O
otm
Guest
- Status
O
otm
Guest
I don’t think the average individual - male or female - would see jeans as immodest, unless they were spray-on tight, and/or ripped in the upper extremities in order to show underware - or lack thereof. The thread is modesty, not casualness.
O
otm
Guest
I have never thought a slip showing was an issue of modesty; it is more like having your tie show in the back below your collar - it looks more like carelessness.
O
otm
Guest
A couple of thoughts.
I have always been of the opinion that middle Eastern men of certain groups are perhaps over-sexed. Demanding that your women cover themselves completely from head to toe or someone will lust over them is more than just a bit over the top. Look out, here come the Taliban!
And besides, some of those women, if the law of averages works for them as it does for everyone else, are so ugly they’d have to sneak up on a glass of water to get a drink… lust?
Or maybe I misunderstood them. It wasn’t lust.
It was terror…
Now having offended who knows how many people…
The sin of immodesty is not particularly any more sinful than the sin of pride. An over-reaction to the modesty issue is only a banana peal greased step from pride. It is interesting how little people seem to focus on that sin of pride.
O
otm
Guest
I suspect that it is not quite as impossible as you say; perhaps we are dealing with another issue, and that is the issue of being stylish?
I have two twenty-two year old daughters, and they seem to manage quite nicely to avoid the popular look, and yet can look quite stylish.
Style is often dictated by whom you “hang with”; who you consider your peers to be, and whether they or you are dominant in the business of opinions. Some lead; some follow. Appearing modestly dressed in some groups will get you nuked, not just flamed.
O
otm
Guest
Sorry, but your former spiritual advisor is beyond anal retentive. She is warped if whe is criticizing women dressed in pants, per se, to be immodest. She has a hyper - moral approach which would appear to be borderline scrupulosity in plain English. You might want to quitetly find someone else to be in contact with; I souldn’t get in her face; just be too busy to get together. She is not going to do your mental health or spirituality any good.
If she had told me that I probably would have laughed so hard tears would have come; and if that didn’t get the message across, she would not have gotten on my case a second time.
O
otm
Guest
The Hidden Life:
The HiddenLife:
TheHiddenLife:
This makes me really curious as to why you say “appropriate”. I have seen women in pants and jackets look a whole lot more appropriate than some the dresses they wear - an I am not speaking of modesty. and as far as feminine, the same applies.I think it is more important to look feminine and modest rather than condemning pants outright. Fit and cut (not too tight, too revealing) are much more important, in my opinion, than the fact that they are “pants.” Someone pointed out on another thread about modesty once that St. Gianna wore pants, so if it was a complete bar to holiness I think the Vatican would have noted that.That being said, dresses/skirts for women are more appropriate and especially so for certain situations, like Mass.
The HiddenLife:
That is hysterical. She dressed according to the fashion of her day. That idea is simply anachronisim at its best, in full bloom!
On that we agree…
O
otm
Guest
Some of that in part may be due to cultural conditioning. To someone who has been culturally conditioned that seeing a woman’s breast is an ordinary, non-sexual occurance, an uncovered breast is not a sexual object. Americans have been brought up by and large with a much more restricted practice of clothing ( or non’clothing, if you will).
One of my twins went to France, and was unprepared for what she saw at the beach. Her description (and she has a sharp tongue) still brings me to rolling laughter; and it left the impressiojn that most of the women, rather than being “attractive”, might have been way more sexually attrative had they covered up.
O
otm
Guest
what you wear seems fine.
Do keep in mind that while an extreme is unhealthy, going to the other extreme can result in replacing one wrong with a different one. There is plenty of ground in the middle.
O
otm
Guest
And what makes you thing they had a “best”? My guess was they were lucky to have something that wasn’t in tatters. We seem to have a very romanticized idea of life back then. If you were to look at economic conditions in , say, El Salvador, I suspect that Mary and Joseph and Jesus would be among the poor, who live in mud huts.Clothing as status markers.
Well lets see some ways it can be done. If you believe what I am writing now then what do we do?
Logo names= how much you spent
Color= gang, club, or national pride
Toooo Short= look at me/sex image “in your face”
Toooo Long= look at me and how good I am “in your face”
Modest length= look at me I am a better then you are
Mantila= I’m rich
Loose jeans= drugs, prision, ethnic group
We can go on and on about this. The main things here is how we dress at MASS and if it is respectful to the Lord. Or can it cause someone to not pay attention to the MASS and the reason they are in church. Any type of clothing can be turned into what it is not.
But, every type of clothing in a church is not RESPECTING GOD.:banghead:
It saddens me that people don’t understand that. I beleive people should ask themselves honestly in the God Given year of 2005:
What would Jesus Wear?
What would Mary Wear?
I believe they wore the “best” they had while worshiping and casual while working and relaxing.
Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily
B
backhome
Guest
Thanks otm. I haven’t found my balance yet as I still feel stirred and I know once I am completely doing God’s will I will be at peace with it. I fear He’s saying “The make-up!!! It’s the make-up now Ann!” Yikes!
I think you bring up a good point about the Blessed Mother. I remember reading (of course I can’t remember where now to back up what I’m about to say but…) she lived a very simple and humble life and chose to dress less than (in an adornment way). She gave away all that was in excess to those in need. I envision her clothing would have been very, very simple.
No one in Jesus’ time would have been permitted in the temple if they were dressed “inappropriately”. Sadly, I don’t see that as the case in our churches today and I think that’s the point KathleenElsie is making. However, the thought that Our Blessed mother probably wore less attractive/stylish clothes than the other women speaks more to me about her devotion to God than if she had “dressed up”. Okay, I kinda took a detour on the subject matter…sorry.
I think you bring up a good point about the Blessed Mother. I remember reading (of course I can’t remember where now to back up what I’m about to say but…) she lived a very simple and humble life and chose to dress less than (in an adornment way). She gave away all that was in excess to those in need. I envision her clothing would have been very, very simple.
No one in Jesus’ time would have been permitted in the temple if they were dressed “inappropriately”. Sadly, I don’t see that as the case in our churches today and I think that’s the point KathleenElsie is making. However, the thought that Our Blessed mother probably wore less attractive/stylish clothes than the other women speaks more to me about her devotion to God than if she had “dressed up”. Okay, I kinda took a detour on the subject matter…sorry.
K
KayMS
Guest
Femininity is not a virtue and therefore does not provide one with greater grace by employing higher degrees of it.
T
The_Hidden_Life
Guest
The more important quality to cultivate then? Sorry if I misused the word “virtue.” As I’ve become a Catholic, I have come to realize that words like “virtue” have a more specific meaning than I previously knew.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Yes, thank you for helping me make the point.
Another point is that we do not know one another. When we assume that someone does not know poverty and what it is like to only have shabby, torn or tattered clothing and we could be quite wrong. When growing up I was the child of the town drunk. I did not have “good” clothing. My mother tired her best. Her first priority was to feed us and keep a roof over our heads. What I had was always clean and if I had more then one skirt the better one was for church. Today I am blessed and have much more then I truly need. Yet I still shop at the Salvation Army for most of my clothing. GOD has been good to us. Our needs are met and we are able to share with other less able to care for themselves.
Dressing “UP” is not the same as dressing “appropriately”. I have seen many people dressed “inappropriately” in very expensive stylish clothing. The clothing Mary would have worn would have been modest for HER time.
Kathleen Elsie Gibbs
Pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy daily
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I see very little if any of what might be called “legalism” in any Church in America regarding dress and certainly not in the Catholic Church. When I was a teenager I went to my grandparent’s church on occasion. There’s was a holiness non-tongues Protestant Church. They verged on legalism in dress but they were wonderful people.
The strongest influence for modesty in our church are the icons of the holy ones of old who worship with us. If you want to see their example look at the pix in our Church.
www.byzantinecatholic.com
Dan L
The strongest influence for modesty in our church are the icons of the holy ones of old who worship with us. If you want to see their example look at the pix in our Church.
www.byzantinecatholic.com
Dan L
O
otm
Guest
I would agree that it is not a theological virtue; but would submit that it is a virtue that if lived out with full respect to self and others, would certainly not hinder any of the theological virtues.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
We have a number of Mennonite communities as well as “Old Russians” that dress the women in the long skirts with the little ‘doily’ in the hair. I think their religions dictates the clothing style. A friend who is a 7th Day Adventist told me their religion prohibits jewelry (I think obviously a wedding ring is OK). So religions definitely have specifics on dress, particularly it seems for us ‘wanton women.’
As to clothing, tight enough to show you’re a woman, loose enough to show you’re a lady has been my guideline. The point isn’t to disguise your sex but not to call attention to yourself or certain body parts.
I certainly do wear pants but try to make sure there is no 'gaposis" (I absolutely DETEST those low cuts now stylish) and never wear pants with that sprayed on look. FWIW I saw a show on women’s dress and the reason pants are discouraged by some religions is not because pants mimic male dress, but because the line drawn by the pants basically points to the crotch. A skirt or dress basically disguises the locale and still allows for femininity. So there is some method to the madness.
Lisa N
As to clothing, tight enough to show you’re a woman, loose enough to show you’re a lady has been my guideline. The point isn’t to disguise your sex but not to call attention to yourself or certain body parts.
I certainly do wear pants but try to make sure there is no 'gaposis" (I absolutely DETEST those low cuts now stylish) and never wear pants with that sprayed on look. FWIW I saw a show on women’s dress and the reason pants are discouraged by some religions is not because pants mimic male dress, but because the line drawn by the pants basically points to the crotch. A skirt or dress basically disguises the locale and still allows for femininity. So there is some method to the madness.
Lisa N
K
KayMS
Guest
Lisa N:
It also depends on what religious sect you are speaking with. Those who quote Deut 22:5 are definately speaking of women’s pants as cross-dressing but they misinterpret the scripture passage. Others say it is strictly an issue of immodesty, therefore sin is at work, but they are over emphasizing the abuses in the garment and using fallacies to strengthen their misguided arguments; for example, dresses can likewise be made to point to, accentuate or over emphasize the wrong areas of the body. If Catholic women are not careful, the argument will soon be saying that sleeves are lines pointing to the breasts so women must drape their bodies in burkas!!! Some say it has to do with avoiding the spread of homosexual tendencies, like the SSPX, though they cannot prove their assertions. Some employ all three arguments.
As the person above noted, legalism has taken hold of these arguments, not sound reasoning.
That is strictly a cultural attitude. There are many books written on the topic of modesty and the tribes who do not utilize clothing which show that modesty is definately based on cultural indoctrination. Our cultural indoctrination is that the body must be covered.
It also depends on what religious sect you are speaking with. Those who quote Deut 22:5 are definately speaking of women’s pants as cross-dressing but they misinterpret the scripture passage. Others say it is strictly an issue of immodesty, therefore sin is at work, but they are over emphasizing the abuses in the garment and using fallacies to strengthen their misguided arguments; for example, dresses can likewise be made to point to, accentuate or over emphasize the wrong areas of the body. If Catholic women are not careful, the argument will soon be saying that sleeves are lines pointing to the breasts so women must drape their bodies in burkas!!! Some say it has to do with avoiding the spread of homosexual tendencies, like the SSPX, though they cannot prove their assertions. Some employ all three arguments.
As the person above noted, legalism has taken hold of these arguments, not sound reasoning.
K
KayMS
Guest
No, that is a fallacy. The virtues employed would be humility, meekness and modesty - which are subvirtues of the cardinal virtue of temperance; and charity, one of the theological virtue. The cardinal virtues are practiced to counter the capital sins and to counter vice; therefore, to imply that femininity is a virtue would be to imply that it is the counter practice to a vice. What would be the vice of femininity, masculinity? That would make all men in error since the virtues are for all people to practice, not just one gender. Femininity is not a virtue.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
I am not sure of your point. We are not talking about African tribal customs. Anyone who grew up with National Geographic in the home could see that in other lands body parts are not covered and breasts are strictly utilitarian. Also consider the effect of climate. In areas with extreme temperatures sometimes clothing is reflective of heat, humidity, or cold. Are Greenlanders extremely modest or are they trying not to freeze to death?
Also different cultures focus on different areas of the human body. We are a breast oriented culture, something that I am sure baffles people in Africa who think big rings in the ears or lips are extremely sexy. Some cultures find the back of a woman’s neck erotic, others find hair erotic (thus need for hair covering in some Muslim countries). I thought we were discussing modesty in dress in America with respect to certain religions.
You must be joking right?
Since when has sound reasoning been responsible for fashion?
Lisa N
- Status