Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[the171]

Actually there are set standards ... albeit neglected...

What church document?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Sometimes even priests are wrong, MLF. Yes, we shouldn't go around in our skivvies, but sometimes we present temptation without even realizing it. If I dressed only to make sure I would not lead a man to sin, I wouldn't leave my house ever.

 

I don't have a reason to distrust this particular priest :)

 

I think that we should just try our best :) if according to our station in life we are around people, we can just present ourselves in a way that would minimize any temptation and eliminate major areas of temptation. Also, showing wrists/hands/feet/etc is not quite the same as showing thighs... we can dress in a Mary-like way and that way we won't be showing something that could be a big temptation for guys (regular guys, not those who find everything lustful) like upper thighs/shoulders/back/cleavage.

 

furthermore if a person has a vocation that doesn't involve marriage, according to some spiritual authors they can also dress more simply and avoid adornment, to avoid people being attracted to them in terms of marriage. Generally, it's good to avoid extreme adornment anyways. I just took that from St Thomas Aquinas!

 

Hope that makes sense! :) this is just how I've come to understand this issue...

[PhuturePriest]

Ah, now the I've read the rest of this thread I see that my comment was unnecessary, that FP and others already addressed the situation, and that Mortify very gracefully apologized and bowed out. Edittttttt

 

You doubted that I would masterfully handle the situation with tact and charity? I must say, I am quite disappointed in your lack of faith.

[PhuturePriest]

I don't have a reason to distrust this particular priest :)

 

I think that we should just try our best :) if according to our station in life we are around people, we can just present ourselves in a way that would minimize any temptation and eliminate major areas of temptation. Also, showing wrists/hands/feet/etc is not quite the same as showing thighs... we can dress in a Mary-like way and that way we won't be showing something that could be a big temptation for guys (regular guys, not those who find everything lustful) like upper thighs/shoulders/back/cleavage.

 

furthermore if a person has a vocation that doesn't involve marriage, according to some spiritual authors they can also dress more simply and avoid adornment, to avoid people being attracted to them in terms of marriage. Generally, it's good to avoid extreme adornment anyways. I just took that from St Thomas Aquinas!

 

Hope that makes sense! :) this is just how I've come to understand this issue...

 

I can tell you that even when I was getting A's in impurity, looking at a woman's back was never a problem. Admittedly being a leg guy, upper thighs can prove to be a temptation, but I don't purposefully look at a woman's legs anyway. What business do I have looking at a woman's legs, let alone her upper thigh? What kind of creeper just stares at a woman's legs? Now, I don't by any means try to pretend a woman has no legs and always look straight up all the time. Seeing them when looking around poses no problem for me, and I'm not sure why it would. I respect if women don't want guys to see their upper thighs, as I can see why they wouldn't even if the girl is attractive (I know I wouldn't want my upper thighs exposed), but at the same time I respect a woman if she chooses not to cover her upper thighs. There are of course boundaries, but as long as you're bathing suit can't be mistaken for lingerie, you're not going to be tempting too many guys. That being said, if you were wearing something mistaken for lingerie, I wouldn't be tempted so much as looking in shock that you were wearing it in public.

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't have a reason to distrust this particular priest :)

 

I think that we should just try our best :) if according to our station in life we are around people, we can just present ourselves in a way that would minimize any temptation and eliminate major areas of temptation. Also, showing wrists/hands/feet/etc is not quite the same as showing thighs... we can dress in a Mary-like way and that way we won't be showing something that could be a big temptation for guys (regular guys, not those who find everything lustful) like upper thighs/shoulders/back/cleavage.

 

furthermore if a person has a vocation that doesn't involve marriage, according to some spiritual authors they can also dress more simply and avoid adornment, to avoid people being attracted to them in terms of marriage. Generally, it's good to avoid extreme adornment anyways. I just took that from St Thomas Aquinas!

 

Hope that makes sense! :) this is just how I've come to understand this issue...

 

I don't think it's about trust, it's about whether or not he's objectively right.  But if what he says works for you, that's fine in this case.  :)

Personally speaking, I find it strange that so many people say "Dress in a Mary-like way!"  What does that even mean? Dress like a first century Jewish woman from the Ancient Near East? Dress like Mary in a 17th century painting? Do I have to pull a Maria Von Trapp or a Scarlet O'Hara? Or does it mean dress in a way that is modest but also appropriate for whatever culture you live in?  People use that phrase to justify whatever standard of modesty they have, and to (implicitly) shame women who don't meet it.  I'm NOT saying that that's what you're doing here - but it's such an ambiguous concept. 

Dressing simply if you want to avoid marriage might be a good idea, but you'll probably end up attracting people no matter what you wear.  I grew up with guys who would ask me out simply because I didn't wear tight shirts and short skirts, because I looked like a "church girl".  You can't win, no matter what you do.  It's such a good thing for us to care for our brothers and sisters in Christ. But if we're putting more effort into helping the dudes (and others) avoid occasions of sin than they're putting into avoiding sin themselves...I think we've got a serious problem.  

[beatitude]

Dressing simply if you want to avoid marriage might be a good idea, but you'll probably end up attracting people no matter what you wear.  I grew up with guys who would ask me out simply because I didn't wear tight shirts and short skirts, because I looked like a "church girl".  You can't win, no matter what you do.

 
I agree with everything else you've written, but I just want to add something about the part I've put in bold.
 
It is not a sin to feel physically attracted to somebody. Nobody has failed the modesty test if they get asked out on a date.
 
I think sometimes people forget this, and this is why I dislike modesty advice that makes it sound as though female desire doesn't exist (where are all the threads on 'Joseph-like' modesty?) and that male desire is some primitive force that needs to be contained with the aid of Victorian-style crinolines (which I am sure Mary would not be wearing). It's not like this. Desire happens naturally. It's part of who we are. It's also not just about body parts - which should make sense, because sexuality itself is about far more than body parts. I knew one guy who told me that he sometimes found debating with women to be quite hot. The intellectual challenge attracted him and it had nothing to do with what a woman might be wearing. It isn't sinful to feel these attractions and it isn't possible to make them go away anyhow. They just happen. It's how you treat your thoughts that matters - if you fantasise about a person and basically turn them into a lump of meat, that is the sin. You lose focus on who they are and turn them into something quite different, which is not respectful and goes against our understanding of human dignity. But it does take some conscious effort to do this, which is why a lustful person could go on sinning even if the object of his/her passion was wearing a floor-length cardboard box with holes cut out for eyes.
 
MarysLittleFlower, from some of what you've written, I get the impression that you are confusing attraction with lust. You are writing a lot about modesty lately, and I feel that as you come to feel more at home in both faith and sexuality, you won't feel the need to think about this topic quite so much. Take care to avoid becoming preoccupied with any one aspect of your religious observance. It's important to have a balanced faith.
 
Also, bear in mind that not even saints are right on everything all of the time. ;) St Thomas Aquinas might think that 'unadorned' women are less likely to attract interest, but somehow I don't think the average twenty-first century man translates 'no jewellery' as 'unavailable'.

[mortify]

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

"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 Pius XII

 

 

 

Sorry ladies... no beach fun for you!

[beatitude]

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

"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 Pius XII

 

 

 

Sorry ladies... no beach fun for you!

 

If I Google search 'Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII', I don't even get the man's name. All I get is a quotation on modesty, enthusiastically copied and re-copied by groups with names such as 'The League for Modesty in Dress'. No source is ever given. Googling that search term doesn't produce anything else he said or wrote. From this I can conclude one of two things:

 

1.) The quotation has been misattributed (at best) or fabricated (at worst).

2.) The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII did nothing else whatsoever in his whole life except speak and write about female modesty - in which I case I don't think he is well-balanced enough as a Catholic to be taken seriously.

 

I think it's more likely to be the first one.

[PhuturePriest]

Is there a slim chance this quote is out of context and he might be talking about dress codes for the Vatican? Because that's literally what the dress code is for the Vatican.

[mortify]

Not ex cathedra. :|

 

Oh that's right, it needs to be ex cathedra for Catholics to follow it, otherwise it can be disregarded

 

:|

Edited April 9, 2013 by mortify

[AwedbyHisGrace]

Not ex cathedra or anything either, but ...

 

"While we are on the subject of dress and its relevance to the problem of modesty and immodesty it is worth drawing attention to the functional significance of differences in attire. There are certain objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not immodest, since the proper function of nakedness in this context is not to provoke a reaction to the person as an object for enjoyment, and in just the same way the functions of particular forms of attire may vary. Thus, the body may be partially bared for physical labour, for bathing, or for a medical examination. If then we wish to pass a moral judgement on particular forms of dress we have to start from the particular functions which they serve. When a person uses such a form of dress in accordance with its objective function we cannot claim to see anything immodest in it, even if it involves partial nudity. Whereas the use of such a costume outside its proper context is immodest, and is inevitably felt to be so. For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty."
 

( Karol Wojtyla in Love and Responsibility)

:) 

[IcePrincessKRS]

Oh that's right, it needs to be ex cathedra for Catholics to follow it, otherwise it can be disregarded

 

:|

 

Just pointing out that it's not a morally binding teaching. I don't have to confess wearing a bathing suit.
 

[Guest Allie]

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

"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 Pius XII

 

 

 

Sorry ladies... no beach fun for you!

 

Just curious, were there standards of modesty for men in 1956?
 

Edited April 9, 2013 by Allie

[CatholicCid]

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

"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 Pius XII

 

 

 

Sorry ladies... no beach fun for you!

Why would they wear a dress to the beach?

[homeschoolmom]

Standards of Modesty in Dress

Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956

"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 Pius XII

 

 

 

Sorry ladies... no beach fun for you!

I don't swim in a dress. :|