Modesty
#21
I read the SSPX modesty article that was posted. I am all for modesty and not putting everything out there for the wayward eye to ogle over. I'm glad that priest said people don't have to dress like pioneers either. Modesty doesn't mean abandoning style.

But where I draw the line is functionality. A swimsuit is made for making swimming easier. Bulky oversized suits would mean lots of drag. Olympic swimmers wear snug suits because of this. As long as we maintain custody of our eyes, swimsuits that reveal much of the body needn't be a near occassion of sin. And I don't see why a man taking his shirt off is immodest as this article said. A lifeguard would look silly wearing a shirt, or if you're mowing the lawn on a hot day or something. Now a woman with no shirt would be a different thing entirely.

Just my 2 cents
Reply
#22
I'm 100% with you, Pio. I liked the church sign, as it is reasonable for our present time. In Jesus' time there were no pants. Jesus & Mary both wore robes, a unisex garment it is. And Mary added a veil because that's what females did. No need to go back to that. Mary appeared to the children of La Salette *sans* veil--she had on a crown of flowers and a sashed long dress.

It's interesting to note how some Catholics (even my friends) regard a one-piece bathing suit as "showing too much." So they'll don loose clothing on top of it and believe theirs is perfect modesty. Well that's fine if that makes them happy. But I wish they'd realize that Muslims and Amish regard them as still naked. These groups are pained at the sight of seeing females' lower legs, arms, heads and long hair uncovered in public. Reality check: everyone sets their own personal standard, for better or worse. That's why I say intention is everything. There are naked cherubs on the Sistine Chapel ceiling; this is not the same as pedophile porn magazines.

Two of the cable tv makeover shows address the modesty issue regularly: What Not To Wear (Stacy & Clinton) and How Do I Look (Jeannie). The majority of clients are as bad as Kim Kardashian, so the hosts must get them to cover them up. In a few cases, the client's modesty is extreme. One was a Mennonite who wore mannish clothing after leaving her community, simply because she didn't know any better. Another was a southern Protestant with a plus size figure and a Little House On The Prairie wardrobe. She was young and seeking Mr. Right, but the interviewed men wouldn't ask her out because they thought she was older than they were. Another woman was brought to the show by her husband who pleaded with the hosts to make his wife more attractive to him. She was dressing like a nun without a veil. In those cases, the hosts had to teach them that attractive female clothing doesn't have to be trashy seductiveness.

Once I made a sales call wearing a long trench coat and a skirted J Crew business suit with nylons and heels. I dropped one of my samples and crouched to pick it up. A man in a wheelchair in the waiting room made a lewd comment to me about bending over. I said nothing because he was handicapped. Looking back, I wish I'd confronted him on it. I should have told him I was there for business, and if his eyes are his undoing, maybe he should put them out rather than enter into Gehenna with both eyes. Being handicapped doesn't entitle you to lust.




Reply
#23
You're promoting false conclusions by only stating part of what is true.  When Our Lady appeared to the children at La Salette she was reported as without the traditional mantle (perhaps this is what you call a veil?) yet she is still represented wearing a close cap and wimple in religious art, under her crown of flowers, not bare-headed as you imply.

In Jesus' time, there were trousers.  They were worn by men and women of the Persian zoroastrians, the Arab pagans and the Germanic pagans.  There merely weren't trousers worn generally in the Mediterranean region.

Intention is not everything.  You're promoting proportionalism which denies the classification of the matter of human action as either intrinsically good, neutral or evil.  There is an objective standard of modesty, it is merely not convenient.  St. Pio of Pietrelcina is a great example indicating the standard.  He would turn men and women away from the Sacrament of Penance if they did not abide by the objective standard.  Your claim that "intention is everything" denying an objective standard would make St. Pio a perpetrator of rash or harsh judgments (grave sins) in his discretion regarding Penance.

Covering everything up in all fora is not modesty (modesty is a virtue which moderates human action, attire and comportment to protect the inner man).  In fact, if your private and intimate dress repulse your husband, then you're being very immodest in the home.  Modesty is not synonymous with covering.  Public modesty (a virtue) demands that what is private and intimate be kept hidden and only revealed in those fora.  Private modesty demands that what is private be revealed as is prudent.  Modesty, as Our Holy Father taught in Sacra Virginitas, is the prudence of chastity.  He also taught, "For modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex, since it brings the soul to show due reverence to the body, as being a member of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit.  He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions."

It's not enough to have personal custody of one's own faculties and members by chastity, but also to protect the weakness of others (i.e., not scandalize them to sin) by modesty.  If a woman or a man dress in a specific way which compels another person to sin, then bad consequences are likely to happen.  People can cry about how the perpetrator of the bad consequences should keep custody of himself, but the fact is, without the compulsion, it's likely he wouldn't have done the evil.
Reply
#24
(07-08-2013, 01:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: You're promoting false conclusions by only stating part of what is true.  When Our Lady appeared to the children at La Salette she was reported as without the traditional mantle (perhaps this is what you call a veil?) yet she is still represented wearing a close cap and wimple in religious art, under her crown of flowers, not bare-headed as you imply.

In Jesus' time, there were trousers.  They were worn by men and women of the Persian zoroastrians, the Arab pagans and the Germanic pagans.  There merely weren't trousers worn generally in the Mediterranean region.

Intention is not everything.  You're promoting proportionalism which denies the classification of the matter of human action as either intrinsically good, neutral or evil.  There is an objective standard of modesty, it is merely not convenient.  St. Pio of Pietrelcina is a great example indicating the standard.  He would turn men and women away from the Sacrament of Penance if they did not abide by the objective standard.  Your claim that "intention is everything" denying an objective standard would make St. Pio a perpetrator of rash or harsh judgments (grave sins) in his discretion regarding Penance.

Covering everything up in all fora is not modesty (modesty is a virtue which moderates human action, attire and comportment to protect the inner man).  In fact, if your private and intimate dress repulse your husband, then you're being very immodest in the home.  Modesty is not synonymous with covering.  Public modesty (a virtue) demands that what is private and intimate be kept hidden and only revealed in those fora.  Private modesty demands that what is private be revealed as is prudent.  Modesty, as Our Holy Father taught in Sacra Virginitas, is the prudence of chastity.  He also taught, "For modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex, since it brings the soul to show due reverence to the body, as being a member of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit.  He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions."

It's not enough to have personal custody of one's own faculties and members by chastity, but also to protect the weakness of others (i.e., not scandalize them to sin) by modesty.  If a woman or a man dress in a specific way which compels another person to sin, then bad consequences are likely to happen.  People can cry about how the perpetrator of the bad consequences should keep custody of himself, but the fact is, without the compulsion, it's likely he wouldn't have done the evil.

[Image: JSBTl.gif]
Reply
#25
I take lauremar's view in this discussion, not necessarily about intention. Of course modesty has objective, universal standards. Now anthropologically, this may sound relativistic, but there's a difference between an African bush woman going topless and a girl going topless on an American beach. The context is important, is my point. An Italian man would have no qualms donning a speedo but an American would so that context effects modesty standards.

Yes, we need to make sure to cover up to prevent tempting others into lust but I advocate doing so with style. A man looks dashing in a suit and my heart melts for Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys (yeah yeah she did play a whore but she looked classy not slutty). And I will say again that just as we need not tempt people we need to also work on having custody of our eyes. When I'm at the Art Institute looking at volutupous nude Greek statues I can see them as art. I try to apply the same to real people.
Reply
#26
(07-08-2013, 07:51 PM)PioBenedict16 Wrote: Yes, we need to make sure to cover up to prevent tempting others into lust but I advocate doing so with style. A man looks dashing in a suit and my heart melts for Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys (yeah yeah she did play a whore but she looked classy not slutty). And I will say again that just as we need not tempt people we need to also work on having custody of our eyes. When I'm at the Art Institute looking at volutupous nude Greek statues I can see them as art. I try to apply the same to real people.

This. It is indeed possible to be both modest and classy.
Reply
#27
(07-08-2013, 07:51 PM)PioBenedict16 Wrote: Now anthropologically, this may sound relativistic, but there's a difference between an African bush woman going topless and a girl going topless on an American beach. The context is important, is my point. An Italian man would have no qualms donning a speedo but an American would so that context effects modesty standards.

Have you met true Italian men? or women. They are notoriously immodest and they know they are being immodest. Try walking around Rome/Vatican in the summer months as a man and see how you have to keep your eyes on the ground because of the indecency (and lettuce be cereal, Italian women are beautiful so it only makes the battle of keeping custody of the eyes even harder). 

I get your point and I agree somewhat but you're stretching it to say that Italy and America are living in different contexts. For the most part the West (which includes Eastern Europe, most of the South Americas and Australia/New Zealand/Southern Africa but not Asia or the middle east or central to north Africa) does have an agreed upon moral standard in this regard. The only difference is that certain nations are more okay with flaunting the natural law and their formation and being immodest. Most of the countries mentioned have a similar ,if not identical patrimony of Catholicism or at least conservative and decent Christianity. They know how to dress. Italians just couldn't care less. An Italian man wearing a speedo is not being modest, just as a Californian surfer girl wearing a bikini is not being modest.

An African in the jungle who has never heard of Jesus and where breasts and penises and sexual matters are treated way differently does have the excuse and 100% for sure is it true that they are not being immodest (objectively that is).

If anything, Italian men wearing speedos are more blameworthy for contributing to a decreasing standard of public decency by de-sensitizing people to immodesty.
Reply
#28
(07-09-2013, 03:03 AM)Basilios Wrote: (snip)
Have you met true Italian men? or women. They are notoriously immodest and they know they are being immodest. Try walking around Rome/Vatican in the summer months as a man and see how you have to keep your eyes on the ground because of the indecency (and lettuce be cereal, Italian women are beautiful so it only makes the battle of keeping custody of the eyes even harder). 

(snip)

Most of the countries mentioned have a similar ,if not identical patrimony of Catholicism or at least conservative and decent Christianity. They know how to dress. Italians just couldn't care less. An Italian man wearing a speedo is not being modest, just as a Californian surfer girl wearing a bikini is not being modest.

(snip)

If anything, Italian men wearing speedos are more blameworthy for contributing to a decreasing standard of public decency by de-sensitizing people to immodesty.

Tim, they're talking about our people!
Reply
#29
(07-09-2013, 03:38 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Tim, they're talking about our people!

I'm talking 'bout real Italians  :)
Reply
#30
(07-09-2013, 03:47 AM)Basilios Wrote:
(07-09-2013, 03:38 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Tim, they're talking about our people!

I'm talking 'bout real Italians  :)
:safe:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)