Women's Fashion

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

If you have that problem–there is a solution----start and keep praying.

Oh–and that quote attributed to our Lady of Fatima–there is no evidence that it was actually from our Lady. Somewhere --it just got attributed to Her.

 

[Walking_Home]

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**.

---

Bingo. The men should work on fixing themselves. If they don’t --no matter how much a woman covers up – they will still be lechers.

 

[Portrait]

---

Bingo. The men should work on fixing themselves. If they don’t --no matter how much a woman covers up – they will still be lechers.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

However, at least by dressing modestly and observing a proper reserve as befits those who profess religion, women will help counteract the strength of concupiscence and neutrailize its powerful effects. This, coupled with men keeping their base passions in subjection, will surely result in much less emphasis upon body parts and therefore, also, less impure thoughts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear DAAVEED1590,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Quite so, dear friend, and the promiscuous fashions are a direct consequence of the sexualisation of our Western culture, which has gained momentum since the decade of decadence, the Sixties. Moreover, these unseemly fashions are even being designed for pre-pubescent children, and parents seem quite happy to go along with the immoral drift of secular culture and dress them way beyond their tender years, thus robbing them of their innocence and childhood. This is deplorable and an outrage, especially when professing Catholic parents allow themselves to become drawn into the godless outlook of their pagan neighbours and allow their children to wear indecourous fashion attire.

It is refreshing change to see a young Catholic man like yourself who is exercised regarding such matters. We need more young people of your ilk today and you are setting a good example to your peers (and some adults, I’ve no doubt), dear friend. God bless you and you will be in my prayers this day.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Bingo. The men should work on fixing themselves. If they don’t --no matter how much a woman covers up – they will still be lechers.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

However, at least by dressing modestly and observing a proper reserve as befits those who profess religion, women will help counteract the strength of concupiscence and neutrailize its powerful effects. This, coupled with men keeping their base passions in subjection, will surely result in much less emphasis upon body parts and therefore, also, less impure thoughts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

I believe you live in a fog. Back in the day when women were all covered up–the sight of a women’s ankle–sent men into a tizzy. So will covering up women “counteract concupiscence” —don’t believe it will happen. I’d say it will have the opposite affect. Hasn’t helped the Muslims men any.

 

[Portrait]

---

I believe you live in a fog. Back in the day when women were all covered up–the sight of a women’s ankle–sent men into a tizzy. So will covering up women “counteract concupiscence” —don’t believe it will happen. I’d say it will have the opposite affect. Hasn’t helped the Muslims men any.

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

To our Victorian brethren the glimpse of an ankle would obviously have elicited a startling response, simply because it was such an uncommon sight in those more demure days. If anything this bolsters the argument that there has been a steady moral and cultural declension, accelerated in the Sixties, that has continually sought to push the envelope as regards seductive fashions, especially for women. Now we have arrived at the point where there is a disinclination to observe tasteful standards of decency as regards apparel and very little is left to the imagination with respect to modern clothing fashions.

As a consequence of the Fall our first parents were immediately overwhelmed by a sense of guilty shame. Prior to the Fall, they were both naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2: 25), for they were both as the good Lord had created them and were devoid of any self-consciousness or shame. However, the Fall changed things in an instant and “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3: 7). To put it simply, they became cognizant of their own sexuality and sought to hide their nakedness with which they were now all too keenly aware. Moreover, God later provided an even more adeqaute covering, “garments of skins” (Gen 3: 21), to clothe them decently and to minimise the potent effects of concupiscence. Devout and God-fearing Catholics likewise continue to *adequately *cover themselves, because they too are aware of the strength of evil desire and how it makes its appeal to man’s baser instincts.

If being decently covered does not neutralize concupiscence, then God would not have provided our first parents with a more adequate covering. However, God knew that man in his fallen estate would always be inclined to lasciviousness and hence his libido must be kept in check if he is not to fall into mortal sin. Clearly, being modestly attired goes a long way towards this end by helping subdue impure thoughts and deflect attention away from body parts. The converse is also true, by voluptuously exposing their bodies, women (and men) enflame evil desire and become the occasion of temptation in members of the opposite sex. What Catholic would want that upon their conscience?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

To our Victorian brethren the glimpse of an ankle would obviously have elicited a startling response, simply because it was such an uncommon sight in those more demure days. If anything this bolsters the argument that there has been a steady moral and cultural declension, accelerated in the Sixties, that has continually sought to push the envelope as regards seductive fashions, especially for women. Now we have arrived at the point where there is a disinclination to observe tasteful standards of decency as regards apparel and very little is left to the imagination with respect to modern clothing fashions.

As a consequence of the Fall our first parents were immediately overwhelmed by a sense of guilty shame. Prior to the Fall, they were both naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2: 25), for they were both as the good Lord had created them and were devoid of any self-consciousness or shame. However, the Fall changed things in an instant and “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3: 7). To put it simply, they became cognizant of their own sexuality and sought to hide their nakedness with which they were now all too keenly aware. Moreover, God later provided an even more adeqaute covering, “garments of skins” (Gen 3: 21), to clothe them decently and to minimise the potent effects of concupiscence. Devout and God-fearing Catholics likewise continue to *adequately *cover themselves, because they too are aware of the strength of evil desire and how it makes its appeal to man’s baser instincts.

If being decently covered does not neutralize concupiscence, then God would not have provided our first parents with a more adequate covering. However, God knew that man in his fallen estate would always be inclined to lasciviousness and hence his libido must be kept in check if he is not to fall into mortal sin. Clearly, being modestly attired goes a long way towards this end by helping subdue impure thoughts and deflect attention away from body parts. The converse is also true, by voluptuously exposing their bodies, women (and men) enflame evil desire and become the occasion of temptation in members of the opposite sex. What Catholic would want that upon their conscience?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

Blah, blah, blah—blah, blah, blah.

 

[mitzicross]

Well, you have all been arguing the same arguments I found in the other threads. While I agree that men, and women should pray and keep watch over their senses, I still believe that if I am going to wear a revealing outfit, I risk tempting someone who may be struggling with that area of sin in their lives. I am responsible for my behavior, but in this case, I feel responsible for the response of others.

What if I knew my brothers were alcoholics, and I invited them to dinner where I set up a full bar and offered each of them a drink as they came in the door. Of course they are supposed to be strong enough to say no to that offer, and some may well do that. What of my newly recovering brothers? Am I just going to taunt them, and then blame them for falling back into sin? That doesn’t make sense to me. It may not be fair, but I think we are responsible for the influence we have on each other. I think we will be held accountable for it.

As far as the 1960’s however, I think immorality goes back much farther than that, historically. I mean, look at the flappers in the 20’s. Think God was pleased with their attire and behavior? What about strippers like Betty Page, etc. Prostitutes were around way before the 60’s, after all Jesus encountered one about to be stoned once. They and many like them, paved the way for what we see now. Good people let strip clubs and prostitution exist and so it continued and festered and now we have our children emulating them without thinking about morality.

And, the argument about the ankles…I have another question? My brothers, what do you find sexually stimulating? I have no clue as I am obviously not a male. I know the obvious answers, of course, but what about a sleeveless blouse? What about a sheer blouse with a bra under? What about shorts? Pedal Pushers? Capri’s? What about tight fitting? How tight is too tight? How do we know our ankles aren’t still as sexually stimulating as ever, just that men are afraid to admit it to us?

I can’t account for men who will still cat call, which I think is primarily for the benefit of other men, when we are fully and appropriately clothed. We can’t force men to control their behavior. How does that eliminate our responsibility to dress properly in company with men? That would be like saying I provided alcohol at my party because a few of my brothers would have just gone to a bar afterwards anyway…so why bother being thoughtful about those who wouldn’t have… That is not a good enough excuse to me. And, as a woman, I can’t think of a single reason why I would want to reveal myself to others. What could possibly be my reasoning for improper dress…tight fitting, sheer, low cut, too short…:? What would be a noble purpose to dress that way?

Well, men, if you would allow us to understand your position further, please express what “body parts” we are talking about beyond the obvious? Thanks for your assistance. I am trying to be a better influence on everyone around me. And, to please God. I love him. Peace.

 

[Beenie1981]

Modesty is as much a frame of thought as it is an outward act. To give more attention as to what is sexually appealing with your body is to give more power to sex and impure thoughts.

Mitzicross, I assume you live in a Western country, have you travelled to the Middle East? I feel that as Catholics, if we are to become hyper-focused on the sexuality of our bodies, then we are no different from the Arab culture. Women are forced to cover their entire body with no proven benefit of a purely modest society as prostitution, rape and lewd behavior toward women still exist.

Maybe you have had this conversation before, but I feel you are crossing a very dangerous border from true religious modesty and an outward display of modesty that has underlying attention and thought to sexuality.

The intention with how you dress and how you carry yourself will speak more than worrying about whether your ankles will arouse a man.

I’m not saying that a modicum of forethought in your appearance is not warranted. However if you dress in an abaya or as a Victorian which is out of place for the time and circumstance, your self-rightousness precedes you and thus you have fallen into sin again.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

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!

I didn’t feel your post used harsh language at all. What I was getting at was that there are certain sites out there that mesh quite a bit of personal opinion in with authentic Church teaching and thus have good folks thinking the website’s owner or author’s opinion is actual Church teaching. As far as Catholic Apologetics …as long as one realizes a fair amount of their site is personal opionion, that’s fine…Marian Therese Horvat has wrote a nice little article on what she** feels is appropriate wear for women. Along the lines of her post (which similar topics have been discussed ad nauseum here on CAF since the forum started years ago), the whole “women shouldn’t dress in men’s clothes” verse from the OT is not a call for women to refrain from wearing pants, (and as any Biblical historian will affirm, men in Biblical times, in the Middle East, did not wear pants; they wore robes and tunics), it is a call for each gender to avoid wearing the other’s clothes (as in “cross-dressing”). It’s a call against dressing to attract those with homosexual tendencies. Since there are pants and trousers specifically made for women, as long as a women wears a pair of pants made for her, not her husband, there is not a problem. Even if she did throw on her hubby’s sweatpants, if she’s not out trying to attract other women in them (by pretending to be a male and “pick them up”), it’s a non-issue. Besides, both men and women have been wearing “pants” in other cultures since the beginning of time. While the wearing of two-legged lower appendage coverings for women may be “new” to Europeans (new as in the last 2 hundred years), it’s nothing new to those in the Far East, the Native Americans, and other cultures. While it’s not as “frilly” to see a women in appropriately fitting trousers, it’s certainly not immodest.

 

[mitzicross]

Modesty is as much a frame of thought as it is an outward act. To give more attention as to what is sexually appealing with your body is to give more power to sex and impure thoughts.

Mitzicross, I assume you live in a Western country, have you travelled to the Middle East? I feel that as Catholics, if we are to become hyper-focused on the sexuality of our bodies, then we are no different from the Arab culture. Women are forced to cover their entire body with no proven benefit of a purely modest society as prostitution, rape and lewd behavior toward women still exist.

Maybe you have had this conversation before, but I feel you are crossing a very dangerous border from true religious modesty and an outward display of modesty that has underlying attention and thought to sexuality.

The intention with how you dress and how you carry yourself will speak more than worrying about whether your ankles will arouse a man.

I’m not saying that a modicum of forethought in your appearance is not warranted. However if you dress in an abaya or as a Victorian which is out of place for the time and circumstance, your self-rightousness precedes you and thus you have fallen into sin again.

I have not traveled to the Middle East, but I am aware of how the women in Muslim countries are forced to dress. I am certainly not trying to go in that direction. I love my capri’s and my jeans, and my short sleeved shirts…I live in a tropical area where the temps get to 100 degrees f, on a regular basis. So, no, I am not interested in wearing long black robes… However,an outward display of modesty is not giving attention to sexuality. I am only asking about this because I don’t want to offend, or cause others to offend God. I want to wear what is pleasing to God. I want to be modest as an example to our young people who have forgotten what it is. I have begun wearing dresses that fit below the knee, sometimes to my feet, with mid length sleeves and a neckline that covers all but about two or three inches below my neck. The material is beautiful but not sheer. I feel pretty when I dress that way, and I feel that God is pleased. I can’t say I know He is, of course, but I am certain He sees that I am dressing to please Him, and no one else. I don’t think letting people see that I am modest is self righteous, or sinful. I think you may have misunderstood my post. I think the nuns who wore the old fashioned habits were beautiful in them, not sinful looking at all. I only wish they would wear them again. They were a symbol of purity and holiness that is missing from our view today. That is what my post is about. I can’t change how nuns choose to dress. But, I can change me. I just don’t want to be scrupulous and over do it. That is why I really love the answer given a moment ago, as you will see if you continue reading.

 

[mitzicross]

I didn’t feel your post used harsh language at all. What I was getting at was that there are certain sites out there that mesh quite a bit of personal opinion in with authentic Church teaching and thus have good folks thinking the website’s owner or author’s opinion is actual Church teaching. As far as Catholic Apologetics …as long as one realizes a fair amount of their site is personal opionion, that’s fine…Marian Therese Horvat has wrote a nice little article on what she** feels is appropriate wear for women. Along the lines of her post (which similar topics have been discussed ad nauseum here on CAF since the forum started years ago), the whole “women shouldn’t dress in men’s clothes” verse from the OT is not a call for women to refrain from wearing pants, (and as any Biblical historian will affirm, men in Biblical times, in the Middle East, did not wear pants; they wore robes and tunics), it is a call for each gender to avoid wearing the other’s clothes (as in “cross-dressing”). It’s a call against dressing to attract those with homosexual tendencies. Since there are pants and trousers specifically made for women, as long as a women wears a pair of pants made for her, not her husband, there is not a problem. Even if she did throw on her hubby’s sweatpants, if she’s not out trying to attract other women in them (by pretending to be a male and “pick them up”), it’s a non-issue. Besides, both men and women have been wearing “pants” in other cultures since the beginning of time. While the wearing of two-legged lower appendage coverings for women may be “new” to Europeans (new as in the last 2 hundred years), it’s nothing new to those in the Far East, the Native Americans, and other cultures. While it’s not as “frilly” to see a women in appropriately fitting trousers, it’s certainly not immodest.

I hadn’t thought about pants that way. But, how do you account for the information provided by the Marylike people that Mary stated in her apparition at Fatima that there will be fashions that are offensive to God, and the next to be introduced were women’s pants? That just makes me think. Really. But, I do understand what you are saying about the cross dressing. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if that is what our Mother was talking about? I don’t know. But, you explain yourself well, and give me more food for thought and prayer about this whole thing.

I am so thankful to all of you for taking this seriously, because with all the sexual immorality in our world, I think we have to fight it any way we can and model what is right and holy. God is with us on this, we just have to try to know what it is He is calling for. But, working together like this, through prayer and dialogue, is so important and very valuable to us as Christians. Maybe we can help God to win the world back for Christ? Who knows, that just may be His plan? Thank you for your opinion.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

I hadn’t thought about pants that way. But, how do you account for the information provided by the Marylike people that Mary stated in her apparition at Fatima that there will be fashions that are offensive to God, and the next to be introduced were women’s pants? That just makes me think. Really. But, I do understand what you are saying about the cross dressing. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if that is what our Mother was talking about? I don’t know. But, you explain yourself well, and give me more food for thought and prayer about this whole thing.

I am so thankful to all of you for taking this seriously, because with all the sexual immorality in our world, I think we have to fight it any way we can and model what is right and holy. God is with us on this, we just have to try to know what it is He is calling for. But, working together like this, through prayer and dialogue, is so important and very valuable to us as Christians. Maybe we can help God to win the world back for Christ? Who knows, that just may be His plan? Thank you for your opinion.

Okay, “pants” were not introduced for women right after the Fatima apparitions…as they have been around along as there have been women covering themselves and many a farm wife in North America and Europe wore them when out in the fields long before the latter part of the 20th century. What did start coming around after Fatima were “fashions” that were not “clothing” per se…but what was “fashionable” in behavior.

.Now, some of the “Marylike Modesty” people have chosen to use the Fatima appparitions in their crusade against women wearing trousers . I think that if trousers were what are Blessed Mother had been concerned with, She would have been speaking out about them from her earliest appearances, and if trousers for women were that offensive, wouldn’t she have been appearing in the Far East and in North America to worn of the dangers of wearing them long before 1917? Women wearing pants have nothing to do with the immorality we see today.
Even female saints have worn pants…and as Brother Joseph, OFM stated in a post on another thread, should the Blessed Mother have been born in another culture, she would’ve worn what was the customary modest apparel then and that very well could have included women’s pants: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7861846&highlight=miriam+of+nazareth#post7861846

If our Blessed Mother (who gave some pretty direct examples of things at Fatima) had been speaking about pants, she would’ve flat out said it, don’t you think? Remember that she said “Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same”. Again, “fashions” do not just include fabric worn on our bodies, If we were to take the phrase and apply all of it to clothing, women should be dressing as they did in the first century and men should as well. That means robes and tunics for the guys!!! Now, read the phrase she spoke again carefully…she said “not follow those fashions”…she did not say “not wear** those fashions”. It’s a call to be holy, not a call to refrain from wearing women’s pant if you happen to be a women.

Now, if you simply feel called to wear only longer skirts, that is fine!!! No one is telling you to wear otherwise, but what I’m trying to point out on this thread is that wearing pants made for women is not immodest, is not offensive, and is not going against Biblical teaching…We must look at the big picture, historical facts, and not just what a few people have chosen as their interpretation of a certain apparition’s comments. I hope that helps bring things into perspective for all who read this.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Okay, “pants” were not introduced for women right after the Fatima apparitions…as they have been around along as there have been women covering themselves and many a farm wife in North America and Europe wore them when out in the fields long before the latter part of the 20th century. What did start coming around after Fatima were “fashions” that were not “clothing” per se…but what was “fashionable” in behavior.

.Now, some of the “Marylike Modesty” people have chosen to use the Fatima appparitions in their crusade against women wearing trousers . I think that if trousers were what are Blessed Mother had been concerned with, She would have been speaking out about them from her earliest appearances, and if trousers for women were that offensive, wouldn’t she have been appearing in the Far East and in North America to worn of the dangers of wearing them long before 1917? Women wearing pants have nothing to do with the immorality we see today.
Even female saints have worn pants…and as Brother Joseph, OFM stated in a post on another thread, should the Blessed Mother have been born in another culture, she would’ve worn what was the customary modest apparel then and that very well could have included women’s pants: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7861846&highlight=miriam+of+nazareth#post7861846

If our Blessed Mother (who gave some pretty direct examples of things at Fatima) had been speaking about pants, she would’ve flat out said it, don’t you think? Remember that she said “Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same”. Again, “fashions” do not just include fabric worn on our bodies, If we were to take the phrase and apply all of it to clothing, women should be dressing as they did in the first century and men should as well. That means robes and tunics for the guys!!! Now, read the phrase she spoke again carefully…she said “not follow those fashions”…she did not say "not wear** those pants. It’s a call to be holy, not a call to refrain from wearing women’s pant if you happen to be a women.

Now, if you simply feel called to wear only longer skirts, that is fine!!! No one is telling you to wear otherwise, but what I’m trying to point out on this thread is that wearing pants made for women is not immodest, is not offensive, and is not going against Biblical teaching…We must look at the big picture, historical facts, and not just what a few people have chosen as their interpretation of a certain apparition’s comments. I hope that helps bring things into perspective for all who read this.

 

[Walking_Home]

I hadn’t thought about pants that way. But, how do you account for the information provided by the Marylike people** that Mary stated in her apparition at Fatima that there will be fashions that are offensive to God, and the next to be introduced were women’s pants?** That just makes me think. Really. But, I do understand what you are saying about the cross dressing. That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if that is what our Mother was talking about? I don’t know. But, you explain yourself well, and give me more food for thought and prayer about this whole thing.

I am so thankful to all of you for taking this seriously, because with all the sexual immorality in our world, I think we have to fight it any way we can and model what is right and holy. God is with us on this, we just have to try to know what it is He is calling for. But, working together like this, through prayer and dialogue, is so important and very valuable to us as Christians. Maybe we can help God to win the world back for Christ? Who knows, that just may be His plan? Thank you for your opinion.

---

There is no evidence that our Lady of Fatima said “there will be fashions that are offensive to God etc.” You will find no such words from our Lady–at the Vatican site.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

---

There is no evidence that our Lady of Fatima said “there will be fashions that are offensive to God etc.” You will find no such words from our Lady–at the Vatican site.

Thanks for posting that!! It really puts things into perspective now.

I simply typed in a search and went with a quote from a Marian apparition site… that shows that anyone can type in a few words and come up with sites that have several variations of what was supposedly said. No wonder there is such confusion over the apparition.

 

[severus68]

Thanks for posting that!! It really puts things into perspective now.

I simply typed in a search and went with a quote from a Marian apparition site… that shows that anyone can type in a few words and come up with sites that have several variations of what was supposedly said. No wonder there is such confusion over the apparition.

If you go to the Vatican site on the Fatima revelations, you can read the translations and the Church’s interpretation on them. Nothing on mode of dress, all that was foretold has already happened.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

If you go to the Vatican site on the Fatima revelations, you can read the translations and the Church’s interpretation on them. Nothing on mode of dress, all that was foretold has already happened.

Thank you!!

 

[francisca]

As a consequence of the Fall our first parents were immediately overwhelmed by a sense of guilty shame. Prior to the Fall, they were both naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2: 25), for they were both as the good Lord had created them and were devoid of any self-consciousness or shame. However, the Fall changed things in an instant and “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3: 7). To put it simply, they became cognizant of their own sexuality and sought to hide their nakedness with which they were now all too keenly aware. Moreover, God later provided an even more adeqaute covering, “garments of skins” (Gen 3: 21), to clothe them decently and to minimise the potent effects of concupiscence. Devout and God-fearing Catholics likewise continue to *adequately *cover themselves, because they too are aware of the strength of evil desire and how it makes its appeal to man’s baser instincts.

Hi there Portrait, how are you today?

I’d like to comment on your words I bolded & underlined above.

The bible did not say that man & woman became aware of their sexuality because of the fall.

The man and the woman had been aware of their sexuality even before the fall, because God always address them as “man” and “woman”.

My evidence that man and woman were aware of their sexuality before the fall:

Genesis 2:24-25
That’s why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife, and with her become one flesh.
Both the man and his wife were naked and were NOT ashamed.

Before the fall, they did not realize that they were naked, eventhough they were aware of “being a man” and “being a woman” (which essentially their sexuality).

After the fall, however, they became aware of “their nakedness”. This fact indicate to us that sin is the cause of awareness of " being naked" (or being immodest).

If being decently covered does not neutralize concupiscence, then God would not have provided our first parents with a more adequate covering.

The man and the woman has made for themselves “apron/ loin cloths made of fig leaves” right after the fall, before they met God in Genesis 3:7. Thus they were NOT naked anymore by the time God made them cloth made of animal skin.

God provided our first parent with animal skin right after God cursed the earth, and then later-- in Genesis 9:3, after the flood-- God allow man (Noah) to have animal’s meat as his food.

My opinion:

The reason of the animal skin and meat as food was : after the fall then God curse the earth, death rules the world. Animal’s skin was necessary for survival. After God send the flood, God allow meat as food for the same reason.

However, God knew that man in his fallen estate would always be inclined to lasciviousness and hence his libido must be kept in check if he is not to fall into mortal sin.

The first sin committed in the garden was not a sexual sin. Sex was not a sin then. I hope it is not sin until now

Sinful sex is only there after God gave the ten commandments, where God told Moses which sexual union he sees as abomination. Note that on the day Moses brought the tablet of the law down from the Sinai, Israel was commiting idolatry. God must have known what would happen even before it happened. Thus the book of the law begin to teach about “faithfulness to God” which essentially against both idolatry and adultery in sexual relationship.

 

[francisca]

Clearly, being modestly attired goes a long way towards this end by helping subdue impure thoughts and deflect attention away from body parts.

The whole body of human is sexual, because human is a sexual being. Even if a woman covers her whole body, there is always something about her that will still attract men, simply because she is a woman. To dress modestly do not guarantee men of lust will not think of “body parts”. Thus in order to subdue impure thought is not by asking women to dress modestly. Instead, men must learn to be responsible of his own choices. Both man and woman are called to chastity.

Society and puritan culture think that women are in charge when it is regarding men’s sexual thoughts. This is the opposite of what the bible say. The bible say that woman is taken from man. If men wants women to be transformed into new creation, men must be transformed first. Not the other way round. All sexual immorality in this world are initiated by men, not women. Take away those immoral men who spend their money for prostitutes, and there will be no brothels to operate. You see that men-- when it’s regarding sex-- they are in charge.

If we women allow men to think of ourselves as immodest based only on our outfit, then we are not subject of our own self. We are not in charge even of our own clothes. And men will not be in charge of their own thoughts. So we shall blame it all to ANY exposed body parts for ANY impure thoughts.

The converse is also true, by voluptuously exposing their bodies, women (and men) enflame evil desire and become the occasion of temptation in members of the opposite sex. What Catholic would want that upon their conscience?

The occasion of temptation as you put it is everywhere. The source of the temptation is not woman’s body on its own. The source of the temptation is, first of all, one’s own mind. And to subdue such mind is by rejecting the way of thinking (the way of thinking that say “impure thought is the result of immodest clothes of others”). To blame it to immodesty is to agree with such thinking (that impure thought is a result of immodest clothes of others). To agree with such thinking is to succumb under its power.

There has been examples of many cultures where men and women wear minimal clothes or even none, and the men there have no problem with such “nakedness”. There is no immodest thoughts to their minds: for their community, the women are modest the way they are.

God bless you