What Does The Church Teach On Modest. Rule-no Opinions, Doctrin Only

[arfink]

This is part of the ordinary magisterium, which we are obligated to follow under obedience to our holy father, unless it is in contradiction with other teachings.

'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.

 

False. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible, unless the ordinary magisterium is teaching on a matter which is part of revealed truth, its teachings are not considered to be dogma. While we are obliged to be obedient to the ordinary magisterium, there is ample precedent for the discarding of previous statements of the ordinary magisterium without formal proclamation.

Edited April 28, 2013 by arfink

[jim111]

Perhaps we are approaching this in the wrong way. What if, instead of calling it a minimal standard, we argue that there is a certain minimal universal which, more or less, all cultures adhere to. Call that the foundation of modesty. But I think modesty has quite a bit more to it than that. So there is a certain universal standard, but that standard is not the same as the standards of modesty.

For instance, I am willing to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong about, for instance, an African tribe whose standard of dress is radically different from our own. But I would argue that dressing the same in our culture is quite probably immodest. Would you agree?

 

I disagree. Modesty is determined by the potential of a body part to lead the mind toward lust. The stronger the potential, the less modest it is. No matter what society one is in, mans desire to lust is triggered the same way. I believe it is possible for an African tribe to be ignorant of there sin, and not be sinful, but once they hear the true chruch. They are obligated to cover up at least the parts of the body deemed immodest by the church. I would argue cultural standards or bishops could make it sinful to wear what the church does not officially deem immodest.

[jim111]

Why do you know about the women's standard, but not the man's? You're a man right - so you should be evaluating your own outfits for modesty on a daily basis, right? Why are you so well-informed about women's modesty but not men's?

 

I have never found any teachings about male modesty, but if there are please let me know.

As far as my attempt to be modest, all my clothes are at least knee length, and all my shirts are no longer than 2in below my collar bone. So I do adhere to the modest standards i am aware of.

[Nihil Obstat]

I disagree. Modesty is determined by the potential of a body part to lead the mind toward lust. The stronger the potential, the less modest it is. No matter what society one is in, mans desire to lust is triggered the same way. I believe it is possible for an African tribe to be ignorant of there sin, and not be sinful, but once they hear the true chruch. They are obligated to cover up at least the parts of the body deemed immodest by the church. I would argue cultural standards or bishops could make it sinful to wear what the church does not officially deem immodest.

Hm. I do not see it that way. I do not think that there exists an obligation, necessarily, for our hypothetical tribe from Africa to change its customary clothing if they are converted.

I mean, perhaps there does. But I do not think there necessarily does.

 

So what would you say about the clear fact that standards of modesty have changed dramatically over the course of history? If we assume that there is an objective standard (and again, I do not think that has been demonstrated), then that would imply that there was a particular time in history during which cultural standards of modesty were objectively correct, and in every other time period they were not. Seems like a fairly radical consequence, although of course that does not mean it is wrong.

[jim111]

False. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible, unless the ordinary magisterium is teaching on a matter which is part of revealed truth, its teachings are not considered to be dogma. While we are obliged to be obedient to the ordinary magisterium, there is ample precedent for the discarding of previous statements of the ordinary magisterium without formal proclamation.

 

I never said the ordinary magisterium is infallible.

 

On what grounds do you have to reject this teaching of the pope. It appears the current popes have the same felling.

[jim111]

Hm. I do not see it that way. I do not think that there exists an obligation, necessarily, for our hypothetical tribe from Africa to change its customary clothing if they are converted.

I mean, perhaps there does. But I do not think there necessarily does.

 

So what would you say about the clear fact that standards of modesty have changed dramatically over the course of history? If we assume that there is an objective standard (and again, I do not think that has been demonstrated), then that would imply that there was a particular time in history during which cultural standards of modesty were objectively correct, and in every other time period they were not. Seems like a fairly radical consequence, although of course that does not mean it is wrong.

 

I feel like when cultural standards make something immodest, which is not required by natural law, it is immodest in the sense that it reveals the intention of the person. A person showing her ankle in the old days, did not cause lust by the act itself, like exposing ones bosom. However if a man sees a women that's giving him signals implying she wants to engage in impure acts, its temptation. However it is also immodest becuase it causes the mind to contemplate what this woman is considering, which leads the mind toward lustful thoughts. Where as in other societies, there is no symbolic meaning behind seeing ones ankle. Exposing the ankle on purpose is certainly a lesser evil than exposing the bosom, but still not good.

 

Its see it like sacred music, its all about how it effects the mind of the opposite sex.  How would define what makes something immodest?

Edited April 28, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

I feel like when cultural standards make something immodest, which is not required by natural law, it is immodest in the sense that it reveals the intention of the person. A person showing her ankle in the old days, did not cause lust by the act itself, like exposing ones bosom. However if a man sees a women that's giving him signals implying she wants to engage in impure acts, its temptation. However it is also immodest becuase it causes the mind to contemplate what this woman is considering, which leads the mind toward lustful thoughts. Where as in other societies, there is no symbolic meaning behind seeing ones ankle. Exposing the ankle on purpose is certainly a lesser evil than exposing the bosom, but still not good.

 

Its see it like sacred music, its all about how it effects the mind of the opposite sex.  How would define what makes something immodest?

But then you have just accepted that there is a cultural dimension to modesty. Your opinion of it may be rather stricter than many on this forum, but this post, if you are sticking with it, pretty definitively introduces something besides objective standards in our evaluation of modest dress.

[abrideofChrist]

Let's start with what the Vatican requires as a dress code:

 

http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1225862-i42933734-Vatican-Rome_Lazio.html

 

Then we should consider that the saints traditionally said that the virtue of modesty went well beyond covering essential parts.  It has to do with how we move, our attitude, and how well we blend in with our circumstances and situations.  St. Frances de Sales said he wanted to see "his devout people" the "best dressed".  Bl. JPII says that even being naked or semi-naked in different circumstances is appropriate.  That's far from 2 fingers!

 

Next we should consider the fact that if you look at some of the great paintings of fashionable ladies over the centuries you would find women's curves and body parts which the modern "Mary Like Modesty" campaign people would shudder to see.  Historically, there were half bare breasts, lines of clothes which emphasized the same or emphasized the curves of where they sit.  No where do you see an arbitrary 2 finger rule.  Even Our Lady is pictured nursing in the Holy Land and other places. Yet you no-where see or read of sermons railing against these fashions.  Likewise, you see tight hose or underwear less kilts for men.. 

 

If you look up traditional moral theology books, you will find no such thing as a Mary Like Modesty ruling.  Rather, you will find that all body parts except baby making ones may be exposed and considered decent under many circumstances. 

 

OP- your quotations make no sense.  As others in other threads/forums have pointed out, the Cardinal Vicar is not using an infallible rule, just prudence for his time and area for the Vatican area (if he was even properly quoted- nobody seems to be able to find the actual text in Latin for his supposed rule).  Likewise, there is and hasn't been such a thing as the "sacred congregation for the council".   The council of what, pray tell?  And does a vicar (he's like a chancellor for the diocese) trump a Pope's own writings (JPII)?  why did JPII wear shorts if they're so horrendously immodest? 

[jim111]

But then you have just accepted that there is a cultural dimension to modesty. Your opinion of it may be rather stricter than many on this forum, but this post, if you are sticking with it, pretty definitively introduces something besides objective standards in our evaluation of modest dress.

 

 

That is true, but I have only posted based on the teachings of the pope, who was speaking to the world. The parts of modesty I have posted on, are universal truths, not subjective ones. Actually you can dress blow the minimum standard of modest and one is still not considered to have bad intentions, in modern society. So all my reasoning has been on objective truths.

[abrideofChrist]

If all we care about is the absolute bare minimum for your objective criteria of modesty, then I would say loin clothes for men and women (unless they are in circumstances in which total nudity is appropriate).  Then, depending on our circumstances, we build up from that bare minimum.

[jim111]

  Bl. JPII says that even being naked or semi-naked in different circumstances is appropriate.  That's far from 2 fingers!

 

There causes, such as baby doctors, or emergencies. I'm not denying that. However to paln to be naked in public, when there is no vital reason is sinful.

 

Next we should consider the fact that if you look at some of the great paintings of fashionable ladies over the centuries you would find women's curves and body parts which the modern "Mary Like Modesty" campaign people would shudder to see.  Historically, there were half bare breasts, lines of clothes which emphasized the same or emphasized the curves of where they sit.  No where do you see an arbitrary 2 finger rule.  Even Our Lady is pictured nursing in the Holy Land and other places. Yet you no-where see or read of sermons railing against these fashions.  Likewise, you see tight hose or underwear less kilts for men.

 

Could you please post a picture. Nudity was allowed at different times in some art.

The church has allowed picture of Mary nursing and has deemed that these pictures.

However the church has never approved of women exposing there bosom while nursing in public, this was only art to show her as a loving mother. I would argue that this is not an evil and was good in other cultures, but because of our perverted society it is a cause for scandal.

 

If you look up traditional moral theology books, you will find no such thing as a Mary Like Modesty ruling.  Rather, you will find that all body parts except baby making ones may be exposed and considered decent under many circumstances. 

 

Could you show me these books which allow these body parts to be exposed.
 

 

 

 

 

[Winchester]

1. Oh great, this thread again.

 

2. lolrules

[abrideofChrist]

There causes, such as baby doctors, or emergencies. I'm not denying that. However to paln to be naked in public, when there is no vital reason is sinful.

 

 

Could you please post a picture. Nudity was allowed at different times in some art.

The church has allowed picture of Mary nursing and has deemed that these pictures.

However the church has never approved of women exposing there bosom while nursing in public, this was only art to show her as a loving mother. I would argue that this is not an evil and was good in other cultures, but because of our perverted society it is a cause for scandal.

 

 

Could you show me these books which allow these body parts to be exposed.
 

 

Better yet, why don't you point me to some books that don't allow it?  As I've already pointed out, the Mary Like Modesty campaign people have published their nonsense all over the place, but they fail to actually quote doctrine. They also fail to point out authentic sources.  Cardinal Vicar of Rome?  Give me a break.  Show the proof.  Whereas Pope John Paul II DID talk about modesty and how one could be dressed less in public depending on circumstances.  You can wear a bathing suit.  According to the MLM people, you can't because they are inherently immodest according to their guidelines.  You have asked for doctrine.  I seriously doubt anyone at the magesterial level has bothered to give a doctrinal pronouncement on dress.  Rather, they left it up more or less for the culture to determine what was prostitute-like and not (and that changes from location to location and from era to era). 

 

Where in the periods when short sleeves were the fashion (almost always the fashion for formal wear) did we find saints and respected theologians railing against short sleeves?  Exposed bossoms?  Necklines that went below 2 fingers breadth below the throat?  Good grief.  And why do the garments for women have to be dresses?  Didn't Our Lady of Le vang wear slacks?  And instead of a Middle Eastern/European veil, wore the traditional visor?  She wore what was appropriate for the different cultures she's appeared in.  Indian Princess wear for that century in Mexico.  If she appeared in Africa, I'm sure she would have appeared as an African woman with all the colorful flamboyant garb that is characteristic of that continent's attire. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

2. lolrules

Anarchy! Anarchy!

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Double. Was actually my fault this time.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Nihil Obstat