Pants vs. Dresses/Skirts

[Lost Wanderer]

Originally Posted by CradleCath

I feel the same way about T-shirts at Mass. Properly fitting t-shirts, worn under a blouse for warmth are fine, T-shirts picturing your favorite Rap-star are not. I don't think one can make a dress code for Mass, as it isn't usually the clothing per se.......but the way it's worn & WHY it's worn that can prove to be distasteful.

What's wrong with a T-shirt like that? Unless you see swear words or something pornographic on the shirt, I don't see what's wrong with letting people wear shirts like that. Heck my shirts almost always have an image on them (most often it's my favorite creature, the dragon, or characters and icons from certain video/computer games).

Originally Posted by CradleCath

Whether our dress helps to bring fallen-away Catholics "home" (or not) should never be the ruler with which we measure our success as Catholic. It's how we look to God, does our appearance please Him? Have we taken time to prepare ourselves to enter His house....have we prepared ourselves BOTH physically & spiritually to come into His home?? Do we make the best of what He's given us when we worship........that's what matters, HIS opinion.

Frankly, I'm more worried about God's opinion on what I had done with my life and about the burdens I've had on my heart and mind... than what I wear.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by dixieagle

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely with this. If one is dressed modestly and decently (as would be the case cited by the previous poster) there isn't the slightest hint of sin - venial or otherwise.

We must be most careful about setting up our own prejudices and preferences as a standard for others. If one is "scandalized" by modest, loose fitting pants and a decent blouse or shirt, it is not the wearer who has the problem.

You are making a determination that "loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn't revealing according to my conscience", is modest and decent, whereas I am presenting the factors that one must consider, which are immodesty, respect, vanity, and scandal (including the apparence of evil), rather than a judgement of the outfit.

The point is that each must decide for themselves as we alone know what our intentions are. Do we really disagree?

[Dirk Skene]

[quote=Vico;5885230]You are making a determination that "loose-fitting, respectable pants and a blouse/t-shirt/sweater/etc that isn't revealing according to my conscience", is modest and decent, whereas ................/QUOTE]

I am not quoting Vico directly. I am just trying to play "catch up" Could someone summerise this thread for me?

[DeiGratia]

Isn't it true that in some Eastern cultures the women wear pants culturally? To me, if something's going to be treated as doctrine, it ought to withstand the "global test" -- which means it has to work in every culture. Else, it's just our (usually western) tradition.

The Holy Scriptures only go so far as to require "modesty". And I dare say I've seen some immodest skirts, and some modest pants.


Soli Dei Gratia

[Tamsulosin]

I agree 100% with this last poster.Modesty does not lie in the cut or design of the garment
,could be pants or skirts.Does it seek to attract attention to it,or is it too revealing?.Those are the tests of modesty.

[USAFAmom]

I have an old book which I found in a junk heap: "American Catholic Etiquette" from 1964. In it, there is a discussion of proper attire for mass. At the time it was written, there was undoubtedly a social injunction against women wearing pants to mass, since pants were more for gardening, housework, etc., and not generally worn for social occasions.

Interestingly, there is also listed a stricture against sleeveless attire! This book says that after age 5, women and girls should never appear with their shoulders bared at mass since this was considered to be immodest in front of the Real Presence. When was the last time you were at a Catholic wedding? The last ten I attended, the bride was not only sleeveless but had no fabric at all above her breasts!

I for one will be elated when sleeves make their return to women's clothing.

[Vico]

JOL started this thread Jul 15, 2009 with:
"I was first introduced to the idea that to be modest a woman must wear a skirt or dress by the independent fundamental baptist church. When I began to read the scriptures and looked at history, I found that this seems to be the acceptable way. Much to my shock, there is [s]chism (is that what you call it?) within the Catholic Church [on] wear[ing] skirts/dresses only. What are your thoughts on this?"

Then she clarified on Jul 16, 2009:
"I should have been more specific. When I said "skirts," I meant long skirts. It is obvious that a short or mini-skirt would be less modest than pants. I would hope though that Christians wouldn't wear a mini-skirt to begin with. Another thing is long skirts with big slits, another no-no. So, when I say "skirt," I would be referring to long modest skirts (little or no slit)."

So she was requesting Catholic opinions on Pants vs. Long Dresses/Skirts (with little or no slit).

Now we have had over 400 posts on the subject, with diversions, and with deja vu, including the comment that the thread was disrespectful and should be terminated.

My opinion was that pants are more revealing of the form given an equivalent length and tightness of pants, and I summarized factors in choosing non-sinful apparel. There were many comments on what was modest or not and differences in various cultures. Also people discussed specific guidelines for dress were from religous sources including a Pope. Also we have the catechism that does explain what the principles are for avoiding sin, but as you know, specific judgements are not made there because the catechism is a general statement, and perhaps to avoid becoming crude by putting questionable descriptions into writing, for a general audience.

[Shin]

Originally Posted by USAFAmom

I have an old book which I found in a junk heap: "American Catholic Etiquette" from 1964. In it, there is a discussion of proper attire for mass. At the time it was written, there was undoubtedly a social injunction against women wearing pants to mass, since pants were more for gardening, housework, etc., and not generally worn for social occasions.

Interestingly, there is also listed a stricture against sleeveless attire! This book says that after age 5, women and girls should never appear with their shoulders bared at mass since this was considered to be immodest in front of the Real Presence. When was the last time you were at a Catholic wedding? The last ten I attended, the bride was not only sleeveless but had no fabric at all above her breasts!

I for one will be elated when sleeves make their return to women's clothing.

This is exactly the key, people do not understand how so much modesty was simply understood.

I should like to read this book.

But I think reading other books too, and magazines, as long as they are old enough -- people would understand. You watch older films.. the standards are there, they are understood. When they are violated back then it is even more notable.

These are different times where pornography is on the regular television channels and in front of the cash registers at every supermarket. People do not understand how far it is from the standards of God, and talk about rights and things as if that will obtain them Heaven. Heaven is hard to get to. Very hard. You can't treat modesty at too priceless.

And you can't look and the before and after and -when- the change came and not see the warning signs flashing, because of the clear -why-.