Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on June 27, 2010, 02:29:20 PM
-
MODESTY AND MODES OF DRESS
We are all born with a fallen nature and, consequently, we must keep
our bodies covered in order to avoid the dangers of concupiscence.
This fact, a result of original sin, is deliberately ignored each
time that naturalism attempts to insinuate itself into our Christian
customs. Then it is that the purpose of clothing is lost sight of,
and instead of being an invitation to virtue, it becomes an
incitement to sin. The Church, like a vigilant Mother, full of tender
care for the holiness and eternal salvation of Her children, has often
been obliged to warn the faithful so that they might avoid the errors
of fashion, and to take the measures necessary to ensure that the
holy places and sacred things should not be profaned by immodesty in
dress.
Unfortunately, we are living in times that have lost the sense of sin
and, as a result, we see around us an eruption of styles of dress
which are, in every way, contrary to Christian modesty. Christian
people must not allow themselves to be carried along by the spirit of
the world but must firmly resist such deviations . . . Jacinta Marto,
one of the little seers of Fatima, although she was only eleven years
old at the time, had a wisdom taught her by the Mother of God.
She merits, therefore, our attention. Here is what she said with
regard to styles of dress: "Fashions will arise which will greatly
offend God." When we consider the fashions of our day, we are led to
conclude that the times foretold by the little seer have arrived.
Indeed, the styles of dress of the women and girls of today such as:
very tight clothing; dressing like men, including slacks and tights;
low necklines; skirts with hemlines or slits which do not cover the
leg below the knee -- are absolutely contrary to the norms of
Christian modesty.
For this reason, in order to conform to the recommendations of the
Holy See, and in particular to the instructions of the Sacred
Congregation of the Council, we urge our faithful people to refrain
from following such ways of dressing.
"Those who keep the Law of God", Jacinta said, "should not follow
fashions". Our priests must try to apply the instructions of the
Sacred Congregation of the Council, without violence or rudeness, but
with firmness. They must not let persons, dressed in the styles
described above, receive the Sacraments and, as far as possible, must
not allow them access to the Temple of God.
Furthermore, they must frequently remind the faithful of these
regulations. Also, when couples present themselves for marriage
preparation, the priests must tell them to inform their wedding
guests of the rules for dress in church. People dressed in these
unacceptable ways must not be accepted as witnesses to the marriage
and, after due warning, they must not be admitted to Holy Communion.
It is highly recommended that these prescriptions be posted at the
entrance to the church.
-Bishop Antonio de Castro-Mayer-
MODESTY STANDARDS
On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by
mandate of Pope Pius XI, issued emphatic instructions on modesty of
dress to all bishops, directing them to insist on these
prescriptions: "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.
"Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games
and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such
exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly
dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb."
Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, also quotes these
standards as "The Church's Stand concerning Modesty in Dress" in his
Pastoral of December 6, 1959. The feminine loss of the sense of
modesty was indicated by Pope Pius XII who said: "Now many girls do
not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles
(fashions) like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could
only guess the impressions they make and the feelings they evoke
(arouse) in those who see them." (July 17, 1954.)
"O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and
ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by
imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting
them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of
yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you
by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture."
And, men also are held to the virtue of modesty; witness the
admonition of Canadian bishops in May of 1946: "Man himself does not
escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in
public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very
scanty bathing suits. They thus commit offenses against the virtue of
modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire)
for our neighbor."
The opinion which allows custom to dictate the question of modesty
was refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence: "There always
exists an absolute norm to be preserved."
Custom, of course, pays no attention to absolute norms; but, it is a
follower of this false principle: ". . . the majority cannot go
wrong."
To say that "... modesty is a matter of custom" is just as wrong as
to say that "... honesty is a matter of custom."
What about those who teach "What is customary does not affect us?"
Pope Pius XII calls this application of an ancient principle to the
virtue of modesty, "the most insidious of sophisms." He calls
attention to the fact that some people use this sophism "...in order
to brand as 'old fashioned' the rebellion of honest people against
fashions they consider too bold."
The Pope's pronouncements make no distinctions for various types of
garments. Pius XII states "...an unworthy, an indecent mode of dress
has prevailed" without any distinction of place, "on beaches, in
country resorts, on the streets, etc." (Aug. 29. 1954)
His quotation: "Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity," applies
as well to the beaches, or the streets, or resorts, or elsewhere.
Cardinal Pla y Daniel, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, stated in 1959:
"A special danger to morals is represented by public bathing at
beaches... Mixed bathing between men and women, which is nearly
always a proximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must be avoided."
Modern Catholics may now consider themselves "far too adult" and
disdain such directives, but nevertheless they remain the wise
counsels of our Holy Mother the Church.
PADRE PIO
The saintly stigmatized Padre Pio was always a merciless enemy of
feminine vanity: he never tolerated low-necked dresses, short and or
tight fitting skirts, and forbade his spiritual children to wear
transparent stockings. In the last few years of his life, his
severity increased enormously, as fashions became more and more
immodest.
He unrelentingly dismissed from his confessional, before they could
step inside, all women he judged to be incorrectly dressed. By 1967,
on some mornings, he turned them away one after another, until he
ended up confessing very few. His brethren noticed this with a
certain unease, then decided to post on the door of the church a
warning: "By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter the
confessional wearing skirts AT LEAST 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE. It is
forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to
confession."
The beginning of the struggle with no concessions whatsoever
coincided more or less with the advent of the mini-skirt, launched by
the English girl Mary Quant. It had not yet reached Italy as Padre Pio
was thundering against short skirts. As fashion houses announced:
"Eight inches above the knee", Padre Pio warned: "Eight inches below
the knee".
WHEN SUMMER IS HERE
When summer comes, a pastor of souls worries a little more than usual
about the salvation of the flock that Our Lord has confided to him. He
knows that, in the summer season, souls are more exposed to occasions
of offending God, "of attacking God with His won gifts", especially
through sinful fashions of dress.
Our Lady said to Sister Lucy at Fatima: "There will be fashions which
will greatly offend My Divine Son". Today's fashions prove Our Lady's
words true, for these fashions are occasions of sin, occasions, alas,
of serious sin, by reason of the sinful thoughts and desires which
they provoke. In the Gospel, Our Lord warned us about such evil
desires: "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to
lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his
heart." (Mt.5:28).
In the life of Saint Frances of Rome, we read of a vision of Hell
which was granted her, and which lasted for four hours. God willed to
show her, in the fires of Hell, certain ladies whom she had known in
Roman society. For what sins had these souls been damned? They had
been damned:
- for guilty desires, even though these had not been put into act.
- for indecent styles of dress, which were the fashion of the day,
and which had been a cause of seduction and of sin.
- for dances, considered inoffensive by the world.
This vision of Hell so marked Saint Frances of Rome, that she had it
painted on the murals of her chapel, as a constant reminder of the
judgments of God. God then gave her the mission of drawing the Roman
ladies out of their luxury and their vanity.
Our society is much worse than the society of Renaissance Rome. What
can we do in order not to yield to the corruption which surrounds us,
especially in the matter of dress? Let us, first of all, recall
certain Catholic principles. It was with the help of such principles
that Father Emmanuel, at Mesnil Saint-Loup, was able to make his
Parish a truly Christian society once again.
Christianity is stable and solid only insofar as it permeates the
whole being of the baptized person. It must, first of all, penetrate
the inner man, and transform him into the image of Jesus Christ, in
order to then regulate, according to this image, his exterior
actions, words, and attitudes. It is not sufficient, Saint Paul tells
us, for the heart to believe; we must also confess with our mouth, if
we wish to be saved. And this external confession must extend to all
our gestures, movements, habits, and relationships.
>From this, it is easy to understand the importance of modesty for
women. A woman who is vain gives the lie to her baptismal promises. A
woman who tries to attract men's glances to herself, shows by this
conduct that she has no desire to please Jesus Christ.
In Holy Communion, Our Lord takes possession of our whole being, so
that the soul becomes subject to Him in humility, and the body in
modesty and restraint. From which it follows that a person who goes
to Communion must be different, even exteriorly, from one who does
not.
Modesty in a woman is the sign that Jesus Christ dwells in her heart.
It is a sweet perfume of edification which she is called upon to
diffuse.
Modesty in dress and behavior is, therefore, an indispensable way of
making us more attentive to the obligations which we contracted at
our Baptism. It is a consequence of that dogma of Faith which tells
us that the baptized soul is the dwelling of the Blessed Trinity and
that the body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Saint Paul, infallibly
inspired by God, tells us: "Know you not that your members are the
temple of the Holy Ghost, Who is in you, Whom you have from God, and
you are not your own? ... Glorify and bear God in your body". (1
Cor.6:19-20).
Today's fashions, on the contrary, dishonor and corrupt the Christian
woman. Their aim is to seduce and to arouse concupiscence, to the
detriment of the soul's spiritual beauty, which is the true goal of
our lives. All of this is a strategic Masonic maneuver. The
destruction of Christian society, for which the Lodges have been
working for two centuries, is to be realized through the destruction
of the virtue of modesty in those who are baptized. This corruption,
which has been deliberately and carefully programmed, is being
systematically brought about.
It is, therefore, always necessary to remember the indispensable
rules of Christian modesty, rules which are not to be practiced only
in church! Let us, then, look at these rules, first in general, and
then, in particular, with regard to assistance at Mass.
IN GENERAL, clothes should hide the shape of the body rather than
accentuate it. Only this kind of clothing can truly be called
"decent". This rule automatically excludes slacks (which are
masculine apparel) for women. Feminine apparel is a skirt or a dress
which must cover the woman's knees when she is seated. Decency in
dress is to be observed, not only at Mass on Sundays, but every day
of the week. The deciding factor is not whether slacks or culottes
are more comfortable than a skirt, but rather to do the Will of God,
by "loving Him in all things and above all things" (Collect of the
6th Sunday after Pentecost).
IN PARTICULAR, when attending Mass, we must be still more careful
about how we dress. For instance, women must cover their heads:
"Every woman praying ...with her head not covered, disgraces her
head" (1 Cor.11:5). This rule has been the constant teaching of the
Popes, and Pope St. Pius X had it included in the Code of Canon Law
(Canon 1262). It is a sign of humility and submission for a woman to
cover her head, and draws down God's graces and blessings upon her.
Now is it an indifferent matter, just as no exterior act is an
indifferent matter, for it proceeds from our very person and reveals
what kind of person we are.
Both men and women must have their arms covered in church, even when
the weather is warm. It is true that this is a sacrifice, and we
should offer it to Our Lord, who suffered so much for us in His Body,
in order to save us. Let us learn to imitate Him in mortifying our
body.
We must hold to these rules, of which we are mentioning only the most
essential, without human respect, especially in these times of ours.
For, as Dom Bernard Marechaux used to say:
"The evil of our day is this: that the line of demarcation between
Christian and non-Christian, between Christian and heretic, between
Christian and idolater, is gradually fading away. The cancer of
Liberalism attacks everyone and we must be careful not to be infected
ourselves. Those who still call themselves Catholic live, too often,
like those who have renounced this title. Women who go to church
dress just the way women who do not go to church dress; they read the
same books and magazines as these women; they go to the same -- often
immoral -- shows as these women; they no longer pray or do penance.
It is a confusion of license and worldliness. As a result of these
customs, the Church is beginning to disappear in the world.
Christianity is being lost. Only rarely does one find Catholics to
whom the following words of Saint Paul can apply: "...be blameless
and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a
crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in
the world". (Phil.2:15). The early Christians stood out among the
pagans like shining torches in the dark, and the example of their
courage and their virtue attracted the pagans strongly to the Faith.
This is something which we do not see today, except in rare cases.
Everything is a mish-mash of unrestraint."
Pope Pius XII said substantially the same thing, in an allocution to
young Catholic girls during World War II (May 22, 1941):
"...Numbers of believing and pious women...in accepting to follow
certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance
of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the
cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain
identified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do not dare to
follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of
good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are
carried along by the tide into possible disaster."
Pope Pius XII indeed called Catholics to a CRUSADE OF PURITY. Good
example is a great act of charity. It is an apostolate which God
richly blesses, as we can see, for instance, in the diocese of Campos
in Brazil, where the priests followed the good example of their
bishop, Monsignor de Castro Mayer. Traditional priests -- alas still
few in number -- are eager to have such a Crusade of Purity. In
France, we can see the good that is being done by the "Mouvement de
la Jeunesse Catholique de France", and by traditional Catholic
schools, in producing Catholics who are enthusiastically practicing
the virtue of Christian modesty (which does not, by the way, prevent
a woman from being gracious and lovely). In other countries, too,
this Crusade is producing visible fruits of goodness and holiness.
We must mention here the important role of Christian mothers in
teaching their children, their daughters especially, and from the
time that they are very little, a true sense of Christian modesty.
"Men are lost through women and they are saved through women", a
preacher said one day. "By their vanity, they will make a man fall;
by their modesty, they will save him. The world of morality
oscillates between Eve and Mary. As long as modesty is not practiced,
the world will not rise from its decadence."
-
Can you imagine what Padre Pio would say about all of the vulgar tattoos? :facepalm:
-
I'v been trying to get the Mount to have a mother/daughter tea fashion show, where the girls model very modest and classy outfits. So far they all love the idea but then it seems to die right there on the spot.
I just thought it would be fun for the girls to put some modest clothing on and yet be fashionable, we don't have to dress like little house, unless you want to.
The mother/daughter tea of course would only be for us women. No men included.
Does anyone think it is a bad idea, I was thinking, well maybe they like the idea but fear the girls might get a taste of being a model and off to Hollywood they go.
-
I just thought it would be fun for the girls to put some modest clothing on and yet be fashionable
I think that would be the venial sin of dressing to impress. The mortal sin is dressing to inflame desire, but if you want to dress to get attention, even from other women, to stand out, it's venial. Such is my understanding anyway.
I'm sure there's a way to be modestly fashionable but I think the idea of a fashion show is counter to Catholicism. Your artsiness is showing, Myrna.
-
I just thought it would be fun for the girls to put some modest clothing on and yet be fashionable
I think that would be the venial sin of dressing to impress. The mortal sin is dressing to inflame desire, but if you want to dress to get attention, even from other women, to stand out, it's venial. Such is my understanding anyway.
I'm sure there's a way to be modestly fashionable but I think the idea of a fashion show is counter to Catholicism. Your artsiness is showing, Myrna.
How did you come to this understanding?
-
I read somewhere that it was a mortal sin to tempt men, but venial to dress out of vanity, to show off wealth, and so on.
I just figured that if the mortal sin is to dress to INFLAME MEN, then it would be venial to dress to make other women jealous or to show off -- such was my deduction. Of course I realize that just dressing to look nice at Church is not a venial sin, there has to be an element of ostentation to it.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. Moral theology isn't my field so much as plots and cօռspιʀαcιҽs. If they somehow impinge on moral theology, then I get interested...
-
God's judgments are not man's.
In one of those "pious young girl" TAN books I read -- a girl who could physically see her guardian angel -- the girl got a very angry scowl from her guardian angel just for looking around at Church. Not for looking at a man, etc. we're talking about "mere" curiosity and lack of mortification of the eyes.
Apply this to dress, and I could see vanity as being an actual venial sin.
Keep in mind how few people are sinless enough to go straight to heaven.
If we want to know what it takes to be perfect, read the lives of the saints. We'd have to be as "extreme" as them to be pure enough to enter heaven directly after death.
Were any of the saints obsessed with not being "frumpy"? Seems to me the female saints embraced "frumpiness" with both hands, so as to have the least chance of offending God. Just as most saints didn't go after choice foods, but rather went the "old potatoes" or "mix in some bitter herbs" route.
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.
Matthew
-
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.
That was my intention in suggesting this.
-
I remember reading a book about Pauline Jaricot and her obession with being very well dressed at Mass and how she overcame it. And, in that book she was reprimanded by a parent for looking around at other girls dress.
But, I think what Myrna is trying to say is that girls today have plenty of places to see how to dress like trash. And want the tea to be a celebration of girls and their mothers dressing like ladies. And, I think she means for it to be a place where they can see others dressing like ladies and get moral support for it. If I am off Myrna I am sorry.
But, in this world today, raising two teenage girls I can see where her idea would give encourgement to these girls.
-
To quote Dawn
girls today have plenty of places to see how to dress like trash. And want the tea to be a celebration of girls and their mothers dressing like ladies. And, I think she means for it to be a place where they can see others dressing like ladies and get moral support for it.
Exactly!
I wonder now, looking at what Raoul posted;
Is wanting to look your best a venial sin, I wonder? I doubt the saints wore make up and such, but is that vain, to put on a little make up? I never really thought much about that!
When you read about the apparitations of Our Lady, I read once where she had roses on her feet and a ring on all her fingers. Could that have been a false apparition, perhaps.
Makes me wonder after the resurrection of the body, what will women be dressed like, will we still be women and men or just one sex? Or no sex in particular.
-
...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?
-
There is something in the book of Blessed Taigi. Her husband wanted her to put on her Jєωels and fancy gowns he bought when they went out. She did not want to but did not want an argument on her hands. Her advisor told her to were the Jєωels. But, when Domenico her husband so how unhappy she was dressed like that he told her not to do so any longer. I think that we get confused with looking neat and tidy and then vanity.
-
...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.
-
Except for Bl. Maria Taigi I can't think of any other saints who were married and subsequently dressed plainly and without adornment of any kind.
I've read about other saints that began doing so when their husband's died and they sold their Jєωels and clothing and often entered into convents.
I imagine there were plenty who were poor and so it wasn't a choice really to dress in clothes that were more colorful or made out of finer material.
St. Therese's mother made lace and is pictured wearing nice clothes, with her hair fixed and I believe she and her daughter's all had their ear's pierced. Her husband was a Jєωeler wasn't he? Aren't the Martin's close to being canonized?
Weren't most of the saints on record not married and not living "in the world" ?
I believe based on what I've read and learned that we have to live according to our state in life. Some saints in the early years of the Church were royalty. They had to dress according to that particular state .. finery, Jєωels... However, once the King or Queen died, many saints ultimately gave it all up and led a life of poverty and deprivation.
If we're married and have to earn our livings "in the world" we have the tough task of moderating our dress to reflect those states without compromising modesty whether in the form of being properly covered, or by not dress ostentatiously to attract attention or jealousy.
-
I get so tired of seeing women dress so trashy. I hate most of the new fashions, if not all of them.
-
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.
-
...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!
-
...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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
It's miserable how poorly some people dress at Mass. T-shirts, short skirts, ill-fitting clothing... It is truly an afterthought for them.
-
If shorts would be inappropriate dress at Mass, how can ladies justify wearing skirts that only reach the knees?
-
"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?
-
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.
-
I'v been trying to get the Mount to have a mother/daughter tea fashion show, where the girls model very modest and classy outfits. So far they all love the idea but then it seems to die right there on the spot.
...
Does anyone think it is a bad idea, I was thinking, well maybe they like the idea but fear the girls might get a taste of being a model and off to Hollywood they go.
Make it a costume party instead. Go victorian or something. It could be fun and maybe even educational.
-
Men are weak...and far more visually-oriented, especially when young, than ladies think...have pity :)
-
Actually I think a young lady wearing a skirt just above the ankle is very classy, and professional looking for Church and work. Not a tight skirt either, I hate that look.
I am going to bring that up at another meeting, about the modest fashion show. Men not invited!
-
Men not invited!
Femi-nαzι!!! :laugh2:
-
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:
-
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 didn't say they must not reach the ankles! Most of my skirts do.
-
"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?
I've mentioned this before: Marie Antoinette (and presumably other ladies of her day) did not grasp the message about low necklines.
(https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/Marie_Antoinette.jpg/97178108/Marie_Antoinette.jpg)
-
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 didn't say they must not reach the ankles! Most of my skirts do.
Well, my question is, why is their such resistance to covering the calfs, shins, and feet? (many do not have skirts that long) It might be practical not to have a skirt dragging, other than that, what is the reason for exposing the calfs and feet?
What is the reason for decolletage? Obviously it can only be excused by conformity with prevailing fashions, but are there really good reasons for it? There only seem to be excuses for it, not good reasons recommending it.
-
Re: Marie Antoinette. I think that just like in our times, there are people who are more motivated by following fashion than being modest and thus you can find innumerable images/paintings of these. I've read that Marie Antoinette was a flightly, vain young girl, but as she grew older she became more serious and devout. Maybe there are paintings of her older that reflect that change, likely shown by a more modest neckline.
As far as the resistance to longer skirts, I can only speak for myself and say that it's a matter of degree and wearing something so long is more extreme and therefore more noticeable out in public. Many of us don't like feeling exposed to public scrutiny and don't want to be thought of as "weird."
Plus, sometimes finding flattering skirts of that length and shoes to go with them is not easy. And then some of us, like myself have H who aren't exactly on the same page about what is appropriate and modest for a Catholic woman in the 21st century ... and you get this resistance.
As far as the matter of degree goes, it seems reasonable to have skirts below the knee, long enough so that your knee is covered when sitting ... and the skirt should be loose and flowing so as not to outline the figure.
-
Well no matter what I wear I still look like the actor who played in Sling Blade.
I have photographic proof of this.
-
MrsZ hits the nail on the head. Why select a bad example in order to justify another bad example?
The comparison should be with women who maintained this standard such as St. Elizabeth Ann Seton:
(http://saints.sqpn.com/wp-content/gallery/saint-elizabeth-ann-seton/saint-elizabeth-ann-seton-01.jpg)
-
MrsZ hits the nail on the head. Why select a bad example in order to justify another bad example?
I wasn't justifying anything. I wouldn't dream of justifying low necklines!
I was just demonstrating that, some Catholic ladies, from a few centuries before Pius XI drew up his guidelines on modesty, did not necessarily abide by them, their not having been drawn up yet!
-
"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?
This is true. It really saddens me to see this from our medical volunteers from ACIM. Take a look at the pictures of the ladies in the left side.
-
Oops, the "left side" should be right side.
-
Well no matter what I wear I still look like the actor who played in Sling Blade.
I have photographic proof of this.
Elizabeth, I find it hard to believe that you look like Billy Bob Thorton. :confused1:
-
Very uncommon, I think. If such a thing happened at our church, the bishop would have a word with the offender.
-
I wear a long skirt, and a headcovering, but have short-ish hair.
:heretic:
-
C.M.R.I. hasn't a code about how long or short a womens hair should be, mine is long, but I usually wear it pinned up.
Women must be modest, no pants, dress or skirt must cover the knees when sitting, the longer the better. Low cut tops are to be avoided always.
Once in a while we have a new comer dressing improperly but since they are guests people overlook them, however the usher willl offer the women a loaner veil for their head.
-
CMRI should have a code and strictly enforce it....long skirts, long hair,etc.....rule breakers should be shunned and given time to repent and change, or, get booted out...no nonsense is best policy.....if they leave, they are on their own :heretic:
-
I am wondering, what percentage of Traditional Catholic Women wear dresses have long hair (where possible) and wear a head covering of some sort in Mass ?
"Guilty" on all accounts.
-
"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?
I've mentioned this before: Marie Antoinette (and presumably other ladies of her day) did not grasp the message about low necklines.
(https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/Marie_Antoinette.jpg/97178108/Marie_Antoinette.jpg)
That's because in the last century, breasts have been highly sɛҳuąƖized. They used to be for nursing, and people could nurse in public and it was normal. Men weren't thinking about breasts back then like they do now.
-
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?
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
-
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
Heh, YUP! There is even a picture of what the sign said outside the confessional. Exactly.
I wouldn't deny that he's a saint, and HE COULD NOT even physically SEE you in the confessional, but he KNEW if you were dressed immodestly. What does that say?
-
There is a saying in Spanish,
Todo lo que se exhibe se vende
Which means,
Anything on display is also for sale
-
I see that there have been a few new posts on this thread. Now I have a reason for posting an article that came as a gift with my last order from the Our Lady of the Rosary Library Store, (http://olrl.org). Here's the link to the article,
http://olrl.org/virtues/modesty.shtml
Great saying there, SJT! But I've often wondered why so many of the young Latinas I see in the Hispanic neighborhood in Detroit are dressed so immodestly? I don't dare look at them when they're seated, lest I see what I don't want to. According to your saying SJT, they have an awful lot for sale.
I even saw one once, dressed in a short dress riding on the back of a motorcycle. :scared2:
-
Unfortunately, Cheryl, Hispanic TV from the USA, like the Univision and Telemundo networks, are also broadcast throughout Latin America. The people there see the immoral dress standards and hear the garbage hip hop and "reggueton" music, most of which was developed in New York and Puerto Rico and promoted by Jєωιѕн producers, and our massive propaganda machine tries to convince everyone on the planet to be just like us in the morally corrupt Western world, so people in those Latin countries imitate, ape-like, everything that we do in the "developed world". They are more familiar with Lady Gaga and Eminem than with their own composers and musical traditions. I have lived mostly in Latin America since the late 80's and I have a seen a tremendous decline in moral values since then, a lot of it due to the influence of TV and Internet, but also to the presence of international "aid" organizations who work unceasingly to introduce gαy marriage, abortion, feminism, and the entitlement mentality into the population. Protestant missionaries with millions of $$ to burn have also been busy eroding the influence of the Church. The Church itself has been riddled with liberals, most of them trained in Europe back in the 60's by the likes of Rahner, Congar, Kung, Schilibeex, etc.
The results have been predictable. The saying I quoted is an old one, and the people here are in a big rush to get rid of the old and bring in the "new."
-
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?
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
May I be so bold as to say, he was wrong about that?? Yes, I am claiming to know better. Shocking, I know.
And if your skirt reaches 8 inches below the knee, why does it matter if you're wearing tights or not??
I just cannot fathom the reasoning.
-
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?
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
May I be so bold as to say, he was wrong about that?? Yes, I am claiming to know better. Shocking, I know.
But why?
-
Unfortunately, Cheryl, Hispanic TV from the USA, like the Univision and Telemundo networks, are also broadcast throughout Latin America. The people there see the immoral dress standards and hear the garbage hip hop and "reggueton" music, most of which was developed in New York and Puerto Rico and promoted by Jєωιѕн producers, and our massive propaganda machine tries to convince everyone on the planet to be just like us in the morally corrupt Western world, so people in those Latin countries imitate, ape-like, everything that we do in the "developed world". They are more familiar with Lady Gaga and Eminem than with their own composers and musical traditions. I have lived mostly in Latin America since the late 80's and I have a seen a tremendous decline in moral values since then, a lot of it due to the influence of TV and Internet, but also to the presence of international "aid" organizations who work unceasingly to introduce gαy marriage, abortion, feminism, and the entitlement mentality into the population. Protestant missionaries with millions of $$ to burn have also been busy eroding the influence of the Church. The Church itself has been riddled with liberals, most of them trained in Europe back in the 60's by the likes of Rahner, Congar, Kung, Schilibeex, etc.
The results have been predictable. The saying I quoted is an old one, and the people here are in a big rush to get rid of the old and bring in the "new."
I should have thought of the explanation you so kindly provided. Recently when visiting with friends from Poland and trying to explain the new drinking game beer pong, one of them replied, that it won't take long for beer pong to show up in Europe. He said, first in the U.S., then the rest of the world.
-
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
Thanks PFT, it's not like I don't have enough to do today, now I'm measuring how far from my knee, down my leg is eight inches. :laugh2: Keeping in mind that I'm vertically challenged, it's four inches above my ankle.
-
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
May I be so bold as to say, he was wrong about that?? Yes, I am claiming to know better. Shocking, I know.
But why?
Because it is not what the Church demands.
A skirt must reach below the knee, agreed. However, to turn away a woman whose skirt reaches "only" 5 inches below the knee is just wrong.
-
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?
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
May I be so bold as to say, he was wrong about that?? Yes, I am claiming to know better. Shocking, I know.
And if your skirt reaches 8 inches below the knee, why does it matter if you're wearing tights or not??
I just cannot fathom the reasoning.
You can say he was wrong all you want.
The fact is, he could not SEE who was coming into the confessional, so how do you explain the fact that he KNEW if you were dressed immodestly...?
He didn't see anyone, and he told you to GET OUT of the confessional if you had a skirt too short! How did he know this? Because he had the gift of knowing it! So, would God hold him accountable for the fact that he was "wrong" if he didn't hear someone's confession if they weren't doing anything wrong?
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
I don't know the extent of his visions and conversations with Our Lord. You'd think if he were erroneous for sending women that were immodestly dressed away from the confessional, Our Lord would have admonished him for sending women of good will away from the confessional if what they were wearing was not, in fact, immodest.
Just sayin'.
-
Sometimes when Padre Pio refused to absolve his penitents and closed the small confessional door in their faces, the people would reproach him asking why he acted this way. "Don't you know," he asked, "what pain it costs me to shut the door on anyone? The Lord has forced me to do so. I do not call anyone, nor do I refuse anyone either. There is someone else who calls and refuses them. I am His useless tool."
So it was, in fact, Our Lord that advised him to turn people away!
-
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?
Padre Pio would not even hear your confession if your skirt was not at least 8 inches below the knee.
Fact.
May I be so bold as to say, he was wrong about that?? Yes, I am claiming to know better. Shocking, I know.
And if your skirt reaches 8 inches below the knee, why does it matter if you're wearing tights or not??
I just cannot fathom the reasoning.
You can say he was wrong all you want.
The fact is, he could not SEE who was coming into the confessional, so how do you explain the fact that he KNEW if you were dressed immodestly...?
He didn't see anyone, and he told you to GET OUT of the confessional if you had a skirt too short! How did he know this? Because he had the gift of knowing it! So, would God hold him accountable for the fact that he was "wrong" if he didn't hear someone's confession if they weren't doing anything wrong?
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
I don't know the extent of his visions and conversations with Our Lord. You'd think if he were erroneous for sending women that were immodestly dressed away from the confessional, Our Lord would have admonished him for sending women of good will away from the confessional if what they were wearing was not, in fact, immodest.
Just sayin'.
Such a good explanation!
-
Ladies! Ladies!
Just wear what you want. If you want to dress like a sleaze, by all means do so. After all, it's in the heart that counts, right? You're a good person with a good heart, isn't that so? So what if you are an occasion of sin to men and are the cause of their sinning mortally because your slit is up to your wazoo, your shirt is too tight, and you never bothered to check just what can be seen through it.
And put those pants on. Don't let any one tell you how you can and/or can't dress. Be comfortable by all means. After all, times have changed and we're no longer in that stodgy Victorian Age.
What does the Church know anyway? That Pope Pius XII, he should just stick to faith business and keep his nose out of ladies' fashions.
So, bare those boobs, show that thigh, don those sweats and jeans -- live it up. Life is short!
:cheers: :sign-party-time: :wine-drinking:
-
Gee... you sounded like a real Modernistic woman...
And Pope Pius XII's business was to ensure that the Faith lives in every Catholic heart.
-
Gee... you sounded like a real Modernistic woman...
And Pope Pius XII's business was to ensure that the Faith lives in every Catholic heart.
Bless your heart, Joan. You are correct. Those are the sentiments of a "real Modernistic woman".
Now what would I be doing here if that is the way I truly felt? :wink:
-
There is a link in this thread where it talks about him and what he said about modesty, Joan.
-
Link to page with Vatican's original standards on Marylike standards for modesty, and a prayer to Mary for purity:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
-
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
Saints do that kind of thing.
-
"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 Pope Pius XI
Four, five, six, seven inches below the knee is more than "scarcely a bit".
-
Ladies! Ladies!
Just wear what you want. If you want to dress like a sleaze, by all means do so. After all, it's in the heart that counts, right? You're a good person with a good heart, isn't that so? So what if you are an occasion of sin to men and are the cause of their sinning mortally because your slit is up to your wazoo, your shirt is too tight, and you never bothered to check just what can be seen through it.
And put those pants on. Don't let any one tell you how you can and/or can't dress. Be comfortable by all means. After all, times have changed and we're no longer in that stodgy Victorian Age.
What does the Church know anyway? That Pope Pius XII, he should just stick to faith business and keep his nose out of ladies' fashions.
So, bare those boobs, show that thigh, don those sweats and jeans -- live it up. Life is short!
:cheers: :sign-party-time: :wine-drinking:
All I said was that turning away a woman in a skirt which is five inches below the knee, is wrong!
So, why extrapolate from that that, to see nothing wrong with a skirt that is "that short" (ie five inches below the knee) necessarily means that one thinks that a woman can wear whatever she likes, without giving a thought to being an occasion of sin to the menfolk?
And it was not Pope Pius XII who specified eight inches below the knee. It was St Padre Pio. I am not aware of any Pope who made such a stipulation.
-
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
Saints do that kind of thing.
Really? I would love to hear some examples. :)
-
Ladies! Ladies!
Just wear what you want. If you want to dress like a sleaze, by all means do so. After all, it's in the heart that counts, right? You're a good person with a good heart, isn't that so? So what if you are an occasion of sin to men and are the cause of their sinning mortally because your slit is up to your wazoo, your shirt is too tight, and you never bothered to check just what can be seen through it.
And put those pants on. Don't let any one tell you how you can and/or can't dress. Be comfortable by all means. After all, times have changed and we're no longer in that stodgy Victorian Age.
What does the Church know anyway? That Pope Pius XII, he should just stick to faith business and keep his nose out of ladies' fashions.
So, bare those boobs, show that thigh, don those sweats and jeans -- live it up. Life is short!
:cheers: :sign-party-time: :wine-drinking:
Alexandria, sometimes you remind me of me so much, it's getting down right scary. Well written tongue in cheek post, but next time you might think about adding a disclaimer for some of our non-U.S. forum members. As you read, Joan didn't understand your sarcastic wit. Now as far as myself, I thought you wrote an excellent post, just dripping with sarcasm in all the right places. You aren't by chance a closet N.O.? :roll-laugh1:
-
Joan didn't understand your sarcastic wit.
No, but she gave the perfect response and made my point. :wink:
You aren't by chance a closet N.O.?
Heavens, no! But I suspect there may be some here who are ( :wink:). I haven't worn pants in almost twenty years. :cool:
-
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
Saints do that kind of thing.
Really? I would love to hear some examples. :)
St John Vianney (as referred to in another thread) said babies' nappies should be changed very quickly, even in private, so as not to upset their Guardian Angels!
-
Anyhow, my point is:
A skirt which reaches more than "scarcely a bit" below the knee, ie three, four + inches, is not immodest.
It is therefore wrong to turn away a woman from confession who is not dressed immodestly.
So St Pio was wrong to turn away women whose skirts reached more than "scarcely a bit" but less than eight inches below the knee.
I do not know of any traditional priests who follow his example in this matter.
-
What's the problem with skirts 8" below the knee? Especially if you're wearing skirts that have very little flare, or none. Then you are sure of being adequately covered , whether standing, stretching, sitting, or bending from the waist. And these are eclectic fashion times - you can't say that long skirts are out of style or are never seen in the mainstream environment.
-
Joan didn't understand your sarcastic wit.
No, but she gave the perfect response and made my point. :wink:
You aren't by chance a closet N.O.?
Heavens, no! But I suspect there may be some here who are ( :wink:). I haven't worn pants in almost twenty years. :cool:
I haven't worn pants in about ten years, with the exception of wearing them while motorbikin' with my husband. I know of no motorcycle manufacturers that have a side saddle passenger seat.
After all this talk about sheer stockings, came across a new website today that has tons of solid color stockings. Now I can add a little color to my life, instead of having to always wear brown, navy blue, grey, and black. I know what I'm adding onto my Christmas list this year. Oh I almost forgot, I do wear leggings under my skirts and dresses when the weather turns cold. :cheers: I know that I'll probably get my head bitten off for saying this, but except for motorcycling, there isn't anything I can't do in a skirt that I can do in trousers. We go shopping in a couple of Amish communities a few times a year, and you'd be amazed at what those Amish women do while wearing dresses. Last time we went, I saw a girl of about 12 or 13 driving a team of two very large horses pulling a huge buckboard wagon, amazing!
-
What's the problem with skirts 8" below the knee? Especially if you're wearing skirts that have very little flare, or none. Then you are sure of being adequately covered , whether standing, stretching, sitting, or bending from the waist. And these are eclectic fashion times - you can't say that long skirts are out of style or are never seen in the mainstream environment.
And even better, the ones at the resale stores are cheap, cheap, cheap! Most of the dresses and skirts I buy at the second hand stores near my home, still have the original price tags still on them. :wink:
-
What's the problem with skirts 8" below the knee?
Nothing. I never said there was one.
My point is that there is no problem with skirts which reach 7 or 6 or 5 inches below the knee either.
Actually, there are a couple of problems with them that I find when I wear them (which I usually do).
If I've been sitting down, and then I try to stand up, the hem of my skirt is caught under my heel dragging me down so I have to plonk myself back on my chair! Most inelegant!
They can be a trip hazard on stairs, as well.
-
I'm still not getting why a woman who is wearing a skirt which reaches 8" below the knee (as Padre Pio's spiritual daughters were bound to wear)... why may she not wear flesh-coloured tights?
She has a skirt 8" below the knee! So why does it matter if she has sheer tights on? Why is no tights preferable to sheer tights?
It does not compute.
-
How do you explain he's a saint now, if he chastised people for doing something that wasn't even wrong at all?
Saints do that kind of thing.
Really? I would love to hear some examples. :)
St John Vianney (as referred to in another thread) said babies' nappies should be changed very quickly, even in private, so as not to upset their Guardian Angels!
How do we know that he wasn't right? Also, that was really related to how an adult should act towards a child, and not a suggestion that would prevent one from going to confession to the priest, I'm sure.
Padre Pio couldn't even see the people confessing because if you know what old confessionals look like, the priest can't see you at all, yet, he KNEW what you were wearing, and sent you out. He also said that it was Christ that was having him turn people away and it pained him to do it. That sounds more mystical than some generic statement from Saint John Vianney about diapering your tot.
-
If I've been sitting down, and then I try to stand up, the hem of my skirt is caught under my heel dragging me down so I have to plonk myself back on my chair! Most inelegant!
They can be a trip hazard on stairs, as well.
Clare, you forgot the embarrassing hazard. You know, the one that happens with a skirt that has an elastic waistband and how after a trip to the ladies, the back of the skirt gets bunched up under the waistband, therefore exposing a lot more then just a little bit of leg. :laugh2:
-
If I've been sitting down, and then I try to stand up, the hem of my skirt is caught under my heel dragging me down so I have to plonk myself back on my chair! Most inelegant!
Here's something I learned from being around pre-VII nuns a lot.
Get yourself in the habit of gathering your skirt gracefully to one side before you get up or walk either down or up a flight of stairs. I do it all the time, and I assure you it works.
-
If I've been sitting down, and then I try to stand up, the hem of my skirt is caught under my heel dragging me down so I have to plonk myself back on my chair! Most inelegant!
They can be a trip hazard on stairs, as well.
Clare, you forgot the embarrassing hazard. You know, the one that happens with a skirt that has an elastic waistband and how after a trip to the ladies, the back of the skirt gets bunched up under the waistband, therefore exposing a lot more then just a little bit of leg. :laugh2:
Actually, that reminds me of something that happened to me a few months ago.
I had just come out of the ladies' loo after Mass, and was turning to exit the chapel, when the priest came up to me, tapped me on the shoulder and said very discreetly, "You might like to re-arrange your skirt!"
Fortunately, it was quite a voluminous skirt, and I had dark tights on anyway, so it wasn't too embarrassing!
-
Anyhow, my point is:
A skirt which reaches more than "scarcely a bit" below the knee, ie three, four + inches, is not immodest.
It is therefore wrong to turn away a woman from confession who is not dressed immodestly.
So St Pio was wrong to turn away women whose skirts reached more than "scarcely a bit" but less than eight inches below the knee.
I do not know of any traditional priests who follow his example in this matter.
If you know another priest that could tell what you were wearing without even SEEING you, then I'd be convinced of what you're saying.
Padre Pio could SEE YOU WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOU. Do you understand the significance of that?!
-
Padre Pio could SEE YOU WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOU. Do you understand the significance of that?!
He could bi-locate, I know that much!
Is it a fact that he knew what women were wearing without seeing them beforehand?
I've often wondered how he knew, but he may have noticed them in the queue as he was going to the confessional.
-
Re: covering the legs
Sheer nylon stockings were at one time an innovation, one which was intended to, and generally does, make women's legs look more attractive. Of course, today everything is different; but when I was a high schooler, a few of us girls had a laugh over the fact that a 40ish man teacher was giving one of the girls pointers on how to dress for going up on stage during assembly. He told her, "High heels -- and stockings, no socks!" I remember another girl classmate remarking, "Only slobs wear socks!" Because back then, many of us usually did wear them to high school. I also remember one of the old-time fashion designers stating that a woman's legs should be in sheer stockings for 'femininity', not bare.
It has always been my sense that opaque or thick hose are rather frumpy, compared to nylon. I think this was what Padre Pio was thinking.
-
Padre Pio could SEE YOU WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOU. Do you understand the significance of that?!
He could bi-locate, I know that much!
Is it a fact that he knew what women were wearing without seeing them beforehand?
I've often wondered how he knew, but he may have noticed them in the queue as he was going to the confessional.
The confession lines were hours and hours long. Sometimes, he would spend the entire day in there, and also, I'm sure he didn't count how many people before he said "Oh are you the one in this dress? I noticed you before, your dressed immodestly."
No, no. He knew because it was a gift, and if you read the statement I quoted him to have said before, about Our Lord demanding he turn them away, and being very sad for doing so, I doubt it was because he observed them in queue.
-
Those who know about him, I wonder: Was he able to tell someone when they forgot a sin, or omitted one. Someone told me he also had that gift. I also heard he was not easy to get along with. Don't know if all this is true but heard about him is all.
-
The confession lines were hours and hours long. Sometimes, he would spend the entire day in there, and also, I'm sure he didn't count how many people before he said "Oh are you the one in this dress? I noticed you before, your dressed immodestly."
If he could know without having seen them at all, then he could know having seen a long queue. Also, as he could bilocate, he could be in two places at once, inside the confessional and outside assessing the modesty of the penitents!
He knew because it was a gift,
Do you know that from having read about it, or are you assuming he must have had such a gift to know what women were wearing?
..and if you read the statement I quoted him to have said before, about Our Lord demanding he turn them away,...
Yes, I did, and it seems unlikely to me to be honest that Our Lord would ask Padre Pio to turn away a woman in a skirt which reaches "only" six or seven inches below the knee.
As I said, I know of no priests who follow his example. They do not need a gift to see that women in the very small queue for confession are wearing calf-length skirts! They can see it with their own eyes before they go into the confessional! And there are not hundreds of women in the queue for them to remember. There may be only one! And they do not need Our Lord to tell them to turn the ladies away, because they have St Pio telling them that Our Lord told him to. And yet, for some reason, they do not feel the need to imitate.
-
Those who know about him, I wonder: Was he able to tell someone when they forgot a sin, or omitted one. Someone told me he also had that gift.
I'd love that. If the priest could just confess for me.
Priest: You did this this and this.
Penitent: Yes I did.
Wouldn't confession be so much easier if the priest said it all, and you could just confirm it??
I think St John Vianney had that gift too.
-
The confession lines were hours and hours long. Sometimes, he would spend the entire day in there, and also, I'm sure he didn't count how many people before he said "Oh are you the one in this dress? I noticed you before, your dressed immodestly."
If he could know without having seen them at all, then he could know having seen a long queue. Also, as he could bilocate, he could be in two places at once, inside the confessional and outside assessing the modesty of the penitents!
He knew because it was a gift,
Do you know that from having read about it, or are you assuming he must have had such a gift to know what women were wearing?
..and if you read the statement I quoted him to have said before, about Our Lord demanding he turn them away,...
Yes, I did, and it seems unlikely to me to be honest that Our Lord would ask Padre Pio to turn away a woman in a skirt which reaches "only" six or seven inches below the knee.
As I said, I know of no priests who follow his example. They do not need a gift to see that women in the very small queue for confession are wearing calf-length skirts! They can see it with their own eyes before they go into the confessional! And there are not hundreds of women in the queue for them to remember. There may be only one! And they do not need Our Lord to tell them to turn the ladies away, because they have St Pio telling them that Our Lord told him to. And yet, for some reason, they do not feel the need to imitate.
In the vestibule of my church, there is a sign that says that standards of modesty are not by short skirts and lowcut shirts et cetera. The priest at my church is a spiritual child of Padre Pio. People do say something to ladies that are not properly dressed, and we even have clothing for free that people can take from the basement of the Church that meet the standards of modesty that they can keep. So to say that you know no priest that follows that example (perhaps not spelling out 8 inches below the knee, but adhering to standards of modesty and enforcing them in the building of the Church) is rather narrow minded. Most priests I know do hold that standard, although they don't see the penitents in the line for confession.
Yes, Padre Pio COULD tell if you were hiding a sin. I heard one story that said one lady came in line for confession and was sent out THREE TIMES for omission of a sin.
Finally after the third time of the woman not confessing the sin, Padre Pio reminded her of it: She'd had an abortion, and further told the woman that the child she killed was to be a great pope.
If he could tell what your sins were, wouldn't he be remiss hearing the confession of a woman that was immodestly dressed, causing men to further sin by looking at her? Sure, you can argue that men have a responsibility to look away from such immodestly dressed women, but you could say that about any billboard anywhere and say that it's the man's fault for having lustful thoughts. No, it's the woman on the billboard's fault for posing so immodestly in immodest clothing that is the direct cause for that sin.
I personally don't believe he was wrong, and don't you think it would have been sinful of him to be so judgmental to turn people away when they weren't sinning at all?
Our Lord gave priests the power through the Church to bind and to loose. If Our Lord, as he says, was directing him to turn people away, then doesn't that give us a clue as to what Our Lady of Fatima warned about fashions offending Our Lord very much?
If you realize the way the feminist revolution started, it was started by the simple application of rising a skirt above the ankle, and adding bloomers to see. Oh, that might not be offensive to us now, but it certainly was THEN.
As time went on, the bloomer issue didn't shock anyone... they became immune to it and it became accepted. Skirts began to rise higher and higher, until now, it's widely accepted for, especially a business woman, to wear a mini skirt to work. It became accepted for women to wear pants, et cetera. Now that people have become immune to it, you see the effects of it. People are dressing so sloppy, and that's regarded as normal behavior.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227eveningdress.jpg)
This is a 1900's evening dress.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227whitelawndrestron1908.jpg)
This was a 1910's dress.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/1322720sweddinggown.jpg)
This was a 1920's dress. (Here you can already see what Our Lady was talking about)
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227scasualdress.jpg)
1930's. See how it was becoming acceptable for women to wear short things?
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227sdaydresses.jpg)
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227swarlookworkclothes.jpg)
1940's typical dress. Women were being conditioned to wear short things and pants.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227slotsoffabricdress.jpg)
1950's. This type of dress used yards and yards of material but reached just underneath the knee.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/1322760sdaydress.jpg)
The 1960's. Totally acceptable to wear this kind of thing by then.
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/13227whitecheckpantsuit70s.jpg)
By the 1970's, pants were acceptable, but they wanted to make them more feminine, so they added the "bellbottom."
(http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/loadimg.cgi?p=/tour/13227/1322780stourquoisebluedazzlebeadedsilkdress.jpg)
By the 1980's, things were pretty bare.
(http:// [img]http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/tourFames.cgi?tour_id=13227)[/img]
Everything was pretty much recycled by 1990.
(http://www.businessoffashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Dolce-and-Gabbana-Front-Row-Spring-Summer-2010-500x300.jpg)
Do I even have to say? Women never used to sit so sloppily 100 years ago, much less wear that trash.
-
In the vestibule of my church, there is a sign that says that standards of modesty are not by short skirts and lowcut shirts et cetera. The priest at my church is a spiritual child of Padre Pio. People do say something to ladies that are not properly dressed, and we even have clothing for free that people can take from the basement of the Church that meet the standards of modesty that they can keep. So to say that you know no priest that follows that example (perhaps not spelling out 8 inches below the knee, but adhering to standards of modesty and enforcing them in the building of the Church) is rather narrow minded.
Well, it's this eight inches business that I am getting at. Of course modesty is important. I never said it wasn't.
Yes, Padre Pio COULD tell if you were hiding a sin. I heard one story that said one lady came in line for confession and was sent out THREE TIMES for omission of a sin.
I can easily believe it.
Finally after the third time of the woman not confessing the sin, Padre Pio reminded her of it: She'd had an abortion, and further told the woman that the child she killed was to be a great pope.
Yes, I've heard that story. As I said, I have no problem with it. My problem is with the idea that skirts which reach well below the knee, but not eight inches, are immodest!
If he could tell what your sins were, wouldn't he be remiss hearing the confession of a woman that was immodestly dressed, causing men to further sin by looking at her? Sure, you can argue that men have a responsibility to look away from such immodestly dressed women, but you could say that about any billboard anywhere and say that it's the man's fault for having lustful thoughts. No, it's the woman on the billboard's fault for posing so immodestly in immodest clothing that is the direct cause for that sin.
Like I said, I am not arguing in favour of immodesty!
I personally don't believe he was wrong, and don't you think it would have been sinful of him to be so judgmental to turn people away when they weren't sinning at all?
Objectively, yes. Subjectively, as he was convinced he was obeying Our Lord, of course not.
Our Lord gave priests the power through the Church to bind and to loose. If Our Lord, as he says, was directing him to turn people away, then doesn't that give us a clue as to what Our Lady of Fatima warned about fashions offending Our Lord very much?
Indeed. And it's beside the point, because I am not pro-immodesty.
If you realize the way the feminist revolution started, it was started by the simple application of rising a skirt above the ankle, and adding bloomers to see. Oh, that might not be offensive to us now, but it certainly was THEN.
In other cultures, not influenced by feminists, women have worn loose trousers under long tunics for ages. There's nothing immodest about it.
And, I've often made this point, and someone alluded to it earlier in this thread as well: Why should the feminists' promotion of women's trousers subvert the moral order, but feminists' promotion of short hair doesn't? Everything that can be said about trousers, and imitating men, and modern fashions offending Our Lord, can be said about short hair. Yet, somehow Catholic women are capable of having short hair without it meaning that we have sold out to the feminist agenda. Did Padre Pio tell women not to cut their hair? Is there a notice on our churches about Marylike standards of haircut? No. Somehow, this one modern fashion, which makes women a bit more like men, does not offend Our Lord. I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.
-
I personally don't believe he was wrong, and don't you think it would have been sinful of him to be so judgmental to turn people away when they weren't sinning at all?
Objectively, yes. Subjectively, as he was convinced he was obeying Our Lord, of course not.
And, to clarify, if he was actually turning away women who really were immodestly dressed, then of course that was not wrong.
But turning away women whose skirts are not quite 8 inches below the knee?
Maybe he did not actually do that.
-
It's too bad that we are not all able to whip up our own clothes. They used to teach sewing in school; of course that was perverted into being a demeaning task for girls.
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! PFT, I just love that 1910 dress!!! I would love to have a closet full of blouses like the top of that dress. The bottom is too form fitting, but I just love the top of it. My graduation dress from grade school was just like that...only (unfortunately) a lot shorter.
-
Do I even have to say? Women never used to sit so sloppily 100 years ago, much less wear that trash.
Quite right. We live in the age of the slob, the age of the uncouth and the vulgar --- this is what our sins have wrought us. And yet some of us just cannot seem to direct the dots.
One more thing, it is not Mary-like for a woman to cross her legs. No "lady" (before the age of the slob) would ever cross her legs. It was considered bad manners. Just ask any elderly member of the Society of the Sacred Heart how they formed Catholic ladies in their boarding schools before the infamous VII hit the fan.
-
One more thing, it is not Mary-like for a woman to cross her legs. No "lady" (before the age of the slob) would ever cross her legs. It was considered bad manners.
And you get deep vein thrombosis too, apparently.
-
As I read through this thread, I was reminded how important it is to make modesty part of how I look upon others too.
It's way too easy to look upon some women, who are scantily-dressed, and to view them as sɛҳuąƖ objects.
Modesty for me includes chastity of heart and mind. I should not look at all, if the temptation is there. :pray:
-
As I read through this thread, I was reminded how important it is to make modesty part of how I look upon others too.
It's way too easy to look upon some women, who are scantily-dressed, and to view them as sɛҳuąƖ objects.
Modesty for me includes chastity of heart and mind. I should not look at all, if the temptation is there. :pray:
Learn to practice custody of the eyes. It will help you immensely. Even a woman has to do it (we're subject to temptations too you know :wink:).
-
When I was in High School, there was this very, very old nun, who would tell us young girls, when we cross our legs the devil sits on our foot.
-
When I was in High School, there was this very, very old nun, who would tell us young girls, when we cross our legs the devil sits on our foot.
Can he do much harm there??
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! PFT, I just love that 1910 dress!!! I would love to have a closet full of blouses like the top of that dress. The bottom is too form fitting, but I just love the top of it. My graduation dress from grade school was just like that...only (unfortunately) a lot shorter.
That dress was made before the breasts were highly sɛҳuąƖized.
-
And, I've often made this point, and someone alluded to it earlier in this thread as well: Why should the feminists' promotion of women's trousers subvert the moral order, but feminists' promotion of short hair doesn't? Everything that can be said about trousers, and imitating men, and modern fashions offending Our Lord, can be said about short hair. Yet, somehow Catholic women are capable of having short hair without it meaning that we have sold out to the feminist agenda. Did Padre Pio tell women not to cut their hair? Is there a notice on our churches about Marylike standards of haircut? No. Somehow, this one modern fashion, which makes women a bit more like men, does not offend Our Lord. I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.
I agree with you about the hair, by the way, and fashion doesn't just apply to trou.
-
And, I've often made this point, and someone alluded to it earlier in this thread as well: Why should the feminists' promotion of women's trousers subvert the moral order, but feminists' promotion of short hair doesn't? Everything that can be said about trousers, and imitating men, and modern fashions offending Our Lord, can be said about short hair. Yet, somehow Catholic women are capable of having short hair without it meaning that we have sold out to the feminist agenda. Did Padre Pio tell women not to cut their hair? Is there a notice on our churches about Marylike standards of haircut? No. Somehow, this one modern fashion, which makes women a bit more like men, does not offend Our Lord. I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.
I agree with you about the hair, by the way, and fashion doesn't just apply to trou.
I wasn't saying women must grow their hair long. The Church doesn't say they must. Women don't get turned away from confession until their hair grows! I haven't heard that Padre Pio did that either.
I was just wondering why trad Catholics can accept that short hair doesn't undermine the family, but not that trousers don't either. I would say that, if either is a "crime" short hair is more likely to be one than trousers.
Hair is a bit confusing. The NT says men shouldn't have long hair and women should. Yet Our Lord had long hair, so maybe it's relative! Women should have longer hair than men!
-
I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.
Women shouldn't wear men's clothes. Trousers were not acceptable clothing for women in Europe until feminism came along.
Moreover pants are generally immodest.
A woman who cuts her hair too short is probably doing something wrong most of the time.
-
Modern women's fashions are a direct result of the dechristianization of society. That fact fatally undermines arguments that say the acceptability of women's fashions are a matter of time and place. In fact, today's fashions are not only contrary to Christian morality, but contrary to natural morality that was accepted in most places.
I wouldn't argue that women wearing pants in certain contexts is necessarily sinful, or having a short hair style necessarily sinful, or having a skirt that doesn't go to the ankles or below is necessarily sinful.
But to defend pants on women, to defend hems just below the knees, to defend short hair styles as though it were just as good as wearing long hair, I think it's worse than dressing in that manner, especially using the argument of cultural relativism. Because the difference in today's culture is that society is not Christian, and that accounts in large part fort he difference in dress.
The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.
-
I would wager that loose-fitting trousers under a tunic do not offend Our Lord either.
Women shouldn't wear men's clothes. Trousers were not acceptable clothing for women in Europe until feminism came along.
They were not always men's clothes either. Our Lord, and St Joseph didn't wear them.
Moreover pants are generally immodest.
Cardinal Siri said they were not immodest!
...the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute as such a grave offence against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts.
-
The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.
Mischaracterisation? A bit like how people who defend women wearing trousers apparently also believe that there is something wrong with wearing skirts? That women who wear trousers never wear skirts!
-
They were not always men's clothes either. Our Lord, and St Joseph didn't wear them.
But they did wear men's clothes. Not women's clothes. Trousers have been men's clothes, and remain men's clothes and not women's clothes, except among people who accept feminist fashions.
Cardinal Siri said they were not immodest!
Not all pants are immodest. Generally speaking women wear immodest pants. That's the reality of the world. Pants outline more, and generally speaking, they fit snugly around a womans waist, hips and upper legs. Generally speaking, walking down the street, women's pants are immodest.
...the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute as such a grave offence against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts.
Except Cardinal Siri is condemning pants, and he's also suggesting modern women's skirts are very bad as well.
I can't imagine why anyone is so supportive of fashions that come from the de-Christianizing of society.
I don't think a woman who wears pants is necessarily sinning, but, I think a woman who realizes that pants are less feminine, that the wearing of pants by women became common because of the de-Christianization of society and the advance of feminism, would ever wear pants except for rough work or possibly sports. Certainly never for social purposes.
Most women who wear pants are wearing immodest ones.
-
I think women should not wear pants because I think pants make women look ugly and longer dresses and skirts make women look beautiful.
-
I think women should not wear pants because I think pants make women look ugly and longer dresses and skirts make women look beautiful.
Indeed.
-
But they did wear men's clothes. Not women's clothes.
Indeed, and men's and women's clothes were not as dissimilar as they became when men started wearing trousers.
Trousers have been men's clothes, and remain men's clothes and not women's clothes, except among people who accept feminist fashions.
Men's trousers are men's clothing. Women's trousers are women's clothing. Men's robes were men's clothing. Women's robes were women's clothing.
Pants outline more, and generally speaking, they fit snugly around a womans waist, hips and upper legs.
And men have more to outline. Men and women should both wear long tops covering the hip area if they are going to wear trousers.
I can't imagine why anyone is so supportive of fashions that come from the de-Christianizing of society.
I do not support fashions that come from the de-Christianising of society. I don't think women's loose fitting trousers do. Short skirts do, tight trousers do. Tattoos do! Lots of piercings do! But modest trousers do not.
I don't think a woman who wears pants is necessarily sinning, but, I think a woman who realizes that pants are less feminine, that the wearing of pants by women became common because of the de-Christianization of society and the advance of feminism, would ever wear pants except for rough work or possibly sports. Certainly never for social purposes.
Most women who wear pants are wearing immodest ones.
Well, I only ever wear them for physiotherapy, and they are perhaps a bit figure-hugging, so I generally wear a long top covering the hip area. But I hardly ever wear them anyway.
I am not flailing around doing physio in a skirt though!
(I don't know what is wrong with the formatting of this post, all the quote tags are in the right place, and I'm running out of editing time!)
-
Hi, Telesphorus,
Regarding women's hair, I thought, FWIW, I would point out two things.
One: Men tend not to understand that not all women have the kind of hair that can easily be worn long. I for one do think long hair is more feminine, and tried in my 20s to keep mine that way for quite some time; but I had an unruly bush that was not neat and presentable.
Two, because women's hair has been considered throughout history as an adornment, in some cultures it was and is not displayed. Specifically, in America going back some decades, women past the age of about 30 usually did not wear their hair long, of if they kept it long, they did not wear it loose but rather in some type of bun, knot, or twist. It was felt back then, that what was appropriate for girls and young women was not necessarily appropriate for those of mature age.
-
One: Men tend not to understand that not all women have the kind of hair that can easily be worn long. I for one do think long hair is more feminine, and tried in my 20s to keep mine that way for quite some time; but I had an unruly bush that was not neat and presentable.
You didn't get a buzz cut though. :wink:
-
:tinfoil: What's a buzz cut? Anyway, I doubt that I ever had one.
Regards, J.
-
Modern women's fashions are a direct result of the dechristianization of society. That fact fatally undermines arguments that say the acceptability of women's fashions are a matter of time and place. In fact, today's fashions are not only contrary to Christian morality, but contrary to natural morality that was accepted in most places.
I wouldn't argue that women wearing pants in certain contexts is necessarily sinful, or having a short hair style necessarily sinful, or having a skirt that doesn't go to the ankles or below is necessarily sinful.
But to defend pants on women, to defend hems just below the knees, to defend short hair styles as though it were just as good as wearing long hair, I think it's worse than dressing in that manner, especially using the argument of cultural relativism. Because the difference in today's culture is that society is not Christian, and that accounts in large part fort he difference in dress.
The vehement defense of the fashions of the 20th century and the ridicule and mischaracterization of those who make valid criticisms of them is indefensible.
This is a wonderful post!
-
I think women should not wear pants because I think pants make women look ugly and longer dresses and skirts make women look beautiful.
Great thinking, Matto!:applause:
-
Some women cannot wear "nice" long hair because of health problems, sometimes caused by illness, sometimes caused by poor nutrition. Other times it's because they've never learned to use certain products or styling appliances to make it look as nice as possible.
My hair tends toward frizzy because it's both fine and wavy. When I use a flattening iron or hot rollers, I get decent results.
Sometimes just washing, conditioning, letting it dry and putting it in a braid and atop one's head is the best you can do. And maybe it's best for the hair in the long run.
I understand that short hair on women has been the norm after the age of 40 since the 1920's. But prior to that, all women had long hair, young and old. How one styled one's hair had to do with age and state in life. Young girls wore it down ... older girls (teens) began wearing it up as they became more mature ... and there were various ways of braiding or fixing one's hair ... but it was up in most cases.
Today's older women associate aging with short hair. So many ladies diminish their looks by some of the hair styles they choose as they get older. So many are very unflattering. I sometimes imagine them wearing a nice bun and think that for most their faces and profiles would look better.
God Bless,
MrsZ
-
Some women cannot wear "nice" long hair because of health problems, sometimes caused by illness, sometimes caused by poor nutrition. Other times it's because they've never learned to use certain products or styling appliances to make it look as nice as possible.
My hair tends toward frizzy because it's both fine and wavy. When I use a flattening iron or hot rollers, I get decent results.
Sometimes just washing, conditioning, letting it dry and putting it in a braid and atop one's head is the best you can do. And maybe it's best for the hair in the long run.
I understand that short hair on women has been the norm after the age of 40 since the 1920's. But prior to that, all women had long hair, young and old. How one styled one's hair had to do with age and state in life. Young girls wore it down ... older girls (teens) began wearing it up as they became more mature ... and there were various ways of braiding or fixing one's hair ... but it was up in most cases.
Today's older women associate aging with short hair. So many ladies diminish their looks by some of the hair styles they choose as they get older. So many are very unflattering. I sometimes imagine them wearing a nice bun and think that for most their faces and profiles would look better.
God Bless,
MrsZ
There's one lady I know that's hair almost resembles an afro-- meaning it's really frizzy and when it is grown out long, it poofs out kinda like this.
(http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=shenaniganist.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fshenaniganist.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fspector.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fshenaniganist.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fa-hairy-situation%2F)
So she wears it short. I can understand that.
-
I agree with Telesphorus on the women and pants issue. It also seems to me that a woman wearing pants would be a hindrance to marriage for a Catholic man because of the example that could be given to possible future children someday. I find this issue of women and pants especially disheartening when even women who claim to be traditional Catholics are still alright with even the notion of women wearing pants. It is one thing for a traditional Catholic woman to have difficult time to break the habit of wearing pants and yet still having the proper understanding that it is not proper for a woman to wear pants, but it is another thing for a woman to keep wearing pants and think it is alright. I really do admire especially when I do seem girls and women wear modest dresses. It is still something not always seen in our times.
-
Hey, Keph, nice to see you around... :applause:
-
Hey, Keph, nice to see you around... :applause:
Hi, JS. Thank you. :)
-
It also seems to me that a woman wearing pants would be a hindrance to marriage for a Catholic man because of the example that could be given to possible future children someday.
Only if he objects.
I find this issue of women and pants especially disheartening ...
Indeed, it is, because it is a non-issue. There are plenty of real sins to fret about without making more up.
... when even women who claim to be traditional Catholics are still alright with even the notion of women wearing pants.
As a woman who claims to be a traditional Catholic, I am all right with the notion of women wearing trousers.
It is nonsensical to make out that a type of garb which men never used to wear is exclusively men's garb, simply because they started wearing them first. 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!
It is utter, illogical, nonsense.
... It is one thing for a traditional Catholic woman to have difficult time to break the habit of wearing pants and yet still having the proper understanding that it is not proper for a woman to wear pants, ...
Well, I broke the habit of wearing trousers years ago, but I still do not see why it is not proper for women to wear them ever. It is, as I said, a non-issue. I only don't wear them because I am scared of what other trads will think!
-
I only don't wear them because I am scared of what other trads will think!
Why not stand out if you see there's no problem with it? I don't understand. As Catholics, our conscience should always tell us what is right and what is wrong.
-
I only don't wear them because I am scared of what other trads will think!
Why not stand out if you see there's no problem with it? I don't understand. As Catholics, our conscience should always tell us what is right and what is wrong.
My conscience tells me that trousers are ok (as long as they're modest). It also tells me that modest skirts are fine too. I am not going against my conscience by wearing modest skirts. I would also not be going against my conscience by wearing modest trousers, but I would be offending other trads, or inviting flak. So, I obey my conscience and respect other's sensibilities at the same time by wearing skirts! For a quiet life!
Although, obviously, if the issue crops up, I will argue about it, but I won't raise it by wearing trousers and inviting bother.
-
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...
-
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. I don't believe that women absolutely must wear trousers!
-
It is nonsensical to make out that a type of garb which men never used to wear is exclusively men's garb, simply because they started wearing them first.
No, it isn't. Men started wearing them because they were suited to male occupations. Women did not adopt them. Why did they not adopt them? Christian societies accepted pants for men, but not for women. It takes only a modicuм of aesthetic judgment and taste to understand why. In feminist times however, it is always strongly argued that there is no reason women shouldn't wear pants. When I start to see an admission on your part that there are good reasons women shouldn't wear pants then I will start to think maybe you are looking at this issue more objectively.
female pantaloonery (http://books.google.com/books?id=jHxHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&dq=female+pantaloonery&hl=en&ei=GNSdTNaANYednweOlYXHDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=female%20pantaloonery&f=false)
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!
What is your evidence for that? The clothing of the ancient world was quite different for men and women. Women wore skirts to the ankles even in pagan times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stola
The clothes that are called "modest" today are at the extreme limit, beyond the limit, of what would have been tolerable in any Christian society.
-
female pantaloonery (http://books.google.com/books?id=jHxHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&dq=female+pantaloonery&hl=en&ei=GNSdTNaANYednweOlYXHDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=female%20pantaloonery&f=false)
It's a good article except it makes a serious mistake in presuming men and women's pants are equally modest or that it is prudery to suggest there is a difference. On that point Miss Townsend seems to contradict herself, since she spent a good deal of space describing how captivating actresses no longer concealed the pants under frocks coats to the knees. Certainly in the experience of anyone living today, there is no doubt that men's pants are as a rule more modest than the pants women typically wear.
-
Men started wearing them because they were suited to male occupations.
They were more convenient, in other words.
When I start to see an admission on your part that there are good reasons women shouldn't wear pants then I will start to think maybe you are looking at this issue more objectively.
There are good reasons why men shouldn't wear them too, at least without some kind of top covering the hip region.
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!
What is your evidence for that? The clothing of the ancient world was quite different for men and women.
Have you seen paintings of them? St Joseph is not wearing trousers! The biggest difference is that Our Lady is wearing a veil.
Women wore skirts to the ankles even in pagan times.
So did men.
-
They were more convenient, in other words.
They were more suitable for men than for women.
There are good reasons why men shouldn't wear them too, at least without some kind of top covering the hip region.
When a woman reaches maturity her pelvis typically asssumes a characteristic shape- this is an allurement to men and pants on women in contermporary times nearly always accentuate this allurement.
Have you seen paintings of them? St Joseph is not wearing trousers! The biggest difference is that Our Lady is wearing a veil.
Those clothes are not the same.
So did men.
They wore their tunics higher than women did.
So far you have not admitted any reason why opposition to women in pants may have some validity.
-
There are good reasons why men shouldn't wear them too, at least without some kind of top covering the hip region.
When a woman reaches maturity her pelvis typically asssumes a characteristic shape- this is an allurement to men and pants on women in contermporary times nearly always accentuate this allurement.
Which is why I favour the wearing of a long top or tunic over trousers.
I don't really want to spell out why it is in a man's interest for him to cover the hip area as well.
Have you seen paintings of them? St Joseph is not wearing trousers! The biggest difference is that Our Lady is wearing a veil.
Those clothes are not the same.
Similar. Men's and women's trousers are not the same either.
So far you have not admitted any reason why opposition to women in pants may have some validity.
Why should I admit something I am not convinced by?
There is a contradiction.
On the one hand, women should not wear trousers because they are men's clothes.
On the other hand, women should not wear trousers because they are immodest and present an occasion of sin for men.
So men are attracted by women wearing men's clothes??
On yet another hand, men find women in skirts more attractive.
So, men are attracted to women "dressed as men", and also attracted to women dressed as women.
As I say, the matter of the women's hips can be addressed quite easily with a long top. So it need not be an issue.
-
On the one hand, women should not wear trousers because they are men's clothes.
Why should I admit something I am not convinced by?
Because you shouldn't pretend that the reasons for opposing trousers on women have no merit at all. Obviously feminists can clearly see why they wanted women to dress more like men. They weren't reacting to nothing.
I can admit arguments against the position that women shouldn't wear pants. That customs and styles change and something that is relatively superficial shouldn't become an acid test. That women in non-western cultures wear pants. That relatively modest pants do exist, etc. I can admit all those things. But none of those things neutralize my points: that the adoption of pants by women was a development of feminism. That pants are aesthetically less feminine. That pants are generally less modest than long skirt and dresses. That the defense of pants and anger at those who want men and women to dress according to old customs is based in part on defending an aspect of social revolution: the revolution in dress. Dress is superficial but it affects us more deeply. Nothing is more striking than the contrast between a congregation of well dressed women with veils, hats, dresses and long hair and congregation of poorly dressed unveiled women in pants with short hair. And finally, the custom of women wearing dresses remains. A very old custom that prevailed through many Christian centuries. It is wrong to suggest that it was purely arbitrary circuмstance that led to the costumes of Christian peoples.
On the other hand, women should not wear trousers because they are immodest and present an occasion of sin for men.
How are those reasons in conflict with one another? In fact they complement each other. There are obviously good reasons why men adopted trousers many centuries ago and women didn't. Aesthetic reasons, reasons of modesty, etc.
-
Obviously feminists can clearly see why they wanted women to dress more like men. They weren't reacting to nothing.
I don't consider feminists to be infallible judges of what will successfully undermine the family. I say we prove them wrong!
I can admit arguments against the position that women shouldn't wear pants. That customs and styles change and something that is relatively superficial shouldn't become an acid test. That women in non-western cultures wear pants. That relatively modest pants do exist, etc. I can admit all those things.
I'm glad.
But none of those things neutralize my points: that the adoption of pants by women was a development of feminism.
As I said, feminists are not infallible. You could say the same about short hair (as I've mentioned before). We can prove feminists wrong that short hair makes women more like men and undermines society. I say the same goes for trousers. We should be able to say, "You thought you could ruin Christendom by getting women to cut their hair and wear trousers! Ha! You were wrong!"
It's true that Christendom has been harmed, but I do not think that those two things are responsible.
That pants are aesthetically less feminine.
In this culture, maybe
-
I don't consider feminists to be infallible judges of what will successfully undermine the family. I say we prove them wrong!
Except you use the argument that the difference in dress doesn't matter. And you can't admit the harm that the feminist conception of dress has caused.
I'm glad.
But I'm rather displeased at the way you ignore my arguments and refuse to concede that those who are against pants have good reasons for their position.
As I said, feminists are not infallible. You could say the same about short hair (as I've mentioned before). We can prove feminists wrong that short hair makes women more like men and undermines society. I say the same goes for trousers.
Except if they can dominate fashions and cause women to follow them in dressing in a less graceful and feminine manner they can manipulate women in more serious ways as well.
We should be able to say, "You thought you could ruin Christendom by getting women to cut their hair and wear trousers! Ha! You were wrong!"
Clare what has happened to Christendom?
It's true that Christendom has been harmed, but I do not think that those two things are responsible.
Do you think it's a coincidence that revolutionary periods were accompanied by drastic changes in dress? No one is arguing that the change in dress caused the social problems, but certainly it was seen as highly desirable by the social revolutionaries to change dress. They have a keen appreciation of psychology. They can understand how drastic changes in fashions that aesthetically reinforce their view of humanity can advance their goals. A great example of this change is in architecture and of course music.
That pants are aesthetically less feminine.
In this culture, maybe[/quote]
Without any doubt. Why say maybe Clare? Surely you can recognize that wedding gown is more feminine than a wedding suit?
-
A very easy way to answer the question as to whether something is modest....
"Would Our Lady wear this?"
-
A very easy way to answer the question as to whether something is modest....
"Would Our Lady wear this?"
Not everything that she would not wear is immodest.
She wouldn't have her head uncovered.
I doubt she'd wear synthetics.
-
Telesphorus,
I'm not ignoring your post. I'll try to answer it later. I have to do stuff now, like cook dinner!
-
Except you use the argument that the difference in dress doesn't matter.
No, I don't. Of course men and women should dress differently. They can still dress similarly though. Similar does not mean the same. Men's trousers are different from women's, just like men's robes were different from women's. But men's robes were not as different from women's as trousers are from dresses. So men and women need to dress differently from each other, but not that differently. If you see what I mean!
And you can't admit the harm that the feminist conception of dress has caused.
I can admit that there was a negative motivation. I just don't regard that as infallible proof that the method used by the feminists need necessarily have produced the desired result.
Women's trousers could just as easily have been promoted because they make some jobs that women have to do easier. Or that women are safer wearing them (I know of women who feel less vulnerable in them).
But I'm rather displeased at the way you ignore my arguments and refuse to concede that those who are against pants have good reasons for their position.
I'll try to explain why I find it hard to concede that.
I stopped wearing trousers about 10 years ago, because I was getting into the SSPX and I knew they had a reputation for frowning upon women's trousers! But, I never managed to buy the reasoning behind it. When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable answer. And I mean unanswerable by me. Every reason I could think of, I had an answer to! And my answers were unanswerable if I do say so myself! I don't think I gave a reason in the end. I can't remember. All I remember was that I could not think of a single reason that would convince me that women's trousers were intrinsically wrong, let alone convince one of my Pagan colleagues!
So, that is why I am struggling to concede anything. I've tried, but the position is illogical, IMHO.
Except if they can dominate fashions and cause women to follow them in dressing in a less graceful and feminine manner they can manipulate women in more serious ways as well.
I manage to be graceless and inelegant in a skirt, Telesphorus! I don't need trousers to pull that off!
Do you think it's a coincidence that revolutionary periods were accompanied by drastic changes in dress?
Probably not. But I am looking objectively. I don't see women's trousers as objectively wrong, regardless of the motivation of subversives.
Surely you can recognize that wedding gown is more feminine than a wedding suit?
Yes, of course. Wedding gowns are more feminine than a lot of dresses. But they are often immodest these days, since most of them seem to be sleeveless and strapless. But yes, modest or not, they are more feminine!
-
When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable
You can simply answer that skirts and dresses are more womanly.
It is very simple, very true.
Reductionists don't accept answers that relate to aesthetics and customs, but that is a defect in their way of thinking. It's why we see the sort of "art" and "architecture" that is "popular" today.
-
When a colleague at work asked why I did not wear trousers, I could not come up with an unanswerable
You can simply answer that skirts and dresses are more womanly.
It is very simple, very true.
It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!
-
Humiliations properly received lead to humility.
-
Humiliations properly received lead to humility.
Indeed. but it would defeat the object wouldn't it? It would just prove that I was talking nonsense. And, while it may help me to be humble, it still wouldn't convince them or me that women shouldn't wear trousers!
-
It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!
It's not about you versus them. It's about pants versus skirts.
"In the office"
Doesn't exactly sound like a bastion of femininity.
-
It's how you wear them. I have never been particularly elegant, and I think that if I had tried to claim to be more womanly in a skirt than all the other more fashionable and, yes, feminine women in the office who wore trousers, there would have been some politely stifled chuckles!
It's not about you versus them.
My point is that I would hardly have been regarded as a more feminine and womanly specimen than the other women in the office who wore trousers. See, they wore make-up too and had nice hair. I don't, and my hair is a law unto itself. A skirt doesn't make me more elegant and ladylike!
It's about pants versus skirts.
I don't see an opposition between them. Most women who wear trousers also wear skirts. Usually quite short ones though.
Interestingly, as I recall from my time when I worked in an office, there were a couple of women who always wore trousers. They were Muslims, and they wore veils as well. Not feminists!
"In the office"
Doesn't exactly sound like a bastion of femininity.
Better than "On the building site"!
-
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!
-
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?
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 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. And if our Catechism teaches us to flee any occasion of sin, why not do the same here? I don't know what's keeping you adamant against something that's truly Catholic and simple logic.
As both of us are from the Society camp, it's not good to see that we're having a debate here. It hurts but this is the sad fact.
So long, may Our Lady enlighten you.
-
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??
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.
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.
-
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 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:
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I need a traffic directing smilie.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Are-Neutral-Actions-even-possible
-
In our area, there are modesty clothing stores that cater to Jєωιѕн or Muslims.
Where is the modesty clothing stores for traditional Catholics.
I look at my Irish Catholic Grandmom. She never wore pants, work in yard and did everything in a dress. And her hair was long, thin, wavy and beautiful. She always wore it in a bun. At night she would let it down and brush it.
I wore sometimes wore short tight skirts and dresses during 80's. When we were in middle school, I was made fun of because my MOm would dress us in dresses for school while most were wearing designer Jeans.
Growing up we had dresses for Church and School.
we had play clothes.
On the farm, I usually wear pants. One has to be more careful of wearing a dress because of machinery. It is cooler to wear a dress in summer.
when i worked for police department as clerk I wore uniform and chose skirt below my knee.
i like being and looking like a woman; not man.
Right I'm getting rid of high heels and getting more conservative shoes, wearing less makeup. ( I stopped wearing pantyhose a long time ago anyway because it costs too much). I recentl bought a nice skirt, a conservative dress and a denim skirt (not for Mass no more.)
Would like to get wool stockings... getting cold.
Someone mentioned about having a pageant or dress up tea showing examples of how to dress.
There should be one made for public as to show that young girls can still be beautiful without heavy makeup, tattoos, peircings and scanty faddish clothing.
-
Sounds like you're moving in the right direction! :)
'The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with neglect rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty.'
St. Ambrose, Father and Doctor of the Church
'I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God's work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features. . . They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth.'
St. Cyprian of Carthage
- http://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm