Modesty: Does It Include Bare Shoulders In Church?

[kateri05]

since we're having the same convo in two places...


[quote]i completely disagree with this because being a stumbling block to your neighbor would be far more of an offense to God.


and, i'm with St. Colette on this - its not a woman wearing men's clothing if she's wearing women's pants! happy.gif

sigh. i think we again have a situation of trying to burden someone with more than the Church requires. rolleyes.gif


[quote]when visiting the Pope or the Vatican, women are not permitted to wear pants. And they must wear a headcovering.[/quote]

wrong and wrong again. women are not permitted to dress immodestly but are certainly admitted to the vatican in modest pants.

nor do they have to wear headcoverings. i've been in the vatican and known people who met the pope and none of us wore a veil. besides, the veil doesn't even apply to Popes, it has to do with being in the presence of the Eucharist.

your friend must not have read the veiling thread mellow.gif
[/quote]

Edited September 6, 2007 by kateri05

[aprilvasquez]

[quote name='XIX' post='1378431' date='Sep 5 2007, 12:56 AM'][img]http://funnyjoke.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/image005.jpg[/img]
[img]http://funnyjoke.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/image004.jpg[/img][/quote]
NICE.

[aprilvasquez]

[quote name='kafka' post='1378895' date='Sep 5 2007, 07:52 PM']My friend wrote this:

Proper Clothing for Catholic Women

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deut 22:5).

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:17-19).

Saint Padre Pio use to refuse to hear the confession of women who were wearing pants or an immodest dress.

Women should not dress or act like men, for this is an abomination in God's eyes. God created the human race with two genders, intending each to have his and her proper place in Creation. Men and women are not meant to behave or dress the same manner. Part of the beauty of the human race is found in the differences between men and women.

We each live within a larger society. We are each influenced by the culture around us. Yet society and culture often teach us false things, which lead us away from God. Most women (at least in Western society and culture) dress and act very much like men. They seek the same roles in society, the family, and the Church. They are following a popular teaching of our culture today, that women and men are meant to have the same roles, and especially that women are meant to take up roles formerly held only or mainly by men. They are displaying their adherence to this teaching by dressing like men. This teaching of our culture is contrary to the teaching of Christ.

God wants men and women to act and dress according to their gender and the place God has given each one in Creation. Clothing and hairstyles are expressions of one's thoughts, behavior, and attitude. Women are not mean to behave like men, nor to have the same roles as men, therefore they should not dress or groom themselves like men. And vise versa.

Women should wear skirts and dresses; they should not generally wear pants (although there may be some exception for certain sports, certain types of work, etc). Women should have longer hair than men; a woman's hair style should be feminine (not masculine and not androgenous). Women should dress and groom themselves in a feminine manner, to show that they accept the place God has given women in Creation, in society, in the family, and in the Church.

Modesty is a separate issue. A woman wearing modest pants still offends God, not by lack of modesty, but by dressing like a man. A woman wearing an immodest skirt or dress offends God less than a woman wearing a modest pair of pants. The offense of a woman wearing pants is an offense against the very order which God built into Creation and humanity. The offense of a woman wearing men's clothing is called an abomination by Sacred Scripture. When a woman dresses and acts like a man, it is an offense against the very order which God built into Creation and human nature. God is offended, even more so, when women dress and act like men in churches and during holy Mass.

By comparison, when a woman wears a short skirt, or a tight dress, her offense is only a matter of degree (the same skirt, if lengthened, might be considered modest). Such an offense is not intrinsically disordered -- it does not contradict or rebel against the fundamental order which God gave to Creation and humanity.

But most women, and even most men, do not accept this teaching. They accept the teachings of their culture and ignore the teachings of Sacred Scripture. When the Church teaches one thing and their culture teaches another, they follow their culture instead of Christ.
12 Point Summary:

First, male and female clothing was distinct during biblical times. The passage from Deuteronomy saying that men should not dress like women and women should not dress like men must have made sense to the Israelites. They lived the Scriptures before they wrote them down.
Second, though men wore robes, women's dresses were distinctly different.
Third, during New Testament times, Roman soldiers did wear trousers, so pants were known and were worn only by men.
Fourth, for a very long time in the Church, men wore pants and women did not. This had become established within Christian culture as one of the main differences between men's and women's clothing. Only very recently has this difference been obscured.
Fifth, Padre Pio would not even hear the confession of women who wore pants.
Sixth, the passage from Deuteronomy specifically forbids unisex clothing. Even if some persons or many persons in ancient times dressed the same, Scripture is still true and must still be obeyed.
Seventh, when the Virgin Mary appears in apparitions, she is always wearing a dress, never pants. All of the images and statues of her throughout the history of the Church present her wearing a dress, never pants.
Eighth, when visiting the Pope or the Vatican, women are not permitted to wear pants. And they must wear a headcovering. When George Bush and his wife Laura visited the Pope recently, she wore a dress and a headcovering.
Ninth, some Protestant groups still retain this insight, based on Scripture, that women should dress in a feminine manner, should not wear pants, and should wear a headcovering.
Tenth, clothing is an expression of behavior and role. Even in our sinful society, clothing is still associated with roles, for example: police officers, judges, nurses, priests, nuns, and others wear particular clothing appropriate to and indicative of their roles. And one's clothing is also an indicator of behavior and attitude. For example, nuns who are obedient to the Church like to wear the habit, but those who are disobedient hate to wear it.
Eleventh, men and women are meant to have different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men and women are meant to have different behaviors. Clothing is an indicator and expression of that important difference. So, the more important thing is the correct roles and behaviors for men and women. That is the main point of that passage from Scripture.
Twelfth, when a woman gives up wearing pants and strives to dress in a manner pleasing to Christ and Mary, even though the culture around her tells her otherwise, she will be blessed by God and her prayers will be answered.[/quote]
Here, here.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='XIX' post='1378431' date='Sep 5 2007, 01:56 AM'][img]http://funnyjoke.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/image005.jpg[/img][/quote]
That looks like an 'instant lunch.' I think they're really talking about "raamen straps."

Edited September 6, 2007 by photosynthesis

[Maddalena]

I would like to point out that while (some) women at Mass are inappropriately dressed, there are also MEN that are inappropriately dressed. In Texas, we have the problem of "cowboys" coming into Mass with TIGHT, TIGHT jeans on. They're more distracting than when women have tight jeans on.

Once while my mother and I were waiting for Mass to start at our old church, this man walked in. and he had THE TIGHTEST PANTS ON. You know how male ballerina's are very... distracting? Well, this man was in the same way.

I know that women are guilty of dressing in an improper manner most of the time, but still... give men their due attention.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='kafka' post='1378895' date='Sep 5 2007, 08:52 PM']Modesty is a separate issue. A woman wearing modest pants still offends God, not by lack of modesty, but by dressing like a man. A woman wearing an immodest skirt or dress offends God less than a woman wearing a modest pair of pants. The offense of a woman wearing pants is an offense against the very order which God built into Creation and humanity. The offense of a woman wearing men's clothing is called an abomination by Sacred Scripture. When a woman dresses and acts like a man, it is an offense against the very order which God built into Creation and human nature. God is offended, even more so, when women dress and act like men in churches and during holy Mass.

By comparison, when a woman wears a short skirt, or a tight dress, her offense is only a matter of degree (the same skirt, if lengthened, might be considered modest). Such an offense is not intrinsically disordered -- it does not contradict or rebel against the fundamental order which God gave to Creation and humanity.[/quote]
I can see the logic behind that, although I don't think most women who wear pants have any idea that such a style of clothing is intrinsically disordered. Fashions change century to century, but never was it so socially acceptable for women to wear pants than in the 20th century, as a result of early feminist dress reform in the late 1800's and the nylon shortage of WWII. Even then, I can see why women would buy into the dress reform, after some of the horribly uncomfortable fashions of the Victorian era. Given the choice between wearing bloomers or a corseted dress every day, I probably would have gone with bloomers too. Even so, it is more than possible for modern women to dress in a way that is comfortable, but still very feminine and I think more women should embrace traditional styles of clothing.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Maddalena' post='1379234' date='Sep 5 2007, 11:21 PM']I would like to point out that while (some) women at Mass are inappropriately dressed, there are also MEN that are inappropriately dressed. In Texas, we have the problem of "cowboys" coming into Mass with TIGHT, TIGHT jeans on. They're more distracting than when women have tight jeans on.

Once while my mother and I were waiting for Mass to start at our old church, this man walked in. and he had THE TIGHTEST PANTS ON. You know how male ballerina's are very... distracting? Well, this man was in the same way.

I know that women are guilty of dressing in an improper manner most of the time, but still... give men their due attention.[/quote]
Ew. We don't have that problem in Jersey.

[Apotheoun]

Proper attire befitting the house of the Lord should be worn by all.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1379279' date='Sep 5 2007, 11:51 PM']I can see the logic behind that, although I don't think most women who wear pants have any idea that such a style of clothing is intrinsically disordered. Fashions change century to century, but never was it so socially acceptable for women to wear pants than in the 20th century, as a result of early feminist dress reform in the late 1800's and the nylon shortage of WWII. Even then, I can see why women would buy into the dress reform, after some of the horribly uncomfortable fashions of the Victorian era. Given the choice between wearing bloomers or a corseted dress every day, I probably would have gone with bloomers too. Even so, it is more than possible for modern women to dress in a way that is comfortable, but still very feminine and I think more women should embrace traditional styles of clothing.[/quote]

Pants are not intrinsically disordered. They are simply comfortable articles of clothing suitable for some various activities that dresses are not.
Please define "traditional" styles of clothing. Men and women both wore dresses in the 1st century.

[Apotheoun]

Women should normally wear dresses to Church, but wearing nice pair of slacks is also acceptable.

[N/A Gone]

I know personal situations are wrong to mention but what the hey...

In mass, in most situations I would say that Bare shoulders would be wrong. Every teenage boy will spend communion checkin out girls. I understand that. I did it.

That being said, a wedding dress that is modest but shows the shoulders could be acceptable. Reasoning of course is personal in that I think my wife looked amazing and modest in her wedding dress. I have attached some pictures here cause I think she is pretty.

[img]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v49/202/33/73402622/n73402622_31247650_4689.jpg[/img]

[img]http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v49/202/33/73402622/n73402622_31247722_6984.jpg[/img]

actually, so did our engagement photos-but that was not in a church.

[img]http://photos-622.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v14/202/33/73402622/n73402622_30074340_2529.jpg[/img]

[img]http://photos-622.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v14/202/33/73402622/n73402622_30074344_3613.jpg[/img]

In conclusion. I dont think Shoulders are the issue if the outfit is modest. There is no clevage here or anything of that nature. If someone wore a cami to church or something that revealed clevage or was a distraction than it could be a problem. But honestly, a guy can lust after a girl in a snowsuit if he wanted to.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1379334' date='Sep 6 2007, 01:36 AM']In mass, in most situations I would say that Bare shoulders would be wrong. Every teenage boy will spend communion checkin out girls. I understand that. I did it.

That being said, a wedding dress that is modest but shows the shoulders could be acceptable. Reasoning of course is personal in that I think my wife looked amazing and modest in her wedding dress. I have attached some pictures here cause I think she is pretty. [/quote]
Ok... I don't follow your logic. You say "bare shoulders would be wrong" but "a wedding dress... shows the shoulders could be acceptable". Why is that? Why a double-standard for a wedding dress? Frankly, I would think the inverse would be true; the wedding is such a special occasion, and the wedding dress is a celebration of her very sacred feminine beauty. It should then act as a veil, to demonstrate the sacredness of her beauty and the marital act. You probably also think that she's pretty in a bathing suit, and that would be unnacceptable in church as well.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1379334' date='Sep 6 2007, 01:36 AM']But honestly, a guy can lust after a girl in a snowsuit if he wanted to.[/quote]
That's a straw man argument; of course a man can lust with no help from the ladies. How, then, does that mean that ladies have absolutely no responsibility to put their brethren in the near occasion?

Also, it's been discussed numerous times in this thread that avoiding lust is not the only reason for modesty; it is about covering that which is sacred.

[N/A Gone]

Shoulders are not in themselves a sexual body part. The issue with most of the shulder/strap shirts is the clevage issue. But in a modest wedding dress there is no clevage. That is what I mean. Not a double standard. But outside of formal wear what outfit shows shoulders without showing some clevage? That would be the issue. I would not compare a dress that shows shoulders in the same as a swimsuit. Under that logic why dont we just borrow some islam outfits and keep our women under blankets?

It is not a straw man argument. It shows that to a degree it is impossible to make men not lust. Now, there is a degree in which a woman can contribute to that. But even a sweater can be seen as a sexy. I understand the concept of covering what is sacred, but seriously. Shoulders? Can I get a list of body parts cause sometimes my wife wears flip-flops and I think her toes are cute also.

Im not trying to be snippy. I just dont agree.

[Jaime]

[quote]I can see the logic behind that, although I don't think most women who wear pants have any idea that such a style of clothing is intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

Photo, you need to learn what intrinsically disordered means.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1379411' date='Sep 6 2007, 10:18 AM']Photo, you need to learn what intrinsically disordered means.[/quote]
I could see how a woman wearing men's clothing could be intrinsically disordered because the outfit could not become appropriate without changing its fundamental nature. However, if an outfit is immodest, it can become modest by adding more coverage, but such additions do not change the fundamental nature of the outfit.