Author Topic: Modesty around the home (Read 97190 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2012, 11:40:12 AM »

Public and private standards of modesty are definitely not comparable, for the person concerned is clearly not giving an occasion for the sin of another, as would happen with the donning of immodest attire in public. This is not to discourage wearing modest clothes even in private, merely to say that it is not a sin to do otherwise.

Here is a 1930 instruction from the Sacred Congregation in Rome,

Quote

"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."

This speaks specifically of public places. Would anyone say this applies as such in private as well?

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2012, 01:48:29 PM »

Well as usual, I'm confused. :)

It is true, what Shin says about modesty being an act of virtue. I'm not too worried about outside the house anymore, as I have built up an adequate wardrobe of long skirts for very little money as they are easy to find right now.

I've pretty much given up on dresses because the ones that are long enough (to the ankles) just stand out too much on a woman my age.

Now though, I am sort of second guessing my sweater collection because of the two fingers guideline. I thought for sure something like this (though I would never pay even that sale price) would be cut high enough:

http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/womens/sweaters/layered_look/PRD~1104835/Dana+Buchman+Surplice+MockLayer+Sweater.jsp

Maybe I'll just have to wear scarves with everything.

I am not sure what to do about the exercise clothes other than wash the workout skirt I have more often. I worry though, that even that isn't modest enough:

http://www.apostolicclothing.com/womens/275-black-running-skirt.html

As far as night gowns? It is hard to find anything with decent coverage that allows for nursing while co-sleeping. Some of the modest nightgowns are incredibly frumpy.

If I think ahead to the possibility of married life, I imagine that even a husband with strict standards for his wife's modesty would find some of these gowns to be downright ugly. I just never know where to draw the line between looking nice and being too vain.

I'm sure I sound like such a handful right now

I just feel like I can't afford to get anything wrong when it comes to being a good Catholic lady. If I am ever so blessed to be married, my poor husband should be automatically eligible for sainthood.

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:12:12 PM »

Talk to your priest or others you trust and use basic common sense. You'll be fine.

shin · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2012, 04:31:05 AM »

I normally don't go so much so please forgive any mistakes, and for going on a bit.

Frumpy is good.

Actually, the proper reparation for any sin, is the practice of the opposite. So for any and all times one has sinned through vanity, one should at least practice an equal amount of time in its great opposite.

We should not be praising, admiring, or loving people for their exterior superficial beauty. Not as adults, and not as raising our children to appreciate being praised for it and praising it.

On the contrary as Christians we should be avoiding it, and praising, admiring, or loving modesty.

People nowadays indulge themselves in base ways to the fullest, commonly, without any restraint.

Since there is not Christian society in general, which has quite different rules, standards, roles, people do not know how to live responsibly as men and women, fathers and mothers, children and adults. It takes time. And study. And humility and caution.

And certainly none of the world's entertainments which provide cultural standards impart proper standards, emotional reactions, judgements.. either, but just the opposite.

And so turn things upside down from the old perspective.

In both husband and wife. It's far better to be an plain or ugly looking person rather than a person who is 'attractive'. It will cause far more virtue and far less sin of a superficial attraction or desire for simply the material thing.

A husband will have a far easier time not being tempted to lust, with a wife who is not too attractive and so who has to be all the more careful. A wife the same. And so the two can love each other for their virtues and spiritual goods. . .

For both men and women it is better to be plain and simple. Modesty is a virtue. Simplicity is also a virtue. Humility is a virtue.

And so then modesty of the eyes is easier on one's companions and one does not have to fear being desired sinfully, or attracting attention for the wrong reasons. Instead relationships are based on one's interior self.

I think anyone can easily note the baseness of simple exterior desire compared to that of Christian admiration of spiritual virtue, the interior.

To value another person for the sake of the person's Christianity, spiritual virtues.. Or to value another person for ornamental or base reasons that are common? What choice is there?

'Not only in body but in heart as well, no ornament becomes like humility, modesty and devotion.'

St. Francis de Sales

'Because you ought to consider your body only as a living temple where God wishes to be adored in spirit and in truth and as a living tabernacle that Jesus Christ has chosen as his dwelling place, you must, considering these noble privileges that you enjoy, show much respect for your body. These considerations ought to make you resolve not to touch your body or even to look at it without an indispensable necessity. . .'

St. Jean Baptist de la Salle

See we can be casual, or we can be respectful to our bodies. They can be tabernacles, kept veiled, or things that hang out on display. They can be sacred, if of far less worth than the soul, and food for worms, or they can be profane and treated as such.

We are never alone. God is always there. We ourselves are always witnesses of our own behavior, which affects us. And so too we have the angels and the saints, and so too normally enough our spiritual enemies trying to catch us up.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2012, 09:37:23 AM »

Well now I'm really confused. To be clear, I didn't mean to give the impression I dress immodestly outside the home. I am very careful to be covered now. I think I do a pretty good job.

Quote from: shin

Frumpy is good.

Actually, the proper reparation for any sin, is the practice of the opposite. So for any and all times one has sinned through vanity, one should at least practice an equal amount of time in its great opposite.

We should not be praising, admiring, or loving people for their exterior superficial beauty. Not as adults, and not as raising our children to appreciate being praised for it and praising it.

I know it is wrong to be vain, but to purposely try to be frumpy? How on earth would I attract a suitor by spending time purposely making myself ugly? There has to be some middle ground. Are you saying that to make up for vanity I should start shaving my head, stop moisturizing my skin, dress in a potato sack and put on weight? How does someone become frumpy?

I can pretty much forget about getting married if I can't go for a little bit of cuteness to soften the blow of my non-virgin status. By taking care of my appearance, I can still show that I am fairly young. Isn't that a quality I should want to play up while I still can? The window for "young fertile wife" isn't very big.

I really thought that I had read scripture that would indicate that aesthetic appeal can be appreciated.

Think of this scenario: A good Catholic man sees two unwed mothers in church...something that is automatically a turn off to him. If there was any chance of him to maybe give one of those women a second look, would it be the one with a bright smile who looks cute/young/vibrant/fit/put together, or the one who looks "frumpy" as you put it?

Quote

On the contrary as Christians we should be avoiding it, and praising, admiring, or loving modesty.

Yes, I agree with praising modesty. I didn't think modest was synonymous with frumpy. I think the way I dress is very modest when I am out of my home...I certainly don't look frumpy though.

Quote

In both husband and wife. It's far better to be an plain or ugly looking person rather than a person who is 'attractive'. It will cause far more virtue and far less sin of a superficial attraction or desire for simply the material thing.

A husband will have a far easier time not being tempted to lust, with a wife who is not too attractive and so who has to be all the more careful. A wife the same. And so the two can love each other for their virtues and spiritual goods. . .

I am really confused now. If I were married, why would my husband lust after me? I would be his wife, and therefore available to him for intimacy.

My thinking is that a wife should not let herself go in marriage. She should keep herself looking nice so that her husband's eyes stay fixed on her. I would be afraid that a wife who doesn't care about her appearance and tries to be "ugly" might make her husband tempted to look elsewhere. Do we turn away from looking at a beautiful setting sun, or do we admire it?

Shouldn't a wife want to keep her husband happy? She is supposed to keep his home looking beautiful...why not herself? Wouldn't it be good for a marriage if a man can come home to a lovely home, a lovely dinner, and a lovely, smiling, put together wife?

It wouldn't be okay for a man to have to come home to a disheveled home all the time. So why would anyone want to come home to a disheveled wife? Isn't physical attraction what leads to the marital act? Doesn't it help make a woman more fruitful if her husband is attracted to her? Isn't that how nature works? I didn't think men were "readied" by ugliness.

Outside the home, she may no longer have a reason to attract a man, but he can help protect her from the eyes of other men by allowing her to be a homemaker, so she isn't out and about unnecessarily. I don't think she should let her whole self go just because she might have to go to the grocery store sometimes. If I tried to dress "frumpy" it would probably draw more attention to myself.

Quote

Because you ought to consider your body only as a living temple where God wishes to be adored in spirit and in truth and as a living tabernacle that Jesus Christ has chosen as his dwelling place, you must, considering these noble privileges that you enjoy, show much respect for your body. These considerations ought to make you resolve not to touch your body or even to look at it without an indispensable necessity. . .'

Again, I don't understand why modesty has to be equated with ugly. A woman can be perfectly covered and still look lovely. Why does the temple of the body have to be unappealing in order to be sacred? Why is it disrespectful to the body to look nice?

The Lord made all sorts of beautiful things. Flowers are beautiful. A star filled night sky is beautiful. A mountain landscape is beautiful. A coral reef filled with brightly colored tropical fish is beautiful. The Lord did not design a world that is frumpy or plain at all. If frumpy was the ideal, why is the world so beautiful?