Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

[Edward_H]

Dear Edward H,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Portrait

Pax

Portrait, greetings to you as well. Solid points you make and well.

The Gospel from today’s Mass said it well.

Jesus tell us: "So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

He didn’t get a bunch of “but you’re making us scrupulous” in response. “You’re judging us.” No.

The point of a Christian life is holiness…an ever closer approximation to living the life in the image of Jesus. Calmly, done with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, for the love of God.

Walking on an ever slightly inclined plane until we die.

Living a modest life for our self and others is one help.

 

[Portrait]

Men are also called to modestly! To put the onus on women is simple being misgyonistic while at the same time deminishing men and their ability to self control.

Men can be ruled by the flesh just as women can be, but men need to harden the cuss up and control themselves, to say a woman’s short shirt causes them to lust is not the woman’s fault, but that man’s!

Stop being babies and own up to your own sins instead of blaming women for it. Would you blame a baker for displaying nice cakes if an obese man ran in there and ate it all without paying?

Dear vera dicere,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Your whole line of reasoning does not, I feel, adequately reckon with the fact that man is a fallen being who must now contend with the presence of concupiscence or evil desire. As a consequence of this man will always be disposed to look upon a woman lustfully, hence our Lord’s warning in the Gospel (see St. Matt. 5: 28). It is not merely an issue of burdening women with the moral failure of men as regards the custody of their eyes, or of men evading their responsibility to boldly engage with the challenge of evil desire. It is not a matter of either/or but rather of both/and with respect to men* and* women doing their bit to minimise the strength of concupiscence and thus counteract its vicious effects.

Quite true, men should not put all the ‘onus’ upon women and it admits of no doubt that they do have a responsibility for the custody of their eyes (cf. Job 31: 1 and confirmed by the teaching of Christ in the Gospel, St. Matt. 5: 28). Clearly, the enflaming of the imagination can be the result of the indiscipline of the eyes. However, any woman who professes religion has a duty, given the presence of evil desire, to so dress as not to cause *unecessary *temptation in the opposite sex and possibly be the occasion of mortal sin. As has already been remarked, dressing in a seemly fashion, with due consideration for others, is surely an act of very basic charity. Incidently, this applies equally to both men and women.

Fallen man will always be inclined to be lascivious as far as women are concerned and therefore must ensure that they do their utmost to keep their libido in check. Women must also, if they profess godliness, don modest apparel and avoid wearing any clothing that voluptuously exposes their bodies (e.g. mini-skirts, low cut tops that reveal cleavage and bikini’s), thereby stimulating evil desire and impure thoughts in men. It is a two-way affair, rather than a ‘sexist’ one way, which seeks to put all of the responsibility upon the gentleman’s shoulders.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Portrait, greetings to you as well. Solid points you make and well.

The Gospel from today’s Mass said it well.

Jesus tell us: "So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

He didn’t get a bunch of “but you’re making us scrupulous” in response. “You’re judging us.” No.

The point of a Christian life is holiness…an ever closer approximation to living the life in the image of Jesus. Calmly, done with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, for the love of God.

Walking on an ever slightly inclined plane until we die.

Living a modest life for our self and others is one help.

Dear Edward,

Thankyou for your response above with which I entirely agree.

What is often written on these boards regarding over-scrupulosity and being judgemental is complete and utter balderdash. Invariably, the over-scrupilosity card is played by those who want nothing more than stick to figuratively thrash their opponent in a debate and discredit him. In any event, it all boils down in most instances to subjective and biased opinion and amounts to little more than someone profoundly disagreeing with someone else and wanting to bolster their own position by making the other person appear illogical and unbalanced.

Listening to some men, one could be pardoned for thinking that is was always wrong, under any circumstances, to pass an unfavourable judgment on the conduct or opinions of others. However, it is not uncharitable to have decided opinions and to give a negative appraisal of that which is unseemly or culturally unhealthy; on the contrary, it is our bounden duty as Catholics to censure and expose all that is contrary to virtuous living and our most holy Faith. Moreover, it is preposterous to assert, as some men do, that it is wrong to ever reprove the sins and faults of others until we ourselves have attained to a state of perfection. What we are to avoid is a censorious and fault-finding spirit that is always looking to magnify the errors and weaknesses of our neighbour, which is an entirely different matter altogether. We should also avoid pouncing upon other men for triffling offences and genuine matters of indifference.

BTW, Edward, I like your words about “walking on an ever slightly inclined plane until we die”, for that aptly sums up the way of holiness. Those words remind me of that text in Proverbs: “the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day” (4: 18). When the child of God looks continually upon the Son of God He is changed by the Spirit of God into the image of God (cf. II Corinthians 3: 18).

God bless you, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[andyandely1997]

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

I agree completely. You need to have courage these days when confronting our current culture, which as you stated, has infected the Church as well. And sadly, we having to many Catholic men, who are wimps when it comes to being spiritual leaders. Just because something is currently part of our culture, does not make it ok. Dress, movies, music, etc. these days, were not part of our culture 50 years ago. We have not evolved with regards to our culture, but are devolving rapidly into a immoral society with no regards to virtue. And you are also correct when it comes to labels, when you judge an action such as dress, movies, or music. You are labeled extreme or judgmental. Now, we cannot judge people, but we can judge people’s actions, although, too many people these days are confused on the issue of making judgments. Keeping quiet and not addressing the issues of our days, which might involve judging actions, is not a virtue. But again, we are afraid to offend anyone at the expense of the truth. We cannot serve two masters, the world & the Church, and many today want the best of both worlds, which is not possible.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Fallen man will always be inclined to be lascivious as far as women are concerned and therefore must ensure that they do their utmost to keep their libido in check. Women must also, if they profess godliness, don modest apparel and avoid wearing any clothing that voluptuously exposes their bodies (e.g. mini-skirts, low cut tops that reveal cleavage and bikini’s), thereby stimulating evil desire and impure thoughts in men. It is a two-way affair, rather than a ‘sexist’ one way, which seeks to put all of the responsibility upon the gentleman’s shoulders.

Women wouldn’t have the need to cover up, if men knew more self-control. It’s that simple. To say that it is an “and” problem and not an “or” problem does nothing but maintain a self-perpetuating status quo of moral deadlock. People realized that with Prohibition and alcoholism. That’s why the solution nowadays is no longer banning alcohol but dealing with the alcoholics themselves.

People who follow your logic are the type to blame both rapists and their victims.

You don’t solve the problem of theft by telling people to lock up more. You solve it by catching the bad guys and putting them in jail. End of story.

 

[Edward_H]

Women wouldn’t have the need to cover up, if men knew more self-control. It’s that simple. To say that it is an “and” problem and not an “or” problem does nothing but maintain a self-perpetuating status quo of moral deadlock. People realized that with Prohibition and alcoholism. That’s why the solution nowadays is no longer banning alcohol but dealing with the alcoholics themselves.

People who follow your logic are the type to blame both rapists and their victims.

You don’t solve the problem of theft by telling people to lock up more. You solve it by catching the bad guys and putting them in jail. End of story.

This is a classic libertarian view of morality; it’s just not Catholic.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is a classic libertarian view of morality; it’s just not Catholic.

I don’t wanna hear that from a collectivist.

 

[Edward_H]

I don’t wanna hear that from a collectivist.

Too bad. You need to know the truth that you have a poor understanding of Catholic morality.

At bottom, Catholic morality isn’t a 50-50 collectivist bucket, as you seem to like to try to throw people. It’s not a 0-100 proposition either.

It’s instead a 100-100 proposition. Each member of the Body of Christ has a “stretchy” responsibility for themselves and for each other in line with the 3 principles of:

• subsidiarity
• solidarity
• human dignity

This is very different from mere ‘collectivist’ and ‘libertarian’ approaches. Most adults have never had a class on Catholic moral theology…and so they too quickly put things in little buckets.

 

[Walking_Home]

Agreed, an act of charity towards those men who simply cannot help themselves. My heart bleeds for them, therefore to compensate for their animal lack of control, I shall cover myself until no skin shows.

---

Bingo.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is very different from mere ‘collectivist’ and ‘libertarian’ approaches. Most adults have never had a class on Catholic moral theology…and so they too quickly to put things in little buckets.

I’ll have you know I aced that class and for someone who likes to claim himself an ace as well, you seem to ignore that the very basis of Catholic morality is human dignity. Everything else expands on it.

You don’t protect the dignity of the human person by hiding behind tent skirts and stuffy suits. You protect it by dealing with its aggressors. It’s stand and fight, not run and hide. People like you twist such understanding to make excuses for the latter. That way, you can all take your time telling people what to wear, placing unwarranted value on physical appearances (a direct violation of 1 Samuel 16:7), while twiddling your thumbs and barely giving so much as a sideways glance to your inner demons.

No matter what you say, you cannot deny that human lust is the basis for all our shallow tendencies. Human lust is the real problem. Yet, instead of dealing with such shallowness, we give in to it. This goes for both the Party of Modesty and the Party of Sex. They’re all the same. They both affirm a fictional value on human appearances and act as if the way you look has a higher value.

 

[Edward_H]

I’ll have you know I aced that class and for someone who likes to claim himself an ace as well, you seem to ignore that the very basis of Catholic morality is human dignity. Everything else expands on it.

You don’t protect the dignity of the human person by hiding behind tent skirts and stuffy suits. You protect it by dealing with its aggressors. It’s stand and fight, not run and hide. People like you twist such understanding to make excuses for the latter. That way, you can all take your time telling people what to wear, placing unwarranted value on physical appearances (a direct violation of 1 Samuel 16:7), while twiddling your thumbs and barely giving so much as a sideways glance to your inner demons.

No matter what you say, you cannot deny that human lust is the basis for all our shallow tendencies. Human lust is the real problem. Yet, instead of dealing with such shallowness, we give in to it. This goes for both the Party of Modesty and the Party of Sex. They’re all the same. They both affirm a fictional value on human appearances and act as if the way you look has a higher value.

Lust isn’t the real root problem and neither is dignity the fundamental concept of morality.

It’s love. Our problem is we lack love. We lack God. Our actions are not done for God. It’s lack of love, lack of charity, for God and others. Charity is the fundamental concept, not dignity. God (God is love) is the key.

Take the class again, or get your money back, you were short changed.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lust isn’t the real root problem and neither is dignity.

It’s lack of love, lack of charity, for God and others. Charity is the fundamental concept, not dignity.

Have you even asked yourself why do you need the things you’ve just cited? Sorry but even the CCC clearly states:

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

Charity may be the greatest of all virtues but that does not make it the reason for human morality. We do what we believe is right because we are human beings, human not in a fallible sense but in a sense that we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore, any sort of value placement on physical appearances that deny/ignore the higher nature of that dignity (be said value labeled sexual or moral) should be seen as a grave injustice.

 

[Edward_H]

A woman who deliberately dresses provocatively is not loving enough. Not loving God enough, not loving her neighbors enough, not loving herself enough.

And a man who can’t control his eyes, heart, memory, will and imagination is not loving enough either.

Neither is doing what they do for the glory of God and true love of neighbor.

Love is the key. A true understanding of love, as utter and simple self-donation.

Love on the Cross, as Christ loved us.

 

[Walking_Home]

Lust isn’t the real root problem and neither is dignity.

It’s lack of love, lack of charity, for God and others.** Charity is the fundamental concept,** not dignity.

---

Charity is to be given across the board — and not only to those whose manner of dress fit your “criteria”. And yes – it is about womens God given human dignity–and what you and your kind to do is rape her of it --by your implications that a women not dress to your “criteria” is less than one who is.

At these point – I am also wondering just what the sacraments are doing for you. Since your kind still have not raised yourself from base level — and operate like animals in heat.

 

[Edward_H]

Have you even asked yourself why do you need the things you’ve just cited? Sorry but even the CCC clearly states:

Charity may be the greatest of all virtues but that does not make it the reason for human morality. We do what we believe is right because we are human, human not in a fallible sense but in a sense that we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore, any sort of value placement on physical appearances that deny/ignore the higher nature of that dignity (be said value labeled sexual or moral) should be seen as a grave injustice.

Charity isn’t just the greatest virtue…it’s the greatest COMMANDMENT.

822
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
1823
Jesus makes charity the new commandment. (96 )By loving his own “to the end,” (97) he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (98)
1824
Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: “Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.” (99)
1827
**The practice of the moral life animated by charity give to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who “first loved us”: **(106) If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages,… we resemble mercenaries. Finally, if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands… we are in the position of children. (107)
1829
The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest. (108)

 

[Edward_H]

---

At these point – I am also wondering just what the sacraments are doing for you. Since your kind still have not raised yourself from base level — and operate like animals in heat.

You show no charity or even self-dignity with statements like this.

If there is another observer (other than Wanderer) on these boards who thinks I am, as Walking Home suggests, of the “kind” that “operates like animals in heat” please say so and I will confess.

 

[Edward_H]

A woman who deliberately dresses provocatively is not loving enough. Not loving God enough, not loving her neighbors enough, not loving herself enough.

And a man who can’t control his eyes, heart, memory, will and imagination is not loving enough either.

Neither is doing what they do for the glory of God and true love of neighbor.

Love is the key. A true understanding of love, as utter and simple self-donation.

Love on the Cross, as Christ loved us.

Like I said.

 

[Walking_Home]

Charity isn’t just the greatest virtue…it’s the greatest COMMANDMENT.

822
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
1823
Jesus makes charity the new commandment. (96 )By loving his own “to the end,” (97) he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” (98)
1824
Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: “Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.” (99)
1827
**The practice of the moral life animated by charity give to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who “first loved us”: **(106) If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages,… we resemble mercenaries. Finally, if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands… we are in the position of children. (107)
1829
The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest. (108)

---

And this the the main pertinent part to the teaching on modesty. You can “quote” what ever you want but it comes down to this:

CCC 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

Modesty is a virtue that encompasses more than clothing choice, although our clothing choices are a practical working out of the virtue of modesty. Modesty is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2522):

Quote:
Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

The Church does not mandate any one clothing choice for women – or for men, for that matter. According to the CCC (2524):

Quote:
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.

So, while this family’s clothing choice is one modest option, it is not the only option and should not be presented “the Marian way” of modest dress, as if this choice was the only clothing that would be approved for women by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8407

 

[Edward_H]

---

And this the the main pertinent part to the teaching on modesty. You can “quote” what ever you want but it comes down to this:

CCC 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.

No it doesn’t. You proof text from the Catechism. Amazing.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

A woman who deliberately dresses provocatively is not loving enough. Not loving God enough, not loving her neighbors enough, not loving herself enough.

Riiiight because mini-skirts and tank tops are a sign that a girl is eeeevil.
You might as well come out and say the bullies were right to pick on me cuz I looked like a nerd.

Keep in mind and ask yourself. Why is it provocative?

Answer: Cuz you can’t stop staring.

Has it ever occurred to you that there’s more to the virtue of modesty than what you look like?

Charity isn’t just the greatest virtue…it’s the greatest COMMANDMENT.

Again, you are not reading. Do I really need to quote the dictionary?

commandment noun] - a command or mandate

Commands and mandates still demand a reason, a logical base, a justification.

And you know what that is?

Human dignity.

(And let me tell you something, no, let me repeat something: Telling people what they are based only on what they look like is not very dignifying.)

If there is another observer (other than Wanderer) on these boards who thinks I am, as Walking Home suggests, of the “kind” that “operates like animals in heat” please say so and I will confess.

I don’t think it’s equally charitable to single out people who disagree with you when asking a public opinion.