Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Disputaciones on August 31, 2015, 06:09:04 PM
-
The traditionalists at pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com say that modesty in dress changes with the times and that even Padre Pio would've eventually come to accept women wearing pants as perfectly normal and not sinful in any way.
They closed the comments right now and made them invisible so what they said can't be seen right now since they're taking a virtual break but I suppose they will be visible again when they come back.
They even said in some places women went bare legged to Mass before Vatican 2.
From what I can tell these people are old and knew how things were before, and yet what they said I would've expected it to come from those who didn't know how things were before, not from them.
If what they say is correct then I wouldn't bother with modesty myself but would dress like any other Novus Ordo since I wouldn't stand out but would be considered "normal".
-
That's no traditionalist statement, that's a modernist statement.
-
'And our Lord said: for that the daughters of Sion are haughty, and have walked with stretched out neck, and went with twinklings of eyes, and clapped their hands, walked on their feet, and jetted in a set pace.
Our Lord shall make bald the crown of the daughters of Sion, and our Lord shall discover their hair.
In that day shall our Lord take away the ornament of shoes, and little Moons. And chains, and ouches, and bracelets, and bonnets. And the sheading combs, and slopes, and tablets, and sweet balls, and earlets.
And rings, and pearls hanging on the forehead. And changes of apparel, and short cloaks, and the fine linen, and needles, and looking glasses, and launes, and headbands, and bonegraces. And for sweet savor there shall be stink, and for a girdle a cord, and for frissled hair baldness, and for stomachs haircloth.'
Isaiah 3:16-24
A woman who sold pants in her retail store in Vancouver went to confession in Italy to Padre Pio and was refused absolution. . .
"He commanded her to return home to Canada and dispose of all this stock, and not to give any of the items to people who might wear them, and if she wanted his absolution, she could come back to Italy and recieve it, only after she ruthlessly carried out his orders."
Padre Pio didn't die long ago. He lived in recent times.
-
It is like these people want to be damned and drag the rest of us with them.
-
That very example of Padre Pio and the Canadian woman was mentioned and they still said he would've eventually come around to accept them.
They paraphrased what McHugh and Callan say in their moral theology book, which is this:
1457.(b): The obscenity of dress is largely dependent on its novelty, for things that are usual cease to excite special attention. This we can see from the fact that styles that are conservative today would have been extreme ten years ago. And so the scanty attire of hot countries, the dress of the bathing beach, and the moderate decollete tolerated in private gatherings are not obscene in their own proper times and places.
I have no idea what specifically the authors are referring to here, and maybe it doesn't even compare to what we see now, but the ones at the blog used this to justify modern clothing.
-
That's no traditionalist statement, that's a modernist statement.
I didn't say their statement was traditionalist, but they.
-
That very example of Padre Pio and the Canadian woman was mentioned and they still said he would've eventually come around to accept them.
They paraphrased what McHugh and Callan say in their moral theology book, which is this:
1457.(b): The obscenity of dress is largely dependent on its novelty, for things that are usual cease to excite special attention. This we can see from the fact that styles that are conservative today would have been extreme ten years ago. And so the scanty attire of hot countries, the dress of the bathing beach, and the moderate decollete tolerated in private gatherings are not obscene in their own proper times and places.
I have no idea what specifically the authors are referring to here, and maybe it doesn't even compare to what we see now, but the ones at the blog used this to justify modern clothing.
It sounds like they are looking for excuses to sin and they find the right priests to justify their sin. Accept a quote from a moral theology book and reject the opinion of Padre Pio, the greatest saint of Modern times who has performed countless thousands of miracles. I will go with Padre Pio.
-
That very example of Padre Pio and the Canadian woman was mentioned and they still said he would've eventually come around to accept them.
They paraphrased what McHugh and Callan say in their moral theology book, which is this:
1457.(b): The obscenity of dress is largely dependent on its novelty, for things that are usual cease to excite special attention. This we can see from the fact that styles that are conservative today would have been extreme ten years ago. And so the scanty attire of hot countries, the dress of the bathing beach, and the moderate decollete tolerated in private gatherings are not obscene in their own proper times and places.
I have no idea what specifically the authors are referring to here, and maybe it doesn't even compare to what we see now, but the ones at the blog used this to justify modern clothing.
It sounds like they are looking for excuses to sin and they find the right priests to justify their sin. Accept a quote from a moral theology book and reject the opinion of Padre Pio, the greatest saint of Modern times who has performed countless thousands of miracles. I will go with Padre Pio.
Like i said we don't know what exactly the authors were referring to when they wrote that. Their book first came out in 1929 and was standard before V2. I got that from the 1958 revised version. I don't know if that was in the original first edition as well.
If that was originally written in the 1929 version then i would guess what they were referring to would be super modest compared to what's out there today. They don't even mention pants in women's dress but only dresses.
But anyways, how will somebody today know what GOD thinks about how one should dress? Not what this or that person says, but what God Himself thinks? If you're a traditionalist then you reject the Novus Ordo which has no standards and lets everyone dress however they want to dress.
Do you simply "decide for yourself" and accept that no one can impose anything on anyone right now?
-
Do you simply "decide for yourself" and accept that no one can impose anything on anyone right now?
I personally accept the advice of Padre Pio. And if I was a woman I would follow his modesty standards. Since I am a man it is much easier for me to dress modestly because there is much less social pressure on men to be immodest. Why, I don't know.
-
There are all sorts of horrors in moral theology books.
Just because it's before VII, doesn't mean things were all splendid. VII wouldnt've happened if things had been splendid.
If you want to find something to rely on, go to the saints and their consensus on morals and everything.
-
'Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circuмstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion.
These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality.'
Pope Pius XII
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
'We ought to make no account of an immodest person, notwithstanding that he may possess other virtues.'
St. Philip Neri
Quotations on Modesty and Purity
(http://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm)
-
There are all sorts of horrors in moral theology books.
Like what?
Just because it's before VII, doesn't mean things were all splendid. VII wouldnt've happened if things had been splendid.
But we're talking about a moral theology book which was standard for almost 30 years.
'Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circuмstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion.
These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality.'
Pope Pius XII
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
'We ought to make no account of an immodest person, notwithstanding that he may possess other virtues.'
St. Philip Neri
Quotations on Modesty and Purity
(http://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm)
Yes i agree with all this and have read it all before, but the problem is that no standard or measurement is ever given anywhere, so how is one to know what's good and what's not?
How do you know for certain what "fashions" Our Lady was specifically referring to?
-
Read the quotes in the link if you're looking for standards.
As for Callan being a "standard" you'll have to tell me, "standard" what -- there are lots of moral theology books, each differing with the other on morals, some used here, some used there.
'Standard' because it was one of the ones actually in English?
Like what you just read, and esp. regarding matters of purity.
-
Moral theology books are one of the places the devil tries to justify sins in -- if he can get it in there..
-
Read the quotes in the link if you're looking for standards.
The only one resembling a standard is the one from the Sacred Congregation of the Council of January 12, 1930 A.D.
Have you ever verified this? Seen the source with your won eyes? How could one find this?
As for Callan being a "standard" you'll have to tell me, "standard" what -- there are lots of moral theology books, each differing with the other on morals, some used here, some used there.
'Standard' because it was one of the ones actually in English?
Like what you just read, and esp. regarding matters of purity.
This is what the Reviser's note says:
This is a revision, not a rewriting. Various deletions and additions have been made with the intent of bringing the work up to date within the scope of the original plan and methods of the authors. In this way it has been possible to preserve the features that have made this manual a standard guide for the past thirty years.
Standard guide for 30 years it turns out.
-
Moral theology books are one of the places the devil tries to justify sins in -- if he can get it in there..
You said there are all sorts of horrors in moral theology books. I expected you to give at least a couple of verifiable examples, but you haven't yet.
That's a serious charge you're making, do you know that?
-
Serious charges? No simple matters of fact easily verifiable if you actually read moral theology books in English, where things are quite in a tragic situation.
I feel no onus to do your reading for you when you could easily do it yourself and anyone interested could as well.
Modernists love to praise each other and build up each other, and it's just normal for books to be full of self-praise in general.
A praises B, B praises C, C praises A, and the holy and devout are left out.
-
Serious charges? No simple matters of fact easily verifiable if you actually read moral theology books in English, where things are quite in a tragic situation.
I feel no onus to do your reading for you when you could easily do it yourself and anyone interested could as well.
Modernists love to praise each other and build up each other, and it's just normal for books to be full of self-praise in general.
A praises B, B praises C, C praises A, and the holy and devout are left out.
You were the one who said "There are all sorts of horrors in moral theology books." I ask you to give an example and you tell me to go look it up myself.
Are you for real?
Give just one example. Shouldn't be that hard with "all sorts of horrors" out there.
-
Found three just looking up at them, then put them aside.
However you seem to think I'm here to debate you rather than help you out. I tried to do the latter, not spend time on the former.
I don't like reading through such garbage.
Courtesy is not just a word Disputaciones.
-
Found three just looking up at them, then put them aside.
However you seem to think I'm here to debate you rather than help you out. I tried to do the latter, not spend time on the former.
I don't like reading through such garbage.
Courtesy is not just a word Disputaciones.
You should take your own advice. The first thing I asked related to the moral theology books was "Like what?" to which you gave no answer.
You consider that a formal debate challenge?
For the record I had no intentions to debate. I kept asking you to show something because I'm sincerely interested and you kept getting more aggressive.
-
'Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circuмstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion.
These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality.'
Pope Pius XII
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
'We ought to make no account of an immodest person, notwithstanding that he may possess other virtues.'
St. Philip Neri
Quotations on Modesty and Purity
(http://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm)
Please reference your quote. Blessed Jacinta Marto of Fatima never said
such a thing. She said just the opposite.
-
Here is a view of a Los Angeles street in the 1950's. A woman in dark
hair and long dress that covers the arms boarding a trolley.
-
Type "Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord" into a decent search engine, you'll find numerous websites, which cite numerous different books.
-
Type "Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord" into a decent search engine, you'll find numerous websites, which cite numerous different books.
I was also being honest with the Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII quote. Have you ever verified it?
Why don't you post the 3 examples you say you found?
-
Here is a view of a Los Angeles street in the 1950's. A woman in dark
hair and long dress that covers the arms boarding a trolley.
The question is, are the standards all should follow today the same that were present when Pius XII died?
Wouldn't that mean no man can wear jeans?
-
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
Please reference your quote. Blessed Jacinta Marto of Fatima never said
such a thing. She said just the opposite.
Really? What did she say then?
-
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
Please reference your quote. Blessed Jacinta Marto of Fatima never said
such a thing. She said just the opposite.
Really? What did she say then?
I must apologize. I was reading the quote above St. Philip Neri. In
which it is surprise.
I also want a reference to prove that St. Philip Neri actually wrote
that.
A person addicted to a immoral fashions cannot live a virtuous life.
(My Quote).
-
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
Please reference your quote. Blessed Jacinta Marto of Fatima never said
such a thing. She said just the opposite.
Really? What did she say then?
I must apologize. I was reading the quote above St. Philip Neri. In
which it is surprise.
I also want a reference to prove that St. Philip Neri actually wrote
that.
A person addicted to a immoral fashions cannot live a virtuous life.
(My Quote).
So this is the quote in question then?
'We ought to make no account of an immodest person, notwithstanding that he may possess other virtues.'
St. Philip Neri
It's his Maxim (http://www.liturgialatina.org/oratorian/maxims.htm) for December 6th.
-
Anyway, what is modest can vary from time to time and place to place.
I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive."
...
Reply to Objection 2. Those who are placed in a position of dignity, or again the ministers of the altar, are attired in more costly apparel than others, not for the sake of their own glory, but to indicate the excellence of their office or of the Divine worship: wherefore this is not sinful in them. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses outward things in such a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good people among whom he dwells, either signifies something by so doing, or is guilty of sin, inasmuch as he uses these things for sensual pleasure or ostentation."
Likewise there may be sin on the part of deficiency: although it is not always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For, if this be done through ostentation or pride, in order to set oneself above others, it is a sin of superstition; whereas, if this be done to tame the flesh, or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue of temperance. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses transitory things with greater restraint than is customary with those among whom he dwells, is either temperate or superstitious."...
Summa Theologica (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm)
So, we're meant to fit in. But obviously there are some fashions which will always be unacceptable.
-
This is an excellent article with pictures on how Catholic women's dress have changed throughout the centuries and clear explanations on why these changes happened, mainly Revolutionary movements such as the Reformation in the XVI century and Feminism in the XX century. Up to the XIV century, virtually all Catholic ladies imitated Our Lady in modesty, as we are called to do regardless of changes in historical periods and emerging fashions of the world. Some extracts:
The Importance of Modesty in Dress:
As we can see above, the modesty of Catholic women of the first 13 centuries pretty much imitated Our Lady's dress completely, from head to toe. The code during this time was "fashion cater to modesty," not "modesty cater to fashion." We see a change in this trend in the 14th century with the introduction of the Renaissance. Now although the women then did not dress wantonly (see glossary below), their modesty was not the Perfect Model's. Some of them flaunted their hair, while others wore a bit of pompous clothing. Still, none of it outlined or uncovered the sensual areas of the body. Later during the heretical Reformation of the 16th Century, the women of Protestant nations began to expose more than decency allowed of the the upper regions of the body. During the 19th century, contrary to the wide-spread notion that women were modest, women were practically intimidated by the fashion industry, going through extravagant measures into twisting and outlining their figure, to keep up with the latest trend. As a reaction to this being "bottled-up" and confined by clothing, women in the 20th century catered to the flapper craze. This new rebellious fashion freed them from the restrictive hour-glass shape of the "gαy 90's" to the opposite extreme by the clothing being straight, and narrow, making them look boyish. This idea of "breaking free" from the slavery of 19th century pseudo-modesty made women reveal rather than conceal a little more each decade, to the point in which we end up with the scandalous fashions of the modern catholic woman today. Although Catholic women since the Reformation were not as modest as those from the first 1300 years of the Church, they still none the less kept the same standard of decency according to the natural law.
So what can we gather from all this? That a feminist miscreant desired to wear the other sex's clothes to express a demand for "women's rights" and to spark a rebellion against the traditional mores in decency. Feminists challenged the tradition of the man being the head of the family by wearing his clothes. Later on in the 1930's, the Communists would finalize this revolution in women's clothing. Using gnostic "theology", the communists deemed women nothing more than imperfect men, who in order to be as perfect as men, had to express masculinity and repress their feminine attributes. They made it the ideal fashion, in their propaganda, that women, in order to express true equality with men in all things, would also have to wear the masculine clothing for men only, called Pants. So we can see that this custom of women wearing pants is nothing more than a feminist tradition. It certainly does not come from the long held decency code passed down from Catholic woman to Catholic woman throughout the 19 centuries of the Church's influence on society.
-
... Up to the XIV century, virtually all Catholic ladies imitated Our Lady in modesty, as we are called to do regardless of changes in historical periods and emerging fashions of the world....
Why aren't men expected to imitate Our Lord or St Joseph regardless of the emerging fashions of the world?
-
... Up to the XIV century, virtually all Catholic ladies imitated Our Lady in modesty, as we are called to do regardless of changes in historical periods and emerging fashions of the world....
Why aren't men expected to imitate Our Lord or St Joseph regardless of the emerging fashions of the world?
Men did not start wearing pants, instead of robes, out of a Revolutionary mindset opposed to Christendom.
Women started wearing pants, instead of skirts, out of a Revolutionary mindset opposed to Christendom: Feminism.
-
Clare, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying this to offend. A question like that makes me wonder if you believe that men and women are equal in all ways. It sounds like something the typical modern woman's rights activist would say.
As we know, we are not equal. Men and women have very distinct differences, and one of those being that women, given their God given bodies, have an incredible amount of power over a man's mind when not dressed properly- more so than a man would have over a woman. A woman is under greater obligation to conceal because she has the greater power to lead men astray. It's not wrong- it's just the way it is.
As women we should be proud to look at our Mother, and try to imitate her as we are instructed to do, not complain that men don't have to do it too. That indicates a rebellious and proud spirit, the same spirit that gave rise to the disaster called feminism.
-
Clare, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I am not saying this to offend. A question like that makes me wonder if you believe that men and women are equal in all ways.
No I don't.
As we know, we are not equal. Men and women have very distinct differences, and one of those being that women, given their God given bodies, have an incredible amount of power over a man's mind when not dressed properly- more so than a man would have over a woman. A woman is under greater obligation to conceal because she has the greater power to lead men astray. It's not wrong- it's just the way it is.
I agree, and women who wear trousers would be well advised to wear a tunic over them to conceal the hip area.
As women we should be proud to look at our Mother, and try to imitate her as we are instructed to do, not complain that men don't have to do it too.
We imitate her by fitting in and not standing out.
Shouldn't men imitate St Joseph? It doesn't mean they have to dress like him.
(No one should be proud.)
-
'Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who follow God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord was always the same.'
Bl. Jacinta Marto of Fatima, age 9, from her last words
Quotations on Modesty and Purity
(http://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm)
Please reference your quote. Blessed Jacinta Marto of Fatima never said
such a thing. She said just the opposite.
Discussion on that quote here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30861&min=0&num=5
ADD: I now see your subsequent post, but am leaving this here for anyone else who may be interested.
-
Oh sure, of course men should imitate St. Joseph! As far as I know, Catholic men are highly encouraged to do this- I hear it from priests all the time. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, I thought you were referring to imitating him just in dress.
I agree that Our Lady was very content to stay in the background, to remain unseen. However, that does not excuse us from our duty to not wear men's clothing. Avoiding pants does not make us stick out generally.
When I made the switch (though it was slow) from pants most of the time to skirts, my main and sincere objection and obstacle to it was exactly what many other trad women do/did say, and that is that to wear skirts all the time makes you stick out, and I don't want to draw attention to myself. After I finally bit the bullet and learned to get past that feeling I came to understand the reality- that my fears were largely unfounded, that I stick out A LOT less than I thought I did. Women who have no religious affiliation at all often wear skirts most of the time out of preference. You see women wearing skirts everywhere. I think a lot of it was the Devil tempting me to believe that I was drawing attention to myself, but it wasn't true.
Now to address the fact that skirts do indeed make you stick out at certain times. This is unavoidable, not immodest. I whole-heartedly believe that Our Lady would continue to dress modestly even if nobody else was. She remained in the background, being meek and humble because she is a woman, and she is the perfection of womanly nature. There are times that Our Lady stood out.
When Our Lord hung upon the cross, nearly everyone left- but she remained and everyone knew it. To this day we remember her doing this and use it as example for ourselves to remain with Our Lord. She did what most others would not do because it was right and good. She stuck out, and it led people to God.
So you see, sticking out is ok when it is necessary. Our Lady did it, Our Lord did it. Why then can't we do it?
-
Oh sure, of course men should imitate St. Joseph! As far as I know, Catholic men are highly encouraged to do this- I hear it from priests all the time. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, I thought you were referring to imitating him just in dress.
I agree that Our Lady was very content to stay in the background, to remain unseen. However, that does not excuse us from our duty to not wear men's clothing. Avoiding pants does not make us stick out generally.
I totally agree. Where I disagree is with the idea that trouser-like garments are always and everywhere objectively male attire. Some clearly are not, and men shouldn't wear them because they would be wearing female attire.
I have no problem with the scriptural prohibition with cross-dressing, and if scripture made it clear that trousers (which no one wore then) can only ever be designed for men, I would have no problem with that. But it doesn't.
Now to address the fact that skirts do indeed make you stick out at certain times.
I don't think they do, though. I'm not saying that skirts make one stand out. Some do, some don't.
So you see, sticking out is ok when it is necessary. Our Lady did it, Our Lord did it. Why then can't we do it?
Yes, when necessary we must.
-
We imitate her by fitting in and not standing out.
What are you referring to, here? I'm assuming you meant something about dress, since that is the topic of discussion.
-
We imitate her by fitting in and not standing out.
What are you referring to, here? I'm assuming you meant something about dress, since that is the topic of discussion.
Probably means wearing pants.
-
We imitate her by fitting in and not standing out.
What are you referring to, here? I'm assuming you meant something about dress, since that is the topic of discussion.
Probably means wearing pants.
No, I don't. I mean she wouldn't wear fashions from 100 years ago. That doesn't mean she must wear trousers to fit in. I was really addressing the idea that Catholics should not follow fashion. Obviously, if the fashion is immoral, we shouldn't. But if it isn't, we should, as St Thomas Aquinas said. But women can be fashionable in skirts. I'm sure Our Lady wouldn't wear trousers. That doesn't make women's trousers intrinsically wrong.
I wonder if she would go about veiled in public if she were about today. That would make her stand out, and be mistaken for certain adherents of false religions, at least if she were in the West.
Anyway, this is what I'm getting at by fitting in and not standing out.
-
I wonder if she would go about veiled in public if she were about today. That would make her stand out, and be mistaken for certain adherents of false religions, at least if she were in the West.
Thinking more on this. She might wear a hat, I guess. Not an ostentatious one.
-
We imitate her by fitting in and not standing out.
What are you referring to, here? I'm assuming you meant something about dress, since that is the topic of discussion.
Probably means wearing pants.
No, I don't. I mean she wouldn't wear fashions from 100 years ago. That doesn't mean she must wear trousers to fit in. I was really addressing the idea that Catholics should not follow fashion. Obviously, if the fashion is immoral, we shouldn't. But if it isn't, we should, as St Thomas Aquinas said. But women can be fashionable in skirts. I'm sure Our Lady wouldn't wear trousers. That doesn't make women's trousers intrinsically wrong.
I wonder if she would go about veiled in public if she were about today. That would make her stand out, and be mistaken for certain adherents of false religions, at least if she were in the West.
Anyway, this is what I'm getting at by fitting in and not standing out.
What's the big deal of not fitting in? Who cares? Is this the most important thing? You can't please God and the world at the same time.
Why would you have to make changes in your life to please godless people who couldn't care less what you do and actually would like you gone? Why would you have to live in dependence of what others might think?
I would agree to fit in with a CATHOLIC society, but not in the one we have today.
Members of other religions have made me wonder if I'm ashamed because they don't care to do things in public for their religion, they don't care to stand out, whereas I do, with certain things.
-
What's the big deal of not fitting in? Who cares? Is this the most important thing?
Well I did say before:
I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive."
...
Summa Theologica (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm)
-
If you wish to be dressed appropriately,follow the customs of the country, and dress more or less like people of your rank and age. Still, it is important to take care that your clothes have nothing luxurious or anything superfluous about them. You must avoid whatever suggests ostentation or worldliness.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
Fashion is what people call the style in which clothes are made at a given time.You ought to follow it in the matter of your hats, linen,and outer garments. It would be against decorum for you to wear a tall hat or one with a wide brim when everyone else uses low-cut hats with narrow brims. Nevertheless, it is not always advisable to adopt all the newest fashions right away. Some of them are capricious and bizarre, while some are reasonable and conformable to decorum. Just as you ought not to go against the latter, neither must you adopt too hastily the former,which ordinarily are followed only by a few people and do not last very long.
The surest and most reasonable rule concerning fashion is do not invent your own, do not be the first to try it, and do not wait until everyone else has given it up before abandoning it.
The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://lasallian.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Christian-Decorum-reprint-2007.pdf)