Modesty And Proper Clothing For Catholic Men

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380473' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:25 PM']No, if Christ's words are true in the Gospel, then we may conclude he didnt wear jewerly and wore simple clothing. We know he owned no property and had few possessions:

{8:19} And one scribe, approaching, said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you will go.”
{8:20} And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have dens, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to rest his head.”

We can learn much about Christ in the Gospels. This is not to be underrated. Some of His words were a direct reference to Himself such as the beautitudes.[/quote]
You're extrapolating way more out of that than I am comfortable with. I don't think you can make definitive statements about Jesus clothing and hairstyle based on this passage, or really any passage that I am aware of.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380503' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:52 PM']sorry I do have an interesting answer for that just dont have time now.[/quote]

If you already have the answer, than whats the time issue? I am curious because I think that is a problem with this issue.

[kafka]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1380505' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:54 PM']You're extrapolating way more out of that than I am comfortable with. I don't think you can make definitive statements about Jesus clothing and hairstyle based on this passage, or really any passage that I am aware of.[/quote]

You misread me. I was extrapolating from that passage that Christ owned no property and had few personal possessions.

Concerning His hair and clothing. One can reasonably speculate and come to the conclusion that Christ the Son of God would have worn His hair according to the way men wore their hair in his time. Also based on the message and spirit of the Gospel one can conclude that Christ would have worn simple clothing. I dont have handy any particular scripture quotes but in time I am sure I would run into some.

Also in imitation of Christ religious orders have long wore simple habits etc. in the spirit of poverty which was the spirit of Christ.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380382' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:37 PM']Haydock Bible commentary
One issue to be careful of is How many things in Deut 22 we break now because they made sense for that culture but not ours. Among those things are: roof designs(8) planting different seeds in a field (9) wearing cloths of mixed fabric (10) and what do you think of 13-22? Ever do the virginity test on a wedding night or did you just pay the fine of shekels of silver and be whipped?

Deut 23:2 makes anyone without a father to the 10th generation damned. (3) would be consided racist. I think I broke 23:13 on active duty. 23:19 kills the stock market, savings and our whole economic system. I wish I knew about 24:5 when I got married.

My point is, much of this is civil law that applied to the jews at this time. Not a religious law that grew and was fulfilled in Christ.[/quote]

Sorry I had to think about it and type it up

Christ himself taught that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

This means not only that Scripture cannot be false, but also that it cannot be null and void, nor useless, nor no longer valid, nor irrelevant to modern society, nor of merely historical relevance, nor a mere reflection of past social and cultural beliefs.

If any interpretation of any verse in the Bible
has the effect of making that verse null and void,
then that interpretation is null and void,
not Scripture.

Even though Christians are not required to adhere to many of the external prescriptions of the OT (circumcision, dietary laws, etc.), we are all still bound by the spiritual level of meaning of those passages.

[Matthew]
{5:18} Amen I say to you, certainly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot shall pass away from the law, until all is done.
{5:19} Therefore, whoever will have loosened one of the least of these commandments, and have taught men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever will have done and taught these, such a one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[N/A Gone]

I disagree, I think that there are parts of the old test that are only referenced as a cultural situation. We can gather useful things for them, but I dont think they have the same implications for us as they did for the target audience

-Otherwise you need to treat the other chapters of Deut in the same respect. Things like what I pointed out with mixed fabrics, and other civil policies that have practical intentions, but not usage in our society.

This is not discrediting scripture, rather I think it is doing proper exegesis. The intention behind this passage followed at a spiritual level does not equal the same implication you are promoting here.

last question. When Christ is speaking about "the law" do you believe he is speaking of the jewish civil policies? What do you understand as "the law" Keeping in mind the Pauline writings have the term for many of its arguments.

[Aloysius]

there is a general meaning of that passage that men and women should have distinctive roles, and distinctive dress to illustrate those distinctive roles. what those are is up to the culture, however.

men shouldn't wear their hair the way women wear their hair. that doesn't mean some degree of longness isn't pefectly acceptable; the idea being that they do not attempt to look the way females traditionally look in their culture. it is a general cross-cultural natural inclination for women to wear their hair longer, in a veil-like fashion, coming from the very cross-cultural idea that women have a degree of sacredness due to their nature as life-bearers in procreation, and veils are pretty universally used to cover up that which is sacred and/or precious.

these are general ideas that conform perfectly to inculturation everywhere throughout the world; the Catholic Church has been very successful over the centuries in applying them as general ideas. This is not confined to 1950's ideas of fashion; though much of what some trads say might've been absolutely true in the 1950's (ie to do something like the things it describes in the 1950's would have been cross-dressing, because they were emulating the distinctive image of the opposite sex by doing it)\

Rev is correct about things in the Old Testament not directly affecting us. But the overall ideas surrounding these very particularized laws are still valid. One may see these particular laws as the way God commanded a specific culture to teach them certain things and ask "what particular way can our culture be taught these same things?"

[Paladin D]

If these details were an issue of grave concern, then Rome would've addressed it specifically. Common sense would say not to wear clothing that would lead another to sin, but to nitpick on things such as how many rings you should wear, is absolutely crazy.

Fashion is fashion, it changes. As long as it isn't sexually provocative, then I see no issue of concern. Every culture has different standards, a one-size-fits-all attituide does not cut it, and goes against the nature of cultural diversity within the Catholic Church. Don't twist what I just said into supporting conduct that clearly goes against moral teaching, the subject is about fashion, not issues such as Abortion.

[Aloysius]

not sure who you're addressing that to, I assume it's not to me since I'm basically elaborating upon a position quite closely related to yours, ie that these things should not be cookie-cuttered out of the 1950's as absolute principals of Catholic dress, unless you misunderstood me of course. In any event, I would respond against the attempted argument "if this or that were of grave concern, Rome would have addressed it", that is generally an attempt to silence legitimate discussion and debate that should be had amongst the laity. Rome's silence on an issue is never a command from Rome for the laity to be apathetic towards that issue.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380611' date='Sep 7 2007, 06:58 PM']not sure who you're addressing that to, I assume it's not to me since I'm basically elaborating upon a position quite closely related to yours, ie that these things should not be cookie-cuttered out of the 1950's as absolute principals of Catholic dress, unless you misunderstood me of course.[/quote]

It wasn't addressed to you.

It was addressed to [b]Kafka[/b], and anyone else who agrees with her claims.


[quote]In any event, I would respond against the attempted argument "if this or that were of grave concern, Rome would have addressed it", that is generally an attempt to silence legitimate discussion and debate that should be had amongst the laity. Rome's silence on an issue is never a command from Rome for the laity to be apathetic towards that issue.[/quote]

True. I don't see the harm in debating this issue; however, if these harmless fashion practices were on the same level as with immodest fashion/practices (to lead another into sin through lust), then it would've been addressed one way or another by someone of authority in the Church.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Paladin D

[kafka]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1380631' date='Sep 7 2007, 06:38 PM']It wasn't addressed to you.

It was addressed to [b]Kafka[/b], and anyone else who agrees with her claims.[/quote]

by the way I'm a he. And for men I think its vain to be too interested in ones appearance. And by the way I am getting tired of people not reading my posts carefully enough and then misinterprating them notice Paladin I said:

Men should not [b]overly [/b] adore themselves with gold or jewelry.

Men should not wear [b]excessive[/b] jewelry, such as gold chains or other jewelry

His watch should not be [b]overly[/b] expensive, nor [b]overly[/b] adorned.

A man may wear a religious symbol around his neck, such as a cross, or a scapular, or other. Such religious symbols should not be expensive, nor showy.


And this I write in the spirit of imitating Christ and the Saints.

[PapaHilarious]

argh...

Edited September 7, 2007 by PapaHilarious

[kateri05]

argh! stupid logout... anyways.


[quote]Such religious symbols should not be expensive,[/quote]

what does this mean? gold costs more money than plastic, how are you defining this.

[quote]Men should not wear excessive jewelry, such as gold chains or other jewelry[/quote]

the grammatical structure of this sentence states that gold chains are excessive jewelry. that, frankly is ridiculous.

"other jewelry" could mean many things. men can't wear rings?

this is the problem with your assertions, and mine and others objections, that you are arbitrarily deciding things that might be right for you but you have no ability to impose them on others or present them as these universal standards.

[kafka]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1380668' date='Sep 7 2007, 07:21 PM']argh! stupid logout... anyways.
what does this mean? gold costs more money than plastic, how are you defining this.
the grammatical structure of this sentence states that gold chains are excessive jewelry. that, frankly is ridiculous.

"other jewelry" could mean many things. men can't wear rings?

this is the problem with your assertions, and mine and others objections, that you are arbitrarily deciding things that might be right for you but you have no ability to impose them on others or present them as these universal standards.[/quote]

I stated in the article men should wear wedding rings if they are married. I also agree with the idea of men wearing chastity rings. I have no problem with the common gold chains that hold medals or crucifixes around the neck, since they tend to be covered by the shirt.

Some religious articles tend to be flashy and expensive. Look at a religious catalogue, you'll see them.

Overall though I think if one understands the spirit of the article one I think would understand that its important for men not to be vain or overly interested in their appearance or immodest because of their role in society and because Christ is the God-Man whom they should in someway attempt to imitate. In our secular western culture today their is a tendency, especially among young people, towards vanity which is unbecoming for a man. I dont feel I need to go into details. It seems obvious to me when I observe people on the streets, and meet people in public.

I dont mean to impose this on people nor criticize anyone here personally. I personally dont know any of you except through a cyber medium. I am just sharing my thoughts for any who care to benefit from them. These are not arbitrary, they are based on my understanding of the Faith.

Edited September 7, 2007 by kafka

[kafka]

Some interesting points from Aquinas from the Summa Question 169. Modesty in the outward apparel

Article 1. Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel?


I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive." Secondly, the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them, either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such custom. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "We must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things, for it leads not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell, but frequently to exceed their bounds, so that, whereas it lay hidden, while under the restraint of established morality, it displays its deformity in a most lawless outbreak."

In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways. First when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so far as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xl in Ev.): "There are some who think that attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man who was tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one, forsooth, seeks costly apparel" (such, namely, as exceeds his estate) "save for vainglory." Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to dress, in so far as dress is directed to the body's comfort. Thirdly, when a man is too solicitous [Cf, 55, 6 in his attention to outward apparel.

Accordingly Andronicus [De Affectibus] reckons three virtues in connection with outward attire; namely "humility," which excludes the seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is "the habit of avoiding excessive expenditure and parade"; "contentment" [Cf, 143, Objection 4, which excludes the seeking of sensuous pleasure, wherefore he says that "contentedness is the habit that makes a man satisfied with what is suitable, and enables him to determine what is becoming in his manner of life" (according to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 6:8): "Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content;"--and "simplicity," which excludes excessive solicitude about such things, wherefore he says that "simplicity is a habit that makes a man contented with what he has."

In the point of deficiency there may be inordinate attachment in two ways. First, through a man's neglect to give the requisite study or trouble to the use of outward apparel. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is a mark of effeminacy to let one's cloak trail on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up." Secondly, by seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward attire. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even dirt and the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's service"; and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "both excess and inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation."


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm[/url]

[Paladin D]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380650' date='Sep 7 2007, 08:00 PM']by the way I'm a he. And for men I think its vain to be too interested in ones appearance. And by the way I am getting tired of people not reading my posts carefully enough and then misinterprating them notice Paladin I said:

Men should not [b]overly [/b] adore themselves with gold or jewelry.

Men should not wear [b]excessive[/b] jewelry, such as gold chains or other jewelry

His watch should not be [b]overly[/b] expensive, nor [b]overly[/b] adorned.

A man may wear a religious symbol around his neck, such as a cross, or a scapular, or other. Such religious symbols should not be expensive, nor showy.
And this I write in the spirit of imitating Christ and the Saints.[/quote]

I apologize, for some reason I thought you were a female.

The thing is, what is considered overly expensive? Or excessive jewelry for that matter? It's hard to determine sometimes because people have different standards, it also depends on your background. I own a $50 Dakota watch, to some that's overly expensive, to others it's cheap. I wear it almost all the time, it's the only wrist watch I own (except for a broken Star Wars watch I bought years ago). I'm also a very skinny guy (142 lbs. at 6'1"), does this mean I'm blurring the line between a woman and a man? Since men should have more meat, while women should keep their beautiful figure?

I read your last few posts, and now understand the main point your trying to make. I believe we all can agree with what you're trying to say, but when you start to nitpick and get into specifics [b]based on your interpretation of Scripture and your preconceived notions that are a result of your upbringing/background[/b], thus creating your own standard, it's bound to conflict with other peoples' standards.

Your message is a good one, I just believe you could've presented it better.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Paladin D

[Budge]

I think Christians need to be more concerned about the inside rather then the out.

I take issue with fellow fundies who are into dress rules...

ie. I do not think a pastor HAS to wear a suit everytime he preaches, pants are ok on women if they are modest, and that some of this stuff can get overly legalistic.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='scardella' post='1380482' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:34 PM']Men shouldn't wear kilts. It's a skirt. Women wear skirts. Therefore, men should not wear kilts.[/quote]

A tunic is like a long dress....

[Jaime]

First I want to say that apparently Papahilarius is married to a pirate. It is quite possible that papa may be one as well.

Secondly, I'm going to guess that all male pirates would be considered immodestly dressed by some who are posting here.

Watch yourself Papa H.


And now I shall sit back and wait for the "Modesty and Proper Clothing for Dogs" thread. I will have much to say on that one. (My dog just walked by wearing a mesh thong speedo and several faux gold chains)

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1381181' date='Sep 8 2007, 03:06 PM']First I want to say that apparently Papahilarius is married to a pirate. It is quite possible that papa may be one as well.

Secondly, I'm going to guess that all male pirates would be considered immodestly dressed by some who are posting here.

Watch yourself Papa H.
And now I shall sit back and wait for the "Modesty and Proper Clothing for Dogs" thread. I will have much to say on that one. (My dog just walked by wearing a mesh thong speedo and several faux gold chains)[/quote]

yarrrr, matey. tis an egregious lie to be callins a fine gentle sir likes myself a pirate. continue in yer course of action, and i shalls be forced to run you thru.


ps - my cats are skanks. not a lick of modesty in them.

[Jaime]

I had no idea that we could say "skanks" here.

Thanks Papa H