Thursday, May 3, 2012
Prudish or Prudent?
I was having a conversation with a friend recently and she got me to thinking a little bit about some things which are inherently Catholic in nature. Bear with me as I flush out my brain on this one...
As Catholics (traddy or not) we're supposed to live in the world. We don't necessarily need to be of the world, but we do need to live in it. This idea that we are to deny ourselves the things in life which are part of our time isn't what it means to be of the world. I know that may come as a shock to some, but there is nothing wrong with TV, there is nothing wrong with video games, there is nothing wrong with going out and spending time with friends at a bar (if you're of legal age), there is nothing wrong with dressing like others of the time in which one lives. What CAN be wrong, is how those things are used by the person. I'm not saying that there are not bad things on TV, in music, in video games, at the bar, in clothing lines, etc...but the human person is a rational being. He can choose what to expose himself too. But to deny out of some perceived fear that he might be corrupted isn't how a Catholic should think. As a matter of fact, that is what got Decartes into so much trouble. That kind of philosophy is flawed.
As a traddy Catholic, there is this stigma that I should dress a very conservative way and that I should abstain from TV and that I should only listen to classical music, yadda, yadda, yadda....How are we to be witnesses to the masses, if we don't engage them? How are we supposed to live in the world, if we stay out of it?
Because we can reason, we have the opportunity to set an example to others that we can live in the world, do the things that others do and still be good Catholics.
Question: Do you think that prior to the Council and long before, people didn't dress, act, and live in the time in which they lived?
Ask parents and grandparents. I think that you'll find that this leap of austerity that is being promoted by some is a direct reaction to a subjective immorality. Does it exist? Yes. Should we practice prudence? Yes, but do we have to force our young people to be prudish in order to be Catholic? A resounding no. I am friends with a good many people, Catholic (both traddy and non), non-Catholic, and even non-Christian. If I can't engage them on the things they know, how can I minister to them? Doesn't the Church demand that we catechize, evangelize and be ecumenical? How can I do that, if I don't live in the world in which I am a part?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't practice moderation, to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. As my friend put it who I was having the conversation with said, "Where do you draw the line?" Where is the line between Harry Potter and Narnia? Where is the difference between Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? Would I let a small child see that? No, but when a child is old enough to recognize that magic is a fairy tale and not real, then it becomes something which with help, they can discern. The inherent evil in life isn't from things, it is from people. We need to work to convert those people. That is what we are to do.
However how does wearing khaki's a button down with dress shoes to play baseball serve any purpose? Or how does wearing a skirt which comes to the ankles to the park on a 90 degree day serve any purpose? There are times when it is ok to dress in moderation, not inappropriately, but there isn't anything wrong with bermuda shorts and a t-shirt for a girl or wearing a knee length skirt or dress. Just like there is nothing wrong with a boy wearing bermuda shorts and a t-shirt or even both wearing jeans. I'm not condoning that for Holy Mass, don't get me wrong. I think that one should dress appropriately for Mass with all conservation and appropriateness, but in the world at large, it just doesn't make sense. It would be like asking a person from the 1850s to wear clothing from the 1740s. They didn't do it, why should we do it today?
This all comes down to two things for the person, first it comes to reason. Man can reason. He knows what is right and what is wrong. If his reasoning is wrong, then he should be taught what is right. Reason is objective, application is subjective. Second is moderation. If things are done in moderation, then it isn't so difficult to adapt and alter when necessary.
As Catholics, we need to be able to live in the world. I'm not saying that we fall into the traps of the world, but we can't live as if we were in Brigadoon, that's not fair to the faithful, it's not fair to the Church and it certainly isn't fair to the self. If we are devout as Catholics and accept ALL that she teaches, then there should be no problem living in the world without having to constantly fight being of the world. Catholicism isn't about being prudish, it is about being prudent. We all need to take a step back and think about that, in my humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent post, Andy! We are here to evangelize, and if we have a certain attitude, we push people away instead of bringing them closer to God.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog, keep up the good fight!
ReplyDeleteThe difference between clothing in the 1740s and the 1850s is nothing like the difference between then and the clothing today. Women should never expose anything above the knee in public, period (which shorts most definitely do). There are Catholic standards of modesty.
Secondly, dressing modestly, including in the scorching heat, is a worthy penance; especially in light of the testimony of Our Lady who explained that many fashions will come into the world that will greatly offend Our Blessed Lord.
Here are the Catholic standards of modesty:
"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 material 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. (NOTE: Because of 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 dresses require 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 the 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 avoid the improper use of flesh colored fabrics.
6.Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
7.Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed and after assuming a sitting position.
Please also see the book "Dressing With Dignity" by Colleen Hammond.
God bless you and your Apostolate and may Our Lady guard you always!
@ Casey,
ReplyDeleteSo, in your opinion, styles should remain the same as in the days of Pius XI? We're talking about women not dressing any differently than they did from 1922-1939. Am I understanding you correctly?
How exactly is that an effective way to minister to people today? I'm not saying that women should be wearing hotpants and tube tops, but I'm also not advocating that people dress as if they lived in Italy in the 1920s. Which if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you're advocating.
Times change and styles change. To dress "Mary-like" is certainly admirable, but there are plenty of appropriate styles of dress which are in keeping with modern standards. Perhaps you disagree, fine, but to cite dressing styles from the 1920s which should be employed as a standard today? That is a stretch.
I admire Colleen Hammond's work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that her opinion is correct all of the time. There are certainly parts of her view which work and that is a good thing.
Andy:
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic. Casey gave very concrete standards for modesty based on the writings of Popes which I do not think unreasonable even for today. If you disagree, I think it is incumbent on you to give equally concrete standards. For instance, if you don't like the skirt below the knee standard, where do you draw the line? At the knee? One, two, or three inches above the knee? What I think gets overlooked in this type of discussion is that we buy into the world's idea that standards of modesty are a subjective value whereas they are in fact an objective value because the human body is the same whether it's 1740, 1920, or 2012. By the way, I know a number of women (my wife included) who seek to dress according to the standards Casey outlined and still manage to be an effective witness to their non-Christian neighbors, perhaps more so because people know that their religious beliefs affect all areas of their lives so the witness is consistent. Also, I just don't see that Christians dressing over-modestly is really a pressing problem for the Church's evangelical mission.
Casey:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. We all try to do our best in this day and age. There is so little modesty in current society that to try to dress like the current society in order to convert them will only leave us in sin.
No, we don't have to dress like Laura in Little House on the Prairie, but we have to be a sign of contradiction. It seems that most of society does not want anything to do with Catholicism; however, those that do will only notice if we are signs of contraction by our actions and by our outward appearances.
Michael Yoder
@Casey
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andy, what purpose does it serve to act and dress as if we lived in the early 1900's? I think women can where clothing including long shorts and pants, and still be considered modest. We let men wear them and usually say nothing, but do you think women don't look at men in pants and think the same things men would at a woman in pants? And if you know of fashionable AND comfortable skirts appropriate for a 30 something woman that don't break the bank, fall below the knee, in a local store, I'd be more than happy to start wearing them more often. Fact is though they are few and far between.
The idea of 1920's dress is old fashioned and supports that women and girls should stay at home and wait for prince charming while knitting a blanket...this just doesn't happen any more. Dress modestly in jeans, skirts, dresses and tops that are not too short or tight but fit nicely and comfortably (for both men and women) and anything anyone else thinks about what's underneath them is their own problem.
@ Gary,
ReplyDeleteBecause he gives concrete examples from the Popes, actually from a secretary of one Pope, it isn't a matter of dogma or doctrine, but rather it is a cultural issue.
Standards do change. If you go back and read what I said, I think that it speaks to most of your points, but suffice to say, women wearing slacks or pants or denim can be appropriate in the proper circumstance. Do I think that there is inappropriate dress? Absolutely. Would I support my girlfriend or spouse if she wore inappropriate clothing, of course not.
As it stands, the standard that Casey puts forth isn't realistic today. There has been a cultural shift, not unlike when men went from wearing togas and the like to wearing pantaloons.
Interestingly enough, the only person to speak of the other side of this is Rachael. What about the men? How should we comport ourselves? Is it inappropriate for us to wear shorts and t-shirts?
And pray tell how did all of those good Catholic women survive the 40's and 50's wearing pedal pushers and skorts? Scandal, I say...scandal.
The absurdity in all of this is that to keep women in long skirts and elbow length blouses in the name of modesty is to prevent men from being lustful. In today's society, that isn't going to stop lust. I would say and I do say, let women come into the 21st century with appropriate dress.
Andy,
ReplyDeleteSorry about this somewhat scattershot response but time constraints limit me to the following points in response:
(1)I would agree with Rachael on at least one point - that there are in fact standards of modesty for men as well and they are not too different in terms of amount of exposed flesh or inappropriate tightness of fit (Elvis comes to mind as an example of the latter). (2)If you look at some movies from the 40's & 50's there are immodest clothes that are seductive in nature and if Amadeus is accurate, there was plenty of immodesty in the 1700's as well. That's why you can't point to any one period of time and say that is the exemplar of Christian modesty - it is still a subjective value - what is needed is a more objective standard such as Casey outlines because again, the human body does not change. (3) As regards the lust issue, that of course, is an important consideration, and I hope you are not pooh-poohing the serious reality of giving scandal. Is it really so bad that a woman would decide (as my wife has done - Note to Rachael: she is a working professional and is fully in the world - not at home knitting as your stereotype would suggest)to always dress in a manner that would minimize the possibility of her being the object of a man's lustful glance? It seems to me that is quite a generous act of charity. But it is not the only issue. Alice von Hildebrand has written eloquently of the positive role of modesty as an honoring of the human body. Both sexes dishonor themselves when they dress immodestly. (3)I said "Popes", because I believe that Pius XII issued similar standards. Regardless, do you think Pope Pius XI would disagree with what his secretary wrote? Of course, it is still not a doctrinal or dogma issue - that is not the point - but I would argue that it is MORE than merely a cultural issue. You stated in the original post that it all comes down to reason and that reason is objective and application is subjective. I don't think that is quite correct, for if our reasoning is sound, and is based on a proper understanding of the human person, and the negative reasons (against lust) for modesty as well as the positive reasons (the honoring of the body and the exclusivity of the nuptial meaning of the body)for modesty, and the reality of the physical structure of the human body and fallen man's response to that physicality (neither of which changes over time), then I think that, in fact, the application can become more objective. I believe that is precisely the conclusion that Pope Pius XI (through his secretary) and Colleen Hammond, as well as a large number of Catholics have come to in adopting as their own the basic standards as set forth by Casey. It seems to me that right reason should be able to lead to a meaningful consensus regarding standards of dress. If your use of right reason leads you to a different set of standards, I would very much like to see what they are.
Andy, in all charity and good will:
ReplyDeleteFashions change, but the standard for modesty does not. To say that there is a modern standard of modesty is to buy into relativism, or to at least suggest that there is no standard but what is agreed upon my the majority (this is the battle cry of protestantism).
The Marylike standards are a bare minimum that should be observed by all faithful Catholic women whether the year is 100 or 3000. There is absolutely no reason Catholics should compromise on this point or on any other point of our heritage or faith. The Catholic Church has always been the height of fashion since her institution and will continue to be until the end of the world. Marylike does not mean "little house on the prairie." Actually anything less than Marylike is infinitely worse than little house on the prairie!
Dressing, and acting, modestly does not hinder ones ability to evangelize. In fact, observing this practice is living the faith in public witness (this all applies to men as well, of course). Catholics are called to be the light of the world - not to blend in.
Finally, The reason for modesty is not just to prevent the stirring up of lust. The point is giving glory to Almighty God by obeying His commands and wishes, and upholding the dignity of the human body. Mary our Mother is our guide, our morning star, our supreme example. I guarantee you that Our Lady would never approve of a woman, a magnificent creature of God, wearing most of what is considered normal dress for women today.
Our Lady's words at Fatima: "Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much... the Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same..."
And Blessed Jacinta on the worldliness of the hospital visitors dressed in "fashionable" clothes, often with low-cut dresses: "What is it all for?" she asked her guardian. "If they only knew what eternity is."
God bless you.
Trying to be "relevant" always ends up being irrelevant. Why should we think that people can't be reached if I don't watch TV or listen to The Beatles? I would respectfully but strongly disagree with the whole thrust of this argument. And I speak as a former worldling and atheist. If there was one thing that attracted me to religion and Catholicism was its otherworldliness. Not "relevance". Despise the world.
ReplyDelete/David
Gary et. al.;
ReplyDeleteYou're missing the point of what I wrote about. The idea isn't that I'm advocating the complete abandonment of modesty, that is why I asked you to go back and re-read what I said. Apparently you have not done that.
The point of what I wrote is to say that in order for us to be effective in the world, we cannot hold ourselves back to a time or a cultural standard which causes us to be outcast or causes us undue ridicule.
Example, if a woman were to dress as Pius XI's secretary suggested and tried to minister to teens today, she would not be taken as seriously as someone who was dressed more in keeping with today's standards.
I'm not saying that skirts have to be mini's. I'm not saying that blouses have to be low cut. Again, go back and look at what I'm saying...there are standards of modesty which can be and are employed today. The sad fact is that my point was missed because of a reaction to the notion that "pants and denim" are acceptable for women.
As for your analogy of men, I think that Elvis is a terrible, terrible example. There is nothing that he wore which was overly tight and revealing. I ought to know, my dad grew up with him and I have been a fan since I was a very young child.
Again, I implore everyone to go back and re-read what I've written. I have not called for the abandonment of modesty, but to the contrary, I've called for the modest application of the standard of dress for today's styles. Big difference and one which has been lost in this conversation, because it was taken to the extreme.
As I said, "I'm not saying that we shouldn't practice moderation, to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying."
Finally, at no point am I condoning being of the world. I have said that repeatedly. I am condoning working in the world for the salvation of souls.
Dear Andy,
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to see who or what you are actually criticizing. In all charity I ask, would anyone seriously suggest that we all go around wearing museum-clothes from the 1700s or use the same fabrics and models as in the 1930s? What does this have to do with the length of skirts? It is possible to dress within the codes laid out above without appearing to be an Amish. I would say that to suggest anything else shows a certain lack of imagination. And that is indeed lacking in the modern world.
/David
It's not my stereotype, it's the rules. I looked up those Marylike dress and rules and it states:
ReplyDeleteOur girls should be pursuing lady-like activities and hobbies which will prepare them for marriage and their proper role as mother and wife. They should be learning to sew, embroider, knit, crochet, cook, make rosaries, sing good Catholic songs and other decent, patriotic songs, play musical instruments, paint and draw.
I have nothing against women who want to wear skirts or dresses all the time and they certainly can do so in a modest and fashinable way and not seem "different" to the rest of the world. But the world has changed and I, as a woman, can no longer do the things suggested above(though I am able to do them all and more), and only those, if I want to succeed in life. Gone are the days where girls just got married and had families.
If our culture has changed then we must semi-adapt to it as well. Is it fair to say to a girl that she can't be a track star because the shorts are "immodest"? I'm just saying that if these are the standards for women then men should be wearing robes as well, no pants or shorts for anyone. But as it stands decently fitting pants and long shorts for women and girls I do not believe is considered immodest and I do not believe it makes me or anyone who agrees, less of a catholic to believe so.
@ David,
ReplyDeleteI'm not criticizing anyone. That's part of it too. I am speaking of a positive way by which we can attempt to minister to people, young and old without having to go to the extreme. Far too often, people react to one thing by trying to return to a standard which cannot possibly work in today's world. As a previous commenter posed, "the human body does not change," this is true, but the standard by which that body is judged does. So, a woman wearing pants in 1932 may not have been accepted, but in 2012, that's a different story.
And that is my point.
Andy,
ReplyDeleteI have read and re-read your original post several times and all I find are vague generalizations about supporting modesty and stereotypical characterizations about those who choose to dress according to the criteria outlined by Casey. And where is the evidence that a woman who dresses according to the standards outlined by Casey can't minister as effectively to teens? That is a preposterous and un-provable assertion. For several years, the leader of our Novus Ordo parish youth group dressed along those lines and was very successful with the teens (many of whom did not dress modestly). So I repeat for the third time my request that you give some concrete standards for dress that you believe does not violate Christian modesty and will maximize its evangelical potential. This is not a trick question, nor is it unreasonable. For instance, you seem to support denim pants for women - well, there are many styles out there in denim - are lowrider jeans ok? How tight is too tight for jeans? For shorts, how short is too short? You don't support tube tops, but what about tank tops? Is any midriff showing OK? If yes, how much midriff is OK? There, I've done half the work for you. We need to know these things because if we're going to effectively evangelize the world through modern dress styles, my wife and I need to go shopping. Cheers!
I'd like to step in and suggest a very good article written by Fr. Guillaume Gaud, SSPX that was translated by our friends at Rorate Cæli:
ReplyDeletehttp://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/relevant-thoughts-trad-environments.html
Fr. Gaud makes the excellent point that a traditional Catholic lifestyle does not start with "rules" about fashion, art, TV, movies or video games. An authentic traditional Catholic lifestyle begins with consistency, and I read into that, reason and logic. If there are rules, they flow naturally from this consistency of life in Christ.
A relationship with Christ transforms a person, primarily in an internal manner, but also outwardly. A person transformed by grace is made meek or modest or temperate, etc. The deeper and more seriously one lives her Catholicism, the more saintly she becomes.
Fr. Gaud warns against "a sort of sclerotic portrayal of Tradition" that attempts to identify the traditional "environ" with the 1950s. We live and breath in the 21st century. We are not irrationally living in the past like the Amish. They live first by "rules". We as traditional Catholics live first by conviction and sincerity.
This is where prudence comes in. "All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify" (1 Cor 10:23). Parsing what edifies and what does not is the work of the VIRTUE of prudence. Prudence just doesn't pop into our heads. Prudence is a virtue, a habit that must be formed. It formed by consistency, conviction and sincerity that comes from a relationship with Christ that we strive daily to deepen.
So, in other words, if you want answers to how much midriff is allowed to be visible while going out with friends, then deepen your relationship with Christ, and I'm sure you will discover the answer on your own.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is my point, it has been all along. Thank you, David.
ReplyDeleteI spoke in generalizations, because it was a general discussion. There was nothing aimed at any one person or group. It was about a mindset.
It's natural to want to cover your body, it's the shame that was installed after Adam and Eve fell from grace and got kicked out of the Garden. Even if prudence becomes a habit in childhood and is practiced throughout does not mean that one won't abandon it and modesty completely as an adult. I've seen it happen in my own family, upbringing helps but everyone eventually makes their own decisions.
ReplyDeleteAnd again nobody is addressing the issue of modesty in men...
Rachael,
ReplyDeleteI spoke very briefly in a post above about modesty in men, wherein I stated that I think that many of the same standards apply, particularly as regards amount of exposed flesh and tightness of clothing fit. I worked for a number of years in a social services environment where most of the employees were women. Because our facility was subject to regular fire dept. inspections, a number of the women would be all "gah-gah" over the beefy firemen who would show up on inspection day. The firemen were merely wearing their required uniform. Had they the freedom and chose to show up in tight-fitting pants or shorts and muscle shirts I would consider that immodest. I consider Speedo type swimsuits to be immodest for men, wearing shirts with several front buttons open, etc. Now what about pants? Why do some of us consider them to be generally immodest for women but not for men? Let me state first that I think tight-fitting pants which accentuate the groin or buttocks of a man are immodest as are shorts above the knee or tight-fitting as per pants above. As to why pants are allowed at all for men is based on the general differences between male and female psychology and stimulus response. In her book, Dressing with Dignity, Colleen Hammond demonstrates that the human eye will follow a line and the viewer will complete the picture with his or her imagination. Advertisers and clothing designers understand these principles and use them to maximize the sex appeal of their products. Generally speaking, because sexual arousal from visual stimuli is much more potent for men than it is for women, that is where the greatest danger for the greatest number of people lies. I think that a commonsense "proof" of this can be found in the fact that many, many, many more women are likely to be seen wearing tight-fitting pants of all kinds than are men. It is true that sex sells. Of course there are always exceptions, which is why I consider tight-fitting pants on men (or the pulled-down showing underwear look) to be immodest and the latter stupid as well. As Andy said moderation is important so I think that the issue of decently fitting pants for women is something of an open question. Trouble is, my observations lead me to think that no one sells decent fitting pants for women - so very few women can be seen wearing them. I would tend to argue against decently fitting pants for women (at least on a regular basis)for a more positive reason: it is good to have appropriate displays of femininity and masculinity and some clear differences in clothing for men and women can be an important way to do this. I don't think the unisex approach to clothing is flattering to either women or men, especially since it usually involves women trying to dress as men. I strongly recommend the Dressing with Dignity book and to take time to really think through the details and sources for the arguments that she presents.
David: Thank you. Excellent point.
ReplyDeleteAndy: The whole sense of your post is that it criticizes some "pharisaical" and legalistic attitude. But if all you wanted to say was that we can be modest without being Amish, then why all the fuss? Is anyone actually saying something different? Granted, my experience of the Trad culture is limited but I can't claim to have seen much people dressed as Amish or purposely going around in retro wear. Perhaps a few, definitely not many.
Rachael: Male modesty is indeed a subject that needs to be explored. The reason that female modesty is more expounded upon is the difference of the appetites and their respective proportions in male and female. Lust is more prevalent among men than women. That doesn't mean men can dress immodestly without causing scandal.
/David