Why was "modesty" never part of my Catholic vocabulary?

[phil19034]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

I think maybe there’s also been a cross-pollination with the more conservative Protestant sects who are big into the modesty and purity culture

Thanks, that is an interesting point. I think it’s been said before that Catholicism in the US is more strongly influenced by Protestantism than Catholicism is elsewhere. For example, there are American Catholics who support the death penalty and who believe in creationism, both of which are things you’d find a lot less of outside the US.

Post-Vatican II American Catholicism is hugely influenced by Protestantism, whether people are conscious of this or not.

I do confess that I myself am more influenced by Southern evangelicalism (Baptist, Holiness, though not Pentecostalism, emphatically not) than possibly I care to admit. It took me a long time to get used to Marian devotion.

@0Scarlett_nidiyilii

I don’t think American Catholics are more influenced by Protestantism than anywhere else. I think Catholics everywhere are influenced by Protestantism.

When people claim Catholics are being influenced by evangelical Protestants (like creationism and death penalty) that would be pretty much the normal view of all Catholics before the 20th century. Americans tend to be more conservative than Europeans, so I see a lot of this as more traditionalism than being influenced by evangelicals.

However, where evangelicals have had the largest influence on American Catholics is regarding scripture study and apologetics, however, both are a good thing.

In truth, “mainline” Protestantism has had a BIGGER influence on American Catholics and Catholics in Europe and elsewhere.

Tons of Catholics today, around the world, have a mainline PROTESTANT view on birth control, church attendance, Confession, The Eucharist, ecuminism, collegiality, modernism, relativism, etc.

NOTE: though I do think it is true that American Catholics (eps the lukewarm ones) lack Marian devotion compared to lukewarm Catholics in Catholic countries. I do think is due to Protestantism, but I wonder if it’s not similar in other majority Protestant nations?

 

[fhansen]

I know exactly what you mean, having been raised in a similar environment. But realize that Catholicism is both a religion-a spiritual phenomenon established by God-and a cultural experience in that generations of people have practiced it in a habitual kind of way that doesn’t necessarily reflect the spiritual truths and teachings of the Church perfectly, especially when leaders also get a bit lax and themselves conform to cultural trends rather than hold firmly to the teachings and morality of the Church.

Having said that Catholicism is perhaps a bit “earthier” and more balanced than some more radical attempts at Christianity where, for example, demons are looked for-and found- under every rock and any pleasure and cultural fashion or innovation are deemed evil or automatically considered suspect.

 

[choose_to_love]

“there are American Catholics who . . . believe in creationism”

How are you defining ‘creationism’ in this context?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don’t think American Catholics are more influenced by Protestantism than anywhere else. I think Catholics everywhere are influenced by Protestantism.

I see what you are saying, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Catholics in places like Mexico, the Philippines, or Poland — especially not Poland — were “influenced by Protestantism”.

Tons of Catholics today, around the world, have a mainline PROTESTANT view on birth control, church attendance, Confession, The Eucharist, ecumenism, congeniality, modernism, relativism, etc.

Are you saying “collegiality”?

Your assessment is quite right.

 

[phil19034]

Are you saying “collegiality”?

yes. I fixed that typo. Thanks

 

[phil19034]

I see what you are saying, but I think it’s a stretch to say that Catholics in places like Mexico, the Philippines, or Poland — especially not Poland — were “influenced by Protestantism”.

They are influenced by Protestantism too, at least indirectly. Our whole planet has been influenced by mainline Protestantism.

Mainline Protestantism was influenced by the “enlightenment.” The British Empire spread Anglicism all over the world. It’s their religious “flexibility” and tolerance for different religious beliefs/opinions within the same religion that has spread all over. There is a word for this: relativism.

The worldwide media spreads this worldview around every single day.

My hypothesis is that the influence of mainline Protestantism has conditioned people to accept relativism and to a lesser degree modernism.

I fear relativism & modernism coupled with socialism are going to be a three-headed monster which will reap havoc on the world.

God Bless

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I fear relativism & modernism coupled with socialism are going to be a three-headed monster which will reap havoc on the world.

They already have.

Actually, all three are consonant with human nature uninformed by Divine grace — (1) let everyone believe and do whatever seems right to them, (2) true and false, right and wrong, change with the times and with what people want them to be, and (3) satisfy people’s basic temporal needs with relatively little effort on their part, and make everybody equal.

Children quarreling in the playground cry “that’s not fair”, “he got more”, “I want it now”, and so on. Appearances to the contrary, many of them never truly grow up.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I fear relativism & modernism coupled with socialism are going to be a three-headed monster which will reap havoc on the world.

They already have.

Actually, all three are consonant with human nature uninformed by Divine grace — (1) let everyone believe and do whatever seems right to them, (2) true and false, right and wrong, change with the times and with what people want them to be, and (3) satisfy people’s basic temporal needs with relatively little effort on their part, and make everybody equal.

Children quarreling in the playground cry “that’s not fair”, “he got more”, “I want it now”, and so on. Appearances to the contrary, many of them never truly grow up.

I agree 100%. I just fear they are going to reap far more damage that anyone can imagine before they are defeated.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I’m not sure how it’s polite or productive to keep going on about how “odd” this or that looks to you.

I do understand that this is a topic about which there exists a legitimate diversity of opinion. Some people think that women should only wear a one piece swimsuit, others think that a bikini is okay; some people recommend always wearing a bra, others think it’s okay to go without; some people think spaghetti straps are okay, others think a woman should always cover her shoulders; some women veil in church, others don’t.

However, the idea that it is immodest for kids to wear pajamas in their own home without covering up with a robe seems pretty far outside the mainstream to me. I do not mean to attack anyone; I was merely hoping to better understand where such a person would be coming from. The poster who said that cannot be more than about 10 years older than me. She is from the UK, a country where I have lived and where I know a lot of people. I have worn pajamas in front of British people; I have seen British people wearing their pajamas. I even know that they spell it “pyjamas”. I therefore don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether there is some explanation that would clarify matters for me. I am genuinely just curious to know what sort of people are hewing to such a countercultural course in western countries in the 21st century.

How are you defining ‘creationism’ in this context

A literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and all that is therein as is appears in Genesis. The belief that species were created by God in the manner in which they are currently found, not having evolved from earlier forms of life no longer extant. For some, the belief that universe was created over the course of six days of 24 hours’ duration per day several thousand years ago. In short, any theory of the origins of life that rejects the findings of Darwin and subsequent scientists.

 

[EXdrinker]

In my area it wasn’t just modesty that was missing. It was virtue altogether that was absent the last several decades. Also missing was the criteria for determining if an action is moral or not. Very sad that this was left out or glossed over so quickly.

 

[po18guy]

Two words: Sexual revolution.

 

[Anicette]

Or take this: Modeling modesty in dress The poster there is saying that children, in their own home, should wear a dressing gown or robe over their pajamas outside of the bedroom in order to be modest. That poster is from the UK. She’s not talking about teens and adults avoiding going outside the house wearing clothes that reveal a lot of leg or a lot of cleavage etc. She is talking about kids at home with their parents and siblings not being seen in just pajamas without a robe on top. This is the sort of thing that frankly seems a little odd to me.

I was merely hoping to better understand where such a person would be coming from. The poster who said that cannot be more than about 10 years older than me.

I therefore don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether there is some explanation that would clarify matters for me. I am genuinely just curious to know what sort of people are hewing to such a countercultural course in western countries in the 21st century.

Just a little context:
You only speak of one person idea of modesty as an exemple.
Even if she is British and no more than 10 years older than yours, it is just an individual not representative of what an “average” British Catholic woman is.

Because her opinions are not average. Not even on this forum.

If she had not left from this forum you could have ask her more explanations to try to understand.

 

[Vico]

…
I am not here to debate modesty as such. I am more curious to learn how it is that I managed to go through so much of my life without knowing that this is such an important concern for many Catholics.

I attended public schools as well, however I attended Catechism classes on Saturdays at the parish. We used the Baltimore Catechism series and modesty was part of that.

For example from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (teachers version of No. 2)

*186 Q. Which are the twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost?
A. The twelve fruits of the Holy Ghost are charity, joy, peace,
patience, benignity, goodness, long-suffering, mildness, faith, modesty,
continency, and chastity.

“Fruits,” the things that grow from the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
“Charity,” love of God and our neighbor, “Peace” with God and man and
ourselves. With God, because we are His friends. With man, because we
deal justly with all and are kind to all. With ourselves, because we
have a good conscience, that does not accuse us of sin. “Benignity,”
disposition to do good and show kindness. “Long-suffering”–same as
patience. “Modesty, continency, and chastity” refer to purity in
thoughts, words, looks, and actions.

371 Q. What is forbidden by the Sixth Commandment?
A. The Sixth Commandment forbids all unchaste freedom with another’s
wife or husband: also all immodesty with ourselves or others in looks,
dress, words, or actions.

372 Q. Does the Sixth Commandment forbid the reading of bad and immodest
books and newspapers?
A. The Sixth Commandment does forbid the reading of bad and immodest
books and newspapers.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Interesting. I’m afraid the Baltimore Catechism was no longer in widespread use by the time I was born. I believe it began to fall into desuetude after Vatican II.

 

[Vico]

Interesting. I’m afraid the Baltimore Catechism was no longer in widespread use by the time I was born. I believe it began to fall into desuetude after Vatican II.

Vatican II ended in 1965 and the Baltimore Catechism was in widespread use then.

The Faith Explained by Leo J. Trese is one book that was given to me for study by a pastor (original publication 1965).

In 1967 the New Catholic Encyclopedia was published. I have used this in the library.

RCIA was introduced in 1972 and different methods of teaching besides a Catechism were used, however many catechisms were available and used then (Others: The Catechism of the Council of Trent and The Catechism of Saint Pius X).

Then The Catholic Catechism by John Hardon, SJ. was published in 1981.

 

[ImQuiet]

For example from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (teachers version of No. 2)

Oy vey, I remembered that being drilled into my head as a kid.

 

[graciew]

My question, therefore, is this: why was “modesty” never part of my Catholic vocabulary?

It wasn’t part of mine either.
There were other words though that guided the course. We had to be ladylike, dress appropriately and accordingly, be discreet, something was or wasn t elegant,neither too tight nor too loose, shoulders covered or uncovered depending on the place and event and so on.That is how they tackled with the dressing issue perhaps too, and that we learnt to keep more or less in line with appropriateness.
It was and is also about making others feel comfortable , neither too much nor too little.Be a good guest and a good host. It involved behaviour at the table, and much more.
That is about how we learnt it.Or how we were taught at, not that we all made good students
At school our uniforms didn’t have to touch the floor as we knelt.Just a tad above. Practical also not to trip and fall as we played.
Other schools though fewer, required below the knee for example.
That is about how we grew up learning around me, passed down also through our parents and grandparents.
Anecdotal also because not all families are the same.But then yes, we grew up in a Catholic environment in general all around .And probably the word was “discreet.”.

 

[Anicette]

modesty is still teach in the current Catholic Church Cathechism. it is a virtue that protected purity and chastity.

The fact that it is less emphasis does not mean tha it is no longer necessary.
The debate is how to to live it and what shape it takes concretely.

See in the CCC: The battler of purity.
2521 Purity requires modesty , an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

[2522] Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

[2523] There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I would not disagree with what the Catechism says. For all intents and purposes, I probably absorbed the basics of dressing modestly. I would not tend to wear low-cut tops, short skirts, or anything particularly close-fitting, with the exception of jeans, which naturally tend to fit pretty close. I favor a one-piece swimsuit. I would say I dress like a fairly ordinary American woman in my late 20s.

I guess there are two things that puzzled me. First, some people seen to have a pretty extreme take on what modesty means. For example, prohibition of women wearing pants (trousers). Or people getting really worried about women wearing clothes that are naturally close-fitting and/or don’t cover a lot of the body, generally sportswear (yoga pants, swimwear, etc.) Or things that are really not that immodest, like a woman showing her shoulders.

Secondly, I am puzzled by the culture of modesty. It seems like for some Catholics it’s a touchstone, a shibboleth, a way of identifying whether somebody belongs to the tribe. Their approach to modesty isn’t within the continuum of the culture in which they live, it is consciously countercultural.

 

[Anicette]

I would answer that in modesty people can see two meanings.

First, there is the physical level. Where the clothes let thes skin naked? What it is appropriate to show? What shape of the body is appropriate to reveal? What originalities are acceptable?
And what are the reasons to cover or discover?
It is because of personal reasons? the feeling of my own modesty? To honor God? because of complexions? mockery?
Or it is because I see it as shocking for others people? Provocative in a sexual sense? because I don’t want to stand?

Second there is the cultural meaning. For many people clothes are a fashion. There is secular fashion more or less immodest. But this fashion can mark the belonging to a group. For some religious groups, the clothes are also a social marker, and even can become an mandate to make accept some news members. And to forbid trousers can be one of them.

I completely agree, forbid or discourage trousers, for eg, is completely countercultural. These people assume it. They said that it is immodest but it also because of their vision of gender roles. They believe strongly that people should accept their God-given identity as a man or a woman and follow the roles that are us, that are complementarian. The Church encourage this, but the difference is that these people push the logic as far as they can.
In History, it is only recently, since the XXth century that western women are allowed to wear trousers. Before it was men’s clothes. So some people see this change as the symbol of the feminism that subverted the society and change everything in the roles of men and women, particularly in the family. The solution is to break the rupture and to try to recreate the continium that was stopped. Clothes include.