Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 22, 2013, 01:42:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
Author Topic: Modest attire?  (Read 6883 times)
AdoramusTeChriste
Dances with Chopper

Member

Posts: 5,677



« on: May 01, 2006, 09:07:AM »

Modesty. Who decides? How does it get decided? I know how not to decide.

 

The following articles were given to me by our SSPX priest. Neither of them have an application to the laity at large per se, but they give the appearance of authority and therefore they give rise to scandal through misinterpretation due to the intentional confusion. The occasion for my discomfiture came when the priest told me that my modestly attired daughter was immodestly attired. She was wearing a skirt below her knees, a blouse with a high, Victorian style neckline and cap sleeves that apparently showed too much arm. These two articles are the most uncharitable things I have ever read at my chapel and I would like to know if any of you also have to suffer under this oppressive yoke and what, if anything, you have done about it.

 

Here's is the first article. There are so many problems with this flyer that it is hard to know where to begin. First off, whoever dares to disagree with the anonymous authorship under the auspices of the Marylike Crusader is automatically branded a modern liberalist. Second, the "decrees" referred to are manipulated in such a way as to give them the weight of dogma when they are actually directed to convent schools, not the public, and were written by a cardinal, not the Pope Pius XI. Third, the insidious and illogical claims made in the flyer rashly impute to the faithful an impurity in thought and action that simply cannot be proven. It scandalizes modest people who don't measure up to the desired standards of prudery demanded.

 

 

Quote
 

Rome’s Decrees on Modesty in Dress --  

Still Victims of “Conspiracy of Silence”

English Translation of 1928 Document


Modern Liberalism gives repeated evidence of a morbid fear of crusades against immodest fashions. It stubbornly adheres to the oft-repeated, and oft-condemned principle that Christian modesty in dress is regulated by “customs and styles of time, place and circumstances.” Just as stubbornly does it ignore, or refuse to heed, authoritative statements or decrees which contradict its pet sophisms and which insist that it is the Church, and not society, to which Christ has entrusted the principles governing Christian modesty.  


Thus it happened that the “Crusade Against Immodest Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious,” ordered by Pope Pius XI on August 23, 1928, was all but completely ignored in the United States, even by our Catholic press. The letter containing the order was sent to all Ordinaries of Italy through the Sacred Congregation of Religious, and was made known to the world through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930 (vol. 22, pp. 26-28). Yet, to this day, very few Catholics have even heard of this document; and scarcely anyone seems to know its gravely-worded contents. For two decades we have been looking in vain for an English translation. At last we have one. It was made recently by the well-known Father John Rubba, O.P., from the Italian as it appeared in Commentarium Pro Religiosis (vol. 9, 1928, pp. 414-415). We are most happy to publish Father Rubba’s translation.  


1928 Letter to the Congregation for Religious


To The Ordinaries of Italy: regarding the crusade against immodest fashions, especially in schools directed by women Religious.  

Circular. Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir, well known to you are the grave words of condemnation which the Holy Father spoke, on several occasions, with apostolic authority, against the immodest fashion of women’s dress which prevails today to the detriment of good breeding.  

Suffice it to recall the very grave words, charged with grief and admonition, with which in the discourse of August 15th current, in the consistorial chamber, promulgating the decree on the heroic virtues of Venerable Paola Frassinetti, His Holiness denounced once again the danger which, by its seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls, who profess to belong to the flock of Jesus Christ and to His Holy Church.  

It is painful to point out in this regard that the deplorable custom tends to insinuate itself among young girls who frequent, as extern pupils, some of the schools directed by Sisters and Sunday-school classes which are held in female religious institutions.  

In order to confront a danger which, by spreading, becomes ever more grave, this Sacred Congregation, by order of the Holy Father, calls upon the Ordinaries of Italy so that they may communicate to the superiors of the houses of female religious in their respective dioceses the following injunctions of this Sacred Congregation, confirmed by His Holiness in audience this day:  

a) In all schools, academies, recreation centers, Sunday schools, and laboratories directed by female religious, not to be admitted from now on are those girls who do not observe in their attire the rules of modesty and Christian decency.  

b) To this end, the superiors themselves will be obliged to exercise a close supervision and exclude peremptorily from the schools and projects of their institutions those pupils who do not conform to these prescriptions.  

c) They must not be influenced in this by any human respect, either for material considerations or by reason of the social prestige and of the families of their pupils, even though the student body should diminish in number.  

d) Furthermore, the Sisters, in fulfillment of their educational pursuits, must endeavor to inculcate sweetly and strongly in their pupils the love and relish for holy modesty, the sign and guardian of purity and delicate adornment of womankind.  

Your Reverence will be vigilant that these injunctions be exactly observed and that there be perfect conformity of conduct among all the institutes of female religious in the diocese.  

You will severely call to task whoever should fail in this, and should any abuse be prolonged, you will notify this Sacred Congregation.  

With deepest esteem, I remain,  

Devotedly yours,  

G. Cardinal Laurenti, Prefect  

Sacred Congregation for Religious  

Vincent La Puma, Secretary  

Rome, August 23, 1928  


Liberalism’s Excuse for Ignoring Letter


The excuse usually given for ignoring the Pope’s modesty crusade was, that it was not directed to the United States, but to Italy. A strange attitude, indeed, after Pope Pius XI had spoken to the world (as had Pope Benedict XV previously) “grave words of condemnation ... on several occasions, with apostolic authority, against immodest fashion of women’s dress which prevails today to the detriment of good breeding ...”; and in view of the fact that perhaps nowhere in the world were Catholic women and girls dressing more scandalously than in the United States, and therefore nowhere was the Pope’s Crusade more urgently needed than in our own nation.  


But by 1928 Liberalism was already in control of Catholic thinking. And Liberalism could see no need for the Pope’s Modesty Crusade. It kept insisting that “custom” determines what is modest and what is immodest in attire -- even when these shameless customs were introduced for profits by heathen commercialism in a de-Christianized society -- all the warnings of the Vicars of Christ to the contrary notwithstanding.  


Yet, the good faith of Liberalism fell under serious suspicion when it persisted in ignoring the 1928 Letter even after the Holy See made it official also for the United States less than 17 months later. For on January 12, 1930 the Pope directed the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a strongly-worded Letter on Christian Modesty to the whole world, which required of “Nuns compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious.” [see no. 6 below] This 1930 letter was even more emphatic; gave more detailed directives; and imposed the obligation of combating the immodest fashions and promoting modesty on all persons in authority -- Bishops and other ordinaries, parish priests, parents, Superioresses and teachers in schools. This letter reads as follows:  


1930 Letter of the Congregation of the Council


By virtue of the supreme apostolate which he wields over the Universal Church by Divine Will, our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, “Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... and professing godliness with good works.”  

Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause.

Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, while cordially commending the action of the Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely uprooted from human society.  

In order to facilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by the mandate of the Most Holy Father, has decreed as follows:  


Exhortation to Those in Authority


1. The parish priest, and especially the preacher, when occasion arises, should, according to the words of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iv, 2), insist, argue exhort and command that feminine garb be based on modesty and womanly ornament be a defense of virtue. Let them likewise admonish parents to cause their daughters to cease wearing indecorous dress.  

2. Parents, conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religious and moral, to their offspring, should see to it that their daughters are solidly instructed, from earliest childhood, in Christian doctrine; and they themselves should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example, love for the virtues of modesty and chastity; and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty.  

3. 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 that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.  

4. Superioresses and teachers in schools for girls must do their utmost to instill love of modesty in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dress modestly.  

5. Said Superioresses and teachers must not receive in their colleges and schools immodestly dressed girls, and should not even make an exception in the case of mothers of pupils. If, after being admitted, girls persist in dressing immodestly, such pupils should be dismissed.  

6. Nuns, in compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious, must not receive in their colleges, schools, oratories or recreation grounds, or, if once admitted, tolerate girls who are not dressed with Christian modesty; said Nuns, in addition, should do their utmost so that love for holy chastity and Christian modesty may become deeply rooted in the hearts of their pupils.  

7. It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.  

8. In the pious associations of women those who dress immodestly should not be admitted to membership; but if, perchance, they are received, and after having been admitted, fall again into their error, they should be dismissed forthwith.  

9. Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from acting as sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.  

Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect  

Congregation of the Council  

Rome, January 12, 1930  


“Conspiracy of Silence”


This important letter may be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 1930 (vol. 22, pp. 26-28). It also appeared in Canon Law Digest (1, pp. 212-214), and undoubtedly in many other papers in the United States. The Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein of St. Louis deserves much credit for circulating an English translation of this letter so widely and so perseveringly over a period of many years. Unfortunately, American Liberalism, which so loudly prates about its loyalty to the Holy See, succeeded in shoving the Pope’s modesty Crusade into oblivion by its “conspiracy of silence,” and by its summary rejection of any set of standards for modesty in dress.  


What! No Standards?


But where do you find the Marylike standards in either of these letters? The Liberals ask with an air of triumph, thus implying, if not claiming outright, that these standards are not authentic. But after many years of research, these standards are now full authenticated as having been issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pius XI in Rome, in these words:  


“in order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women ... 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 knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper ...”  


Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, quotes these standards as “The Church’s stand concerning modesty in dress” in his Pastoral of December 6, 1959. He attributes them to Pope Pius XI Himself, and gives the exact date of issuance, September 24, 1928. The Marylike Crusade codified these standards, making only a small (ecclesiastically approved) temporary concession because of impossible market conditions in the United States. This modified form has been officially adopted by the entire Philippine Hierarchy.  


The quick action of issuing the standards only 31 days after the Pope launched the Modesty Crusade show the great importance attached to the standards. You simply cannot promote modesty in dress without standards. Those who reject standards usually see no need for a Modesty Crusade. Or did you ever see any of them zealously promoting Christian modesty in dress? Hardly, they are too intent on calling those persons “prudes” who try to be conscientious in following the guidance of the Church; too busy trying to prove that modesty is what a paganized society, “custom,” says it is. In issuing standards, Rome lit the torch and held it aloft, but the Liberals quickly blew it out.  


“In order that uniformity of understanding prevail” is the key to the question of standards. Without “uniformity” only confusion can result. And confusion defeats the entire purpose of the Modesty Crusade.  


Both letters from the Holy See postulate some set of standards. Let us take some examples from the 1930 letter. How can parents possibly carry out number 3 in the absence of standards? Let conscientious parents try to object to a suit prescribed by a gym instructor, and see what happens!  


Again, a teacher trying to carry out numbers 5 and 6 dismisses from school a girl who “persists in dressing immodestly,” or she bars from the school or its premises an immodestly dressed mother wishing to visit her daughter. Woe to that teacher if her case is brought to a Superioress or a Pastor who does not subscribe to standards of modesty in dress! “Liberty of conscience” is immediately invoked, and that poor teacher is “put in the doghouse.” Lack of “uniformity” nullifies all her efforts. (Many Sisters have complained of this.)  


Further, how can the “pious associations” of number 8 possibly operate without a “uniform” standard? Try it!  


Finally, in the absence of standards, “uniformity”, how would a pastor fare who would try to enforce no. 9?  


Truly absurd and ridiculous is the claim of some that standards of modesty in dress are not essential for the Modesty Crusade. This fact is fully verified by the experience of the Marylike Crusade. Marching confidently under Mary’s glorious banner, we call these standards the Marylike Standards because we know that “Mary approves what the Church approves.”  


Reprinted from the Marylike Crusader, Nov-Dec 1963. 

 

Here is the second. Not nearly as offensive as the first, but these are suggestions that are made to look like rules.

 

 

Quote

The Marylike Standards

for Modesty in Dress

1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise, "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.

2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching well below the knees.

3. Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth under the back of the neck.

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.

    "Marylike" fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.

       Keep this guide with you when buying clothes. Make sure that you purchase or make only garments which meet the Marylike Standards. ''Be Marylike by being modest -- be modest by being Marylike."

 

 

 
Logged

TRAD UP!!!
S.A.G. ~ Kathy ~ Sanguine-choleric. Have fun...or else.

Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi, quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
To listen to the hymn- http://fisheaters.com/forumpix/adoramustechriste.html

"I am convinced that the crisis of the church which we are living through today was largely caused by the disintegration of the liturgy."              
- The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

"Their cold stares remind me of the neo-cons that just sign up to FE - they are fish, but they are dead." ~ Marty
Charlemagne
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2006, 09:22:AM »

Sorry but I agree with these articles.
(Sits back and awaits the personal abuse bound to come his way)


Logged
miss_fluffy
Domina Frivola
Gold Fish
*
Personality type: Phlegmatic Mastermind
Posts: 5,266



« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2006, 09:26:AM »

Quote from: AdoramusTeChriste

 

Quote

The Marylike Standards

for Modesty in Dress

2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching well below the knees.

 

I had no idea that almost all of the shirts I wear in the summer are immodest, I've been showing at least an inch or two above the elbows!

Quote from: AdoramusTeChriste

 

Quote

3. Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth under the back of the neck. 

 

I'm not even sure shirts/dresses exist that fulfill this standard.  I own absolutely nothing that only shows an inch (two fingers width) below the throat.  I struggle to find shirts that don't reveal cleavage, apparently that's not good enough.

 

Maybe we should start wrapping sheets around our bodies.

Logged

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.– Buddha

Note: According to this precept, I find that Buddhism is NOT true.  I have tested and judged many things, and the only Truth I have found is in God's One True Church: The Catholic Church.

Dear Lord, I know I can live by Your Holy Will every moment of my life, because You have given me faith that Your Grace will enable me to.
AdoramusTeChriste
Dances with Chopper

Member

Posts: 5,677



« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2006, 09:29:AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne
Sorry but I agree with these articles.
(Sits back and awaits the personal abuse bound to come his way)


So do I, in context. I agree that schools run by nuns have the legitimate right to enforce a dress code and that members of a sodality have the right to impose standards that they see fit as a condition of membership.

 

However, the broader application to all female laity is scandalous in that it rashly assumes that a bared arm automatically leads to "depraved licentiousness" in the wearer, which is detraction.

 

 

Logged

TRAD UP!!!
S.A.G. ~ Kathy ~ Sanguine-choleric. Have fun...or else.

Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi, quia per sanctam crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
To listen to the hymn- http://fisheaters.com/forumpix/adoramustechriste.html

"I am convinced that the crisis of the church which we are living through today was largely caused by the disintegration of the liturgy."              
- The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

"Their cold stares remind me of the neo-cons that just sign up to FE - they are fish, but they are dead." ~ Marty
miss_fluffy
Domina Frivola
Gold Fish
*
Personality type: Phlegmatic Mastermind
Posts: 5,266



« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2006, 09:30:AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne
Sorry but I agree with these articles.
(Sits back and awaits the personal abuse bound to come his way)


I agree with the articles too, but when imposed upon someone who is trying their hardest to dress modestly with what is available in today's society, it comes across as an insult.  Adoramus is upset because the articles were given to her, when her daughter was dressed modestly by today's standards.

Logged

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.– Buddha

Note: According to this precept, I find that Buddhism is NOT true.  I have tested and judged many things, and the only Truth I have found is in God's One True Church: The Catholic Church.

Dear Lord, I know I can live by Your Holy Will every moment of my life, because You have given me faith that Your Grace will enable me to.


fiatvoluntastua
Member

Posts: 294


« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2006, 09:32:AM »

Yeah, I have to agree too with the articles (waiting for the prude, puritian, etc. comments to come)

In any of those articles it says that quarter length sleeves are permitted with the present market conditions being what they are.  Cap sleeves (if I'm thinking of what they are right) are just slightly more then being sleeveless.  I'm not saying your priest's handling of the situation was right.

 

But this issue is really  There are people who agree with these guidelines, and those who don't, and what good does it do to continue to cause contention, since no one ever changes their mind on these things?

Logged

"I wish it had need not have happened in my time" said Frodo
"So do I" said Gandalf 'and so do all who live to see such times.  But that is not for them to decide.  All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"





JLeigh
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2006, 09:33:AM »

Here is something interesting...I found the Marylike standards here: http://www.truecatholic.org/marylike.htm

 

 

Now look at this paragraph from the document Kathy was given (quoted from AdoramusTeChriste's post):

 

Quote
"Marylike" fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.

 

And here is the same paragraph from the link I posted:

 

Quote
“Marylike” fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal.  This would automatically eliminate such fashions as tight slacks, jeans, sweaters, shorts: shorts which do not reach well below the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses; etc.  The Marylike standards are guide to instill a “sense of modesty.”  A girl who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem of modesty in dress.  She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.”  

 

Here again is another quote, this time from the SSPX's website http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1989_June/Marylike_Standards.htm :

 

Quote
'"Marylike" fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as tight slacks, jeans, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a 'sense of modesty.' A girl who follows these and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem of modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others. 

 

Notice the subtle differences, but those subtle differences change the entire meaning of some parts of those quotes.

Logged
las312
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2006, 09:33:AM »

You know I've been struggling with this issue for a long time.  I want very much to do what's is right and not excuse immodesty for purely vain or selfish reasons.  I also don't want to fall into the subtle rebellion of "fashion relativism" whereby people compare "modern Western culture" with naked tribal peoples who aren't so "hung up" on body exposure.  This is often mentioned for example when someone comments on the Masses with JPII receiving the Gifts from bare-breasted women of pagan tradition.

 

God Bless,

Lisa

Logged
las312
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2006, 09:41:AM »

Another thing...

 

I believe I've read that the Vatican (still today) dress code follows what was listed in the above articles.  No more than an inch below the collar bone, skirts and dresses on women (no pants or shorts) and they have to fall below the knee, sleeves to the elbow for men and women...etc.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with these standards, it's just hard to find and follow due to what's in the stores ...

 

God Bless,

Lisa

Logged
Charlemagne
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2006, 09:42:AM »

Quote
So do I, in context. I agree that schools run by nuns have the legitimate right to enforce a dress code

The Church you attend also has a legititmate right to enforce a dress code, why do you think it is ok for other groups to be able to do this  but not your Church.  Is your Church not a group?, are you not a member?     

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC