Author Topic: Modesty and how to dress (Read 31315 times)

clare · « **Reply #150 on:** September 27, 2010, 03:09:32 AM »

Quote from: JoanScholastica

Quote from: clare
Quote from: JoanScholastica
Quote from: clare
Although, obviously, if the issue crops up, I will argue about it, but I won't raise it by wearing trousers and inviting bother.

It sounds contradicting but I will leave it as that...

It isn't contradictory.

How come? You don't practice what you preach. Do you still believe it's not contradictory?

I don't preach that women must not wear skirts. I don't preach that women must wear trousers. I am not obliged to wear trousers just because I see nothing wrong with them. There are lots of things that aren't wrong that I don't wear or do!

I don't play golf. But if someone were to start saying it was sinful, and I were to defend it, would you accuse me of not practising what I preach??

Quote

Our Lady had told us that certain fashion would offend God. Considering what pants do to most women nowadays, don't you think it's high time to cease defending something that's offending Him?

I know Our Lady said certain fashions would offend Our Lord. It is obvious that mini-skirts and tight, see-through clothes offend Him. I do not think it is so obvious that trousers offend Him. Maybe short hair does?? I just think it's a bit of a leap to assume that Our Lady obviously included trousers in her warning. It is not obvious at all. There are undoubtedly new fashions that offend Our Lord. But that does not mean that all of them do.

Quote

I don't know until when you'd come to your senses but one thing is certain. It is an occasion of sin to both men and women. For men - because it can lead to impurity. For women - because it can lead them to false notion of equality with men.

Why did the similar dress that men and women donned before men started wearing trousers (as displayed in many paintings of the Holy Family) not lead women to a false sense of equality?

And, as for the occasion of sin element, I've already offered a solution to that: LONG TOPS.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #151 on:** September 29, 2010, 09:39:14 PM »

Quote from: OurEternalFaith

On a more practical note, is it so difficult for a lady to button a blouse to the top, instead of leaving the upper button open?... That would be so much more proper!

:really-mad2:
You've reminded me of my #1 frustration in shopping for tops. I do tend to prefer button-up things to a solid shirt -- not sure why. But, they intend so much for you not to button that top button that either (a) the button simply isn't there, (b) the blouse is actually cut in a V shape so that buttoning the top (decor) button is impossible, or (c) there is too much space between the 1st and 2nd button so that even when closing it, the blouse hangs open between the two.
:really-mad2:
I could manage to sew on a button if that was the only problem, but they simply don't even consider that you'd like to have a neckline rather than a low-cut shirt.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #152 on:** September 29, 2010, 09:44:27 PM »

Quote from: clare

I was reflecting on the importance of feminity to get a woman to Heaven, and I remembered a saint I had read about years ago.

St Wilgefortis. Her dad wanted her to marry. She didn't want to marry, as she had made a vow of chastity. She prayed to be made repulsive, and her prayer was answered: She grew a beard!

Is that the same one, AFTER she got into the convent, that God made her even more beautiful than before the repulsive transformation?

:pop:

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #153 on:** September 29, 2010, 09:47:26 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: OurEternalFaith
On a more practical note, is it so difficult for a lady to button a blouse to the top, instead of leaving the upper button open?... That would be so much more proper!

:really-mad2:
You've reminded me of my #1 frustration in shopping for tops. I do tend to prefer button-up things to a solid shirt -- not sure why. But, they intend so much for you not to button that top button that either (a) the button simply isn't there, (b) the blouse is actually cut in a V shape so that buttoning the top (decor) button is impossible, or (c) there is too much space between the 1st and 2nd button so that even when closing it, the blouse hangs open between the two.
:really-mad2:
I could manage to sew on a button if that was the only problem, but they simply don't even consider that you'd like to have a neckline rather than a low-cut shirt.

I share your frustration.

clare · « **Reply #154 on:** September 30, 2010, 03:33:13 AM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: clare
I was reflecting on the importance of feminity to get a woman to Heaven, and I remembered a saint I had read about years ago.

St Wilgefortis. Her dad wanted her to marry. She didn't want to marry, as she had made a vow of chastity. She prayed to be made repulsive, and her prayer was answered: She grew a beard!

Is that the same one, AFTER she got into the convent, that God made her even more beautiful than before the repulsive transformation?

:pop:

Her dad had her crucified.

clare · « **Reply #155 on:** September 30, 2010, 03:37:53 AM »

Quote from: OurEternalFaith

As a newcomer, I would like to thank everybody in this forum for the lively discussion, and especially Matthew for the initial post.

Don't you people think that in order to avoid long debates (which can become sterile depending on who you are talking with), we should simply be a bit more legalistic and stick to the rules? And as far as I know (and I bet that everybody here agrees), here is the 'latest' regulation...:

"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. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper."

People may argue that this is a 1930 opinion and that fashion changes.

I don't have a problem with those guidelines (though I do sometimes wear shortsleeve t-shirts, whose sleeves don't reach the elbows). I always wear skirts which reach below the knees, usually to the ankles, occasionally mid-calf though.

Trouble is, I could adhere to the rules Pius XI made, and still get kicked out of St Padre Pio's confessional!

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #156 on:** September 30, 2010, 10:26:40 PM »

My personal unsolicited opinion on this is that since Padre Pio could read the hearts and minds of the penitents who came into his confessional he knew which women had problems with vanity and modesty and he assigned to them dress codes that were even stricter than those prescribed by the Holy Father. Perhaps women who didn't have such problems were not given such severe guidelines.

Or, Padre Pio was very aware of the growing tendencies in society towards lewd dressing and he was trying to get the penitents headed off in exactly the opposite direction.

Caminus · « **Reply #157 on:** September 30, 2010, 11:28:53 PM »

Quote

And to find the idea of men and women wearing similar clothes as subversive and un-Catholic, even though Our Lady and St Joseph wore similar clothes!

The distinction then was the fact that women were VEILED all the time, that was feminine dress. The veil of those days would be akin to what the dress signifies today. Thus, your appeal to relativism is without foundation. The point is that there has always been some kind of distinction. We wish to maintain that distinction as it is a particular customary determination of the natural law.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #158 on:** September 30, 2010, 11:46:48 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: parentsfortruth
Quote from: clare
I was reflecting on the importance of feminity to get a woman to Heaven, and I remembered a saint I had read about years ago.

St Wilgefortis. Her dad wanted her to marry. She didn't want to marry, as she had made a vow of chastity. She prayed to be made repulsive, and her prayer was answered: She grew a beard!

Is that the same one, AFTER she got into the convent, that God made her even more beautiful than before the repulsive transformation?

:pop:

Her dad had her crucified.

Must be two different, but similar stories.

clare · « **Reply #159 on:** October 01, 2010, 03:11:53 AM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

My personal unsolicited opinion on this is that since Padre Pio could read the hearts and minds of the penitents who came into his confessional he knew which women had problems with vanity and modesty and he assigned to them dress codes that were even stricter than those prescribed by the Holy Father. Perhaps women who didn't have such problems were not given such severe guidelines.

Yes, that occurred to me. Maybe he didn't do it in every case, but only in cases which he could tell were in dire need of it, and knowing it would work and not be counterproductive in those cases. Of course, we wouldn't hear about cases where he didn't do it, only that he did do it, and therefore he must have done it indiscriminately!

clare · « **Reply #160 on:** October 01, 2010, 03:18:14 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
And to find the idea of men and women wearing similar clothes as subversive and un-Catholic, even though Our Lady and St Joseph wore similar clothes!

The distinction then was the fact that women were VEILED all the time, that was feminine dress.

Yes, I think I have already actually mentioned that.

Quote

The veil of those days would be akin to what the dress signifies today. Thus, your appeal to relativism is without foundation.

I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

Quote

The point is that there has always been some kind of distinction. We wish to maintain that distinction as it is a particular customary determination of the natural law.

I don't disagree. I just disagree that it is written in natural or divine law that trousers are objectively men's dress, and can never be worn by women.

Caminus · « **Reply #161 on:** October 03, 2010, 10:00:01 PM »

Quote

I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

On the contrary, you appealed to subjective similarities in dress in order to justify the confusion that exists today. There has always been an objective distinction between male and female dress. That's the key point.

Quote

I don't disagree. I just disagree that it is written in natural or divine law that trousers are objectively men's dress, and can never be worn by women.

That's not what I said. Rather I said that concrete differences are a particular determination of a precept of the natural law. Just like Sunday is a particular determination of the universal natural law that men owe worship to God. Today and for a long time extending in history, dresses distinguished women from men. That's not to say that women can absolutely never wear pants, for exigent circuмstances apply the principle of equity. The fact that priests have retained the cassock while women have abandoned the veil (even the sheer veil of the traditional chapels is but a very weak testament to this ancient tradition) is an accident of history upon which no argument can rest. But even in this case, the particular quality of the garb is even further distinguished so there is really no parity except that the pants structure is lacking.

So there are two things to consider: the distinction of the sexes and the preservation of modesty.

clare · « **Reply #162 on:** October 04, 2010, 03:56:38 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
I haven't been appealing to relativism. I've been appealing to objectivity.

On the contrary, you appealed to subjective similarities in dress in order to justify the confusion that exists today. There has always been an objective distinction between male and female dress. That's the key point.

I haven't denied that.

I said similar does not mean the same. They dressed similarly before (the main difference being the veil). Therefore, similar dress is not objectively wrong! Similar and the same are not the same! As it were.

Quote

Today and for a long time extending in history, dresses distinguished women from men. That's not to say that women can absolutely never wear pants, for exigent circuмstances apply the principle of equity. The fact that priests have retained the cassock while women have abandoned the veil (even the sheer veil of the traditional chapels is but a very weak testament to this ancient tradition) is an accident of history upon which no argument can rest. But even in this case, the particular quality of the garb is even further distinguished so there is really no parity except that the pants structure is lacking.

So there are two things to consider: the distinction of the sexes and the preservation of modesty.

Yes, I agree. I think.

Now, is it ok for, say, Muslim women to wear trousers, because they wear veils as well? And they usually do wear both those items, in my experience. If trousers are immodest, then I don't see how a veil over the head makes them modest!

Thing is, as I keep saying, a long top over the trousers, reaching, at least mid-thigh, removes the problem of immodesty, and distinguishes women from men.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #163 on:** October 04, 2010, 04:44:55 PM »

Quote from: OurEternalFaith

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: OurEternalFaith
On a more practical note, is it so difficult for a lady to button a blouse to the top, instead of leaving the upper button open?... That would be so much more proper!

:really-mad2:
You've reminded me of my #1 frustration in shopping for tops. I do tend to prefer button-up things to a solid shirt -- not sure why. But, they intend so much for you not to button that top button that either (a) the button simply isn't there, (b) the blouse is actually cut in a V shape so that buttoning the top (decor) button is impossible, or (c) there is too much space between the 1st and 2nd button so that even when closing it, the blouse hangs open between the two.
:really-mad2:
I could manage to sew on a button if that was the only problem, but they simply don't even consider that you'd like to have a neckline rather than a low-cut shirt.

I understand your situation! I may have a few suggestions for you (online vendors); however I don't know if mentioning brand names or web sites is acceptable here. Please let me know.

Go for it!
I try as much as possible not to buy my clothing new, but will check out the sites nonetheless.

clare · « **Reply #164 on:** October 05, 2010, 06:53:12 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

It's a question of mortification and orienting one's soul toward a main goal (being with God forever). Every choice you make either helps you or hurts you.

Surely some choices make no difference. Whether to wear the red striped shirt or the plain blue one, for example.

You're not more likely to be saved or damned whichever you choose in such cases.