doubt the upper thighs or bared belly ever will.** Men are simply hard wired to have a physical interest in the displayed bodies of women.
Are you sure about that? Remember what I mentioned about native tribes where women go around topless?
Bikinis expose the belly and upper thigh, yet I can guarantee that the vast majority of men at the beach (with the exception of a few perverts or extremely sheltered men) are not lusting. I speak from personal experience as someone who grew up around the beach and grew up with men around the beach.
The problem with going with general social “appropriateness” standards is that they are ever-shifting and infinitely changeable, especially in a culture defined by envelope-pushing celebrities and media hype.
Well thank goodness it’s ever changeable, otherwise we’d still all be walking around in floor length dresses. Btw, what is pushing the envelope? Once again, there is no set line, meaning there is no envelope to be pushed.
They therefore strip all meaning out of any reference to modesty, whether at Fatima, in the Catechism or in Scripture.
None of those give any standard for modesty.
)
