P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings.
It is important to remember that when men or women don a seductive style of clothing they are inviting others to view them as a mere assemblege of body parts rather than people with personalities. Immodest attire, be it on men or women, distracts from our personhood, with the result that we engage less with personality and more with the body parts. This leads to both men and women becoming objectified and, at length, completely loosing all mutual respect for one another, which is precisely what is happening in our own degenerate age. Indeed, it is this disordered fixation with body parts that has led to the increasing sexualisation of Western culture and the prevalent decadence that is a sad feature of it.
As a marginal aside, those modern Catholic women who see nothing wrong with wearing a mini-skirt that shamefully flaunts their legs, need to remember that it owes its origin to Mary Quant. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘swinging sixities’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement. It became a symbol of a women being able to choose how she wanted to dress and also exercising some power over men. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it became
powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the effects of which continue to be felt to this today. For example, here in the UK we have more teenage pregancies than most European countries and more couples opt to live in sin than enter into wedlock, as was formerly the norm. Alas, we even have the sexualisation of children by clothing manufactures who provide indecorous fashions even for the very young, especially girls. Whilst I am not suggesting that the mini-skirt alone is responsible for all this, it is incontrovertible that our present troubles can be traced to the sexual and cultural revolution of the 1960’s, which certainly did foist upon us tarty garments like the mini-skirt
If the faithful are not to be implicated in this ongoing aggressive sexualisation of culture, then they must needs eshew any garments that voluptuosly expose the body to the gaze of others - our “intimate centre” must be protected at all costs. Moreover, given the presence of evil desire we ought to show compassion to our brethren by the putting on of seemly aparrel. Here is how a pre-Vatican II manual of instruction for Catholics puts it:
“The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation to others”. (Christ in Us, Killgallon and Webber, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 269).
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Cordial greetings.
It is important to remember that when men or women don a seductive style of clothing they are inviting others to view them as a mere assemblege of body parts rather than people with personalities. Immodest attire, be it on men or women, distracts from our personhood, with the result that we engage less with personality and more with the body parts. This leads to both men and women becoming objectified and, at length, completely loosing all mutual respect for one another, which is precisely what is happening in our own degenerate age. Indeed, it is this disordered fixation with body parts that has led to the increasing sexualisation of Western culture and the prevalent decadence that is a sad feature of it.
As a marginal aside, those modern Catholic women who see nothing wrong with wearing a mini-skirt that shamefully flaunts their legs, need to remember that it owes its origin to Mary Quant. Its emergence on the fashion scene of so called ‘swinging sixities’ London was very much bound up with the anti-Christian Women’s Liberation movement. It became a symbol of a women being able to choose how she wanted to dress and also exercising some power over men. Along with the advent of the pill at around the same time, it became
powerful influence in the rising tide of moral and cultural deterioration, the effects of which continue to be felt to this today. For example, here in the UK we have more teenage pregancies than most European countries and more couples opt to live in sin than enter into wedlock, as was formerly the norm. Alas, we even have the sexualisation of children by clothing manufactures who provide indecorous fashions even for the very young, especially girls. Whilst I am not suggesting that the mini-skirt alone is responsible for all this, it is incontrovertible that our present troubles can be traced to the sexual and cultural revolution of the 1960’s, which certainly did foist upon us tarty garments like the mini-skirt
If the faithful are not to be implicated in this ongoing aggressive sexualisation of culture, then they must needs eshew any garments that voluptuosly expose the body to the gaze of others - our “intimate centre” must be protected at all costs. Moreover, given the presence of evil desire we ought to show compassion to our brethren by the putting on of seemly aparrel. Here is how a pre-Vatican II manual of instruction for Catholics puts it:
“The virtue of modesty is the virtue which protects chastity by inclining us to guard our senses, so as not to invite temptation, and to be considerate in our dress and behaviour, so as not to cause temptation to others”. (Christ in Us, Killgallon and Webber, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 269).
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
