Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[MarysLittleFlower]

More sermons...

 

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20060730-Review-of-Sins-Against-the-6th-and-9th-Commandments.html

 

 

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20050410-Springtime-Review-of-the-6th-and-9th-Commandments.html

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Fantasy has alot to do with the stripping of modesty from the general public of the west. Reality is here and now and it's reality that we have to live with when the curtains are closed. People say well cmon it's just a little fun and others say gosh we need to relax sometimes. What about faith? faith is fun and relaxing. What about hope? hope is fun and relaxing. What about love? love is fun and relaxing. What about peace? Peace is fun and relaxing to. 

 

A priest said to me once that adoration is reality, your in the here and now. Where as with the theatre you can never be here and now, you can never actually be where the players are even if it's reality t.v. Don't forget the here and now, it is the best place to be and is free. I really do believe fantasy is a big demon infecting society including the church.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Interesting idea, and also it promotes laziness as well I think

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 We have 10,000 phantoms floating around in our minds as a society at present from fantasy, telling us other things that have nothing to do with the truth,the truth being things like modesty and morality. We become slaves to lies/illusions/make believe/fantasy. And i don't think the holy spirit will share a house with the brats,harry potter,marvel,jedis etc etc, well he may but he will only have a small place in our heart and not the whole house.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Papist]

I know some will not like this article ... nonetheless I think it is a good article. It is written by a man, so it is a man's perspective. It certainly can be applied for women.

 

Sexual attraction, a very good thing, becomes lust, a very bad thing, because personhood is subtracted from the situation. When a beautiful person is reduced to an assemblage of attractive body parts, that is fragmentation. We do not fall in love with isolated body parts, however obsessed we may be with them. We fall in love with and marry persons. Immodesty in dress distracts from a woman’s personhood as well as that of the man who finds himself evaluating her body parts instead of engaging her personality.

 

 

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2219

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think modesty certainly helps everyone :)

[Guest Allie]

I wish I could understand better what you all mean by modesty.  I mostly find these posts very discouraging. As if being a young, attractive woman is a curse rather than a gift from God.  I believe that I do dress modestly and attractively.  Maybe you think dowdiness is modesty but I can't see that anywhere in Church teaching.  I don't mean to offend.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I wish I could understand better what you all mean by modesty.  I mostly find these posts very discouraging. As if being a young, attractive woman is a curse rather than a gift from God.  I believe that I do dress modestly and attractively.  Maybe you think dowdiness is modesty but I can't see that anywhere in Church teaching.  I don't mean to offend.

 

Allie, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other because I'm also not sure what specifically you are referring to :)

 

What I mean by modesty, is dressing in such a way that people are not tempted to objectify you. It doesn't mean wearing a bag. It can look nice, just not show a lot of skin or be really tight.

 

Personally, I dress in a way that I don't show my knees, shoulders, etc - and maybe to some, this is dowdy, but not to me. For example, I might wear a maxi dress with a denim jacket. The reason I'm saying this is because in the past when I've mentioned my modesty standards, some people had a strong reaction to that, but I never said we should wear burkas. To me, something like a mid calf dress with a cardigan is pretty and modest. This doesn't seem like too much to me  :) or dowdy.

 

I also never meant to imply that modesty is only about clothing.

 

hmm does this make it more clear? :)

Edited May 29, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

 

 

What I mean by modesty, is dressing in such a way that people are not tempted to objectify you.

 

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

[dominicansoul]

There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

 

 

I don't think this has been the Church's traditional teaching on modesty...in fact most Saints have preached we have an obligation to dress in a way that won't cause sin.  

 

But maybe i'm wrong?? :idontknow:

[Nihil Obstat]

I do think it is going too far to say that one has no obligation in terms of not presenting temptation for one's neighbours. We carry that obligation in every aspect of life. It comes down to a question of how much one is obligated, and what particular forms that obligation takes. As usual, that is a question to be solved by prudence and discernment.

[Papist]

I wish I could understand better what you all mean by modesty.  I mostly find these posts very discouraging. As if being a young, attractive woman is a curse rather than a gift from God.  I believe that I do dress modestly and attractively.  Maybe you think dowdiness is modesty but I can't see that anywhere in Church teaching.  I don't mean to offend.

 

 

Allie, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other because I'm also not sure what specifically you are referring to :)

 

What I mean by modesty, is dressing in such a way that people are not tempted to objectify you. It doesn't mean wearing a bag. It can look nice, just not show a lot of skin or be really tight.

 

Personally, I dress in a way that I don't show my knees, shoulders, etc - and maybe to some, this is dowdy, but not to me. For example, I might wear a maxi dress with a denim jacket. The reason I'm saying this is because in the past when I've mentioned my modesty standards, some people had a strong reaction to that, but I never said we should wear burkas. To me, something like a mid calf dress with a cardigan is pretty and modest. This doesn't seem like too much to me  :) or dowdy.

 

I also never meant to imply that modesty is only about clothing.

 

hmm does this make it more clear? :)

 

 

Modesty for me is to always present myself as a whole person, not a body of parts. Granted, it is easier for me as a man, but nonetheless I make the effort to present myself as a whole person in my dress and body language. I believe one can do this w/o wearing a bag or a box.  And for me, being modest is more than what I wear. It also includes my conduct and body language and even what I say. All this has a influence on how I present my whole person. In fact, conduct is the hardest one for me.

 

 

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

 

Yes. This is true that there is always a chance that someone will look at me impurely, regardless.  However, that should not give me the license to walk around in a fishnet tank top and a g-string (sorry for the image). So where do I draw the line?  If someone does objectifies me, I want it to be objectifying my whole person, and not my body parts. 

[EmilyAnn]

I wish I could understand better what you all mean by modesty.  I mostly find these posts very discouraging. As if being a young, attractive woman is a curse rather than a gift from God.  I believe that I do dress modestly and attractively.  Maybe you think dowdiness is modesty but I can't see that anywhere in Church teaching.  I don't mean to offend.

I agree. Being modest does not mean dressing in a way that is "dowdy" or "frumpy". It does not mean looking like you're wearing a sack as a dress. But it is also not just about the way you dress, and it's not just a dogmatic equation of how skin one is showing (and that attitude only ever seems to be applied to women). 

 

CCC 2522: Modesty is decency. It inspires one's choice of clothing. 

(Italics are mine)

[Lilllabettt]

what about the native women who go about with their breasts fully exposed? surely immodest by our standards; but the Jesuits serve among them without blinking an eye.

[dominicansoul]

I'm sure it wasn't easy at first for the Jesuits.  Possibly they struggle as any male would in that environment, its only natural. 

 

And I happen to know a priest who served in some remote area of islands in the pacific.  He had all of the natives, both men and women, wear coverings over their private parts for Mass.  So, yes, there are still some "rules" for modesty even in that culture. 

 

But as emphasized, there must always be a beautiful balance.  In a culture where nudity is the norm, I can see where modesty would be applied differently.  Modesty doesn't "disappear."   Modesty is more than just having to do with clothing... but the reason it seems we speak more of how to dress in our culture is ...well.... we wear clothes.  lol. 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

I see what you are saying, but I disagree from a theological perspective... this isn't just something I came up with :) I listened to some talks about modesty by priests, and basically: they said that we should do what we can to limit temptation for those who are normal and trying to live a chaste life. So not those who look for temptation even when they see burkas. My understanding is that even if someone out there might still be tempted, we shouldn't do anything to contribute to that. If you dress modeslty and someone still gets tempted maybe because of their own issue - that's very different than dressing immodestly and contributing to a temptation for someone, by bringing this battle to their mind. (even if they say no to the temptation. and the choice to say yes or no is their choice, but we should all do our part too). That's what I was taught in those sermons.

 

I don't think this has been the Church's traditional teaching on modesty...in fact most Saints have preached we have an obligation to dress in a way that won't cause sin.  

 

But maybe i'm wrong?? :idontknow:

 

I read the same things...

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

[Lilllabettt]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

 

 

Well, I personally don't think Scripture should be over-interpreted. But zooming in on that particular part my interpretation is that Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves (with their hands, with a bush, with a tree branch) and then God arranged for them to have something more permanent. Something makes me doubt that God made Eve a long sleeved, floor length type of outfit.

 

If we are going to define modesty by the standards of the"society that most shows virtue," it may be that we will shortly have to strip ourselves down.  While they are not without their problems these traditional communities are in many respects closer to Jesus Christ than our own.

What I have observed is that the genital regions of both adult male and female are covered; the rest of the body is exposed and prepubescent children go naked. Men are not offended when other men gaze on the bare necks, shoulders, thighs and breasts of their wives and daughters. The sex organs are what is germane to sex and that is what is hidden.  The human body in these communities is not sexualized the way

 it is in ours.

 

When John Paul II was Pope, he had native women appear bare-breasted at his public Masses. Not that I approve of everything that ever happens at a Papal Mass or that I think it was a prudent decision in context (they were in Italy) ... but clearly that particular, soon-to-be-canonized Pope had a more flexible definition of modesty.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

Regarding the cultures where people don't wear much clothing... I think there was a quote before by a Pope, saying that we should judge modesty by the society that most shows virtue, and another quote saying that there are objective standards? I don't think that it's totally culturally defined (otherwise why did God make Adam and Eve modest clothing after they tried to cover themselves? their coverings weren't judged to be enough...). I don't know... it just doesn't seem to me like it's all relative, or like the cultures where very little clothing is worn, are just as correct in terms of modesty: this means that there isn't a rule of modesty at all, and that we can just switch to walking around in bikinis and it wouldn't matter. I dont' know...it seems like there's something more to it?

 

God didn't make Adam and Eve "more modest" clothing... he replaced their fig-leaf clothes with clothing made from animal skins. If you read the verse it doesn't say he was concerned to make sure Eve wore a dress and not slacks, or that her skirt was at least knee-length or that her blouse covered her shoulders or breasts, and how likely is it that Adam's clothing covered his chest? Who knows? It was not important enough for the inspired writer to record. The point of the animal-skin clothes was that it demonstrates that God continued to care for his poor children even after they disobeyed him. He didn't wash his hands of them; he continued to provide them with what they needed to survive, better than the carpy stuff they manged to cobble together on their own.

 

If you were a contemporary of Mary's and you were spotted in Nazareth in a skirt that fell to calf-length, exposing your ankles and part of your leg, that would be considered harlot-like dress. Even among contemporary Orthodox Jews, you are not going to see a woman wearing a wedding dress that doesn't have long sleeves down to the wrists, and anything else is considered shameful. It's 100% cultural.

[Guest Allie]

And there's the rub! To be honest, even if you do wear a bag (or a burka or whatever) there will be people who are tempted to objectify you. I PROMISE there are men out there who are turned on when they catch sight of you in a maxi dress or a calf-length dress. Not to be creepy, but to some men, that style of dress is actually more provocative.

 

And you know what, there's really nothing wrong with that. No matter how hard you try, you can't control other human beings and their normal biological reactions. Sexual attraction is normal and healthy. What a man does with his normal, healthy sexual attraction to you is where it can cross the line into an occasion of sin. And you can't control whether he chooses to cross the line to objectification. You can teach any sons you have to relate to women in a respectful, dignified manner. And you can dress nicely, to please yourself and look classy. But no matter how "nicely" you dress it's not going to mean people aren't going to be sexually attracted to you. There's nothing you can do about that and nothing you SHOULD do about that.

 

Thanks Maggie.