Women's Fashion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mitzicross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mitzicross

Guest
I have been searching for information about a question I have concerning women’s dress. I have found some threads, but they seem closed, and I didn’t find anything that gave the Church’s official stance on the subject. I am just hearing about a campaign of sorts from a group who advocate a Marylike dress code. Whereas women will dress as She did. Covering that which should rightfully belong to God and husband. And, covering that which could cause others to be tempted to lust in some way. I have asked a priest in Ask A Franciscan, a website I frequent as I am a Secular Franciscan. However, his answer didn’t seem thorough to me. It was as though he gives the same answer so often he didn’t think out my entire position. See, I don’t want to be a source of temptation to others. And, I think it is time we look at how the youth views their own beauty and sexuality and how distorted their understanding of those two things are. I believe if any changes are going to be made in our society that will improve the way our young girls and boys are dressing and behaving, Christian women are going to have to begin the process, regardless if we like it or not. I don’t want to hear about changing fashion…God doesn’t change, and neither does what He is pleased with. I don’t care to hear about how men should not have dirty minds, which is just a ridiculous argument, because God made them to be stimulated visually for reasons I won’t ask Him to justify. I just know that’s the way it is. What I want to know is how modest is good enough? How much skin is too much? Is there an official dress code within the Church that includes outside of mass? Thank you so much to anyone who takes these questions seriously and takes the time to answer them. Peace to you all.
 
Thanks for your response. I have read the whole section on modesty in the catechism and have browsed Canon Law for specifics, and none were present. It only states that we must be modest. What I am looking for is “What is modest?” Is a pair of loose fitting slacks too appealing to some men? What about a short sleeved blouse, or sleeveless? Is cleavage just too distracting, any amount? I am a literal person, but I think most women who want to please God and teach respect to our daughters and sons, need specific guidelines since the lines have become so blurred over the years. What really distracts men? I think men have become afraid to tell us and so we think it is nothing more than a bikini at the beach. Also, I want to know what the Church states, because I don’t want to become scrupulous and dress like the Amish if that isn’t what God is asking. But, if He is, though it would be a sacrifice, I would do it for Him and for our young people. Also, I would do it out of respect for my brothers who are trying as hard as I am to think good thoughts and be pleasing to God in all things. I just want to do what’s right. I will check out the link you provided. It might be just what I am looking for. Peace to you.
 
Here’s something that I hope will be helpful:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII, Sept. 24, 1956
 
You have not come across any detailed and official dress code from the Church because there is none. This is an area where we should use our well-formed consciences to apply the principles of modesty to our particular situation.

For example, the guidelines Urbano gives (for which I would be curious to see the context in which the vicar’s statement was made – it makes a big difference if these were suggested guidelines for pilgrims entering St. Peter’s Basillica, or if it was some definitive norm established for the worldwide Church to follow at all times), what if a woman wore a spandex-like, form-fitting dress that went to her neck and had full length sleeves? You could not use that specific guideline to call the dress indecent. And yet common sense would say that it certainly is indecent.
 
mitzicross said:
I have been searching for information about a question I have concerning women’s dress. I have found some threads, but they seem closed, and I didn’t find anything that gave the Church’s official stance on the subject. Il.
Click to expand...
there is none outside the CCC section on modesty.
 
To be honesty, more churches should have the signs like many Italian and Vatican churches have (among others) of what is allowed vs not allowed for anyone who steps inside.

Many women (and girls/teens) are coming to Mass in attire more suited for parties, beaches, pools, concerts and sporting events. I am not asking women to show up wearing clothes like in the 1950’s (and earlier) with pearls, dress, hat, gloves, hose, and high heels.

Modest clothing that is suitable for most business casual offices is also good enough for Mass, or even clothing worn in a business professional office as long as it is not: short, revealing, tight, etc. If a woman shows up in her work uniform because she just came from work to Mass or must go to work right after Mass, no issue.

I make sure my wardrobe for work is also suitable for Mass, and is modest too as I work in an office with a business casual dress code for both genders.
 
mitzicross said:
I have been searching for information about a question I have concerning women’s dress. I have found some threads, but they seem closed, and I didn’t find anything that gave the Church’s official stance on the subject. I am just hearing about a campaign of sorts from a group who advocate a Marylike dress code. Whereas women will dress as She did. Covering that which should rightfully belong to God and husband. And, covering that which could cause others to be tempted to lust in some way. I have asked a priest in Ask A Franciscan, a website I frequent as I am a Secular Franciscan. However, his answer didn’t seem thorough to me. It was as though he gives the same answer so often he didn’t think out my entire position. See, I don’t want to be a source of temptation to others. And, I think it is time we look at how the youth views their own beauty and sexuality and how distorted their understanding of those two things are. I believe if any changes are going to be made in our society that will improve the way our young girls and boys are dressing and behaving, Christian women are going to have to begin the process, regardless if we like it or not. I don’t want to hear about changing fashion…God doesn’t change, and neither does what He is pleased with. I don’t care to hear about how men should not have dirty minds, which is just a ridiculous argument, because God made them to be stimulated visually for reasons I won’t ask Him to justify. I just know that’s the way it is. What I want to know is how modest is good enough? How much skin is too much? Is there an official dress code within the Church that includes outside of mass? Thank you so much to anyone who takes these questions seriously and takes the time to answer them. Peace to you all.
Click to expand...
Since you are part of the SFO, this reply from another thread in regards to “Mary-like Modesty” may be of particular interest to you, since the author is a Franciscan Friar…but it’s a great read for ALL of us when that frequently posted concern about what women should be wearing is brought up again ( see post #19, point # 2 of JReducation’s timeless wisdom):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7861846&highlight=miriam+of+nazareth#post7861846

The reason those threads are closed is because there are a few members on CAF who will less than charitably insist on pushing their personal opinion that a women wearing anything other than a floor-length dress and long sleeves is immodest…I just file those in my “crazy box” and move on…
 
mitzicross said:
I have been searching for information about a question I have concerning women’s dress. I have found some threads, but they seem closed, and I didn’t find anything that gave the Church’s official stance on the subject. I am just hearing about a campaign of sorts from a group who advocate a Marylike dress code. Whereas women will dress as She did. Covering that which should rightfully belong to God and husband. And, covering that which could cause others to be tempted to lust in some way. I have asked a priest in Ask A Franciscan, a website I frequent as I am a Secular Franciscan. However, his answer didn’t seem thorough to me. It was as though he gives the same answer so often he didn’t think out my entire position. See, I don’t want to be a source of temptation to others. And, I think it is time we look at how the youth views their own beauty and sexuality and how distorted their understanding of those two things are. I believe if any changes are going to be made in our society that will improve the way our young girls and boys are dressing and behaving, Christian women are going to have to begin the process, regardless if we like it or not. I don’t want to hear about changing fashion…God doesn’t change, and neither does what He is pleased with. I don’t care to hear about how men should not have dirty minds, which is just a ridiculous argument, because God made them to be stimulated visually for reasons I won’t ask Him to justify. I just know that’s the way it is. What I want to know is how modest is good enough? How much skin is too much? Is there an official dress code within the Church that includes outside of mass? Thank you so much to anyone who takes these questions seriously and takes the time to answer them. Peace to you all.
Click to expand...
PARENTS, CHILDREN AND THE FACTS OF LIFE. Text on Sex Education for Christian Parents and for Those Concerned with Helping Parents by Henry V. Sattler. ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/PARENT.TXT

ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/index.htm
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chastity.html
 
InvisibleWorld said:
PARENTS, CHILDREN AND THE FACTS OF LIFE. Text on Sex Education for Christian Parents and for Those Concerned with Helping Parents by Henry V. Sattler. ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/PARENT.TXT

ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp
saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/index.htm
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/chastity.html
Click to expand...
Be cautious with certain sites, as some come from uber-traditionalist sources that are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church.

CatholicApologetics contains a lot of personal opinions and saints/popes comments from a different time versus authentic Catholic teaching on what constitutes modesty in clothing in today’s world and seems to promote some questionable teachings.
 
:confused: Thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I was at Mass yesterday and a 14 to 16 year old came strutting in with her mother, no less…in shorts that only covered her most personal parts. I was wondering why the mother didn’t notice her daughter was dressed like that for anything, much less a Eucharistic Celebration. Yes, she marched right on up to the alter to receive. I wish the priests would say more than they do, but I understand why that is difficult for them. What if they insulted her so much she never returned…? I guess her being there is better than her not being there, at least to someone who is supposed to be her shepherd. I can only account for my own dress. I have begun to dress in sleeved tops, long skirts, with all the appropriate undergarments and opaque material. I feel more like a feminine child of God when I am dressed like that. I also can feel sure I am not leading my well intentioned brothers to bad thoughts when they should not even notice me at all. I am just going to pray that the changes in the English speaking mass will lead to more devotion and that devotion leads to respect which will inspire us to be modest before our God and each other. I am still confused about outside the mass, however. Padre Pio used to be so angry at women who came to his confessional dressed inappropriately and he was such an inspired man of God, that it makes me wonder. Also, with the styles that our children and young people are wearing without any thought to modesty, I just wonder if a radical change in our everyday clothes and purchase power could possibly lead to a modest revolution among all our people? I would like to think it could happen. When young girls actually see the difference between sexy and beauty, and see how it is to be treated like a lady in front of their own eyes…maybe they will want to make some changes themselves? Who knows. I am just feeling called to make some changes, myself. And, I can’t help but notice the behavior of the young girls whose moms bring them to Walmart, the mall, restaurants, etc… dressed in hookers outfits. What do you think they are acting like? And, then you look at the mom and she has a tank top on and low riders to show off all her tatts…? Just looking for something to do about it. That’s all. But, I don’t want to push anyone away with scruples either. Thanks for your replies…it helps. Peace to all.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Here’s something that I hope will be helpful:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII, Sept. 24, 1956
Click to expand...
I would second the above statement;)
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Here’s something that I hope will be helpful:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII, Sept. 24, 1956
Click to expand...
You do realize that was said in 1956. Cultures thoughts on modesty have changed dramatically since then.
 
catholicmamajoy said:
Be cautious with certain sites, as some come from uber-traditionalist sources that are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church.

CatholicApologetics contains a lot of personal opinions and saints/popes comments from a different time versus authentic Catholic teaching on what constitutes modesty in clothing in today’s world and seems to promote some questionable teachings.
Click to expand...
After reading what you wrote, I just had to respond. I have looked at CatholicApologetics, and I have to say it is a perfectly holy and good, if not extrodanary website. It is authenticly Catholic and does not promote any questionable teachings. You talk about it as though it promotes herecy or something.

Also what do you mean by “uber-traditionalist”? Do you mean traditionaly Catholic teachings, meanings the true teachings of the Church verses the modernistic herecy? Or are you refering to it as sedivacantist (heretics who clam the seat of Peter is vacant? (in that case, even if it were sedivacantist, the information on the website is perfectly catholic and is free of their herecy).

Pears are pears, apples are apples, apples are not pears, and pears are not grapes. Modesty is modesty. Modesty has the same meaning now that it did 500 years ago. We dont need “Catholic teaching on what constitutes modesty in clothing in today’s world”, because modesty in todays world is the same as modesty in yesterdays world. Of corse, situationaly and style wise, times have changed quite a bit, but modesty still constitutes dressing in a non sexual manner that covers most of the body, as described in the above post, quoted by an assiciate of Pius XII.

Sorry i used some harsh language, and i was not meaning to be mean, but i needed to get my point across.

God Bless and Ave Maria!
 
DAAVEED1590 said:
After reading what you wrote, I just had to respond. I have looked at CatholicApologetics, and I have to say it is a perfectly holy and good, if not extrodanary website. It is authenticly Catholic and does not promote any questionable teachings. You talk about it as though it promotes herecy or something.

Also what do you mean by “uber-traditionalist”? Do you mean traditionaly Catholic teachings, meanings the true teachings of the Church verses the modernistic herecy? Or are you refering to it as sedivacantist (heretics who clam the seat of Peter is vacant? (in that case, even if it were sedivacantist, the information on the website is perfectly catholic and is free of their herecy).

Pears are pears, apples are apples, apples are not pears, and pears are not grapes. Modesty is modesty. Modesty has the same meaning now that it did 500 years ago. We dont need “Catholic teaching on what constitutes modesty in clothing in today’s world”, because modesty in todays world is the same as modesty in yesterdays world. Of corse, situationaly and style wise, times have changed quite a bit, but modesty still constitutes dressing in a non sexual manner that covers most of the body, as described in the above post, quoted by an assiciate of Pius XII.

Sorry i used some harsh language, and i was not meaning to be mean, but i needed to get my point across.

God Bless and Ave Maria!
Click to expand...
Modesty does change over time. In the Victorian era it was scandalous to see a woman’s ankles. Today there is no sexual attachment to ankles and they are not seen as scandalous. Modesty changes over time because culture changes and it varies from culture to culture. Some tribes women are topless and men wear little more than loin cloths. Does this make them immodest? No. Everyone is dressed that way and seeing these body parts isn’t scandalous and isn’t thought twice about. It is all about what parts of the body are sexualized in that particular culture. In our culture it is the upper thigh, buttocks , stomach, breasts/chest, the lower part of the back, and genitals. Since that is true of our culture those body parts need to be covered up.
 
DAAVEED1590 said:
Pears are pears, apples are apples, apples are not pears, and pears are not grapes. Modesty is modesty. Modesty has the same meaning now that it did 500 years ago. We dont need “Catholic teaching on what constitutes modesty in clothing in today’s world”, because modesty in todays world is the same as modesty in yesterdays world. Of corse, situationaly and style wise, times have changed quite a bit, but modesty still constitutes dressing in a non sexual manner that covers most of the body, as described in the above post, quoted by an assiciate of Pius XII.
Click to expand...
Dear DAAVEED1590,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly splendid post, dear friend. My sentiments entirely.

Times and fashions may indeed change but, we must add, not always for the better from the standpoint of a Catholic with a fully-formed conscience. Moreover, the Church’s benchmark of modesty is not the world’s, for it lives by a higher standard and breathes a purer air, hence it does not take its cue from what the godless world deems to be acceptable and appropriate as regards vesture. This is especially so in a society where widespread moral and cultural deterioration are plainly evident, such as our own in the Western world.

Our present debased and decadent culture undeniably has its origins in the moral revolution of the Sixties, which triggered seismic and profound changes, the negative effects of which are still being felt today. The so-called social reforms of that period, legalising abortion and homosexual vice, liberalising divorce, enabling the distribution of contraceptives etc., were said by some misguided men to embody a ‘civilised society’. Now it was from these times of unprecedented moral declension that seductive style garments such as the mini-skirt emerged, which did much to help lower the morals of an entire generation. We should be under no illusions, the Sixties was, incontrovertibly, a decade of decadence and liberation. Alleged intolerance and bigotry were triunphantly consigned to the to the dustbin of history. Those good men, including devout Catholics, who warned that freedom was being confused with anit-social licence were contemptously dismissed as hidebound reactionaries. However, one need only look at the vulgarity of our brash contemporary age and the numerous social ills with which it is now afflicted to know who was right.

As if this is not cause enough to be gravely concerned, Holy Mother Church has also been greatly impacted by the moral and cultural deterioration that emerged in the Sixties. Indeed, if proof were required for this assertion, then one need only point to the many modern day Catholics who expend much energy and ink defending to the death, immodest women’s fashions (e.g. the mini-skirt and bikini), unsightly body enhancements such as tattoos, debased sensory material like rock/pop music and unwholesome films/TV programmes. Alas, many take refuge behind ‘prudential judgement’ arguments to justify their worldliness and resort to all manner of sophisims to defend and rationalize that which ought to be denounced in the strongest terms as being at variance with the traditional moral sense of the faithful. Thus, the fact that we now witness the sad spectacle of some modern Catholics, especially youth, contending that voluptuous fashions are now perfectly acceptable because notions of modesty change in secular society, simply evinces the extent to which they have become imbued with spirit of the age.

Of course* worldly* fashions change, but it surely does not follow that the Church must needs change also to keep pace with them, for its timeless standards of modesty are not those of the present godless and amoral world; the Catholic never sets his watch by the town clock.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
JoArtist said:
Modesty does change over time. In the Victorian era it was scandalous to see a woman’s ankles. Today there is no sexual attachment to ankles and they are not seen as scandalous. Modesty changes over time because culture changes and it varies from culture to culture. Some tribes women are topless and men wear little more than loin cloths. Does this make them immodest? No. Everyone is dressed that way and seeing these body parts isn’t scandalous and isn’t thought twice about. It is all about what parts of the body are sexualized in that particular culture. In our culture it is the upper thigh, buttocks , stomach, breasts/chest, the lower part of the back, and genitals. Since that is true of our culture those body parts need to be covered up.
Click to expand...
Another point that I should make is that everyone tends to focus on the modesty of women and not at all on the modesty of men (women are visual too!) and the fact that lust shouldn’t all be placed on the woman and how she may be dressed. We must take responsibility for our own sins. I know that it doesn’t matter much how I am dressed I still get cat-called by men and stared at. Even during the winter when I am wearing a scarf, beanie, gloves, snow boots, snow pants, and a snow jacket. Still the same thing. Yet for some reason men keep on pointing the finger at us. Lust is a sin to commit and shouldn’t be blamed on the woman.
 
Dearly beloved brethren,

Cordial greetings.

Whilst a man is clearly responsible for the custody of his eyes (cf. Job 31: 1), there is also an onus upon women not to don seductive style attire, but rather to be considerate in dress and behaviour, so as not to be the occasion of temptation in men. Owing to the Fall man is, alas, subject to concupiscence (evil desire) and therefore the sight of a scantily clad women is likely to stimulate his base passions, which could result in mortal sin. True, the Church has not mandated any one choice of clothing for women or men, nevertheless a well-formed conscience should steer both genders away from any garments that are manifestly seductive and which accentuate body parts. “Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2522). It is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive but it is quite another to make herself deliberately seductive. Woman know the difference and so do men. The moral sense of the faithful has always held it to be wrong and uncharitable for a woman to so dress as to incite lust in members of the opposite sex.

“You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. **You allege that you **never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and deportment…When you have made another to sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride” (St. John Chrysostom, added emphasis mine).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
JoArtist said:
Modesty does change over time. In the Victorian era it was scandalous to see a woman’s ankles. Today there is no sexual attachment to ankles and they are not seen as scandalous. Modesty changes over time because culture changes and it varies from culture to culture. Some tribes women are topless and men wear little more than loin cloths. Does this make them immodest? No. Everyone is dressed that way and seeing these body parts isn’t scandalous and isn’t thought twice about. It is all about what parts of the body are sexualized in that particular culture. In our culture it is the upper thigh, buttocks , stomach, breasts/chest, the lower part of the back, and genitals. Since that is true of our culture those body parts need to be covered up.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. I was refring mainly to the virtue of modesty, however I was not clear about that. What you said about dressing modestly, though, is true an I agree with you, any body parts that can consitered by a culture to be sexual need to be covered up.
 
Portrait said:
Dear DAAVEED1590,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly splendid post, dear friend. My sentiments entirely.

Times and fashions may indeed change but, we must add, not always for the better from the standpoint of a Catholic with a fully-formed conscience. Moreover, the Church’s benchmark of modesty is not the world’s, for it lives by a higher standard and breathes a purer air, hence it does not take its cue from what the godless world deems to be acceptable and appropriate as regards vesture. This is especially so in a society where widespread moral and cultural deterioration are plainly evident, such as our own in the Western world.

Our present debased and decadent culture undeniably has its origins in the moral revolution of the Sixties, which triggered seismic and profound changes, the negative effects of which are still being felt today. The so-called social reforms of that period, legalising abortion and homosexual vice, liberalising divorce, enabling the distribution of contraceptives etc., were said by some misguided men to embody a ‘civilised society’. Now it was from these times of unprecedented moral declension that seductive style garments such as the mini-skirt emerged, which did much to help lower the morals of an entire generation. We should be under no illusions, the Sixties was, incontrovertibly, a decade of decadence and liberation. Alleged intolerance and bigotry were triunphantly consigned to the to the dustbin of history. Those good men, including devout Catholics, who warned that freedom was being confused with anit-social licence were contemptously dismissed as hidebound reactionaries. However, one need only look at the vulgarity of our brash contemporary age and the numerous social ills with which it is now afflicted to know who was right.

As if this is not cause enough to be gravely concerned, Holy Mother Church has also been greatly impacted by the moral and cultural deterioration that emerged in the Sixties. Indeed, if proof were required for this assertion, then one need only point to the many modern day Catholics who expend much energy and ink defending to the death, immodest women’s fashions (e.g. the mini-skirt and bikini), unsightly body enhancements such as tattoos, debased sensory material like rock/pop music and unwholesome films/TV programmes. Alas, many take refuge behind ‘prudential judgement’ arguments to justify their worldliness and resort to all manner of sophisims to defend and rationalize that which ought to be denounced in the strongest terms as being at variance with the traditional moral sense of the faithful. Thus, the fact that we now witness the sad spectacle of some modern Catholics, especially youth, contending that voluptuous fashions are now perfectly acceptable because notions of modesty change in secular society, simply evinces the extent to which they have become imbued with spirit of the age.

Of course* worldly* fashions change, but it surely does not follow that the Church must needs change also to keep pace with them, for its timeless standards of modesty are not those of the present godless and amoral world; the Catholic never sets his watch by the town clock.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
Spot on! I absolutely and totaly agree with you. Women and girls fashions, particularly teenage girls fashions, are grossly immodest and promote lust (trust me, i am in high school), and sholud be opposed with fervor. Our Lady of Fatima warned of immodest fashions that angered God, and that the sin of the flesh would be the death of our generation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top