CathInfo.com

So far the two arguments:

1) it violates the strict letter of the law
2) it's un-feminine.

#2 is very difficult to argue one way or the other, since it's at least partly subjective.  I personally think that it's possible for this kind of ensemble to be quite feminine.  But I'm not going to argue with that, since it's not an argument that can be won.  I believe that the flow of a skirt, despite the leggings underneath, suggest femininity.

#1, that it violates the strict letter of the law.  Indeed, this seems to be the case.  Well, I take a step back from that, it was never any kind of law, technically speaking, as in the Church never formally legislated this.  But I accept this in principle, using the term law loosely.

But I did not say that this was in keeping with that rule.  I merely said that I felt that it was modest.  I was digging behind the REASONING for the law, and seeing if it applied to this relatively new type of outfit.  You see, fashions change.  Just as it's conceivable that new fashions would be introduced that are in fact IMMODEST, despite the fact that they are not explicitly condemned by the law (since they were not foreseen), so also it's possible for some fashions to emerge that are not actually immodest, despite being in violation of the letter.  Unfortunatley, the Church has been silent on this matter since I believe the pontificate of Pius XI ... due to the Novus Ordo degeneracy, so we lack the authority of the Church on this particular issue.  So we have to apply the principles to new circuмstances that were not foreseen at the time based on the PRINCIPLES behind them, i.e. based on the spirit of the law.

But this is now what I'm talking about.  Things like being non-Catholic, birth control, living in concubinage, etc. are universally agreed upon to be sinful by anyone who still has the Catholic faith.  I am NOT talking about a moral relativism.  I am talking about informing one's conscience about matters that are DISPUTED among Catholic theologians and unresolved by the Church.  There's no sense in which several of your issues can be said to be disputed among Catholic moral theologians.

Similarly, with regard to doctrine, if someone comes on here and denies the Immaculate Conception, that's not tolerable as a Catholic option, but if someone wants to dispute R&R vs. sedevacantism, that's not the same thing BY ANY STRETCH.  Similarly, adhering to and holding as objectively sinful something that's universally regarded as such by Catholics is NOT the same thing as adopting a position on an issue that's CONTROVERTED among Catholic theologians.

I consider dressing modestly as something one can attain (like the Objective Truth) and more like the Immaculate Conception than the Crisis in the Church -- and anyone who has read more than 5 of my posts knows my position on that. (I tolerate just about any position touching on the Crisis in the Church, because I don't have the ability much less the authority to judge anyone on something no one on earth can solve with finality or authority.)

There is no confusion -- at least among those of good will, and who tell the truth -- about what dressing immodestly is. There are various tests: Would you be repulsed by a statue of Our Lady wearing that? Men, would you like your wives to go to a mostly-male gathering dressed in that? Daughters? Sisters? Mother? You get the idea.

Dressing immodestly is like pornography. A famous Supreme Court justice (I think?) famously said: "I know it when I see it."
I'm not going to put ", S.J." after my name and start talking which body parts have to be on the screen, engaged in what activity, etc.

Even if you did that, there would be some individuals skirting the rules and would go JUST SHORT of crossing over into the technical definition of pornography. See the problem?

We need to keep our Catholic sensibilities about what modesty is. Let's not let our daily life in modern-day Sodom, Gomorrah, or Babel taint our perception of this important virtue.