Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[the171]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/06/things-modesty-hasnt-a-damn-thing-to-do-with.html

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not arguing either of those things, and I would really appreciate it if people stop putting words in my mouth. 

I did not put words in your mouth. I asked. 
Do you think there is a prescriptive element to modesty in clothing?

[MarysLittleFlower]

This, I think, is the heart of the modesty debates.  

 

Most people here know that modesty is important, and that there are some kinds of clothing that are never acceptable to wear. Some women feel called to wear skirts and dresses exclusively, some feel called to cover their shoulders and knees.  While that's wonderful, perfectly fine, and all of that, the truth is that that's not the Church's official standard of modesty. The standard isn't so strict.  

 

It's like saying heroic virtue is the baseline requirement for everyone's basic daily practice.  If that were true, it wouldn't be heroic.  We're all called to be saints, but we're not all called to be saints in the exact same way. 

 

I know in our culture i'ts the "norm" to show shoulders and knees. However, for most of Western civilization, this has not been the case. It's only started to be like that in the last part of the last century. I think that shows something? I don't feel that it is a strict dress code to cover shoulders and knees, or that it's going above and beyond the minimum to do this. I think the minimum is much more than just covering the 'private' areas like with a bikini ... maybe if we don't see this, it's because we've been raised to think this way by our culture? I'm just trying to question the culture, because i'd rather question that then the Saints who talked about modesty :) regarding the Church's official standard: I'd need to ask my priest on that.

 

But as an example: here's something from St Peter's basilica.... shoulders and knees need to be covered to enter :) http://saintpetersbasilica.org/touristinfo.htm#dresscode

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't know.. I personally don't find it difficult to cover my shoulders and knees. Might make shopping a bit more challenging sometimes, but that's about it. I don't think it's extreme, rather the minimum... not the maximum.  In our culture, the minimum is a bikini, but I think that's way below the minimum. Just how I feel about it. It doesn't even make it more hot in the summer, to just wear a longer skirt. I don't suffer not wearing shorts with tank tops. :) I think it's the shopping that's maybe more difficult, and takes more time for sure, and can be discouraging sometimes, but imo it's worth it. It's a very small sacrifice compared to what Our Lord went through. It's even a small sacrifice compared to what the Saints did. I don't think I'm doing something extraordinary, only what I should be doing, anyway.

 

as for heroic virtue: in order to be canonized as a Saint, a person needs to show heroic virtue... it doesn't mean all showing it in the same way (regarding vocations, etc), but my understanding is that we're all called to a life of holiness. I don't think it's heroic because it's rare, - but because it's difficult and takes much love :)

 

Edited June 9, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

it's not letting me edit lol... I think an extraordinary sacrifice is like what St Gemma did - she always wore the same long black dress, summer or winter, and a "mantlette". Simply dressing modestly could take extra courage and be a sacrifice in a culture that is promotes immodesty - because it's harder in such a culture - but I think it's just something that should be done, by those who are not ignorant of it. If a person is not ignorant, imo that's a grace from God, because only by grace can we go against what we're taught everywhere else. I think we can encourage others if we dress modestly, because we are helping the world be reminded of a largely forgotten virtue. I still remember how seeing people dress modestly was one of the things that encouraged me to question the culture's standards, and for some reason seeing them gave me much peace, and there was a beautiful sort of innocence to their dress.

Edited June 9, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

"Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment… 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. "

----Pope St. John Paul II

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think the quote needs to be understood together with other quotes as well (like from other Popes too). Because - what would be an example of the second? I don't think we can say that - we can use it as an excuse to wear revealing clothing, because it might "arouse concupiscence" even if not intended to. hmm I'd ask my priest about this quote too. :) taken too strictly and with no context, this quote can lead to the view that the ONLY time it's wrong to wear something revealing is if it's like a prostitute. But I think that someone can be tempted through immodest clothing even if the actions are not that obviously sexual, like even if - someone is walking on the street but dressed very immodestly.

Edited June 10, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

I think the quote needs to be understood together with other quotes as well (l ike from other Popes too). Because - what would be an example of the second? I don't think we can say that - we can use it as an excuse to wear revealing clothing, because it might "arouse concupiscence" even if not intended to. hmm I'd ask my priest about this quote too. :) taken too strictly and with no context, this quote can lead to the view that the ONLY time it's wrong to wear something revealing is if it's like a prostitute. But I think that someone can be tempted through immodest clothing even if the actions are not that obviously sexual, like even if - someone is walking on the street but dressed very immodestly.

 

For example, it is not immodest to bathe naked. There were some religious communities who required their Sisters to wear a covering even when bathing in private. That reflects a misunderstanding of what modesty is.

 

I appreciate your call for reading quotes in context ... modesty is about context - cultural, historical, time and place. Wearing only skirts, and below the knee, and quarter length sleeves, and neckline not falling more than two finger widths, that was a minimum level of modesty for a certain time and place. This is a different time and place, and while that way of dressing is still modest, today there are new ways of being modest.  People can dress in different ways and be equally modest ... depending on the context.

 

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

 

hmm I'd ask my priest about this quote too.

 

 

 

 

I hope that "I'd" is really an "I'll"  ... women especially need good formation in this area.

[MarysLittleFlower]

For example, it is not immodest to bathe naked. There were some religious communities who required their Sisters to wear a covering even when bathing in private. That reflects a misunderstanding of what modesty is.

 

I appreciate your call for reading quotes in context ... modesty is about context - cultural, historical, time and place. Wearing only skirts, and below the knee, and quarter length sleeves, and neckline not falling more than two finger widths, that was a minimum level of modesty for a certain time and place. This is a different time and place, and while that way of dressing is still modest, today there are new ways of being modest.  People can dress in different ways and be equally modest ... depending on the context.

 

Regarding bathing... I see what you mean. I can't comment on the religious orders though because they might be called to more than is necessary, in many ways.

 

I'm not really convinced that modesty is entirely cultural, historical, etc. I provided the quote  by the Pope before, saying that we should judge modesty according to standards of very virtuous societies... no one really addressed this quote... it suggests to me that there are societies that are objectively immoral and even if everyone there is used to immodesty, that doesn't make it modest. I tend to think that wearing revealing clothing - is objectively immodest, because it can lower a society's standards and be an occasion of sin. Even if everyone is used to really short skirts, the quote by the Pope that I posted before suggests that this doesn't mean it's okay at all, in fact desensitization to immodesty (as well as other types of sin or imperfection) is not a good thing. I'm worried about having this type of thinking because it can easily become relativism. What if our society continues getting worse until people wear bikinis on the street? they already do sometimes........ would that make it modest? In my opinion, it would not... even if everyone is used to it. I feel similarly about other types of clothing that Christian women have never worn, but now wear. Why this century? that's the question that's often not asked? for most of  human history, it's been considered immodest. People have mentioned lifestyle, etc, - but I don't find that my wardrobe gets in the way of my life.

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't think she's saying that modesty is only situational or cultural, but that part of practicing modesty is certainly about a particular time and place.