Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[beatitude]

It's kind of like... leading an alcoholic to a bar. They alcoholic still makes his own choice to drink or not. But you've made it possible for him to choose it, because of you. If you hadn't lead him to the bar, he would not have had to fight through this decision (whichever one he chooses to make).

 

(I'm not saying guys are like alcoholics when it comes to chastity! just making an example).

 

How is 'making an example' any different from 'saying guys are like alcoholics when it comes to chastity'? You have even begun this post with, "It's kind of like..." That is a direct comparison, and it is insulting to women (our bodies are like a bar now?), to men (who are apparently thirsting after us in the same way an alcoholic craves the next drink), and to people who suffer from alcoholism (which is an addiction often stemming from mental illness or other great trouble in a person's life, and cannot be said to be a free uncomplicated choice).

 

I am not happy with any approach to spirituality and chastity that puts the female human form on the same level as a bottle of beer within reach of an alcoholic. This really is horrifying, and it makes me worried for you - there are some guys out there with a controlling streak who will happily take advantage of this line of thinking in a woman, all under the guise of being 'holy'. I've seen it happen.

[MarysLittleFlower]

How is 'making an example' any different from 'saying guys are like alcoholics when it comes to chastity'? You have even begun this post with, "It's kind of like..." That is a direct comparison, and it is insulting to women (our bodies are like a bar now?), to men (who are apparently thirsting after us in the same way an alcoholic craves the next drink), and to people who suffer from alcoholism (which is an addiction often stemming from mental illness or other great trouble in a person's life, and cannot be said to be a free uncomplicated choice).

 

I am not happy with any approach to spirituality and chastity that puts the female human form on the same level as a bottle of beer within reach of an alcoholic. This really is horrifying, and it makes me worried for you - there are some guys out there with a controlling streak who will happily take advantage of this line of thinking in a woman, all under the guise of being 'holy'. I've seen it happen.

 

I think you might be reading too much into the example... it wasn't meant that way. I was trying to think of any example of someone leading another person to something sinful, that is not related to lust. THe reason I said it's not a comparison is because I don't want to claim that most guys are addicted to impurity or something.

 

You're honestly reading it more deeply than I intended to write it, it's really late and this is the only example I could think of :)

 

and the "beer" wasn't compared to the woman, but to the lustful thought. The person leading the guy to the bar was compared to the woman... 

 

Just to make it really extra clear to everyone :)

 

alcoholic --> the guy, though this analogy falls apart because I wouldn't say that every guy is addicted to lust

 

the person leading the guy to the bar --> choice of immodest clothing

 

the beer --> lustful thought (not the woman)

 

it was just an example :)

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[EmilyAnn]

I think those two things are related... modesty guards dignity by preventing others from objectifying us, by lusting. At least that's been my understanding.

 

I don't think it's contradictory... because I'm not saying that women are responsible for the men *choosing* the sin. Men are responsible for choosing the sin, if they choose it. But before they choose it, there's a whole battle going on in their minds. My point is that the women are responsible for bringing this battle to their minds if they dress in a way that causes lust. If they dress modestly and the guy still lusts, then he was looking for it and the woman didn't do anything. Also, some women might be immodest on purpose, and others in ignorance, I guess that would affect culpability. But the basic premise: that we shouldn't present occasions of sin - I think that's the Catholic teaching. Women are not helping themselves or the men if they dress immodestly: the men find themselves in an occasion of sin even if they're trying hard to live chastely, and the women are putting themselves in a position where they are being objectified... 

My dignity is not dependent on whether or not someone lusts after me or objectifies me. I have dignity regardless of that. When I lose my dignity is when I stop respecting myself or objectify myself. If I go out in sandals and a foot fetishist lusts after me, have I lost my dignity? 

I am very concerned that some of the things you say are objectifying and denigrating to the dignity of women, under the guise of "holiness".

[MarysLittleFlower]

My dignity is not dependent on whether or not someone lusts after me or objectifies me. I have dignity regardless of that. When I lose my dignity is when I stop respecting myself or objectify myself. If I go out in sandals and a foot fetishist lusts after me, have I lost my dignity? 

I am very concerned that some of the things you say are objectifying and denigrating to the dignity of women, under the guise of "holiness".

 

I didn't mean that a person loses their dignity as a human being, I don't really know about that and when a person would or would not lose dignity. Nor was I talking about when they did nothing and someone still lusts after them. I meant if a person is immodest, they are bearing too much of themselves to the public and they can become objectified as a result, so their dignity is in a way insulted against. It's like they are not acting in accordance with their dignity, they are 'veiling what should remain hidden'. I don't just mean skin, it affects more than that maybe because we're both body and soul... not sure about this part, I'm kind of tired lol.

 

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

 

I don't think it's denigrating to women to say that we should not lead others into a temptation. No human being should lead another human being into any temptation, of any sort, be it anger or lust or pride or jealousy etc. We should try to look out for one another.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[EmilyAnn]

I didn't mean that a person loses their dignity as a human being, I don't really know about that and when a person would or would not lose dignity. Nor was I talking about when they did nothing and someone still lusts after them. I meant if a person is immodest, they are bearing too much of themselves to the public and they can become objectified as a result, so their dignity is in a way insulted against. It's like they are not acting in accordance with their dignity, they are 'veiling what should remain hidden'. I don't just mean skin, it affects more than that maybe because we're both body and soul... not sure about this part, I'm kind of tired lol.

 

 

Again...no. As I have already said, one's dignity is insulted when they objectify themselves not when others do. That is a crucial difference that you do not seem to understand. 

 

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

 

I don't think it's denigrating to women to say that we should not lead others into a temptation. No human being should lead another human being into any temptation, of any sort, be it anger or lust or pride or jealousy etc. We should try to look out for one another.

 

You quote the Catechism but you seem to be ignoring the rest of the section you quote from. 

It is denigrating to objectify women and portray them as objects for lust. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Again...no. As I have already said, one's dignity is insulted when they objectify themselves not when others do. That is a crucial difference that you do not seem to understand. 

 

You quote the Catechism but you seem to be ignoring the rest of the section you quote from. 

It is denigrating to objectify women and portray them as objects for lust. 

 

I never said I support denigrating women and portraying them as objects of lust, I think that's actually something that I'm arguing against doing here...

 

I'm confused sorry.

 

What do you mean by "objectify themselves"? Immodesty could be objectifying oneself though? this is related to immodesty, not people objectifying you when you're not doing anything to objectify yourself. (now I should start a new paragraph before I say the word "objectify" again..lol :)).

 

I think we are misunderstanding what the other is saying...

[EmilyAnn]

I never said I support denigrating women and portraying them as objects of lust, I think that's actually something that I'm arguing against doing here...

 

I'm confused sorry.

 

What do you mean by "objectify themselves"? Immodesty could be objectifying oneself though? this is related to immodesty, not people objectifying you when you're not doing anything to objectify yourself. (now I should start a new paragraph before I say the word "objectify" again..lol :)).

 

I think we are misunderstanding what the other is saying...

 

Purposefully dressing in a provocative way could be objectifying oneself, yes. But it could also refer to the way one behaves regardless of dress. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Okay I agree :)

[jim111]

The problem is there are two contradictory lines of thinking. You say "men are responsible" and then go on to say "but women need to cover up to stop men from lusting". Dressing modestly should be first and foremost about one's own dignity and respect for oneself yet this is never mentioned in these discussions. It's always about women being lusted after and that is wrong. As I have said, it is objectifying. You should not be thinking when you dress "am I going to be lusted after?". You should be thinking "am I dressing with dignity and self-respect?". Making modesty about how much of one's body is covered is a denigration of the virtue. 

Could you find the doctrine for this, cause every I have read says differently. Yes dignity is important, but Catholic doctrine has never supported sacrificing modesty, because ones dignity is compromised dignity. Correct me with doctrine I am wrong and use doctrine not personal opinion.

 

There are two aspects to Christian modesty. The first is to

avoid being an occasion of sin. The second, more positively

speaking, is to be instilled with the spirit of modesty inspired by

a deep love for the virtue of chastity, and also by the proper

understanding that our clothing is meant to enhance the

dignity of the human body and to be a symbol of our state in life.

Both aspects, while in no way excluding men, are much more important

for women. Because of the natural differences in the genders,

women are both far more prone to be occasions of sin, and, being

"the weaker vessel" (1Pet. 3:7),to be treated with less dignity

or respect. Proper dress does much to overcome this, and this is why

St. Paul wrote in the New Testament that women should appear

"in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and

sobriety."

(1 Tim. 2:9)

 Those who serve God
 

"The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up.  O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians."

Pius XII to Catholic Young Women's Groups of Italy

THIS LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED BY: THE LEAGUE FOR MODESTY IN DRESS, NY

Modesty quote

 It's always about women being lusted after and that is wrong. As I have said, it is objectifying. You should not be thinking when you dress "am I going to be lusted after?". You should be thinking "am I dressing with dignity and self-respect?". Making modesty about how much of one's body is covered is a denigration of the virtue.

 

MARY DISAGREES

 

Bl. Jacinta having heard the words of Our Lady of

Fatima stated:

"...the sins that bring most souls to Hell are the sins

of the flesh. Certain fashions are going to be

introduced which will offend Our Lord very

much. Those who serve God should not follow

these fashions. The Church has no fashions;

Our Lord is always the same.The sins of the

world are too great. If only people knew what

eternity is they would do everything to change

their lives. People lose their souls because they

do not think about the death of Our Lord

and do not do penance."

Jacintas Death

 

My dignity is not dependent on whether or not someone lusts after me or objectifies me. I have dignity regardless of that. When I lose my dignity is when I stop respecting myself or objectify myself. If I go out in sandals and a foot fetishist lusts after me, have I lost my dignity? 

I am very concerned that some of the things you say are objectifying and denigrating to the dignity of women, under the guise of "holiness".

Your dignity may not be determined or weather or not you are objectified. However if women or men dress in a way the church has deemed indecent, they are guilty of the sin of scandal. Which as I stated above is the primary purpose of modesty.

[Maggyie]

 

MARY DISAGREES

 

Bl. Jacinta having heard the words of Our Lady of

Fatima stated:

"...the sins that bring most souls to Hell are the sins

of the flesh. Certain fashions are going to be

introduced which will offend Our Lord very

much. Those who serve God should not follow

these fashions. The Church has no fashions;

Our Lord is always the same.The sins of the

world are too great. If only people knew what

eternity is they would do everything to change

their lives. People lose their souls because they

do not think about the death of Our Lord

and do not do penance."

Jacintas Death

 

While your underlining is very interesting Fatima is not part of the Church's teaching.

[arfink]

I also find your use of caps, large type, and bold faces with excessive underlining to be unnecessary. FYI, doing such things is generally treated as though you are shouting, and is very bad Internet etiquette.

[Nihil Obstat]

I also find your use of caps, large type, and bold faces with excessive underlining to be unnecessary. FYI, doing such things is generally treated as though you are shouting, and is very bad Internet etiquette.

Normally I would agree, but it looks as if this was cut and pasted from an online source, and the forum software is pretty hit and miss when it comes to preserving formatting in a coherent manner.

[EmilyAnn]

Could you find the doctrine for this, cause every I have read says differently. Yes dignity is important, but Catholic doctrine has never supported sacrificing modesty, because ones dignity is compromised dignity. Correct me with doctrine I am wrong and use doctrine not personal opinion.

 

If I have to give doctrine then so do you, and nothing you have presented is doctrine. 

[EmilyAnn]

How about taking a good look at the Catechism?

[beatitude]

How about taking a good look at the Catechism?

 

I think the issue is that people are defining modesty very differently. MLF highlighted the statement, 'Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person', and I would absolutely agree with that - but I don't take that sentence to be referring to sleeve and skirt lengths. For me it's about an attitude of the heart. When I read that sentence, I always think of Jesus' teaching that we should not pray to be seen on street corners, but retreat to our rooms and shut the door. This is a beautiful metaphor for the 'intimate centre', and how to protect it and draw strength from it without showing off. Modesty colours all areas of life, and to reduce it just to clothing (and, let's be honest, women's clothing - people who support the fraudulent 'Mary-like standards' may declare that they support modesty for men, but they spend hardly any time talking about it) does it a disservice. It's also inimical to the idea of modesty, which is about the interior. The hyper-focus on clothing makes it all about externals, and can sometimes verge on the immodest because of all the attention people give it - public sighs on how hard it is to find appropriate clothes, etc. I am reminded of Jesus' statement on longer tassels and broader phylacteries, also from that gospel, only here it's about longer skirts and lacier mantillas.

 

The irony is that my usual clothing consists of long skirts (lengths ranging from knee to ankle). I do wear trousers sometimes, and T-shirts (gosh, my salacious elbows...), but nothing that would raise eyebrows. I am not sitting in a miniskirt or a bikini as I write this. But my clothing is not the central thing when it comes to modest living. It's a consequence of other, more important things. As a younger Catholic (aged about twenty, twenty-one) I just couldn't see that. I went through a phase of being obsessed with the 'modesty' externals, and I did look seriously at those 'Mary-like standards' (although thankfully even then I could smell the fish). Anyone who thought I was doing it wrong had to be prayed for, very sweetly and very charitably, because they just didn't understand. I think we all have it at some time or another. You're lucky if you escaped it entirely. :P

Edited May 12, 2013 by beatitude