On Immodest Dress and Fashions - warnings of Our Lady of Fatima.

[Xavier]

For those who still argue that one can freely reject the approved apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, in whole or in part, I beg to disagree. We are to give an assent of pious faith to approved private revelations as well as e.g. to miracles in the lives of saints and other such supernatural incidents that are attested to by serious authors. That which we assent to by pious faith is to be deemed more morally certain than any fact in secular history. St. Montfort and also St. Alphonsus say the same.

"I have thought it expedient for the edification of pious souls to introduce into it, after the manner of the Holy Fathers, both some revelations made to certain Saints and several miraculous facts concerning this mystery. I know there are some persons who, boasting of being free from prejudices, take great credit to themselves for believing no miracles but those recorded in the Holy Scriptures, esteeming all others as tales and fables for foolish women. But it will be well to remember here a remark of the learned St. Alphonsus, who says, "that the bad are as ready to deride miracles as the good are to believe them; adding that as it is a weakness to give credit to all things, so on the other hand, to reject miracles which come to us attested by grave and pious men, either savors of infidelity, which supposes them impossible to God, or of presumption, which refuses belief to such a class of authors. We give credit to a Tacitus, a Suetonius, and can we deny it without presumption to Christian authors of learning and probity. There is less risk in believing and receiving what is related with some probability by honest persons and not rejected by the learned, and which serves for the edification of our neighbor, than in rejecting it with a disdainful and presumptuous spirit?" (Glories of Mary) Hence Pope Benedict XIV (De Canoni. Sanct.) says: "Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to them, they deserve a human assent according to the rules of prudence by which they are probable and piously credible." (Fr. Michael Müller, C.S.S.R. Baltimore, Maryland December 8, 1867)

Our Lady of Fatima did in fact warn about many other things, as Pope Pius XII mentioned after a detailed study including "the suicide of altering the Church's Faith in the liturgy"; while also saying we should work with and under the Pope and the Bishops in setting things right in the Church. It is plain today that evil fashions, immodest dressing and sins of the flesh are a large part of the reasons that allow the enemy to be so powerful in the world today.

[Larry]

I know this will ruffle some feathers, but something we need to keep in mind is this: not one of these quotes are from the actual revelations at Fatima. Most come second hand, from a nurse who tended to Jacinta when she was near her death. Many Fatima scholars, including Frere Michel, give little credence to the authenticity of these sayings. So when people say something that Our Lady supposedly said at Fatima, I always ask, "In which of the six apparitions did She say this?". 99% of the time, the answer is none of them.

If you read the OP you will find that it is not saying that Our Lady of Fatima said that at one of the six apparitions at Fatima.  And if you do a search for "Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much" you will find many sites quoting that from Our Lady of Fatima.

I don't know why some members of this forum go into a hissy fit just at the mention of Fatima anymore.

I believe in Fatima, but Our Lady said nothing about sins of the flesh or immodest fashions during any of Her six apparitions. These things were said by other people, some who may not have been reliable, and then somehow became the cause celebre of the Fatima revelations. It's like the pamphlet on the 3 Days of Darkness attributed to Padre Pio. He didn't write it, he said he didn't write it, all of his associates said he didn't write it, but people still quote from that pamphlet as if it were Holy Writ.

[LausTibiChriste]

Fatima makes no mention of the deceitful, heretical Modernists who have laid waste to the Church.

Not necessarily.  Remember the third secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed before 1960.  It still hasn't been.

Boy talk about grasping at straws.

How is it grasping at straws when entire books have been written about it.

Entire books have been written about all sorts of nefarious shit, like how vaccines are 'bad' for you - doesn't make them right.

It's one thing to argue that they're probably hiding the authentic secret (I buy that argument hook, line and sinker).

It is QUITE another to defend a proposition that Fatima says something without knowingwhat it actually said. THIS is why good Catholics have problems with Fatima - because people like you make believe and put words into Our Lady/St Lucia etc's mouth that were never said, regardless of how much you may believe they were.

You can say "evidence supports the notion that they never actually revealed the Secret"
You cannot say, "Evidence supports the notion that they never actually revealed the Secret - Our Lady talked about modernism but they're hiding it, I'm sure of it blah blah blah"

It's one thing to base so much Faith on an apparition - it is far, far worse to base it on what that apparition supposedly is with no real evidence.

[mikemac]

Yeah they probably didn't release the third secret because of something to do with vaccines or something like that.    Hold a grudge much.

[Xavier]

I think if we say our Queen must personally appear each time She wishes to communicate a message, we unduly constrain Her. Both Fr. Kunkel and even Pope Pius XII consider that when Our Lady wishes to speak to us, She sometimes does so through the messengers only, without an explicit additional appariton. Thus Fr. Kunkel mentions the circumstances by which heaven's message about fashions was related, "Listen to what she revealed to little ten year old Jacinta of Fatima, while Jacinta lay dying in a hospital in Lisbon, Portugal in 1920: 'Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions ..." I think we can safely accept that as the message intended by our Queen given through Her representative.

1. St. Montfort explains pious faith: "Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories. To stories from Holy Scripture we owe divine faith; to stories on non-religious subjects which are not against common sense and are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of human faith; and to stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in any way contrary to reason, to faith or to morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary), we pay the tribute of a pious faith.
I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical, and that we should keep a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand, I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity believes all things" (1 Cor. 13:7), in the same way as pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in Holy Scripture.
This is one of the devil's traps; heretics of the past who denied tradition have fallen into it, and over-critical people of today are falling into it too, without even realizing it. People of this kind refuse to believe what they do not understand or what is not to their liking, simply because of their own spirit of pride and independence."

2. At the same time, God was speaking through His Church on the same pressing issue as well. This is one objective standard the Church gave under Pope Pius XI about immodest dress on women. "'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.

And Cardinal Siri issued this directive on women becoming accustomed to wearing men's dress and the gender confusion it would assuredly cause in society. Today, more than ever, we can see that it has.
http://sspx.org/en/notification-about-women-wearing-male-clothing

The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes. Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:

A. Male dress changes the psychology of woman
In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man." Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.

Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.

These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.

B. Male dress tends to vitiate relationships between women and men
In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If then this "diversity" becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.

The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.

It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.

Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.

C. Male dress harms the dignity of the mother in her children's eyes
All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as can be on this point. Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother's misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here traced out—and not for good—in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.

The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.

III

Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if woman's appearing in man's dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.

The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.

Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother's intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?

Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilized—why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?

To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.

[awkwardcustomer]

Who's wearing the trousers here?



https://publicdomainreview.org/collections/labors-of-the-months-from-the-tres-riches-heures/

[awkwardcustomer]

Or here?



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Les_Tr%C3%A8s_Riches_Heures_du_duc_de_Berry_Janvier.jpg

[james03]

I think immodesty and impurity are in the running for the biggest mortal sins this day and age.  One word: Snapchat.

Also, outside of small groups of Christians including Trads, it is just taken for granted that fornication is normal and healthy.  Outside of the before mentioned groups, the virginity rate at marriage (if they get married) is below 10% in my opinion.

However, I have a hard time believing this was the case in 1917.  This was before the roaring 20's.

[Arvinger]

Fatima makes no mention of the deceitful, heretical Modernists who have laid waste to the Church.

Not necessarily.  Remember the third secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed before 1960.  It still hasn't been.

Boy talk about grasping at straws.

How is it grasping at straws when entire books have been written about it.

Entire books have been written about all sorts of nefarious shit, like how vaccines are 'bad' for you - doesn't make them right.

It's one thing to argue that they're probably hiding the authentic secret (I buy that argument hook, line and sinker).

It is QUITE another to defend a proposition that Fatima says something without knowingwhat it actually said. THIS is why good Catholics have problems with Fatima - because people like you make believe and put words into Our Lady/St Lucia etc's mouth that were never said, regardless of how much you may believe they were.

You can say "evidence supports the notion that they never actually revealed the Secret"
You cannot say, "Evidence supports the notion that they never actually revealed the Secret - Our Lady talked about modernism but they're hiding it, I'm sure of it blah blah blah"

It's one thing to base so much Faith on an apparition - it is far, far worse to base it on what that apparition supposedly is with no real evidence.

Well, there is overwhelming evidence that another text of the Third Secret exists and it was suppressed by the Vatican. It is beyond any reasonable doubt now.

In regard to its content, there are many quotes from Church hierarchy from before 2000 (when the vision of bishop in white was revealed) - Cardinal Ciappi, Cardinal Oddi, Cardinal Ratzinger, they all said that the secret warns about apostasy in the Church and dangers to faith. Fr Dollinger recently confirmed an information which was long attributed to him, namely that Cardinal Ratzinger told him, when pressed, that another text says about "bad Council and bad Mass". Plus, the Third Secret was to be revealed in 1960 to be more clear - year after John XXIII called Vatican II and two years before its start, which tells volumes.

Thus, it is quite obvious that the Third Secret probably warns against post-Vatican II modernist revolution in the Church.

[awkwardcustomer]

Why the need for secrets, though?

Why not reveal everything at the Canonical enquiry which opened in 1922?  Then all this speculation and intrigue could have been avoided?

If Our Lady warned of apostasy and dangers to the Faith, why not reveal this early on, when the warning might have helped?

[Counter Revolutionary]

Fr. Francois Schouppe in his excellent book The Dogma of Hell includes the following revelation about a soul who was damned for the mortal sin of immodesty:

We read also in Father Nieremberg that a noble lady, who was exceedingly pious, asked God to make known to her what displeased His Divine Majesty most in persons of her sex. The Lord vouchsafed in a miraculous manner to hear her. He opened under her eyes the Eternal Abyss. There she saw a woman a prey to cruel torments and in her recognized one of her friends, a short time before deceased. This sight caused her as much astonishment as grief: the person whom she saw damned did not seem to her to have lived badly. Then that unhappy soul said to her: "It is true that I practiced religion, but I was a slave of vanity. Ruled by the passion to please, I was not afraid to adopt indecent fashions to attract attention, and I kindled the fire of impurity in more than one heart. Ah! If Christian women knew how much immodesty in dress displeases God!" At the same moment, this unhappy soul was pierced by two fiery lances, and plunged into a caldron of liquid lead.

http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Rev.%20F.X.%20Schouppe,%20S.J.%20-%20Hell.htm

[Larry]

I'm not saying I don't believe in modesty in dress, I'm simply stating the fact that Our Lady of Fatima never mentioned it in her apparitions. She talked about many important things that are pretty much ignored, but modesty somehow became the central issue of Fatima. What do you think Our Lady cares about more, millions of people who die in unjust wars, or the length of a hemline?

[Heinrich]

If ya'll had seen what I saw at Lowes and Costco today, there would be no doubting any punishment in regards to immodesty. Freaky gross.

[Miriam_M]

I think immodesty and impurity are in the running for the biggest mortal sins this day and age.  One word: Snapchat.

Not in the know here.  What is snapchat? I have yet to figure that out.  I know what Instagram is; is it like that? 

[ServusMariae]

I think immodesty and impurity are in the running for the biggest mortal sins this day and age.  One word: Snapchat.

Not in the know here.  What is snapchat? I have yet to figure that out.  I know what Instagram is; is it like that?

Almost like Instagram, but Snapchat enables photos to be shared with all kinds of crazy filters & is specially tailored for hippie youngsters, so they can puke rainbows & be dogs.