Author Topic: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty (Read 265 times)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #5 on:** **Today** at 05:25:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 03:29:58 AM

I think that here's one example that's contrary to what they described, but perhaps visually replace the pants with some thicker stockings, or sock-like looking things. I blotted out a bit of immodesty (bare upper arms and a bit of exposed chest on the left one).

So, these are interesting cases. So, the dress is certainly above the knees in each case, but ... the legs beneath the bottom of the dress are covered with material that does NOT resemble skin so that it might appear to someone on first inspection that the legs are bare above the knee.

Pants are generally immodest simply due to being masculine and contrary to nature, but these types of outfits, I don't consider them masculine, due to the dress, but then the dress is above the knee, which BY ITSELF would be considered immodest IF what appeared below the above-the-knee-bottom of the dress were bare leg or what would appear to be bare leg due to skin-colored stockings. But in this case, due to the color it's quite obvious that there's no exposed bare leg.

I have never heard of any standard of modesty which held that the lower leg beneath the knee couldn't be even exposed skin, much less skin-colored stocking. You'd essentially be claiming that all women had to wear either ankle- / street- length dresses and/or would be required to wear non-skin-covered stocks below the knee even. I've just never seen that kind of radical interpretation of the norms for Christian modesty.

That's also why they put in the transparent dress, right, where "OK, my dress is beneath the knees, so modest, right?" ... well, not if you can largely see through it, eh? Similarly, this is the converse where, the skirt is above the knees, but then the part of the leg that's expose at the knee and above is also covered, even if the dress itself doesn't extend down that far.

I would find both of the above entirely acceptable (from a modesty perspective, even if not from a fashion perspective) despite the bottom of the dress being above the knees.

I don't think you have Padre Pio nor Catholic Tradition on your side there...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** **Today** at 08:11:21 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on Today at 05:25:04 AM

I don't think you have Padre Pio nor Catholic Tradition on your side there...

So this comment can be a useful as a didactic exercise.

Sure, toss out a name, good old Padre Pio (to which I'll return) and then apply gaslighting ... forgetting, or choosing to forget, that style or fashions such as depicted were not particularly widespread during Padre Pio's time.

That's actually very much related to the Pharisaical spirit, to be obsessed with the letter of the law, not the spirit.

As Bishop Sanborn said about moral theology in general, that while theologians tend to be very consistent regarding the principles, there's often some disagreement about the APPLICATION of the principles to specific concrete situations.

But before I made the case to the contrary, let's put aside the sanctimonious gas-lighting via Padre Pio name-dropping (especially since it's not relevant as these fashions were not in vogue in his day) ... but Padre Pi-ism is yet another plaugue among Trads next to Pharisaical adherence to the letter of the law.

In order to be able to apply the principles, you must DISTILL the principles behind modest / immodest dress. At the highest level, there are primarily two ... which I will not expound upon just yet.

But, now that we've dispensed with "Padre Pio or Catholic Tradition" ...

EXPLAIN WHY THE ABOVE VIOLATE CATHOLIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY

... and perhaps take a stab at the highest-level principles behind the standards. So, think for a second. WHY is it sinful / immodest to have the dress line above the knee?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** **Today** at 09:21:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 03:29:58 AM

I think that here's one example that's contrary to what they described, but perhaps visually replace the pants with some thicker stockings, or sock-like looking things. I blotted out a bit of immodesty (bare upper arms and a bit of exposed chest on the left one).

I would find both of the above entirely acceptable (from a modesty perspective, even if not from a fashion perspective) despite the bottom of the dress being above the knees.

I would say they are "more" acceptable than the current norm of society (but that's not saying much). But the black dress is way too short (almost a foot above the knees). The white dress is almost at the knees and is not as form fitting. Either of these is much, much, much better than what is the norm today. But could either of these be worn at church? No. Therefore, not modest enough.

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #8 on:** **Today** at 03:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 02:17:29 AM

So ... I don't read it that way. Seeing as it comes after transparent dress, I think what it's saying is that covering the leg with a material that makes it LOOK uncovered qualifes to meet the standard if being covered down to the knee. I imagine it's referring to, say, wearing a shorter skirt above the knees, but then wearing flesh-colored stockings and claiming "I'm covered down past my knee, see! ... with these [flesh-colored] stockings. It's a corollary to transparent dress, meaning either a transparent dress or flesh-colored dress, or dress + stocking hybrid. NOW ... I think where something MIGHT work would be if a lady had a shorter skirt, above the knees, but then wore stockins that were basically pant-like. While the DRESS per see didn't go beneath the knee, it's augmented by obvious clothing. I actually would consider that acceptable, where you met the standard both of being feminine (it's not like the stocking is pants) but also of covering up below the knees. I will try to find some pictures of what I think it's talking about.

How did you do in reading comprehension in school? I imagine not well. The text plainly mentions a transparent dress is not a true covering, nor are transparent stockings a true covering because it shows a naked leg, which the Vicar general clearly implies that is scandalizing, by comparing it with a dress that has transparent fabric. I’ve seen other modesty recommendations in Quebec by the Bishops of that province, for instance, that forbid bare legs as well. I’ll see if I can find it.

The last point relates to the other in that sense, but you’re twisting what was written. Do you enjoy seeing your wife’s legs too much? No need to answer, just for self consideration. Things like this can blind people into desiring to see what they want to see in the Church’s teaching.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #9 on:** **Today** at 04:41:41 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 08:11:21 AM

... and perhaps take a stab at the highest-level principles behind the standards. So, think for a second. WHY is it sinful / immodest to have the dress line above the knee?

The thighs are more tempting to men then the legs. Dresses above the knees leave them exposed and even can draw attention to them. Doing movements or sitting down can cause exposure that wouldn't be possible with a longer dress.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty (Read 265 times)

Plenus Venter

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty

Ladislaus

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty

Pax Vobis

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty

Maria Dolorosa

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty

AnthonyPadua

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty