Author Topic: SSPX Immodesty Down Under (Read 7207 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 05, 2019, 08:04:52 AM »

https://www.stphilomena.qld.edu.au/photo-gallery/

Scroll down to the "Swimming Carnival 2018". Why does a Traditional Catholic school even NEED a "swimming carnival"?
Sounds like giving in to worldliness to me -- some worldlings think swimming and water activities are as important as breathing. (I don't)
I'm serious: tell any worldling that your 15 year old son or daughter has never been to a public beach or water park and hear all the sympathy dripping from their mouth -- they might even call Child Protective Services to report what they consider to be actual child abuse.

Anyhow, Fr. Raymond Taouk said in a sermon on modesty in January 2014 that modesty had "nothing to do with what we wear" and that "some people will always be hypocrites".

The SSPX priests in Australia have changing their tune on modesty, compared with 15 or 20 years ago. Young men in the parish are staring at women with lust during Mass -- not even restricting themselves to the many immodestly dressed women.

Just look at these pictures though -- it looks like any secular public school or protestant group.

But back to Fr. Taouk's sermon on modesty -- he was spouting a common error that I've actually heard from other worldly Trads. They say that modesty isn't about dressing to conceal, but rather about not drawing attention to oneself. So the practical application of this: a young woman would be "immodest" to wear a long skirt (because it would make her stand out), but "modest" if she wore shorts like everyone else. Madness!

Worldlings are full of excuses for immodesty and cross-dressing. Another stupid example: I've heard several guys spout that women wearing skirts places them at a greater risk of rape, because of the "easy access" that a skirt presents. Give me a break! As if a pair of jeans works well as a chastity belt? Come on, if a man has the intention and the opportunity (no witnesses around, she is defenseless, etc.) to overpower and rape a woman, do you really think pants/shorts are going to stop him?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:15:09 AM »

These things no longer surprise me; I expect a worldly and conciliar SSPX to continue manifesting a greater and greater worldliness.

forlorn · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:15:52 AM »

Some of the boys are more covered up than some of the girls there, which is a bit ridiculous. Although I suppose the question would be were they swimming together or separately. If it was separately then I suppose modesty's a bit of a non-issue.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:18:32 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on May 05, 2019, 08:15:52 AM

Some of the boys are more covered up than some of the girls there, which is a bit ridiculous. Although I suppose the question would be were they swimming together or separately. If it was separately then I suppose modesty's a bit of a non-issue.

Can I walk nude on a beach if I am the only one on it?

I recall a story about the BVM visiting a monastery, blessing the monks in their cells as she walked by their doors, but skipping past one of them. Asked why, she is reported to have said because that monk did not sleep modestly. Whether it was true or not, the lesson was that modesty is required even when alone.

PS: There are men/boys in the background of the 2nd pic.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:23:23 AM »

Whether the trip was co-ed or not would certainly be an aggravating factor, but notwithstanding:

1) Immodest attire was permitted for both boys and girls.

2) The parents consented to this.

Spiritual AIDS

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:25:36 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2019, 08:18:32 AM

Can I walk nude on a beach if I am the only one on it?

I recall a story about the BVM visiting a monastery, blessing the monks in their cells as she walked by their doors, but skipping past one of them. Asked why, she is reported to have said because that monk did not sleep modestly. Whether it was true or not, the lesson was that modesty is required even when alone.

Walking nude on a beach alone is different. If you are outside your home, there is always a chance someone will see you. People can arrive at any time, even at off-peak times. Maybe someone will show up to shoot an amateur movie scene. The possibilities are endless.

What level of modesty is required when alone? After all, I have seen myself naked many times. I have to shower myself, and I also use the bathroom by myself. One also has to get naked or "become immodest" while changing clothes.

I understand the purpose of modesty (the outermost defense -- like a moat surrounding the castle of purity) but -- how do I say this -- not only am I not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, but I'm not turned on by my own body either! I'm not some kind of "autosɛҳuąƖ". If I ever felt the slightest pull or temptation, you better believe I'd take appropriate action.

I wonder how the immodestly sleeping monk was dressed. Was he sleeping in the buff? If not, what's wrong with sleeping in a T-shirt and boxer shorts in a hot climate? Are we required to not be able to fall asleep (or stay asleep) due to excessive heat? I understand and agree with the arguments for dressing modestly in public, even if it makes you slightly hotter. It doesn't matter in that case; it won't kill you, you can offer it up, and you can always shower later if you get sweaty. But not being able to sleep could have serious repercussions on one's ability to fulfill their duties of state.

Oh, and not to be snarky, but does covering up completely with a sheet count as sleeping modestly? Wouldn't the sheet count as clothing of a sort?

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:27:51 AM »

The evil of having children dress immodestly -- even segregated into groups of boys only and girls only -- does much harm because it beats down and destroys their natural sense of modesty.

Boys and girls don't start out wanting to show off their bodies to strangers. That natural shame/modesty has to be beat out of them. Of course, this is easiest if you start young. The younger the better -- 2 or 3 years old works well.

The old 50's song "Yellow Polka Dot Bikini" illustrated this well. She had a natural sense of shame/modesty and was reluctant to expose her 98% naked body to a huge crowd of strangers. For that she should be praised, not critiqued or made fun of! Unfortunately, she went to the public beach in the first place, and consented to put on the immodest swimsuit...

I'm sure the woman in the song would eventually "get over it" and murder that natural feminine modesty -- and she would go on to become quite the whore.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:34:13 AM »

Maybe the SSPX could market g-strings and speedos?

Modest ones, though.

[Of course, in the southern hemisphere, topless swimming would be fine (very warm down there), to prevent heat stroke. It would only be prudent.]

They could add them to the US District Pinterest site, and donate a portion of every speedo and g-string sold to help finance the renovation/upgrading of the priories.

They would be Catholic speedos and g-strings, and after all, "We must be in the world, but not of it."

"We need to learn how to withstand temptations" and "we can't just put our children in bubbles."

Way to go SSPX!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:41:46 AM »

PS: I know an SSPX priest who was ridiculed by his colleagues at the priory dinner table for refusing to allow a 16 year-old girl to take a summer lifeguard job at a public beach. That was 5 years ago. According to the priest, they actually laughed at him. Just imagine the advice being given to parents calling in to the priory on such issues. Already they obviously lack common sense, but then the prieests place cushions under sins, and the parents reason they they have done their duty by consulting the priest.

If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

Vintagewife3 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2019, 10:10:51 AM »

I bought a water slide pool for our back yard (rather my husband did), and I don’t ever need to go to a pool again. I also, not thinking when it was first offered, stopped my daughters taking swim class. We wear modest suits even in our backyard, being at home is not excuse to skimp on modesty. I just wish modest suits weren’t so expensive. It is quite scandalous that an sspx church would allow this.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #10 on:** May 05, 2019, 10:27:15 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 05, 2019, 08:04:52 AM

Fr. Raymond Taouk said in a sermon on modesty in January 2014 that modesty had "nothing to do with what we wear".

Years ago while he was a seminarian (or a just newly ordained priest), Fr. Taouk was chosen by the SSPX to write an article defending the notion of salvation of the non-baptized peoples, which the SSPX published in the Angelus as their "icon of doctrine".

It is no surprise to me that he would say modesty had "nothing to do with what we wear", it is just another outward manifestation that he is a blind guide.

All I can say to priests like that is: Thanks for the warning. I say it all the time about "Pope" Frank.

Ekim · « **Reply #11 on:** May 05, 2019, 08:59:04 PM »

I agree. “Modesty IS the guardian of purity”. And we should all strive to grow in this virtue.

However, if seeing these photos above (or being there in person), or seeing a woman in loose fitting slacks sends a man into a lustfull tizzy then I’d say that man has some deep seeded mental issues that go far beyond ones simple modesty.

A well balanced man would simply look away and say a prayer for that person. If they felt comfortable enough, may kindly mention norms and importance of modest fashion. But to get so bothered that it interferes with your prayer life at Mass? HMmmmm?

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2019, 09:17:41 PM »

Quote from: Ekim on May 05, 2019, 08:59:04 PM

However, if seeing these photos above (or being there in person), or seeing a woman in loose fitting slacks sends a man into a lustfull tizzy then I’d say that man has some deep seeded mental issues that go far beyond ones simple modesty.

A well balanced man would simply look away and say a prayer for that person. If they felt comfortable enough, may kindly mention norms and importance of modest fashion. But to get so bothered that it interferes with your prayer life at Mass? HMmmmm?

1. Who said anything about lustful tizzies or interfering with one's prayer life at Mass? You're making stuff up.

2. This topic was created to demonstrate yet another piece of evidence that the SSPX has completely changed its tune on this topic. All the SSPX priests used to preach that women must dress modestly, which excludes slacks, shorts and pants. The new, younger priests counsel things in the confessional like "wear however short a skirt your conscience will allow".

3. I shouldn't have to defend outrage at Trad group-sanctioned immodesty to a TRAD CATHOLIC. You are a Trad aren't you? Those who follow Catholic standards of morality in dress shouldn't have to deal with the same insults and mockery they might expect from non-Catholics and unbelievers.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 05, 2019, 09:49:01 PM »

While I will not mock anyone here by any means, I'm gonna preempt my comment here by saying I'd probably be considered more "conservative" or "trad leaning" than fully trad by this forums standards. My questions here are purely my own, and I don't necessarily care how well I do or don't fit with any particular group besides, of course, the dogmas of the Church.

This thread raised several questions for me. Note that all of these questions are sincere. None of them are attempted to mock anyone's convictions.

Why exactly and by what standard are the people in these pictures dressed immodestly? What constitutes modesty vs immodesty, and how is that determined?

Going to a beach nude would be wrong, because a beach is a public place, and there always *could* be someone who showed up there. But isn't the whole point of modesty for the sake of other people? ie. I don't understand why modesty would even be a consideration in a situation where one is truly, genuinely, definitively alone. How is even sleeping nude a modesty issue?

Quote

But not being able to sleep could have serious repercussions on one's ability to fulfill their duties of state.

But also why? Like with the rest of it, my main question is where exactly we draw the line, and why exactly, how exactly to distinguish between "my personal convictions are stricter" and "You're wrong and sinning against the Lord" (perhaps there's explicit church teaching on this, but I'm unaware of it.) If all women wore burkas there'd be less lust, but only Muslims require that (to be clear, again, I'm not trying to compare people who have stricter convictions than I do to Muslims who wear burkas, I'm just wondering how exactly we draw these lines and based upon what standards.) But at least it makes sense to me. Being strict to not cause someone to stumble is noble even if we can't pin down with precision what exactly is and isn't OK.

But I don't get why modesty would matter why one is asleep. Like I really don't understand why that would be a consideration at all. What am I missing?

Your Friend Colin · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2019, 09:58:03 PM »

ByzCat,

A PAPAL DECREE CONCERNING MODESTY

HIS HOLINESS POPE PIUS XI 12 January 1930

Quote

THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.

The rest can be read here:

http://www.olvrc.com/reference/docuмents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf

Author Topic: SSPX Immodesty Down Under (Read 7207 times)

Matthew

SSPX Immodesty Down Under

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

forlorn

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Matthew

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Matthew

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Vintagewife3

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Last Tradhican

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Ekim

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Matthew

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

ByzCat3000

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under

Your Friend Colin

Re: SSPX Immodesty Down Under