Author Topic: What do traditional Catholics look like? (Read 5283 times)

DeMaistre · « **on:** June 28, 2009, 03:21:24 PM »

Does anyone think that there is any way that two traditional Catholics could recognise each other as such if they just met? In other words, could there be any "archetype" traditional Catholic? (Yes, its a stupid question)

clare · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:51:23 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

Does anyone think that there is any way that two traditional Catholics could recognise each other as such if they just met?

I suggest a distinctive handshake.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:54:30 PM »

Haha

It was a pretty stupid question.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:56:42 PM »

Ideally, they would have a different dress and bearing than the average worldling.

Perhaps they would be seen in a Catholic-friendly locale rather than a movie theater.

Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public. Men shouldn't wear anything immodest either -- and modest presumes no vulgar or worldly slogans on your shirt. A temple of the Holy Ghost should not be a walking billboard for a large corporation -- unless you're being paid well for it. :wink:

When I see a large family, especially with all the girls not wearing pants, I always take notice. Of course, I always tell myself "they're probably Mormon" because so few Catholics, even Traditional ones, take their Faith out into the streets.

Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world. They have no idea just how far the world's standards are from what is objectively good.

Matthew

DeMaistre · « **Reply #4 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:59:23 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Ideally, they would have a different dress and bearing than the average worldling.

Perhaps they would be seen in a Catholic-friendly locale rather than a movie theater.

Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public. Men shouldn't wear anything immodest either -- and modest presumes no vulgar or worldly slogans on your shirt. A temple of the Holy Ghost should not be a walking billboard for a large corporation -- unless you're being paid well for it. :wink:

When I see a large family, especially with all the girls not wearing pants, I always take notice. Of course, I always tell myself "they're probably Mormon" because so few Catholics, even Traditional ones, take their Faith out into the streets.

Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world. They have no idea just how far the world's standards are from what is objectively good.

Matthew

Should I wear dress clothes to school then?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** June 28, 2009, 04:18:38 PM »

About regular clothing --

First of all, I'm not one of those eccentrics that wears suit coats all the time. In fact, I never wear one except on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day (to Mass). On normal Sundays, I wear a short-sleeved dress shirt (button-down) with a tie to Mass.

I also get most of my shirts cheap or free.

At home, I wear some T-shirt or other. I'll wear "logoed" T-shirts (which I got for free) if I'm working outside -- I want those shirts to get ruined first.

In short, I'm a very down-to-earth sort.

But since I stopped being a teenager, I've thought it ridiculous to pay $16 for a T-shirt just because it has a Nike logo on it. Or a large brand name written on it: Abercrombie, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. The big question: WHY? All those brand names emblazoned on the front of your shirt could POSSIBLY do for you is say:

A) I'm a sheep. Baaa! Just lead me and I'll follow.
B) I want to fit in -- badly. Somebody please love me!
C) I'm dashing, groovy, hip, radical, def, cool or whatever. Word!
D) I paid good money for the privilege of being a walking billboard to make this brand name even more popular.

None of those reasons are compelling for me, so I choose to shop at Sears, Kohl's or other stores that sell normal clothing without logos. Generally speaking, such clothing is cheaper.

As for vulgar slogans, that should be common sense. That's what worldly people wear. Aren't Catholics supposed to be "in the world, but not OF it"?

Matthew

DeMaistre · « **Reply #6 on:** June 28, 2009, 04:22:00 PM »

Or it could say:

5. I'm a sodomite
6. I'm a FOB Asian!

----------

Seriously though, hmm...I would wear coat and cravat (I hate ties) everywhere if I had one. The Cure d'Ars says that our clothes should be nice, but not expensive. I'll probably spend a few hundred dollars on a few pairs of Victorian clothing then never buy anything for the rest of my life.

Alex · « **Reply #7 on:** June 28, 2009, 04:25:53 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

B) I want to fit in -- badly. Somebody please love me!

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2009, 04:28:03 PM »

Quote from: DeMaistre

The Cure d'Ars says that our clothes should be nice, but not expensive.

That's what I go for -- something that doesn't make me look homeless, while getting the clothing for as cheap as possible.

And also something that lets me keep my dignity as a follower of Jesus Christ.

I really don't think Jesus would wear a shirt with "Abercrombie" on it.

I know the Protestants are cheesy with their bracelets and T-shirts that say "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do) but it's a question we should ask ourselves sometimes. We ARE supposed to imitate Christ in His virtues.

And you know, many non-Catholics are disgusted to the point of nausea with consumerism and materialism. There are agnostics and apostate Catholics who wouldn't be caught dead in a "walking billboard" T-shirt, even though they don't have the Faith. Why should faithful Catholics be less wise in worldly matters than a spiritually blind non-Catholic?

Matthew

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2009, 10:55:19 PM »

Matthew,

Great points as usual.

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:07:58 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public...
Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world.

*Red rag to a bull!*

I have been resisting the world for ages, and the world has been resisting me! I was picked on at school for being unfashionable, and I was picked on by a few children in the neighbourhood for being Catholic.

Yet, I wore trousers throughout my childhood and teens, and it did not stop me being picked on and not fitting in! I'm well used to being a misfit!

And I still wear trousers occasionally (but not often), in public too!

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:05:58 AM »

Well, to take you as an example --

Maybe the mistake you made was sitting on the fence.

If you had wore long dresses and skirts, perhaps other traditional Catholics (and others who are in tune with the Natural Law) would have seen you as an ally and made friends with you. You at least would be popular with that crowd.

If that wouldn't have worked for you for some reason (e.g., no trad. Catholics or Mormons around you), I assure you that it would work for many people.

Otherwise, you could have two Traditional Catholic women walk past each other at Wal-mart, and both of them could rightfully assume the other is an average worldling. That should illustrate why our dress should conform to what we are.

Another example that comes to mind -- I know a lady who is from a very conservative family, and grew up in a small town in a part of the country with very old-fashioned moral values. She wants to get married, she loves kids, but she is currently studying to become a kind of doctor ("to help people"). Although she is very conservative, you'd hardly know it by her dress. The kind of men she attracts (or will attract) are not very appealing to her. Why? Because she's a walking contradiction. Half of her is for one way of life, and the other half goes for something completely different. She wants one thing, and pursues another. She's currently 28. The song "Home" by the Dixie Chicks comes to mind.

I feel bad for people like that, because they don't see how they're sabotaging their own life -- their own chance at earthly happiness.

P.S. Being a misfit is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in public school. I probably would have ruined my life had I been as popular (with the girls) at 17 or 18 as I wanted to be.

clare · « **Reply #12 on:** June 29, 2009, 01:08:01 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Well, to take you as an example --

Maybe the mistake you made was sitting on the fence.

If you had wore long dresses and skirts, perhaps other traditional Catholics (and others who are in tune with the Natural Law) would have seen you as an ally and made friends with you. You at least would be popular with that crowd.

There were no other traditional Catholics. In fact, I wasn't even traditional then. I was Novus Ordo, and unaware of anything else until I was 20. Some 15 years ago now!

Quote

Otherwise, you could have two Traditional Catholic women walk past each other at Wal-mart, and both of them could rightfully assume the other is an average worldling. That should illustrate why our dress should conform to what we are.

In any other era, Catholics could dress like most other people, and not run the risk of being called worldlings.

Quote

I feel bad for people like that, because they don't see how they're sabotaging their own life -- their own chance at earthly happiness.

It depends entirely on how she's dressed. Trousers alone need not jeopardise anything. But it's not clear from your post whether she dresses undeniably immodestly, or whether she simply dons slacks from time to time.

Thing is, some regard trousers on women as necessarily worldly. Whereas it's no more worldly than skirts on women! Or trousers on men, for that matter.

Quote

P.S. Being a misfit is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in public school. I probably would have ruined my life had I been as popular (with the girls) at 17 or 18 as I wanted to be.

Agreed. But I was not a misfit on account of being trad (because I wasn't trad then anyway). I was a misfit because I was unfashionable! But the teasing did make me rather stubborn, because I never wanted to be teased into being fashionable. I didn't think that I'd be able to be fashionable successfully anyway, so I'd still get teased!

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:03:56 PM »

Yes, it's true that in a sane world being Catholic shouldn't dictate that you dress differently. But if you live in Las Vegas, Sodom or Gomorrha, then you better stand out -- in many ways -- or you're on the same "broad path".

And no, trousers on men is not equal to trousers on women.

Men have to wear them to do work -- women shouldn't have to go out into the man's working world. Men are supposed to be the breadwinners -- not women. That's how God's plan goes.

Even when a female DOES have to work, she should stick with professions that do not go against her nature (including, but not limited to, child care, secretarial, accounting, nursing, teaching, etc.) All of those professions can be done in an ankle-length skirt.

Women only started wearing pants at the instigation of evil men, who wanted to blur the line between the sexes unto the destruction of the family. That is a fact. That is how I judge a phenomena -- by the intent of the author.

Not by the individuals affected by that phenomena in the here-and-now -- who might be "fine people" and all. One or two individual cases doesn't mean a thing.

Matthew

trent13 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:35:30 PM »

I think the problem with pants is that it blurs the lines betweens the sexes - that doesn't necessarily make it sinful. It becomes sinful for a woman to wear pants when they are immodest, just like it's sinful to be wearing a tight or mini-skirt. It's definitely better for a woman to wear skirts, but I don't have a problem with a woman wearing modest pants for convenience sake occasionally(for example, gardening, horse-back riding, hiking, sledding, etc...) Perhaps these are all things that one would argue are "inappropriate for a woman to be doing," or that "could just as easily be done in a skirt." As to that, we can disagree on what are appropriate activities for a woman; some men are more chauvanistic than others and some women are more feminist. And they could be done in a skirt, but it can be a real pain in the a**, like I said, for convenience sake. But, no, I don't think pants on women, in and of themselves are evil.

And it wouldn't take much to stand out in Las Vegas - wearing knee length skirts all the time would set one apart enough - but take that same person and put them in St. Mary's and she would be borderline liberal - it's all a matter of what is perceived as socially acceptable.

I don't think it is right to dress like a slut or a factory worker and, like Fr. Angles, I don't think it is right to dress like Little House on the Prairie either. It draws the kind of attention that says, "Look at me, I'm holy and weird, and extreme! I'm in a weird cult!" And who wants to convert to that? Just like falling in love, there has to be some kind of initial attraction to the Faith; "weird" isn't exactly a turn on.