So-called trad schools are deficient if they do not promote Catholic modesty.
How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
Angels do not wear shorts, and even if they did they would not be tempting anyone.
There is no temptation in Heaven.

But we are on earth, and these artworks are displayed on earth to be viewed by us human beings.

On earth, shorts are immodest clothing. They are exposing the legs. They are immodest.  

Then St Michael the Archangel is being depicted as an immodestly dressed man exposing his legs.

Also, shorts are male clothing. So shorts should not be worn by women.

If they shouldn't be worn by men, they are not male clothing either!

A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel…

And it does not identify trousers as male apparel. Male and female apparel back then were more similar than they became when men started wearing trousers.

How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
That is obvious.

If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.

Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.

You are demanding more than the Church does.

Pope Pius XII, with the Harlem Globetrotters, and some apparently indecently dressed women, 1952:

Leave it to Clare to find a picture of the Pope with the Harlem globetrotters.

You must have watched a lot of Scooby Doo as a child.

Not a great deal, but a bit. Those two girls' skirts were too short, as I recall!

The photo above on the previous page is in "The Pope Speaks". There's also a nice pic of Pius XII with a little birdy in his hand.

Quote from: Sede Catholic

Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.

You are demanding more than the Church does.

Since conciliar Rome demands no true moral standards, I would hope so.

Your comments are illogical.

How an angel is depicted in religious art is irrelevant to moral theology concerning how people should attire themselves.

If they shouldn't be worn by men, they are not male clothing either!

That, too, is illogical.
Shorts were originally male clothing. They are simply immodest male clothing. Because they should not be worn by men, does not mean that they cease to be male clothing.

Pants are male clothing, irrespective of whatever irrelevancies you bring to bear to suggest otherwise.

Pope Pius XI condemned women wearing pants.
So you should have the humility to hear the Church.

If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.

What is depicted in religious art concerning angels in Heaven is not going to have the same effect of arousing lust, as seeing half-naked people walking around us on earth.

If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.

Again, you are confusing what we see in religious art, with what we encounter in our lives.

If someone sees a picture of an angel with part of the leg visible, that is not going to have the effect on him that seeing a girl wearing a miniskirt will have.
And likewise, a woman could see a picture of an angel without the same possibility of temptation as she would have in seeing a man wearing shorts.
That is obvious.

Your interjections into this thread are confusing those who are trying to learn how to dress modestly.
If you lead people into lax morality, how will you answer to God for any souls that are lost because of your actions.

Feminists detest true modesty.

Padre Pio believed that women’s skirts were sinful if they were not at least eight inches below the knee.
So he obviously would have agreed with what I have said.
Any good priest in the nineteenth century would have agreed with what I have said.

Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.

Good Catholic women should want to dress like Our Lady.

That is the way that good Catholic women dressed less than a hundred years ago, in many Catholic countries.

This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html

No need to find a seamstress Sede and Tele. PW has apparel sewing skills, she mentioned before she is skilled in repurposing clothing.

You just completely made that up. I never once said that I was "skilled" in anything related to sewing.  I mentioned that I had the idea to repurpose sundresses into aprons.  Any other time I've mentioned sewing I have talked about how I am learning.  Does it make you feel good inside to make fun of me?  

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Also a woman can be as modest as she wants to but if she believes in the Marxian and Jєωιѕн principle of feminism then the modesty outside of the body is null.

I agree. It would be as how Our Lord anathematized the Scribes and Pharisees: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness" (S. Matt. cap. xxiii., 27).

However, I have never met a woman who dresses modestly and yet subscribes to Marxist and feminist ideologies. Such a thing would be as rare as the dodo bird.

Ineluctably, just as belief determines behavior, so behavior (particularly when repeated to the point of habit) influences belief.

I have met young women who are of "conservative" Protestant sects who do dress modestly, but they do not espouse feminist notions. Perhaps on account of this they dress modestly. However, since they do not have Our Lady as exemplar and patroness, some of these young women do not always persevere in modesty of dress or comportment, as the pernicious influence of the world and the concupiscence of the flesh compel them to abandon wholesome habits of dress.

This is the most important thing for Catholics (both women and men, boys and girls) to remember: an earnest and generous devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary will inevitably lead to the self-abnegation and mortification of the senses and the will that shall enable one to be modest in both dress and comportment.

True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary ---> self-abnegation in all things ---> interior and exterior mortification ---> modesty in dress and comportment ---> prayerful perseverance therein : this is how it usually works in most interior souls.

Hobbledehoy, this was a very nice post.

Devotion to Blessed Mother has played a major role in my understanding of the "why" of modesty. I need to keep bringing my worries and doubts to her so I can fully understand the specifics of "how."  She has revealed so much about life and womanhood to me in the past year and half of praying the rosary, I know there is so much more to come. When you can feel that spiritual connection to our Lady, it gives the greatest feeling of feminine grace.

In the same way that it feels good to head cover for prayer, it feels good to dress better all around too.  When you are close to Blessed Mother, you do want to be more like her. Wearing long skirts has made me feel more lady like, and that may be just as important as the modesty they offer.  

Quote from: clare

You are demanding more than the Church does.

Since conciliar Rome demands no true moral standards, I would hope so.

You are demanding more than the pre-conciliar Church did.

Shorts were originally male clothing.They are simply immodest male clothing. Because they should not be worn by men, does not mean that they cease to be male clothing.

Pants are male clothing, irrespective of whatever irrelevancies you bring to bear to suggest otherwise.

They were originally clothing that men wore first. There is no Divine Writ saying that clothes bifurcated below the waist are masculine. Men never used to wear them. It is not in revelation. It is a man-made fashion, and not divinely inspired.

Pope Pius XI condemned women wearing pants.

Specifically? Where?

What is depicted in religious art concerning angels in Heaven is not going to have the same effect of arousing lust, as seeing half-naked people walking around us on earth.

Now, there's a strawman! I'm not advocating half-naked people walking around.

Again, you are confusing what we see in religious art, with what we encounter in our lives.

If someone sees a picture of an angel with part of the leg visible, that is not going to have the effect on him that seeing a girl wearing a miniskirt will have.

And I am not advocating women wearing miniskirts. I do not think that skirts which do not cover the ankles are miniskirts.

Your interjections into this thread are confusing those who are trying to learn how to dress modestly.

I think that is what you are doing, by making out that things which are not immodest, are.

Trad Guy, I cannot think of a single Saint who deliberately cultivated physical beauty.

The Catholic Faith requires modesty, not beauty.

There were Saints who were 'beautiful' though of course.

And we are talking of a man finding a woman for marriage here and for that the cultivation of physical beauty is important for the woman and a healthy body is important for both the man and woman.

Anyway I agree that women shouldn't wear trousers.