What Does The Church Teach On Modest. Rule-no Opinions, Doctrin Only

[jim111]

There seems to be a disagrement on what part of the body must be covered for one to be considered decent, this is in relation to women.

 

RULES

The base for all arguments must be catholic Doctrin

 -no opinion

 

You may support your arguemts with your own words, ass long as it is to expaline the relevance or irelevance of the doctrin.

 

You may also quote historical information that would logically lead to the conclusion that the church approves of a certain fashion under certain circumstances.

 

You may not state you disagree, unless you have contrary doctrin.

 

You can use tradition or lack of tradition as an arguement.

[MIKolbe]

Arguments are for he debate board. Please keep them ere. Thank you.

[MissyP89]

You may support your arguemts with your own words, ass long as it is to expaline the relevance or irelevance of the doctrin.

 

Now that is immodest. :lol:

[jim111]

Arguments are for he debate board. Please keep them ere. Thank you.

 

My intnention was to make this less abut arguing, and mostly what the church teaches on this.

[jim111]

 

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

 

 

From this we can conclude that any clothing that is higher then knee length, or lower then the pit of the throat can not be considered modest.

[Nihil Obstat]

Jim, what level of Magisterial authority has that document?

[jim111]

Jim, what level of Magisterial authority has that document?

 

Im not sure, but every argument i have heard against it, has been purely on opinion. It is certainly consistent with tradition, and even when the pope is speaking fallible we are to trust him unless we have a good reason not too. Cultural norms are not a valid reason for it to become modest.

 

Again, I may be traditional, but if a post V2 pope has allowed some leniency on this, I will accept it as a valid argument.

 

Here is another quote which I think has more authority.

'We recall that 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 knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.'

The Sacred Congregation of the Council (by the mandate of Pope Pius XI), January 12, 1930 A.D.

[arfink]

Im not sure, but every argument i have heard against it, has been purely on opinion. It is certainly consistent with tradition, and even when the pope is speaking fallible we are to trust him unless we have a good reason not too. Cultural norms are not a valid reason for it to become modest.

 

Why not? You got a document for that?

 

Also, why do we need an additional "modern" document to contradict a document which is not given with magisterial authority? Is prudence no longer valuable?

[Nihil Obstat]

Im not sure, but every argument i have heard against it, has been purely on opinion. It is certainly consistent with tradition, and even when the pope is speaking fallible we are to trust him unless we have a good reason not too. Cultural norms are not a valid reason for it to become modest.

Why do you say that? Are you simply saying that modest clothing is completely, 100% objective, and not related at all to culture? Because I do not think I can agree with that.

[jim111]

Why not? You got a document for that?

 

Also, why do we need an additional "modern" document to contradict a document which is not given with magisterial authority? Is prudence no longer valuable?

This is part of the ordinary magisterium, which we are obligated to follow under obedience to our holy father, unless it is in contradiction with other teachings.

'We recall that 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 knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.'

The Sacred Congregation of the Council (by the mandate of Pope Pius XI), January 12, 1930 A.D.

[jim111]

Why do you say that? Are you simply saying that modest clothing is completely, 100% objective, and not related at all to culture? Because I do not think I can agree with that.

 

What i am saying is that within all cultures, there is a minimum that can never be considered decent regardless of culture. I am staying that is what Rome was saying, since they issued it to the world.

Edited April 28, 2013 by jim111

[Maggyie]

jim, can you tell me what the modest dress standards are for men? Please don't provide  your opinion. Please provide direct quotes from the Holy Father. thanks.

[jim111]

jim, can you tell me what the modest dress standards are for men? Please don't provide  your opinion. Please provide direct quotes from the Holy Father. thanks.

 

I honestly don't know, but I would be interested in learning. I would also listen to saints as well as popes.

[Nihil Obstat]

What i am saying is that within all cultures, there is a minimum that can never be considered decent regardless of culture. I am staying that is what Rome was saying, since they issued it to the world.

Perhaps we are approaching this in the wrong way. What if, instead of calling it a minimal standard, we argue that there is a certain minimal universal which, more or less, all cultures adhere to. Call that the foundation of modesty. But I think modesty has quite a bit more to it than that. So there is a certain universal standard, but that standard is not the same as the standards of modesty.

For instance, I am willing to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong about, for instance, an African tribe whose standard of dress is radically different from our own. But I would argue that dressing the same in our culture is quite probably immodest. Would you agree?

[Maggyie]

I honestly don't know, but I would be interested in learning. I would also listen to saints as well as popes.

 

Why do you know about the women's standard, but not the man's? You're a man right - so you should be evaluating your own outfits for modesty on a daily basis, right? Why are you so well-informed about women's modesty but not men's?

[arfink]

This is part of the ordinary magisterium, which we are obligated to follow under obedience to our holy father, unless it is in contradiction with other teachings.

'We recall that 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 knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.'

The Sacred Congregation of the Council (by the mandate of Pope Pius XI), January 12, 1930 A.D.

 

False. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible, unless the ordinary magisterium is teaching on a matter which is part of revealed truth, its teachings are not considered to be dogma. While we are obliged to be obedient to the ordinary magisterium, there is ample precedent for the discarding of previous statements of the ordinary magisterium without formal proclamation.

Edited April 28, 2013 by arfink

[jim111]

Perhaps we are approaching this in the wrong way. What if, instead of calling it a minimal standard, we argue that there is a certain minimal universal which, more or less, all cultures adhere to. Call that the foundation of modesty. But I think modesty has quite a bit more to it than that. So there is a certain universal standard, but that standard is not the same as the standards of modesty.

For instance, I am willing to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong about, for instance, an African tribe whose standard of dress is radically different from our own. But I would argue that dressing the same in our culture is quite probably immodest. Would you agree?

 

I disagree. Modesty is determined by the potential of a body part to lead the mind toward lust. The stronger the potential, the less modest it is. No matter what society one is in, mans desire to lust is triggered the same way. I believe it is possible for an African tribe to be ignorant of there sin, and not be sinful, but once they hear the true chruch. They are obligated to cover up at least the parts of the body deemed immodest by the church. I would argue cultural standards or bishops could make it sinful to wear what the church does not officially deem immodest.

[jim111]

Why do you know about the women's standard, but not the man's? You're a man right - so you should be evaluating your own outfits for modesty on a daily basis, right? Why are you so well-informed about women's modesty but not men's?

 

I have never found any teachings about male modesty, but if there are please let me know.

As far as my attempt to be modest, all my clothes are at least knee length, and all my shirts are no longer than 2in below my collar bone. So I do adhere to the modest standards i am aware of.

[Nihil Obstat]

I disagree. Modesty is determined by the potential of a body part to lead the mind toward lust. The stronger the potential, the less modest it is. No matter what society one is in, mans desire to lust is triggered the same way. I believe it is possible for an African tribe to be ignorant of there sin, and not be sinful, but once they hear the true chruch. They are obligated to cover up at least the parts of the body deemed immodest by the church. I would argue cultural standards or bishops could make it sinful to wear what the church does not officially deem immodest.

Hm. I do not see it that way. I do not think that there exists an obligation, necessarily, for our hypothetical tribe from Africa to change its customary clothing if they are converted.

I mean, perhaps there does. But I do not think there necessarily does.

 

So what would you say about the clear fact that standards of modesty have changed dramatically over the course of history? If we assume that there is an objective standard (and again, I do not think that has been demonstrated), then that would imply that there was a particular time in history during which cultural standards of modesty were objectively correct, and in every other time period they were not. Seems like a fairly radical consequence, although of course that does not mean it is wrong.

[jim111]

False. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible, unless the ordinary magisterium is teaching on a matter which is part of revealed truth, its teachings are not considered to be dogma. While we are obliged to be obedient to the ordinary magisterium, there is ample precedent for the discarding of previous statements of the ordinary magisterium without formal proclamation.

 

I never said the ordinary magisterium is infallible.

 

On what grounds do you have to reject this teaching of the pope. It appears the current popes have the same felling.