First of all, there is nothing wrong with wanting to feel good about yourself. But people who don’t have good self esteem and who wear revealing clothes, or do revealing things like Congressman Wiener, are doing it out of the mistaken idea that it would be a permanent solution. But it is not, and only leads to more vanity and self destruction. This is but one possible reason why people dress inappropriately. I’m not applying this to every situation, because I can’t presume to know everyone’s motives.
Secondly, judging somebody by appearances in some ways is not bad. I understand that you can’t know a person by the way they dress, but you can make some appropriate judgements about people due to that factor (example, “He’s dressed in a police officer uniform, so he’s probably a cop.”). Thus, I can make the appropriate judgement that a girl who is dressed in a strapless tank top, with her midriff showing, and 2’’ short shorts is probably more permissive than someone dressed in a longer dress.
Think of it in terms of a job interview. If woman A is dressed in business attire and woman B is dressed in the fashion I just described, my first impression would be that woman A is more professional. That might not be true, but I think there’s a pretty good likelihood that it is. There are exceptions.
Thirdly, I agree 100% that men should take complete responsibility for their failings with lustful thoughts. But, people who wear risque clothing need to take a responsibility too. They need to be more charitable towards their neighbors (and yes, many are probably ignorant of the fact that their dress has an effect on others).
Dear Paxvobis,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. A warm welcome to CAF. May I say that I appreciate your contributions to the debate thus far and agree wholeheartedly with your remarks.
You are quite correct, dear friend, appearances are indeed very telling and are usually a good index as to a man’s true character. Thus ostentation and being clad in seductive style clothing hardly point to a mind that is fixed upon heavenly things (cf. Colossians 3: 2), because Christian women who profess religion are to dress modestly, with decency and propriety (I Tim. 2: 9). The passage in I Timothy settles that matter beyond question. Of course, outward modesty, which makes itself known in choice of attire, should be accompanied by inward purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account. Moreover, the principle here set forth by St. Paul admits of universal application and is not culturally bound, even though the
practical application of the principle will always be expressed in a manner that is deemed appropraite to the cultural and social climate of the time. For example, an African or Indian woman can still be modestly attired without necessarily adopting a distinctive Western style of dress. However, this is does not give men
carte blanche permission to don any clothing that they wish, regardless of how seductive and unseemly it may be, for that would be to utterly negate the principle enunciated by St. Paul.
Whilst I would freely admit that times and cultures do change, one must add, and not always for the better. Sometimes the nature of these changes are so seismic and profound, they even have an impact upon Holy Mother church itself. We need to bear in mind that our Church has only been pomised the charism of infallibilty with respect to its Divine teaching of faith and morals; it has received no promise to protect it from being inflitrated by the world or from a ‘Laodicean’ lukewarmness as regards sanctity and separation from the godless world.
Many of today’s social problems were undeniably caused by the revolution in morals (which, incidently, happened to coincide with Vatican II) that shook that decade of decadence, the Sixties. The so called social reforms of the decade, legalising abortion and homosexual vice, liberalising divorce, enabling the distribution of contraceptives etc., were said by some misguided men (e.g Roy Jenkins, here in the UK) to embody a ‘civilised society’. It was from this cesspit of iniquity that seductive garments like the mini-skirt emerged and which, at length, helped lower the morals of a whole generation of both men and women. We should be under no illusions, the sixties were a decade of liberation, full stop. Alleged intolerance and religious bigotry were triumphantly consigned to the dustbin of history. Those men who warned that freedom was being confused with anti-social licence were dismissed as hidebound reactionaries. However, one need only look at the vulgarity and numerous social ills that now beset our Western world, to know who was right. The fact that we now witness neo-Catholic orthodoxy defending to the death such tarty garments as mini-skirts and bikini’s, simply shows the extent to which the spirit of the age with its godless mindset has penetrated our beloved Church. Beloved, we ought to be very concerned as regards our present plight.
Apologies for deviating slightly from the topic under review, but the moral revolution of the sixties and immodest vesture are more connected than one might at first imagine.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
