Top 10 reasons women should dress modestly

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Walking_Home:
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.

I call them – as I see em. And you should not be one— to call upon charity and self-dignity----since who do not offer such to women who do not fit your “criteria”.
 
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.
Riiiight because mini-skirts and tank tops are a sign that a girl is eeeevil./B]
You might as well come out and say the bullies were right to pick on me cuz I looked like a nerd.

.​

Didn’t we go through that once with gnosticism. You know – “the flesh is evil” cannot have a good soul. Seems like what these people are saying : the outer appearance–mini skirts (bad) — cannot have a good soul.
 
No, only feel the need to quote from the dictionary if you’re not Catholic or Christian.

Otherwise, quote from Jesus.
Riiight.

Creationist: Only feel the need to quote a science textbook if you’re not Christian. Otherwise quote from Jesus.

Evolutionist: facepalms
 
Didn’t we go through that once with gnosticism. You know – “the flesh is evil” cannot have a good soul. Seems like what these people are saying : the outer appearance–mini skirts (bad) — cannot have a good soul.
I find it rather glaring that the likes of Edward here often don’t deal with the accusation that the measure they are measuring with is no different from the measure of pimps, fashion nuts, and all other proponents of shallow celebrity world views.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
Didn’t we go through that once with gnosticism. You know – “the flesh is evil” cannot have a good soul. Seems like what these people are saying : the outer appearance–mini skirts (bad) — cannot have a good soul.
I find it rather glaring that the likes of Edward here often don’t deal with the accusation that the measure they are measuring with is no different from the measure of pimps, fashion nuts, and all other proponents of shallow celebrity world views.

Yup—shallow is right. Plus once the road of extreme is taken it can lead anywhere–even to heresy.
 
Lessee… either that was a condescending ad hom or you have a weird way of suddenly breaking away from a discussion.
Seriously, we finally connect. I don’t understand Anime and I don’t understand your and Walking Home’s postings. So maybe I just don’t understand a lot.

I consistently give examples to counter your accusations and characterizations, and it doesn’t matter a whit. You decided early on to pigeon-hole me and that’s fine.

I point to charity, to love of God, to holiness (see reference to today’s Gospel) and I end up being hit left and right by you and Wanderer. I really don’t care. I know my theology very well.

We are all called to holiness, and we’re called to cooperate in the salvation of all souls.

A woman above admitted to dressing for effect, and this is no surprise. My wonderful wife has read these postings and she tells me I am on target.
 
Seriously, we finally connect. I don’t understand Anime and I don’t understand your and Walking Home’s postings. So maybe I just don’t understand a lot.

I consistently give examples to counter your accusations and characterizations, and it doesn’t matter a whit. You decided early on to pigeon-hole me and that’s fine.

I point to charity, to love of God, to holiness (see reference to today’s Gospel) and I end up being hit left and right by you and Wanderer. I really don’t care. I know my theology very well.

We are all called to holiness, and we’re called to cooperate in the salvation of all souls.

A woman above admitted to dressing for effect, and this is no surprise. My wonderful wife has read these postings and she tells me I am on target.
Dear Edward H,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your excellent posts, dear friend, which are bang on target and fully in accord with traditional Catholicism, even if they are out of sync with the neo-Catholic orthodox mindset.

Our Church has always taught that indecent attire is unbefitting of those who profess godliness. Here is what Pope Benedict XV said in more sober and God fearing times when immodest clothing was not tolerated:

“One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by the desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would have formerly blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity” (Sacra Propediem, 1921).

These words have an incredible contemporary ring to them and are even more pertinent to our own morally degenerate age. The fact that they would be brushed aside as bordering on ‘prissy Puritanism’ is just indicative of the siesmic shift in the opinion of the faithful and the impact of neo-Catholic orthodoxy.

What is very noticeable in this and other debates upon this topic is the amount of sophistry and fallacious reasoning that men will resort to in order to justify the wearing of immodest vesture. Notwithstanding this deplorable laxity, our Church in both the Catechism and Sacred Scripture has spoken quite unambiguously upon this issue:

“Modesty is decency. It inspires ones choice of clothing” (CCC, para. 2523).

"Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies (CCC, para. 2523).

"Women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in *seemly aparrel *(St. Paul, I Tim. 2: 9).

(all added emphases mine).

Surely if words mean anything at all, the above citations are quite plain enough. How can mini-skirts, low-cut garments revealing cleavage and bikini’s fall under the heading of “seemly aparrel”? To quote Pope Benedict XV again, such indecenct clothing “shocks every honest man and offends God”.

Moreover, it should be observed that the word ‘modesty’ in the St. Paul passage above denotes a sense of shame and a godly recoiling from trespassing the boundaries of propriety. Thus it is manifestly obvious, irrespective of cultural considerations, that a woman’s clothing must be expressive of an interior modesty and a devout sober outlook upon life. In other words, a Catholic outlook that is thoroughly consistent with good taste and decency. It is really quite that simple.

Finally, it is quite evident nowaday’s that many Catholics have an inadequate grasp of basic moral theology because they seemingly have little, if any, awareness of concupiscence or evil desire. As a consequence of the Fall man is fundamentally flawed and now has a propensity to sin. Therefore are viewpoint is likely to be awry and ridiculously idealistic, unless we reckon with the issue of lust and the vicious strength of evil desire within us all, men and women. As long as mankind has to contend with the presence of evil desire, it must take steps to reduce its potency and that will always entail the doning of modest attire. This is our duty as professing Catholics, as well as being a basic act of charity towards our fellow sinful brethren.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Seriously, we finally connect. I don’t understand Anime and I don’t understand your and Walking Home’s postings. So maybe I just don’t understand a lot.
You don’t get it because you don’t get logic.
(By the way, I’m seriously considering of charging you for making an ad hom because my hobby has nothing to do with this discussion.)
I consistently give examples to counter your accusations and characterizations, and it doesn’t matter a whit. You decided early on to pigeon-hole me and that’s fine.
How are you supposed to understand when you don’t even read. None of what you have said even dealt with the following:


  1. *]That we are not to judge by appearances.
    *]How the Party of Modesty and the Party of Sex use the same, shallow measure for evaluating people.
    *]The dignity of the human person transcends superficial physical looks.

    I mean that’s not even a lot. However, you don’t do so much as give a passing mention to them.
    I point to charity, to love of God, to holiness (see reference to today’s Gospel) and I end up being hit left and right by you and Wanderer. I really don’t care. I know my theology very well.
    And I point to you the reason for charity’s existence in the first place is for the sake of human dignity. I think it’s rather clear that even though you know theology, you can’t put two and two together when it comes to logic.
    A woman above admitted to dressing for effect, and this is no surprise. My wonderful wife has read these postings and she tells me I am on target.
    Yeah and I’ve admitted to dressing up because I like the way I look. End of story. I just put on some threads. That is a crime… how?

    You know, I’m getting tired of repeating/rehashing this same message over and over. What other people think of what I wear has no bearing on how they’re supposed to see me as a person. The same goes (or at least should go) for everybody else.

    As to your wife, I couldn’t care less. I’ve had my brother and my sister read up on posts like yours and the things they’ve said are actually far less charitable (yet no less reasonable) than what I’ve had to say in these arguments.

    P.S.

    If you’re so insistent of dragging my hobby into this, may I just say the world of fiction has even more examples of people being not what they seem. (In fact, I will even demonstrate that it’s because of my hobby that I now subconsciously associate sleeveless girls with broken bones and fatal concussions.)
 
As long as mankind has to contend with the presence of evil desire, it must take steps to reduce its potency and that will always entail the doning of modest attire. This is our duty as professing Catholics, as well as being a basic act of charity towards our fellow sinful brethren.
I hate to break it to everyone but what Portrait here implies as “reduce” is only the tactic of those most cowardly and doomed to die a slow degenerate, death. You’d rather force people into a wall to stand between you and your inner demons instead of taking the responsibility of facing them, your responsibilty.

Again, I ask: You want charity?

Tell people to man up. That’s charity.

Call perverts for what they are instead of forcing people to conform to their shallow perceptions of humanity. That’s charity.

Tell people to stop evaluating others just because they wear…

… glasses
or mini-skirts
or jeans
or long skirts
or shorts
or veils
or bling
or tattoos
or bikinis
or fedoras
or saris
or burkas
or hoodies
or braces
or jerseys
or overalls…

That is charity.
 
This thread is about reasons women should dress modestly. I am not the OP.

Throughout this discussion I have tried to consistently present the full picture of modesty, the role and reasons for women to dress modestly, and the role and reasons for men to control themselves.

Post after post of mine have struck this chord.

I have also pointed out the underlying principles that tie these roles together in a reinforcing and unifying fashion across the genders that God made us into: charity (properly understood) and holiness, a never ending struggle of daily conversion.

The reasons for all our actions and choices should be love, love of God and love of neighbor.

All of these points aren’t mine, they come directly from Jesus and are consistent with the Bible and with our Catechism.

And let me be the first to admit in this forum that I consistently fall far short in matters of charity, humility, patience, and a hundred other virtues. Yet, I struggle on up the inclined plane. And it is my duty as a Catholic to encourage others to struggle, in joy, as child of God to do everything we can to love God and others, even if this means helping each other generously not to stumble.

Moral responsibility of confirmed Catholics is broad and stretchy, and “high walls” of responsibility are not part of our morality.

The first reading from tomorrow’s Mass is relevant and profound in regard to this thread.

2 Cor 11:1-11
Brothers and sisters:
If only you would put up with a little foolishness from me!
Please put up with me.
For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God,
since I betrothed you to one husband
to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning,
your thoughts may be corrupted
from a sincere and pure commitment to Christ.
For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached,
or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received
or a different gospel from the one you accepted,
you put up with it well enough.
For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.”
Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge;
in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.

Did I make a mistake when I humbled myself so that you might be exalted,
because I preached the Gospel of God to you without charge?
I plundered other churches by accepting from them
in order to minister to you.
And when I was with you and in need, I did not burden anyone,
for the brothers who came from Macedonia
supplied my needs.
So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
By the truth of Christ in me,
this boast of mine shall not be silenced
in the regions of Achaia.
And why? Because I do not love you?
God knows I do!
 
Let take the subject of pants — which many “religious modesty fanatics” – say are immodest on women. The message given here by Pope St. Nicholas I – is that what is worn on the outside is not indicative of a person’s holiness. Clothes are neutral—neither impedes salvation nor leads to any increase in virtue.
The Responses of Pope St. Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars" (Letter 99), Chapter LVIIII, A.D. 866:
"We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant;** for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works.** But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.
 
Every culture and religion has its own ideas of what is considered modest and what is not. The cultural and religious reasons need to be respected even if you don’t agree with the reasons why.

Some nations go as far to dictate what is worn by law. I am glad America does not tell me as a woman I must wear only certain clothes. I have the freedom of choice here, something not enjoyed in many nations.

I am glad I am an American Catholic woman who also has the choice to dress well. I also do my best to ensure I am being modest especially in situations where it is required like in church and the workplace. I know the differences and know which clothes in my closet are appropriate for: the office, Mass, running errands, family events, visiting a religious place, beach/pool, a party, sporting event, and/or a concert.
 


Throughout this discussion I have tried to consistently present the full picture of modesty, the role and reasons for women to dress modestly, and the role and reasons for men to control themselves.

Post after post of mine have struck this chord.

I have also pointed out the underlying principles that tie these roles together in a reinforcing and unifying fashion across the genders that God made us into: charity (properly understood) and holiness, a never ending struggle of daily conversion.

The reasons for all our actions and choices should be love, love of God and love of neighbor.
Your message is not lost to others in this forum. Thank you for your posts, which are not lacking in charity or truth. It is unfortunate that some close their minds to reason and balance in perspective.

As each cell has an effect, for good or ill, in a human body, each member affects the body of the Church.
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top