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

[jim111]

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.

 

I feel like when cultural standards make something immodest, which is not required by natural law, it is immodest in the sense that it reveals the intention of the person. A person showing her ankle in the old days, did not cause lust by the act itself, like exposing ones bosom. However if a man sees a women that's giving him signals implying she wants to engage in impure acts, its temptation. However it is also immodest becuase it causes the mind to contemplate what this woman is considering, which leads the mind toward lustful thoughts. Where as in other societies, there is no symbolic meaning behind seeing ones ankle. Exposing the ankle on purpose is certainly a lesser evil than exposing the bosom, but still not good.

 

Its see it like sacred music, its all about how it effects the mind of the opposite sex.  How would define what makes something immodest?

Edited April 28, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

I feel like when cultural standards make something immodest, which is not required by natural law, it is immodest in the sense that it reveals the intention of the person. A person showing her ankle in the old days, did not cause lust by the act itself, like exposing ones bosom. However if a man sees a women that's giving him signals implying she wants to engage in impure acts, its temptation. However it is also immodest becuase it causes the mind to contemplate what this woman is considering, which leads the mind toward lustful thoughts. Where as in other societies, there is no symbolic meaning behind seeing ones ankle. Exposing the ankle on purpose is certainly a lesser evil than exposing the bosom, but still not good.

 

Its see it like sacred music, its all about how it effects the mind of the opposite sex.  How would define what makes something immodest?

But then you have just accepted that there is a cultural dimension to modesty. Your opinion of it may be rather stricter than many on this forum, but this post, if you are sticking with it, pretty definitively introduces something besides objective standards in our evaluation of modest dress.

[abrideofChrist]

Let's start with what the Vatican requires as a dress code:

 

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1225862-i42933734-Vatican-Rome_Lazio.html

 

Then we should consider that the saints traditionally said that the virtue of modesty went well beyond covering essential parts.  It has to do with how we move, our attitude, and how well we blend in with our circumstances and situations.  St. Frances de Sales said he wanted to see "his devout people" the "best dressed".  Bl. JPII says that even being naked or semi-naked in different circumstances is appropriate.  That's far from 2 fingers!

 

Next we should consider the fact that if you look at some of the great paintings of fashionable ladies over the centuries you would find women's curves and body parts which the modern "Mary Like Modesty" campaign people would shudder to see.  Historically, there were half bare breasts, lines of clothes which emphasized the same or emphasized the curves of where they sit.  No where do you see an arbitrary 2 finger rule.  Even Our Lady is pictured nursing in the Holy Land and other places. Yet you no-where see or read of sermons railing against these fashions.  Likewise, you see tight hose or underwear less kilts for men.. 

 

If you look up traditional moral theology books, you will find no such thing as a Mary Like Modesty ruling.  Rather, you will find that all body parts except baby making ones may be exposed and considered decent under many circumstances. 

 

OP- your quotations make no sense.  As others in other threads/forums have pointed out, the Cardinal Vicar is not using an infallible rule, just prudence for his time and area for the Vatican area (if he was even properly quoted- nobody seems to be able to find the actual text in Latin for his supposed rule).  Likewise, there is and hasn't been such a thing as the "sacred congregation for the council".   The council of what, pray tell?  And does a vicar (he's like a chancellor for the diocese) trump a Pope's own writings (JPII)?  why did JPII wear shorts if they're so horrendously immodest? 

[jim111]

But then you have just accepted that there is a cultural dimension to modesty. Your opinion of it may be rather stricter than many on this forum, but this post, if you are sticking with it, pretty definitively introduces something besides objective standards in our evaluation of modest dress.

 

 

That is true, but I have only posted based on the teachings of the pope, who was speaking to the world. The parts of modesty I have posted on, are universal truths, not subjective ones. Actually you can dress blow the minimum standard of modest and one is still not considered to have bad intentions, in modern society. So all my reasoning has been on objective truths.

[abrideofChrist]

If all we care about is the absolute bare minimum for your objective criteria of modesty, then I would say loin clothes for men and women (unless they are in circumstances in which total nudity is appropriate).  Then, depending on our circumstances, we build up from that bare minimum.

[jim111]

  Bl. JPII says that even being naked or semi-naked in different circumstances is appropriate.  That's far from 2 fingers!

 

There causes, such as baby doctors, or emergencies. I'm not denying that. However to paln to be naked in public, when there is no vital reason is sinful.

 

Next we should consider the fact that if you look at some of the great paintings of fashionable ladies over the centuries you would find women's curves and body parts which the modern "Mary Like Modesty" campaign people would shudder to see.  Historically, there were half bare breasts, lines of clothes which emphasized the same or emphasized the curves of where they sit.  No where do you see an arbitrary 2 finger rule.  Even Our Lady is pictured nursing in the Holy Land and other places. Yet you no-where see or read of sermons railing against these fashions.  Likewise, you see tight hose or underwear less kilts for men.

 

Could you please post a picture. Nudity was allowed at different times in some art.

The church has allowed picture of Mary nursing and has deemed that these pictures.

However the church has never approved of women exposing there bosom while nursing in public, this was only art to show her as a loving mother. I would argue that this is not an evil and was good in other cultures, but because of our perverted society it is a cause for scandal.

 

If you look up traditional moral theology books, you will find no such thing as a Mary Like Modesty ruling.  Rather, you will find that all body parts except baby making ones may be exposed and considered decent under many circumstances. 

 

Could you show me these books which allow these body parts to be exposed.
 

 

 

 

 

[Winchester]

1. Oh great, this thread again.

 

2. lolrules

[abrideofChrist]

There causes, such as baby doctors, or emergencies. I'm not denying that. However to paln to be naked in public, when there is no vital reason is sinful.

 

 

Could you please post a picture. Nudity was allowed at different times in some art.

The church has allowed picture of Mary nursing and has deemed that these pictures.

However the church has never approved of women exposing there bosom while nursing in public, this was only art to show her as a loving mother. I would argue that this is not an evil and was good in other cultures, but because of our perverted society it is a cause for scandal.

 

 

Could you show me these books which allow these body parts to be exposed.
 

 

Better yet, why don't you point me to some books that don't allow it?  As I've already pointed out, the Mary Like Modesty campaign people have published their nonsense all over the place, but they fail to actually quote doctrine. They also fail to point out authentic sources.  Cardinal Vicar of Rome?  Give me a break.  Show the proof.  Whereas Pope John Paul II DID talk about modesty and how one could be dressed less in public depending on circumstances.  You can wear a bathing suit.  According to the MLM people, you can't because they are inherently immodest according to their guidelines.  You have asked for doctrine.  I seriously doubt anyone at the magesterial level has bothered to give a doctrinal pronouncement on dress.  Rather, they left it up more or less for the culture to determine what was prostitute-like and not (and that changes from location to location and from era to era). 

 

Where in the periods when short sleeves were the fashion (almost always the fashion for formal wear) did we find saints and respected theologians railing against short sleeves?  Exposed bossoms?  Necklines that went below 2 fingers breadth below the throat?  Good grief.  And why do the garments for women have to be dresses?  Didn't Our Lady of Le vang wear slacks?  And instead of a Middle Eastern/European veil, wore the traditional visor?  She wore what was appropriate for the different cultures she's appeared in.  Indian Princess wear for that century in Mexico.  If she appeared in Africa, I'm sure she would have appeared as an African woman with all the colorful flamboyant garb that is characteristic of that continent's attire. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

2. lolrules

Anarchy! Anarchy!

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Double. Was actually my fault this time.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Maggyie]

 

However the church has never approved of women exposing there bosom while nursing in public,

 

 

 

I will never forget the time I was in a small village in Ecuador and I saw a woman, bare breasted, openly and not discreetly (no blankets, no covers), nursing her toddler. The scene shocked me for many reasons. First, women are conservatively dressed in Ecuador and don’t show a lot of skin. Second, her child was not an infant, but a toddler. Third, the other Ecuadorans did not blink at the scene. I had to ask myself, why I was so shocked and I realized the answer was quite simple; I had never been exposed to a bare breasted woman nursing her toddler in the United States. It was outside of my experience.

 

This scene would repeat itself during my extensive travels throughout Costa Rica working with poor immigrant communities there. Over time, I became accustomed to the notion that a woman nursing her child was not dirty or sexual, even when she was not being discreet.

 

In America, we still struggle with a woman openly nursing in public.  A few weeks ago, I was in public with my friend–a new mom–and every time she nursed she placed a blanket over her child’s head.  I asked her why she was covering herself and she said “It makes people so uncomfortable to see a baby connected to a female breast.”  She couldn’t have said it better.  In American culture, boobs are purely for sex so we really have a difficult time when we see an innocent child connected to that boob.

 

vox nova

[Basilisa Marie]

I wonder what would happen if we took half the time we spent on telling women that they're immodest trollops and applied it to teaching men custody of the eyes and purity of heart. 

:|

[abrideofChrist]

Maybe this is overkill, but America has always been a land of extremes with some sense in between.  Think of the Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Calvanists and our Hollywood scenes.  Catholic women in other countries who attend the Traditional Latin Mass do not fuss over veils, slacks, or makeup.  They often go bareheaded, in slacks, and gorgeously made up with appropriate cosmetics.  They do not dress in (American) jumpers with socks and sneakers and a shirt, but dress elegantly in skirts or slacks with heels or fashionable shoes.  They don't think it is wrong to wear makeup (now that it isn't associated with prostitutes) and gladly wear it.  Temperance is a good thing.  It is harder and more virtuous to be temperate than it is to eschew wine or food or all clothes not conforming to a strict arbitrary dress code altogether.  Let's face it.  It is easier to totally forgo wine than it is to drink well.  It is easier to have arbitrary rules that the MLM group imposes than it is to figure out what is appropriate for that party, for going ice skating, for that run, for going to the gym, for swimming at the beach, and for Sunday wear.  If I can say that bathing suits are immodest because they don't have sleeves and don't go beyond one's knees, then out goes bathing!  Easy peasy.  No virtue.  If we think everything we have has to be sackcloth and ashes, then I can stand out when I am at a reception for a newly elected mayor because I can smugly assure myself I'm modest in my long sleeve high necked low hem jumper outfit with thick socks and sneakers. I think some people (not necessarily the OP, but many traditionalists I have met) are so fixated on sexual problems and "immodest" clothes that other people wear, that their obsession is in itself immodest.  We're not the modesty police of the less enlightened philosophy of a desert brigand leader. 

[Winchester]

I wonder what would happen if we took half the time we spent on telling women that they're immodest trollops and applied it to teaching men custody of the eyes and purity of heart. 

:|

This, this, and a thousand times this.

 

It says "shut up, idiot", but in a non warnable way.

[Maggyie]

this is one of my favorite images of Our Lady. It's by Jean Fouquet. "Melun Diptych" an oil on panel. painted about 1450.

 

[Basilisa Marie]

This, this, and a thousand times this.

 

It says "shut up, idiot", but in a non warnable way.

 

Lol, I just really think that my fellow women and I wouldn't get so peeved about every modesty conversation if every "Cover yourself!" comment was paired with an "Eyes front, soldier!"  We could talk about the modesty guidelines until the Second Coming (and we will), but I don't think that's the real issue.   Eve may have tempted Adam, but the sin of Adam is just as rampant as the sin of Eve.  The difference is that all we ever hear are sons of Adam pointing the finger.  Maybe if they took responsibility for their own sin, the daughters of Eve would actually care more about helping them out. 

[AnneLine]

I have been pondering how to say this for a while now....  every time 'the quote' has been quoted in recent memory.

 

It would seem to me that each of us has a responsibility to guard our own selves from an occasion of sin.

 

It is called avoiding a near occasion of sin.

 

If the sight of a person of the opposite -- or same sex -- is a cause of temptation, I would recommend these as part of your OWN clothing (i.e. modesty begins with ME):

 

 

[Lil Red]

Lol, I just really think that my fellow women and I wouldn't get so peeved about every modesty conversation if every "Cover yourself!" comment was paired with an "Eyes front, soldier!"  We could talk about the modesty guidelines until the Second Coming (and we will), but I don't think that's the real issue.   Eve may have tempted Adam, but the sin of Adam is just as rampant as the sin of Eve.  The difference is that all we ever hear are sons of Adam pointing the finger.  Maybe if they took responsibility for their own sin, the daughters of Eve would actually care more about helping them out. 

 

props! :)

 

but so sorry, it doesn't count. because that's just, like, your opinion, man. 

 

Edited April 28, 2013 by Lil Red

[Archaeology cat]

Maggie, I love you.

[Archaeology cat]

Nvm

Edited April 29, 2013 by Archaeology cat