S
- Status
S
severus68
Guest
If you take all you quoted above literally, women must all be subordinate and under the control of man, wear no jewelry, wear sackcloth etc? What about men? I was born and choose to remain and die a Catholic. I did not choose to be a fundamentalist Muslim.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Exactly. The logic is so simple that I can only suspect people who refuse to admit their guilt in this crime as people who want to make excuses for human shallowness.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Edward,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly splendid rebbutals, old chap. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut, which is helping to put to flight the arguments of those who have become imbued with the godless spirit of the age and its lowered standards of attire.
What some here are conveniently choosing to disregard is that the Chruch’s teaching on mode of dress is an authority prevailing over every social tendency and, indeed, over every fashionable choice, becuase it was to her and not to the surrounding godless culture that Christ entrusted supernatural wisdom. Therefore, it belongs to the Catholic Church alone to discern what constitues a spiritual danger and to do battle with soul-destroying customs such as immodest and unseemly clothing. Many erroneously contend that because the Magisterium has not issued any official prohibition against such promiscuous garments as the mini-skirt or bikini, for eaxample, then the faithful are at perfect liberty to don such 21st century styles of unseemly attire. Moreover, it would be said by way of response to those who raise objections to such clothing, dubiis libertas (where a doubt exists freedom should be granted). However, this is only a superficially plausible argument becuase it fails to reckon with the impact of the moral and cultural deterioration, following the decade of decadence, the Sixties. The moral revolution has incontrovertibly influenced the post-conciliar Church, which is why we have an almost deafening silence from the hierarchy on the whole topic of unseemly and inappropriate attire. A more indulgent and lax attitude on the question of modesty in general, and the sins of the flesh in particular, now sadly prevails.
Along with this relaxation in standards of decency in dress, the topic of modesty is seldom, if ever, viewed from the perspective of Original Sin and its effect of concupiscence, which leaves human nature vulnerable to the assaults of the Devil. As Catholics we are admonished to discipline our senses and sanctify our souls with the graces that make us pleasing to our Lord, thus avoiding the “broad paths” of modern fashion attire, influenced by the godless world, debased pop psychology and TV/film culture, which present a multitude of hazards to our moral and spiritual well-being.
It is well known that when the practice of modesty, like any other moral principle, is simply left to prudential judgement, it will, at length, be gradually forgotten. At the very least, it will be influenced and informed by the fallen standards of the world, which will, ultimately, become the benchmark of what is considered seemly or unseemly, modest or immodest and acceptable or unacceptable - as this thread evinces only too well.
Unfortunately, latter day Popes have not issued timely condemnations of immodest clothing. Priests, by and large, have also failed in their duty to give moral guidance to their flock, with the lamentable result that women take their cue from the bad example of their peers, and fashion designers who have a financial interest in promoting trends, irrespective of whether they are modest or not. If these are not pivotol in their decision making, then what is considered comfortable in the climate or just looks “flattering” are the factors that dictate their choice of clothing.
As this present thread bears ample testimony, you now have the relativisation of standards of decency in attire and a complete loss of a sense of decorum, especially among women. Why, even the very tone of the discussion is flippant and worldly, which itself speaks volumes as to our plight. Nobody blushes any more - or hardly. What an indictment on the influence engendered by too much exposure to the godless world, that some Catholic women no longer perceive a violation of modesty by donning a bikini or a mini-skirt, even in the very house of God. What profanation, dear friends! Who only sixty years ago could have envisaged a time when Catholics would rationalise and vociferously defend all manner of immodest clothing? Perhaps the message of modesty is just too embarrassingly obsolete in our modern brash world with its bright lights and extra to the normal indulgences. Fashions may change over the vicissitudes of time, but standards of modesty and a proper resereve are immutable and thus it will never be acceptable to expose to the gaze of others an inordinate amount of flesh, by being clad in seductive styles of clothing.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
E
Edward_H
Guest
My wife and I have been joyfully married for 26 years. She and I understand the meaning of real beauty and love. Love and beauty are much deeper points than you seem to yet appreciate, “quite honestly”.I see.
I’d be awfully jealous if my husband was speaking this way about another woman, quite honestly.
Get back on the topic. You’re the one who is quick to go ‘personal’. You and server go personal when you run out of runway.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Me1234,
Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF.
Excellent contribition and we can never be reminded enough of this wholesome teaching, especially in an age of moral laxity and cultural detrioration, such as our own. My fear is that many neo-Catholics obstinatley refuse to be obedient this timeless teaching, or at least resort to some sort of revisionism to evade its whole import and unambiguous language. In this they simply follow the usual liberal approach to Sacred Scripture, which effectively undermines the bibles ethical teaching and the roles of men and women etc.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope you had a pleasant weekend.
Since those citatations from Sacred Scripture, referenced by Me1234, are not in the nature of poetical or apoclyptical material, how other than in the ‘literal sense’ are they to be interpreted? They are practical insturctions given for practical purposes to ordinary Church communities.
Of course men are to dress modestly, but the emphasis is upon women, since they are more likely to be easily influenced by fashions and are more, generally speaking, pre-occupied with their appearance and thus tend to be more vulnerable. Surely it is for this reason that they are singled out by both SS. Peter and Paul for specific treatment and exhortation as to modesty and related issues.
Are you suggesting that his wholesome teaching is culturally bound and therefore obsolete for all intents and purposes, if not even ‘sexist’ by your standards?
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
C
cviolette
Guest
He has mentioned physical harm in all his post. I do not understand why someone is beaten up for carrying books or being smart. I mentioned in all 3 post, verbal abuse. Yes - verbal abuse has gotten worse because it carries over to cyber bullying. He is talking about being afraid of girls that also beat him up if I understand some of his post.
I’m not downplaying it. I told him I can not relate to what he is saying. He is using it as a reason to wear whatever you want. Hard to post a rebuttal when I am not getting it.
And yes I know emotional abuse is damaging.
Well - off to bring my daughter to basket ball camp
E
Edward_H
Guest
There is a deep beauty and a joy and serenity that some ‘beautiful’ people will never sadly know. Theirs is a fragile comfort, tied to external beauty with no further substance. In fact, for some of them their comfort actually lies in their being immodest. You see this in actresses and actors who go off the rails when they get older.
They get jealous easily. They are vain.
And importantly and tellingly, there’s no serenity.
Who would you rather have as a wife…someone as lovely as Mother Theresa or one of the badly aging actresses of yesterday? God granted me the opportunity to walk this world with a struggling saint of a woman who I pray will look like this picture when she gets this old.
They get jealous easily. They are vain.
And importantly and tellingly, there’s no serenity.
Who would you rather have as a wife…someone as lovely as Mother Theresa or one of the badly aging actresses of yesterday? God granted me the opportunity to walk this world with a struggling saint of a woman who I pray will look like this picture when she gets this old.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings to you all.
Over the weekend I have been reflecting upon the whole issue of sportswear/swimwear, including that much debated voluptuous garment, the bikini, which some expend much time and energy in trying to fallaciously rationalise by arguing that it is appropriate and not immodest by the standards of our 21st century culture.
Aside from being an example of superficial argumentation, based on the false premise that “the only standard the Church has to follow is what is appropraiate for the the time and place in our culture”, it reveals a monumental failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind.
Since there is no valid reason for sports and recreation to be exempt from moral considerations, questions respecting modest and immodest attire continue to be extremely relevant. Thus one must ask whether sports attire or swimwear is more unduly revealing than it ought to be for its particular function. Of course, it is freely aknowledged that one must have a reduction in the amount of clothing for swimming and atheletics, but it hardly seems necessary that such attire should be so tight fitting or expose an inordinate amount of flesh, as is the case with the bikini, which is tantamount to wearing one’s under garments in public. Let us hear what Pope Pius XII had to say on this matter in 1952:
“There is, moreover, in sports and gymnastics, in rhythm and dance, a certain nudism, which is neither necessary or proper”.
Thus whether it is sportswear or a bikini, a Catholic must understand that because chastity is an absolute value, it is never permitted, regardless of the setting or prevailing cultural norms, to stimulate the base sexual passions in a member of the opposite sex (other than one’s marital spouse). Therefore the Catholic is strictly forbidden to don any clothing in public, including the beech, that reveals or accentuates the body, particularly those parts of it that somatically determine masculinity and feminity. A bikini decidedly does function, contrary to some jolly loud protestations to the contrary, to arouse concupiscence in the male sex and hence should be avoided by all women who profess reverent godliness (see I Tim 2: 9).
Catholics need also to be aware that since the moral revolution of the Sixties, hackneyed sophisms have been increasingly employed by neo-Catholics in an attempt to justify the wearing of all manner of skimmpy and revealing apparel. This is surely a grave error and only serves to illustrate the extent of worldliness with which many modern Catholics are now imbued. Thus, for example, it is frequently asserted, with an almost passive resignation, that fashions merely reflect the current culture, implying that any moral question relating to the said fashions is necessarily and totally relative. Apart from being an implicit denial of any possibility of moral progress in a particular nation, it would be more to the point to say that certain fashions and styles of clothing are indicative of the decision of a nation to go in a moral direction - either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by civilisation and religion. We know only too well what the direction has been since the permissive and irreligious sixties and this godless outlook has, alas, inflitrated Holy Mother Church.
It really boils down to this, dear friends, in an oversexualised culture like our own, the disciple of Christ must dare to be different (even as Daniel of old did cf. Dan. 1: 8), even if he is dismissed as an oddball or a moralistic fuddy-duddy. At least he will be observing the consistent moral teaching of the Church throughout the ages, until Vatican II opened its windows too widely to the world and its morally degenerate ideology. At least he will start to shine as a bright light in crooked and perverse generation and thus receive his Lords’s approbation.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Cordial greetings to you all.
Over the weekend I have been reflecting upon the whole issue of sportswear/swimwear, including that much debated voluptuous garment, the bikini, which some expend much time and energy in trying to fallaciously rationalise by arguing that it is appropriate and not immodest by the standards of our 21st century culture.
Aside from being an example of superficial argumentation, based on the false premise that “the only standard the Church has to follow is what is appropraiate for the the time and place in our culture”, it reveals a monumental failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind.
Since there is no valid reason for sports and recreation to be exempt from moral considerations, questions respecting modest and immodest attire continue to be extremely relevant. Thus one must ask whether sports attire or swimwear is more unduly revealing than it ought to be for its particular function. Of course, it is freely aknowledged that one must have a reduction in the amount of clothing for swimming and atheletics, but it hardly seems necessary that such attire should be so tight fitting or expose an inordinate amount of flesh, as is the case with the bikini, which is tantamount to wearing one’s under garments in public. Let us hear what Pope Pius XII had to say on this matter in 1952:
“There is, moreover, in sports and gymnastics, in rhythm and dance, a certain nudism, which is neither necessary or proper”.
Thus whether it is sportswear or a bikini, a Catholic must understand that because chastity is an absolute value, it is never permitted, regardless of the setting or prevailing cultural norms, to stimulate the base sexual passions in a member of the opposite sex (other than one’s marital spouse). Therefore the Catholic is strictly forbidden to don any clothing in public, including the beech, that reveals or accentuates the body, particularly those parts of it that somatically determine masculinity and feminity. A bikini decidedly does function, contrary to some jolly loud protestations to the contrary, to arouse concupiscence in the male sex and hence should be avoided by all women who profess reverent godliness (see I Tim 2: 9).
Catholics need also to be aware that since the moral revolution of the Sixties, hackneyed sophisms have been increasingly employed by neo-Catholics in an attempt to justify the wearing of all manner of skimmpy and revealing apparel. This is surely a grave error and only serves to illustrate the extent of worldliness with which many modern Catholics are now imbued. Thus, for example, it is frequently asserted, with an almost passive resignation, that fashions merely reflect the current culture, implying that any moral question relating to the said fashions is necessarily and totally relative. Apart from being an implicit denial of any possibility of moral progress in a particular nation, it would be more to the point to say that certain fashions and styles of clothing are indicative of the decision of a nation to go in a moral direction - either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by civilisation and religion. We know only too well what the direction has been since the permissive and irreligious sixties and this godless outlook has, alas, inflitrated Holy Mother Church.
It really boils down to this, dear friends, in an oversexualised culture like our own, the disciple of Christ must dare to be different (even as Daniel of old did cf. Dan. 1: 8), even if he is dismissed as an oddball or a moralistic fuddy-duddy. At least he will be observing the consistent moral teaching of the Church throughout the ages, until Vatican II opened its windows too widely to the world and its morally degenerate ideology. At least he will start to shine as a bright light in crooked and perverse generation and thus receive his Lords’s approbation.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
D
Debora123
Guest
…Or men who want an excuse to control women or an excuse to downplay their sins of lust. it’s extremely abusive and sexist, really.
D
Debora123
Guest
I find it extremely ironic that you talk to ME about being personal.
Anyway, why are you getting so defensive? You were going on very passionately about another woman who is not your wife being very beautiful… I only stated an opinion - I personally would be a little jealous. I didn’t say you were in the wrong for saying those things or anything. Just that I wouldn’t particularly like it, that’s all. No need to fret.
S
severus68
Guest
Did you mean me, Edward? Its severus by the way.
If I was being personal, my apologies. However, you have made personal “attacks” on Debora. Debora was making a comment about her husband and her.
I haven’t run out of runway, dont worry.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Telling someone to stay on point isn’t being defensive. It’s being judicious and professional.I find it extremely ironic that you talk to ME about being personal.
Anyway, why are you getting so defensive? You were going on very passionately about another woman who is not your wife being very beautiful… I only stated an opinion - I personally would be a little jealous. I didn’t say you were in the wrong for saying those things or anything. Just that I wouldn’t particularly like it, that’s all. No need to fret.
D
Debora123
Guest
I know, right? Thank goodness.
I was walking around our outdoor mall we have here yesterday. It was a completely sunny day, the high was 98 degrees and the humidity was probably around 70ish percent.
I’d say in direct sunlight and with all that humidity it probably felt like 105. So far this is supposedly one of the hottest summers we’ve ever had. I was wearing my tank and shorts, but nonetheless, sweating bullets - which is saying something bc I’m extremely tolerant to heat and don’t sweat much.
I walked past a muslim woman on the sidewalk, where direct sunlight was constant. I felt so bad for her - she was covered from hair to foot with black sheets, with only her eyes and hands exposed. Meanwhile her husband was walking next to her wearing a white t shirt and shorts.
And all that for the sake of what? “Helping men not lust?”
…We are not far from the mark.
S
severus68
Guest
I did have a pleasant weekend, thank you and hope you did too.
I did post earlier on Bible interpretation from the Catechism.
E
Edward_H
Guest
How Is helping men not to lust, different from helping men not to drink too much?
How is helping men not to lust, different from helping a woman not to eat too much?
How is helping men not to lust, different from helping a woman not to work too much?
All of these issues are related to self-mastery.
Aren’t all forms of help examples of Christian charity?
All part of the joyful struggle leading all souls to holiness, our call.
D
Debora123
Guest
Again, very ironic that you of all people talk to ME about staying on point.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ok, then maybe we too should dress like the poor muslim woman I saw yesterday. After all, she was dressed like that to “help” men become more pure of heart.
Oh, and an edit: while we’re at it, men should do so too. Women are completely capable of lusting too, you know.
D
Debora123
Guest
BTW, this reminds me of one of the very first posts I made to this thread. Evidence that this thread is going around in circles:
- Status