Author Topic: So called immodesty  (Read 890 times)

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • Religion: Catholic
So called immodesty
« on: May 02, 2021, 08:10:47 PM »
So just for fun tonight I’m looking at pictures of first Holy Communions from 1920 on and what I’ve noticed is a huge number of little girls wearing dresses that end a few inches ABOVE the knee. I find it hard to believe the good sisters and priests would allow this at that time if it were such a huge deal as modern trads make it out to be. This actually infuriates me because all this time I’ve been feeling guilty or scruping out about my own children wearing skirts that end at the kneecap and now I feel like modern trads are laying burdens that never even existed in the history of traditionalism. I am tempted to accuse trads of not only being reactionary but going to lengths of so called “traditionalism” that was never even a reality to begin with.

Heck I’ve seen pictures of Muslims in niqab with their daughters wearing a short tank top sundress. If not even the most modest religion has any problem with it at this point I’m convinced that trads are
overrreacting and this was never even an issue until recently.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2021, 08:39:43 PM by TandJ »
 

Offline Christe Eleison

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1353
  • Thanked: 1164 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2021, 08:46:16 PM »
So just for fun tonight I’m looking at pictures of first Holy Communions from 1920 on and what I’ve noticed is a huge number of little girls wearing dresses that end a few inches ABOVE the knee. I find it hard to believe the good sisters and priests would allow this at that time if it were such a huge deal as modern trads make it out to be. This actually infuriates me because all this time I’ve been feeling guilty or scruping out about my own children wearing skirts that end at the kneecap and now I feel like modern trads are laying burdens that never even existed in the history of traditionalism. I am tempted to accuse trads of not only being reactionary but going to lengths of so called “traditionalism” that was never even a reality to begin with.


I am sorry that you feel this way.  :grouphug:

Are you familiar with what Our Lady of Fatima mentioned to the children regarding immodesty?
Her apparition was in 1917.

If I am not mistaken, she said something along the lines:

"There are fashions that offend Our Lord very much"

If she said the above, I would not be surprised to see skirts above the knee in the 1920's...

Please look up the apparition & what was said.

I believe that Our Lady of La Salette might have mentioned something about modesty as well. Her apparition was in 1846.

God bless you & your loved ones.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2021, 09:36:16 PM »
You would think that if Our Lady was speaking about knees it would be more obvious to these people who were much more pious than us by far and who lived in a much more modest time by far as well. I just find it very hard to believe that if knees are intrinsically immodest that literally nobody would realize it at this time? I just can’t buy it
 

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 421
  • Thanked: 334 times
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2021, 10:49:43 PM »
You would think that if Our Lady was speaking about knees it would be more obvious to these people who were much more pious than us by far and who lived in a much more modest time by far as well. I just find it very hard to believe that if knees are intrinsically immodest that literally nobody would realize it at this time? I just can’t buy it

If you think they were far more pious and modest than us, I suggest you actually go learn social history and closely examine the era. That assertion is utterly incorrect. I might also point out that all those years leading up to Vat II is where Vat II came from. It didn't hatch out of an egg. It was built on many years of laxity, indolence, and lukewarm "catholic" culture.
 
The following users thanked this post: maryslittlegarden, lauermar, Christina_S, Christe Eleison, DigitalLogos

Offline coffeeandcigarette

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 421
  • Thanked: 334 times
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2021, 11:05:51 PM »
I am tempted to accuse trads of not only being reactionary but going to lengths of so called “traditionalism” that was never even a reality to begin with.


Please don't. Exam Papal decrees regarding modesty, and you will find that it is Peter himself, and not a bunch of "reactionary" trads who would encourage you to fight the world and dress modestly. Our Lady has spoken about this many times, from her own lips she was spoken about the immodesty which will encompass society and damn many souls to hell. Don't allow a feeling of having worked too hard, and done too much to make you weak now. Modesty is an uphill battle, you will find yourself incurring the displeasure of not only fellow Catholics, but fellow trads, for being too strict, too extreme, too whatever...fight the good fight. Ask Padre Pio to strengthen your resolve and help you fight your doubts.

As an aside...in a religious museum in Spain there is a gorgeous, huge, silver monstrance. It has figures of all the apostles and many saints, and beautiful symbols. It has tiny figures on one tier of all the anthropomorphized virtues; all but temperance. There is no such thing as temperance when adoring and giving to God. We give him everything, all the time, for our whole lives. It is never enough, it never could be; but our effort is what he sees. The lengths of the saints, are the lengths we should be going to.
 
The following users thanked this post: Christe Eleison

Offline Christe Eleison

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1353
  • Thanked: 1164 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2021, 11:34:49 PM »
You would think that if Our Lady was speaking about knees it would be more obvious to these people who were much more pious than us by far and who lived in a much more modest time by far as well. I just find it very hard to believe that if knees are intrinsically immodest that literally nobody would realize it at this time? I just can’t buy it

If you think they were far more pious and modest than us, I suggest you actually go learn social history and closely examine the era. That assertion is utterly incorrect. I might also point out that all those years leading up to Vat II is where Vat II came from. It didn't hatch out of an egg. It was built on many years of laxity, indolence, and lukewarm "catholic" culture.

Thank you for your input. This is exactly what I was going to say.
I agree with it all.  :thumbsup:
I had to take a long distance call from a family member in distress, so I apologize.

There is a reason that Saint Pius X wrote about modernism in Pascendi

" PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS"
   

"Men speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30),

"Vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. i. 10),

"Erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13).

Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself.

Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

Gravity of the Situation

2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact

that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open

enemies; they lie HID, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her

very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they

appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay,

and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the PRIESTHOOD itself,

who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and

theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the

enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as

reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is

most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer,

whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, on the 8th day of September, 1907, the fifth year of our Pontificate.

PIUS X

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
 
The following users thanked this post: truly-a-philosofan

Offline Christe Eleison

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1353
  • Thanked: 1164 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2021, 11:52:14 PM »
I am tempted to accuse trads of not only being reactionary but going to lengths of so called “traditionalism” that was never even a reality to begin with.


Please don't. Exam Papal decrees regarding modesty, and you will find that it is Peter himself, and not a bunch of "reactionary" trads who would encourage you to fight the world and dress modestly. Our Lady has spoken about this many times, from her own lips she was spoken about the immodesty which will encompass society and damn many souls to hell. Don't allow a feeling of having worked too hard, and done too much to make you weak now. Modesty is an uphill battle, you will find yourself incurring the displeasure of not only fellow Catholics, but fellow trads, for being too strict, too extreme, too whatever...fight the good fight. Ask Padre Pio to strengthen your resolve and help you fight your doubts.

As an aside...in a religious museum in Spain there is a gorgeous, huge, silver monstrance. It has figures of all the apostles and many saints, and beautiful symbols. It has tiny figures on one tier of all the anthropomorphized virtues; all but temperance. There is no such thing as temperance when adoring and giving to God. We give him everything, all the time, for our whole lives. It is never enough, it never could be; but our effort is what he sees. The lengths of the saints, are the lengths we should be going to.

Thank you for this post!

Modernists have infiltrated every part of society including Holy Mother Church.
That is why I believe Blessed Pope Pius IX as well as Saint Pius X addressed this issue many times.
Modernists are always trying to get the Church to change its most fundamental Dogmas to embrace the current time that it is in.

This EVIL did not just pop up in the 1960's, it was brewing for well over 150 years. 

So, we should not be surprised that young girls in the 1920's were wearing shorter hems, with the blessing of their priests, sisters, teachers, etc.
And of course they realized that it was wrong, they chose to ignore it.
It is the sin of omission. 
Saint Pius X pray for us  :pray3:
Blessed Pius IX pray for us  :pray2:
Saint Padre Pio pray for us  :pray1:
 

Offline Christe Eleison

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1353
  • Thanked: 1164 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2021, 11:57:04 PM »
You would think that if Our Lady was speaking about knees it would be more obvious to these people who were much more pious than us by far and who lived in a much more modest time by far as well. I just find it very hard to believe that if knees are intrinsically immodest that literally nobody would realize it at this time? I just can’t buy it

If you think they were far more pious and modest than us, I suggest you actually go learn social history and closely examine the era. That assertion is utterly incorrect. I might also point out that all those years leading up to Vat II is where Vat II came from. It didn't hatch out of an egg. It was built on many years of laxity, indolence, and lukewarm "catholic" culture.


  It was built on many years of laxity, indolence, and lukewarm "catholic" culture.   
 
The following users thanked this post: Christina_S

Online DigitalLogos

  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Thanked: 95 times
    • @DigitalLogos - Minds
  • Religion: Roman Catholicism
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2021, 09:48:10 AM »
If modesty in dress wasn't a problem, then why did Pope Pius XI offer a decree on the matter in 1930? Check it out: http://www.olvrc.com/reference/documents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf

You also need to look at the era. The 1920s were a decade of decadence, a sort of precursor to our own degenerate era. It was by no means some time of Victorian puritanical modesty. But, I mean, Pius XI didn't infallibly decree anything regarding modesty, so we don't have to obey it right?

Quote
THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY
IN DRESS
“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 knees. Furthermore, dresses
of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts
reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily
tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to
Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and
back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the
neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the
shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics —
laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added.
However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do
not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or
the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.
Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible
rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as
tight fitting slacks or ‘jeans’, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down
at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike
standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who
follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will
have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will
not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2021, 09:53:27 AM by DigitalLogos »
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
 

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2021, 10:41:36 AM »
But why are knees the limit? Trad chapels generally don’t have a problem
with women showing their calves but wasn’t it modernism to even let them show that
much. Are knees a proximate occasion of sin to people?
 

Online DigitalLogos

  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 67
  • Thanked: 95 times
    • @DigitalLogos - Minds
  • Religion: Roman Catholicism
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2021, 10:42:38 AM »
But why are knees the limit? Trad chapels generally don’t have a problem
with women showing their calves but wasn’t it modernism to even let them show that
much. Are knees a proximate occasion of sin to people?

My perverse man-brain says there's less potential for "exposure" if the dress covers the knees.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
 

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2021, 12:05:36 PM »
We’re talking about kids here which shouldn’t cause any temptation to anyone. Even trad priests have different opinions. I’ve asked a priest if my kids can wear modest shorts and he said “that’s fine”. Surely if it’s intrinsically evil he wouldn’t say that. Or am I now required to rashly judge and doubt even priests?

This is from a pre vat 2 manual. (Callan)

“b) The obscenity of dress is largely dependent on its novelty, for things that are usual cease to excite special attention. This we can see from the fact that styles that are conservative today would have been extreme ten years ago. And so the scanty attire of hot countries, the dress of the bathing beach, and the moderate decolleté tolerated in private gatherings are not obscene in their own proper times and places.”
 
The following users thanked this post: truly-a-philosofan, Elizabeth.2

Offline Elizabeth.2

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 444
  • Thanked: 407 times
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2021, 12:41:36 PM »
Callan is a reliable source.  I think he understands and teaches with Prudence.  (if I finally understand Prudence according to the Church.)

There are photos of ++ABL with family wearing short skirts and so on.   Nobody rational would describe these photos as immodest in any way.
 

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2021, 01:15:36 PM »
Funny you should say that Elizabeth because I just looked at his pictures from Africa and there’s a woman holding a small child standing right next to him with her breast almost hanging completely out. Nobody seems scandalized by that (except us Americans evidently). I’ve always said the French have a much healthier view of modesty and the human body than we do
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4184
  • Thanked: 1847 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2021, 03:32:57 PM »
I would recommend anyone first look up what Aquinas has to say on any subject. 

First it helps to understand how the terms are defined. So many people assume they understand words because they've seen them in context but it turns out they don't.  It reminds of Ronald Knox commenting that every Englishman seems to think anything that is old is automatically "venerable" to the point where they think old and venerable are synonyms. 

With regards to a virtue like modesty St. Thomas always connects the dots as to how one thing relates to another concerning the greater virtues, the mode of existence, the purpose of things.   

Modesty is related to temperance, I believe he points out that it "moderates" things that are of lesser importance. 

People fall to pieces over the small things and politely keep silence over the big things. 

 
The following users thanked this post: Jayne