U
udoc89
Guest
I think not, anymore than choosing to wear a blue blouse rather than an orange one because it suits my coloring means I am wishing to draw attention to myself. And there is nothing sinful about calling a garment pretty (or wearing it, for that matter) anymore than it is wrong for our priests to wear glorious vestments. Modesty is the question here. Just because a dress is pretty doesn’t make it immodest or sinful, anymore than wearing something plain is necessarily an indication of goodness.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find a lot of those other patterns that were linked, reflecting styles of the 40s and 50s, to be unattractive as well as immodest (too low necklines, bare arms).
I am not an advocate of Protestantism or Puritanism by any means, but you are equating garments with beauty, which is wrong. I think Our Lady was the most beautiful woman who lived. Are not people who dress in styles which they consider attractive and stylish wishing to call attention to themselves? If you really think honestly about it, you must say yes.
In all the representations of Our Lady I have seen, she looks beautiful and is clothed beautifully. Is that merely in the eye of the artist, or did God create her beautiful, both inside and out? I choose to believe that she was both. She dressed, of course, modestly–but also in the style common to her culture and the climate.
Modesty is common sense. Wear what you like–jumpers or not–just look in the mirror before you go out and make sure everything is adequately covered.
Are my clothes pretty? I hope so. Am I trying to draw attention to myself at Mass–No! I leave that to the women wearing halter tops and micro-minis. Frankly, after everyone is finished gawking and clucking at them, I doubt they notice what I have on, which is perfectly ok with me.