Modesty: Does It Include Bare Shoulders In Church?

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1379875' date='Sep 6 2007, 06:12 PM']As pointed out earlier, depends on the culture. There are many fashion situations from a couple hundred years ago that we would find ludacris now.[/quote]

Yet God created culture and society. They are meant to be in accordance with the order He established, the laws He made, etc. Culture isnt an end to itself and not meant to be seperate from God. (not to say you think that)

[Lil Red]

[quote name='kafka' post='1379867' date='Sep 6 2007, 04:05 PM']Are you talking to me? Why on earth would I do that?[/quote]
nope, just saying in general to everyone

[kateri05]

[quote]okay, i talked to my priest (and friend) who used to give tours of the Vatican and the basilicas. he said that a general guideline of modest dress is required. Shoulders have to be covered, no sleeveless shirts are allowed (men or women). No shorts are allowed, and skirt length should be by the knees. He wasn't sure about capris, but said that they probably were acceptable. Also wasn't sure about sandals, but also thought those would be acceptable.[/quote]

you actually are allowed to wear shorts, its a length issue. you can't go above the knee. all of the men with us, with a few exceptions, were wearing shorts, but they fell to the knee. and we were specifically informed that women's pants (per the sign with the crazy looking jumpsuit) were acceptable, provided they hit at least the knee, so capris and bermuda shorts (which coincidentally were in style that year at old navy, hence why i remember ) were acceptable (and worn by many).

and before people argue about lack of enforcement, thats not true either. they enforce, i SAW them turn people away.

[quote]also, i must say that my priest (and friend) said that he was always taught by their canon lawyer teacher: Don't be stricter than the Church.[/quote]

beautiful advice

[kateri05]

[quote]Yet God created culture and society. They are meant to be in accordance with the order He established, the laws He made, etc. Culture isnt an end to itself and not meant to be seperate from God. (not to say you think that)[/quote]

so what about cultures where women wear pants? many eastern countries, i'm thinking in my mind specifically of saris, women also wear pants under a drape dress.

fashion and cultures change. the only important thing is modesty and there is no way to objectively say that pants are immodest. you can quote deut. all you want, but last time i checked, we have a Magisterium with final say on Scripture interpretation (not that it seemed to bother people in the veiling thread ), and this Scripture pretty clearly applies to CROSS DRESSING, not women wearing women's pants.

[friendofJPII]

I think age and weight are factors in this discussion as well, for obvious reasons. I went to the beach this weekend and couldn't believe how many women my mom's age (late 50's 60's) where trying to dress like hot numbers. Aside from the modesty factor, it's just looks bad. As Mother Angelica said, "whatever you had, you ain't got it anymore, cover it up!"

[kateri05]

[God the Father]

Ugh. Who cares. I'm glad people are going to church at all in 2007.

[Socrates]

Common sense, people.
Modesty is good and should be encouraged, but all this nitpicking gets really tiresome and stupid really fast (I haven't bothered to read all this overlong thread) - especially this endless bickering about women's pants, etc., which seems to all too easily slide into a kind of judgmental phariseeism.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1379907' date='Sep 6 2007, 08:55 PM'](not that it seemed to bother people in the veiling thread )[/quote]
totally uncalled for. The Magisterium is there as a framework for what is allowable and what is not, what is absolutely trustable and what may be doubted. It is not there to think for us, and there is leeway with the interpretation of many passages of scripture. It is an overreaction of the apologia contra protestantism that turns the Magisterium into this absolutized end-all-be-all.

I think the absolutizing of the pants issue is wrong. I have taken the position in a few debates (I do not remember if they were here or not) that pants were wrong for women or something to that effect, for the express purpose of exploring the issue, I like to test out arguments of that side and thought it was worth exploring, not dismissing outright, because generally traditional cultural staples are good for society, in general. My opinion now, after the exploration of the issue, is that dresses et cetera should have a pride of place in the iconography of the 'woman', and thus should be very visible in our society, but pants et cetera for practical reasons are totally fine. But there is indeed a problem in the lack of cultural presence in our society, because that's clearly symbolic of the androgenizing of our society.

But I will say the following unapologetically: nuns should not wear pants. period. haha, it's part of the iconography that I was talking about, and part of the nature of the religious vocation is that it is looked to by the laity as iconographic of certain aspects of the Church; in discussions of Chivalry, one looks iconographically to three things: the two main idealized ones being the knight or the monk. In the same way a nun is looked to iconographically in some sense for the idealized principals of femininity.

Why should the dress be supported as iconographic in our society? First, because we should differentiate in obvious and beautiful ways the two sexes. This is the fullest extent to which one can really take the passage in deuteronemy, it's not a random arbitrarity, but an affirmation that cultures should sustain such differentiating clothing. Second, because the dress is the only cultural symbol we have in our society that really accomplishes this; nothing else really elicits the sentiment of femininity that the dress or skirt does.

In conclusion: I call for more dresses and skirts; traditional-type habits for nuns but at least dresses, and pants are fine if the first two points are given their due reverence and pride of place. I think most Catholic women on this board do give due reverence to the pride of place of dresses to some degree.

If any bride ever wore white pants at a wedding I witnessed, I would cry, and not for joy.

nuns and brides are important bastions of dresses, in any case.

[XIX]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1380116' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:36 AM']Common sense, people.[/quote]



That's just crazy talk.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1380116' date='Sep 6 2007, 10:36 PM']Common sense, people.
Modesty is good and should be encouraged, but all this nitpicking gets really tiresome and stupid really fast (I haven't bothered to read all this overlong thread) - especially this endless bickering about women's pants, etc., which seems to all too easily slide into a kind of judgmental phariseeism.[/quote]
Agreed.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380201' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:50 AM']The Magisterium is there as a framework for what is allowable and what is not, what is absolutely trustable and what may be doubted. It is not there to think for us, and there is leeway with the interpretation of many passages of scripture. It is an overreaction of the apologia contra protestantism that turns the Magisterium into this absolutized end-all-be-all.[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Yep, the same argument works for me for veils as well.[/color]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380201' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:50 AM']But I will say the following unapologetically: nuns should not wear pants. period. haha, it's part of the iconography that I was talking about, and part of the nature of the religious vocation is that it is looked to by the laity as iconographic of certain aspects of the Church; in discussions of Chivalry, one looks iconographically to three things: the two main idealized ones being the knight or the monk. In the same way a nun is looked to iconographically in some sense for the idealized principals of femininity.[/quote]

[color="#0000FF"]Nuns are humans and most don't appreciate being held up as idealized women. THat said, I absolutely think they need uniform habits.[/color]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380201' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:50 AM']Why should the dress be supported as iconographic in our society? First, because we should differentiate in obvious and beautiful ways the two sexes. This is the fullest extent to which one can really take the passage in deuteronemy, it's not a random arbitrarity, but an affirmation that cultures should sustain such differentiating clothing. Second, because the dress is the only cultural symbol we have in our society that really accomplishes this; nothing else really elicits the sentiment of femininity that the dress or skirt does.

In conclusion: I call for more dresses and skirts; traditional-type habits for nuns but at least dresses, and pants are fine if the first two points are given their due reverence and pride of place. I think most Catholic women on this board do give due reverence to the pride of place of dresses to some degree.

If any bride ever wore white pants at a wedding I witnessed, I would cry, and not for joy.

nuns and brides are important bastions of dresses, in any case.[/quote]

[color="#0000FF"]Dresses are good to keep for special occasions when you have nothing important to do but look good or mark an important event. But for actual real life, nothing beats a good pant of comfortable pants. [/color]

[kafka]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380201' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:50 AM']Why should the dress be supported as iconographic in our society? First, because we should differentiate in obvious and beautiful ways the two sexes. This is the fullest extent to which one can really take the passage in deuteronemy, it's not a random arbitrarity, but an affirmation that cultures should sustain such differentiating clothing. Second, because the dress is the only cultural symbol we have in our society that really accomplishes this; nothing else really elicits the sentiment of femininity that the dress or skirt does.[/quote]

I agree with you only I would add that we should also differentiate between male and female in clothing because of the seperate and different roles God has established for them in society

Edited September 7, 2007 by kafka

[N/A Gone]

Why does our clothing need to reflect that?

God did make both parties naked. I dont think Clothing is needed for gender ID.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380335' date='Sep 7 2007, 11:11 AM']I agree with you only I would add that we should also differentiate between male and female in clothing because of the seperate and different roles God has established for them in society[/quote]
There is no disguising the fact that I am a woman, even wearing pants. Which, by the way, are cut to accomodate the differences in a woman's frame.

I'm not going to the men's department store to get clothing, that's for sure ...

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380367' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:15 PM']Why does our clothing need to reflect that?[/quote]

Though men and woman have profound similarities, so they also have profound differences. These differences are expressed in the physical makeup of our bodies as well as in the roles God has assigned both respective sexes. Now we know because of concupiscence it is not correct, possible or fitting to go around naked, so our clothing should express and reflect our physical features as well as roles as well as modesty.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380388' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:41 PM']Though men and woman have profound similarities, so they also have profound differences. These differences are expressed in the physical makeup of our bodies as well as in the roles God has assigned both respective sexes. Now we know because of concupiscence it is not correct, possible or fitting to go around naked, so our clothing should express and reflect our physical features as well as roles as well as modesty.[/quote]
I think pants can do that for a woman as well as skirts.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380367' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:15 PM']Why does our clothing need to reflect that?

God did make both parties naked. I dont think Clothing is needed for gender ID.[/quote]
Clearly, the bible verse quoted earlier does. Neither men -- nor women -- should cross-dress. Mens' and womens' bodies are shaped very differently (after puberty, of course) and the different clothing styles for the different genders reflect this. I guarantee you'd look awful in your wife's pants (even if they did fit).

[kafka]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1380392' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:44 PM']I think pants can do that for a woman as well as skirts.[/quote]

I dont think it is a significant enough of a difference.

All in all I am not attacking woman, I am criticizing our sinful secular culture and the leaders who fail to make laws based on Sacred-Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. My posts are not meant to be personal. I have never personally criticized a woman for wearing pants nor will I ever. People need to make their own choices and figure out God's will on their own. If anything I am more critical of men. My ideas are meant for society in general.

My views are clear I feel no more need to debate here.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380399' date='Sep 7 2007, 12:58 PM']I dont think it is a significant enough of a difference.[/quote]
Obviously, you have not tried wearing women's pants ...