Author Topic: Modesty and how to dress (Read 19352 times)

Alex · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2010, 10:35:36 PM »

St. Frances de Sales in his "Introduction to the Devout Life" said it was OK for a woman to wear a bit of make-up and dress nicely if she was doing it to look nice for her husband or, if single, she was doing it to attract a man to marry.

clare · « **Reply #16 on:** July 26, 2010, 03:37:49 AM »

Quote from: JoanScholastica

Quote from: clare
Quote
...dressing like men, including slacks and tights;
low necklines; -- are absolutely contrary to the norms of
Christian modesty.

Tights?? Men's dress? Contrary to Christian modesty? Uh?

Yes, that's true. I read it from the Modesty Crusade.

But, but, but! Why??

Why are tights contrary to Christian modesty?

Why are stockings or bare legs acceptable under a long skirt, but tights aren't???

I don't get it!

Cheryl · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2010, 07:31:11 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JoanScholastica
Quote from: clare
Quote
...dressing like men, including slacks and tights;
low necklines; -- are absolutely contrary to the norms of
Christian modesty.

Tights?? Men's dress? Contrary to Christian modesty? Uh?

Yes, that's true. I read it from the Modesty Crusade.

But, but, but! Why??

Why are tights contrary to Christian modesty?

Why are stockings or bare legs acceptable under a long skirt, but tights aren't???

I don't get it!

I don't know where I read it and will try to find the source, but it is said to be immodest to wear sheer stockings. I'm guessing it is because you can see the leg, unlike the tights that are colored and thicker, therefore not transparent.

clare · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2010, 08:38:18 AM »

Quote from: Cheryl

I don't know where I read it and will try to find the source, but it is said to be immodest to wear sheer stockings. I'm guessing it is because you can see the leg, unlike the tights that are colored and thicker, therefore not transparent.

I still don't get why wearing sheer stockings or tights would be less modest than not wearing them!

Cheryl · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2010, 09:14:04 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Cheryl
I don't know where I read it and will try to find the source, but it is said to be immodest to wear sheer stockings. I'm guessing it is because you can see the leg, unlike the tights that are colored and thicker, therefore not transparent.

I still don't get why wearing sheer stockings or tights would be less modest than not wearing them!

All I can do to further your understanding is provide you with a few links, hope it helps. The bottom line, NO LEG SHOWING.

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/MarylikeStandardsofModestyinDress.html

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/PadrePio.html

clare · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2010, 09:58:10 AM »

It's still illogical.

Skirts must reach below the knees. They needn't reach the ankles.

So why are tights forbidden, and bare legs not? If the legs are covered to below the knee by a skirt, why does it matter?

Matto · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2010, 12:23:16 PM »

If a skirt is eight inches below the knee, it does not reach the ankles, unless the girl is extremely short. But it would be better to wear a skirt that does reach the ankles.

If sheer stockings are immodest, then bare legs would also be immodest. I do not see why tights would not be allowed as an undergarment.

It is a wonderful sight to see a woman dressed modestly. I bet a woman woman who really wanted to please God would dress as modestly as possible. If Muslims can dress modestly without any supernatural virtue, I do not see why it is so hard for Christians to do so as well. When I see how the Muslim women dress, I think it is good; that is how the Blessed Mother dressed during her life and that is how she is dressed when she appears in apparitions.

Shouldn't we strive for the ideal instead of for the minimum? We are told to be perfect and that only those who are perfect can enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Alex · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2010, 12:36:53 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: JoanScholastica
Quote from: clare
Quote
...dressing like men, including slacks and tights;
low necklines; -- are absolutely contrary to the norms of
Christian modesty.

Tights?? Men's dress? Contrary to Christian modesty? Uh?

Yes, that's true. I read it from the Modesty Crusade.

But, but, but! Why??

Why are tights contrary to Christian modesty?

Why are stockings or bare legs acceptable under a long skirt, but tights aren't???

I don't get it!

They're talking about the tights that were worn as more like pants that were part of the fashion then- not the ones under a woman's skirt or dress.

clare · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2010, 12:45:11 PM »

Quote from: Alex

They're talking about the tights that were worn as more like pants that were part of the fashion then- not the ones under a woman's skirt or dress.

Oh, I see! That makes sense.

Except it doesn't fit with Padre Pio's ban on his spiritual daughters wearing transparent stockings. Surely it goes without saying that his spiritual daughters would be wearing long enough skirts for it not to matter?

Also, presumably transparent stockings would not be worn as trousers. They would be worn under skirts.

Sigismund · « **Reply #24 on:** August 08, 2010, 11:45:03 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

My thinking or idea on this was to get the girls thinking about modest fashions. It seems even Catholic girls desire what they see in magazines, T.V. "so called models", why not instruct them to me models for Christ.

I was hoping with my idea; not do something like this so they might have an opportunity to primp, but to educated them and get them to think, as a Catholic girl I could and perhaps should stand out, be an example, not just follow the crowd.

There are fashions that when put together a young girl could learn to dress according to the culture but modest, and still look very up to date.

Well, you could have the tea without fashion show. Stress that one of the purposed of the event, along with those of any appropriate social event, is to "model" proper behavior. This would include dress. All of the positive things you hoped to accomplish with this event could be achieved, I think, without any concern for possible negative consequences.

That was my intention in suggesting this.

Sigismund · « **Reply #25 on:** August 08, 2010, 11:47:22 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Alex
They're talking about the tights that were worn as more like pants that were part of the fashion then- not the ones under a woman's skirt or dress.

Oh, I see! That makes sense.

Except it doesn't fit with Padre Pio's ban on his spiritual daughters wearing transparent stockings. Surely it goes without saying that his spiritual daughters would be wearing long enough skirts for it not to matter?

Also, presumably transparent stockings would not be worn as trousers. They would be worn under skirts.

St. Pio was a great priest and a holy man, but it does not follow that everything he said was binding on all Catholics everywhere for all time. :)

Joseph de Maistre · « **Reply #26 on:** August 08, 2010, 06:30:10 PM »

It's miserable how poorly some people dress at Mass. T-shirts, short skirts, ill-fitting clothing... It is truly an afterthought for them.

Caminus · « **Reply #27 on:** August 08, 2010, 08:10:51 PM »

If shorts would be inappropriate dress at Mass, how can ladies justify wearing skirts that only reach the knees?

Caminus · « **Reply #28 on:** August 08, 2010, 08:19:28 PM »

"We recall that 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 knee."

How many ladies are there in SSPX chapels who have failed to grasp the urgency of this message? How many graces are being lost because of negligent disregard?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #29 on:** August 08, 2010, 08:46:04 PM »

Quote from: clare

It's still illogical.

Skirts must reach below the knees. They needn't reach the ankles.

But why shouldn't they reach the ankles? I think it's safe to say they were required to cover the feet through most of our history.

If Pius XII said they should go below the knees, that's a bare minimum, a concession to modern times.