Author Topic: So called immodesty  (Read 684 times)

Offline nmoerbeek

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1834
  • Thanked: 1126 times
    • Alleluia Audio Books
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2021, 07:38:01 PM »
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.

The Mary like modesty standards for dress are not from Pius XI, those where the addition of the author of the piece. 
"Let me, however, beg of Your Beatitude...
not to think so much of what I have written, as of my good and kind intentions. Please look for the truths of which I speak rather than for beauty of expression. Where I do not come up to your expectations, pardon me, and put my shortcomings down, please, to lack of time and stress of business." St. Bonaventure, From the Preface of Holiness of Life.

Apostolate:
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Contributor:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Lay Association:
http://www.militiatempli.net/
 
The following users thanked this post: DigitalLogos

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 72 times
    • @DigitalLogos - Minds
  • Religion: Roman Catholicism
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2021, 10:12:56 PM »
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.

The Mary like modesty standards for dress are not from Pius XI, those where the addition of the author of the piece.

Thank you, I was not aware of that. Yet what is said certainly isn't untrue and is in line with what Pius XI did say on the matter.
"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: 176
  • Thanked: 104 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2021, 10:50:47 PM »
Even your source admits someone can wear shorts “that reach down to the knees” and not below
 

Offline lauermar

  • "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" from 'All About Eve' (1950).
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Thanked: 601 times
  • Baby Boomer
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2021, 07:23:05 AM »
The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims require a dress code. However, it doesn't help their moral state because they belong to heretical religions. In Islam, rape and disrespect of women is systemic and considered justifiable.  Their barbaric acts (gential mutilation, honor killings) and outright denial of Jesus Christ offends God more than clothing. Omar the politician is an unrepentant public adulterer who wears a hijab on her head for modesty! Incredible. These people are not a proper example for Catholics.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954

That doesn't mean revealing clothing is acceptable, but how far do you want to go with it? In Padre Pio's time, immodesty was showing your ankles!  Before that, immodesty was not wearing a veil in public. Years ago, I saw a picture of the 6 y.o. daughter of a Sedevacantist writer, Thomas A. Droleskey, on his blog. He was a traveling writer at the time, living out of a trailer. I didn't see any mention of his wife. He was staying at a Sedevacantist cloistered nunnery. He had his little daughter Lucy sweeping the convent sidewalks outside, alone, dressed head-to-toe in a long nun's habit and veil. Well hey, I miss nun's habits and I wish they'd come back. But putting it on a little kid doing chores looks like cultish behavior.

Joan of Arc wore men's clothing even as the bible forbids women to wear it. For most working men and women today, employers have a dress code which defines modesty and we follow it. It is unreasonable to expect workers to dress like the people of the Old Testament.

Discussions about modesty shouldn't focus on women alone. It should  also include immodesty of men, Drag Queen culture, gay pride marches, tattooing, body piercing, fantasy rainbow haircolors, endless selfie posting on social media, etc. These things aren't modest. But on SD, I see way too much debate over knee length hemlines and pants.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 08:50:13 AM by lauermar »
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3700
  • Thanked: 4115 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2021, 01:48:13 PM »
The Amish, Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims require a dress code. However, it doesn't help their moral state because they belong to heretical religions. In Islam, rape and disrespect of women is systemic and considered justifiable.  Their barbaric acts (gential mutilation, honor killings) and outright denial of Jesus Christ offends God more than clothing.

Rape is a grievous crime in Islamic law and constitutes a capital offence in Islamic countries. Therefore, can you provide any well-established ruling that justifies raping women? Genital mutilation, properly defined, and honor killings are also contrary to Islamic law. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should provide it.

Quote
Omar the politician is an unrepentant public adulterer who wears a hijab on her head for modesty! Incredible. These people are not a proper example for Catholics.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954

Omar is not a proper example for Muslims either, since adultery is punishable by death in Islam. Furthermore, the political consultant she married, Tim Mynett, does not seem to be a Muslim. Muslim women are prohibited by the Shariah from marrying non-Muslim men.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 

Offline dymphnaw

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 236 times
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2021, 09:52:07 AM »
The 1920s was a time of incredible sin. It was the period of the first sexual revolution. Hollywood produced pornography. Abortion was used by the wealthy and middle class ladies. The Great Depression and WWII were the punishments. You can't use Muslims as an example because what they are turned on by isn't the same as as what distracts Western men.
 
The following users thanked this post: Melkor

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 565
  • Thanked: 118 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2021, 02:16:25 PM »
What's the big deal, they are kids. Logically, it's why most Muslims (except for Somalis) don't bother to cover up girls...because they aren't women yet.
 

Offline TandJ

  • Mary Garden
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 104 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: So called immodesty
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2021, 05:39:29 PM »
What's the big deal, they are kids. Logically, it's why most Muslims (except for Somalis) don't bother to cover up girls...because they aren't women yet.

That’s what I said! I find it hard to believe alllll these trad priests in the 20’s on had not issue with it. In fact googling children’s dresses from that time brings up nothing but above knee dresses.