I agree with what you say about scruples and coping. I have also had my share! However, in humility, I would like to note that using cyberspace to accuse fellow Catholics of being “internet Pharisees” may not be the best expression of love, mercy, peace, and grace.

Excellent Mark

thank you.

Very useful advice which can be applied to many areas.

Love the ‘earworms’.

Regarding the specifics of the question. It is “what comes from within a man ...”. For a true naturist/nudist a nude beach is less erotic than one with 1940’s swimwear.

eg I once worked for a few days with a Muslim woman who was fully covered up including face covering and gloves. Only her veiled eyes were partly visible. Yet, I found the occasional glimpse of her shoes and the way her outer robe slid over her gloves when she handed me a coffee surprisingly arousing. Although that was the opposite of what she probably intended, and I am sure she was not intending to tease. She was more erotically distracting than the other conventionally-dressed young women at that office.

Thanks Mark! I really really needed to hear that today too.

If you want to go to Heaven, and have the true peace of God on earth, listen to the saints. It is natural to be troubled at first when learning about conversion is necessary, but modesty is a beautiful virtue and a good thing and should be appreciated.

Modesty is not all relative. Today’s swimsuits are not acceptable. Christian society and standards are very different than what are commonly lived throughout the world today, including by most church goers. But God’s way is the way to true happiness and peace.

‘I urge you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.’

Romans 12:1-2

Sir Isaac Newton is quoted as saying, with respect to lust, “For he that is always thinking of chastity will always be thinking of women”.  Good advice, Mark.  Even applies to women beholding some Adonis in his Speedos.

Living long enough tempers scrupulosity just as it does several appetites. But when one is young and caught in the throes of it, there’s nothing that I can remember that helped. And I tried every spiritual step that I knew of at the time short of a hair shirt or hair shorts. Nothing worked until I was on the lip of 70. Four years later, I am doing well, simply because I have dry macular degeneration and that, combined with “custody of the eyes,” makes life tolerable. The wonderful thing is that through the hades of it all, I never lost my belief in God and in the Catholic Church. Two years of listening the railing of Father Corapi on EWTN prepared me for meeting an ancient pastor who was holier than any priest I had ever met. It took three afternoons to go to confession but after a 40-year hiatus, I was a practicing Catholic again. That was on January 10, 2008, and I pray for Father Corapi every day

When we cannot change the world, we must change themselves. Just practice the good old custody of the eyes - when you see something that offends you, don’t look again. It really works. The aptly named by you, Mark, “internet Pharisees” would do well to remember that. And no, Diane, there is nothing wrong in Mark’s using this phrase - after all, Jesus chastised the Pharisees all the time. If there is a good reason for chastisement, a chastisement must follow, expressed with love, mercy, peace and grace.

In the first sentence it is, of course, not “themselves” but “ourselves”.

love this!  i am a scruples girl :( too.  just copy and pasted your prayers to add to my morning routine :) thanks!

With all due respect here I think we are missing the point. Scruples can often come from lack of knowledge. The bible says, “My people perish from lack of knowledge.” Today more than ever people do not understand what the Church has said about modesty.
Most people are not aware the Church made some pretty good pronouncements about modesty and made some clear rules. For example in 1930
“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 materials are improper.” The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI
This one quote by itself is all that is needed to know we need to cover up. Modern swimsuits, just won’t fit the bill.
There has been much more said since then, some by just priests perhaps, but if we take a look at history we see that up to the 1950’s fashions for women were much more modest than today.
Just because everyone is doing it, doesn’t make it right. Abortion is rampant today but that doesn’t ‘make it right. Catholics need to learn about modesty, so they do not become scrupulous and realize that are all on a journey to heaven. We must save our souls! The world today is imploding with its perversions and we must step away and see it for what it is.
God did not make us to show off our bodies. Our bodies are sacred, a temple of the Holy Ghost after Holy Communion. We need to consider what God requires of us. Surely we can do more for God when the world insults Jesus with every turn. God bless you.

Just to add the comments of Shin and Rita.

The problem with the Pharisees was not their law, it was their hearts. Jesus himself said the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses and he said to do what they say but not what they do and they honor with their lips but their hearts are far away.

Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body also pointed out that shame is the proper response to being objectified. So yes,  modesty is important.

As to whether a bikini is modest, one has to only ask if people buy bikini clad “Swimsuit Issues” or newspaper ‘Sunshine Girls” just for the articles. Or why most large companies forbid their employees from putting bikini clad women as computer screen backgrounds or posters. This is no judgement on women who wear bikinis who honestly think they are modest, but the facts speak for themselves. Women in bikini are objectified. And even if it is not our intent to case someone to sin, St Paul points out that we must not be the occasion of sin for our brother.

WRT women in burkas being more sexy than women in business dress, I only have to ask if traditional nuns or Mother Mary (both of which are only one veil short of being in a full burka) are more sexy than women in business dress. I’m willing to bet that most people here would think it is sick to think of either in a sexual away, precisely because you don’t objectify these women…you see them as human beings worthy of respect. If one see these modest women as human beings, how could one see modest women in burkas as being objects? I’m willing to bet it has much more to do with overblown Arabian harem stories than the actual burka.

Rita:

Yes, but, no.

I agree with so much of the spirit of what you said; but to say that the rule you’ve quoted is “all we need to know” is nonsense.

Modesty is partly a reflection of that which is universal in human nature and partly a reflection of how geography and breeding and language and weather and natural resources and economics have worked together to produce a particular culture. Immodesty is thus very different from unchastity; the latter deals with God’s universal law with regards to our vocation and the proper use of human sexuality whereas the former varies greatly from one culture to the next.

An tribal woman in the Amazonian basin wearing a loincloth and beads and nursing her children sitting beside a campfire is not being immodest; a Victorian lady letting a little ankle show purely in order to be provocative is being immodest. A Victorian lady letting most of her leg show out of necessity merely because she is mounting a horse to ride side-saddle is not being immodest; but the woman in the Amazonian basin might be immodest by putting on a lot of extra beads and letting her hair hang long despite the fact that her formerly-bare breasts are now covered by the extra beads and hair.

This is not to say that the Amazonian tribe’s cultural mores regarding dress would not change were it Christianized. It probably would; but for that matter, so might the Victorian. But the former might change less than you expect and both might change in ways other than you expect, because after all the practical considerations are dealt with, the dignity of the person must be exhibited and protected in fully-enculturated ways. One would not garb a woman in a head-to-toe sack in a culture where only slaves wear a head-to-toe sack.

One problem I see repeatedly among the stricter Catholic/Christian Modesty Bloggers is their inattention to what their rules communicate about the woman who lives by them. These rules often seem designed to emphasize uptightness, frumpiness, wallflower-ness. In our culture, a woman who dresses in a fashion which is too drab, too frumpy, shows a kind of disrespect for herself and her value as a child of God. She says to the world: I am not a fine gemstone, worthy of being set in a quality setting; I am a dull valueless rock, worthy to be covered in dust and left in a desk drawer. Her choice of garments announces her self-image to the world.

Or to quote St. Louis IX: “A husband ought to dress appropriately well, according to his rank, that his wife may love him more easily.” Think that doesn’t apply equally to wives?

The universal Church, as a consequence, is not about to take rules for garb from 1930’s Europe and enforce them for the worldwide body of Christ. Doing so is not and can never be dogma; and let us hope we never have a pope who is such a fool as to try enforce it as a discipline; it would be a disaster.

The more practical approach is something like this:

1. Figure out how most folk of your age, gender, and body type are dressing for that particular event/situation. Start off by approximating that.

2. Do you live in a severe, Puritan culture? Then take what you got from Step 1, and flex a little in the direction of freedom. Do you live in a licentious and exhibitionist culture? Then take what you got from Step 2, and flex a little in the direction of covering more.

3. Take the whole outfit up in formality by a notch, so that you’re dressed in an ever-so-slightly classier way than what you came up with by following steps 1 and 2. To the extent you emulate anyone, emulate folk associated with words like “classy” and “put together” and “sharp”; stay away from emulating “frumpy” or “overdone” or “tawdry” or “trashy” or “gaudy.”

4. For Mass, do Step 3 a lot more, and push it in a more-traditional and more-covered direction: You’re upping the formality in a church-oriented way, not a cocktail party kind of way.

There you go: The result should wind up enculturated in a way that rules from 1930’s Italy would not, and thus speak the language of modesty appropriate for your gender, age, and circumstances.

“Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.” Our Lady of Fatima

“I wrestle with it from time to time” Maybe he wrestles with it because his conscience is telling him something is wrong (bikinis)

“My problem is that almost every woman I know wears one”
Really??I’m not sure how old your readers is but I’m 40 and most moms I know don’t wear bikinis.

Also,I have teenage sons and their friends that are always around so I couldn’t see “work(ing) out in the garden” in a bikini top.

Then your reader goes on to blame others for trying to have their families practice modesty.

I’d just like to say that it is a REAL problem. I remember reading that Padre Pio sent a women away a few times from confession or admonished her because she walked around (alone) in her home, immodestly dressed.

To me a bikini is like going out in your underwear, I just don’t get it.

RC,
With all due respect,Modesty is not relative. It does not change with the times. Our Lady of Fatima said, Our Lord has no fashions. The Church always remains the same”
Our faith is ‘one’ holy, catholic, apostolic’. Meaning that it speaks to all times and all people.
What the Church said in 1930, has not suddenly become wrong. The Church never took away what it said by a correction. It still stands as valid. Whether one believes it or not.
That one statement came from the Vatican in 1930, and if that statement is not strong enough then nothing will convince anyone.
Since then there have been priests who have asked for modesty, Fr. Bernard Kunkel who started a Modesty Crusade with the approval of the Pope, Padre Pio who was confirmed to have requested modesty in his confessional. I mean we really have alot out there if one just looks for it.

If anyone today is Catholic and can accept a Bikini I would say they have become desensitized to the immodesty in the world, and for obvious reasons.

Natives in their native land were always helped to become more civilized by being taught how to eat with cutlery, how to dress, and how to keep clean, etc. Modesty was part of helping them become civilized.

Now of course this does not mean they were sinning by being naked. But as they learned more about themselves and the faith, it was a sign of respect for them to teach them to be covered. It’s a sign of respect for the body, simple. A bikini is a sign one does not have respect for their body, regardless if they are attempting to incite lust or not.
Most Catholics today, are not guilty of sin in regards to their immodesty. They simply do not know. In regards to the world out there and how they dress, that is not our concern. But as Catholics we are called to be different. Not to stand out and look obvious, but to respect our bodies that God chooses to dwell in each week. And to cover it the best we can.

And this business about frumpy;
now isn’t that just the complaint today. I mean do you really think Our Lord will be concerned about “How frumpy you were when you where alive?” Do you really think God is concerned about such a thing?
I think he is going to ask things like, “How much did you love me? “
“How much did you love your brother?”

“If you loved your brother, why did you dress to tempt him then ?”

Does a woman have to pass a fashion exam for her to be considered not frumpy? I mean there are plenty of Catholic women that
1. Either do not have the money to dress properly.
2. Do not have a fashion sense (which is not a sin by the way)
3. or perhaps find it hard to find clothes in their size and/or price.
4. Have so many young children their heads are dizzy just taking care of them.

I mean just look at some of the female saints. St. Kateri is one of them. She was not pretty, She had a scarred face. yet was a example of faith and purity.  Do you think she was concerned about being frumpy?

The frumpy argument is an insult to many women who try to be modest yet, may be dressed plain. Not all women want to wear frills for example.
Just what is frumpy anyhow? A mother in sweatpants for example is not very fashionable. Does she have everyone complaining about her clothes of choice ? Or is it just the women that are trying to be modest, that are given this label.

You quote {St. Louis IX: “A husband ought to dress appropriately well, according to his rank, that his wife may love him more easily.” Think that doesn’t apply equally to wives?}

Well, I know many Catholic husbands that are farmers and ranchers, what rank will his dress be then, with overalls, rubber boots, perhaps a cowboy hat ?

This argument is not fair to the exhausted mothers and women out there, trying to remain Catholic, taking care of their many children, trying to be faithful, and having a fellow Catholic look down on them because they happen to wear a mismatched outfit or dull skirt that week.

Bikinis are underwear, not swimwear. Abortion is murder, not just a fetus. Let us get the truth out in the open here where people can see it.

I’m sorry but your set of rules (which is what they are another set of rules) are asking people to just look to the culture and feel what is right and go this way or that. With how hard people find it today to follow rules, I would daresay this would land us right back where we started. No where. Are your set of rules better than the Church’s rules? I mean we aren’t cafeteria Catholics here, we aren’t supposed to pick and choose what we want to believe about the faith. That would make us a protestant.

“Certain Fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord Very much” that you DeeH

Yes, this is what Our Lady came to tell us? Will we not heed her request?

As a convert to Catholicism I’ve been struggling mightily with following the teachings on chastity. My goal is to go to confession on Saturday go to mass on Sunday, and go to Mass the following Sunday without having to go to confession again. I take the Church’s teaching quite seriously about not receiving communion with mortal sin. Now, it is very disheartening for me to struggle with being chaste all week and then go to Mass on Sunday morning after going to confession on Saturday and when I get in there to worship and take part in mass there are all these women dressed immodestly. I know I’m supposed to control my eyes and all of that, but it’s really hard. These women are not the younger women usually, but women in their 30’s and 40’s. I’m all for freedom of dress. But I don’t think cleavage and skin tight pants and skirts are appropriate for Mass. I’m still struggling but it’s getting better, just consider this when you wear clothes so tight everyone can see your underwear.

Rita:

Regardless of the approved status of Fatima, it is still only private revelation. We are not bound to it as to the teachings of the church. Just relax, OK?

Fatima zealots cause just as much trouble as Medjugorje ones.

All this reminds me of a joke a Christian friend once told me: “My grandmother said she was sorry that she could not go with us to the beach, because there was a hole in the knee of her swimming suit.”
Seriously, it seems to me that taking to the word a pronouncement made at the Vatican in 1930 is rather excessive. It’s not always the style of the clothes that matter, e.g. how much skin is or is not visible. It’s often the attitude of the person wearing them. As well, this way of putting so much emphasis on modesty for women strikes me as a tacit approval of men’s objectification of women, by putting the responsibility on women for men’s lack of control of their eyes and their imagination.

From a man’s point of view, here’s Jason Evert’s take:
http://youtu.be/WtzIcz7MOkc

There is no problem with a bikini in this time place culture and a given situation. The biblical standard of Modesty runs the gamut from full nudity….to full cover…..fully depending on time place and culture. When culture was at it SICKEST ever…full cover was the needed custom….when we were full innocent….nudity was fine….Now that Christ has informed us and our culture for 2000 years and we are BETTER people for it…through no fault of our own….we can wear less….mini skirts and shorts are fine today and in their place in this culture. In the sickest cultures today….full cover is still needed….see the mohams…disgusting culture….= full cover….oh that they would find Christ.

JamesH,

Sorry if I can off to strong to anyone here. That was not intended.

Yes, you are right Fatima is not needed to save our souls. But then a quote from the Church that I included above, in 1930 doesn’t seem to be acceptable either ? So if you discount Fatima warnings, and disregard Majesterium pronouncements, just what is acceptable for a Catholic to understand modesty today ?

Marthe and Scipio_a,

it is truly sad, that what should be a simple acceptance of Catholic modesty becomes a obstinate denial that there is a problem.

I agree that a pronouncement from 1930 might seem ages ago, but do we not learn from the past ?

I mean his pronouncement simply means we should cover at least to the knees, at least to halfway the elbow, and at least to a measurement of two fingers from the collarbone. Is this really so difficult for faithful Catholics ?
It is simply commonsense.

The “biblical standard of modesty runs the gamut from full nudity” (in the garden of Eden) Adam and Eve were in the garden, naked, but after she bit the apple, even they covered themselves. Are we not all decendents of Adam and Eve ?

Look further into nudity in the bible, you will find it was those of ill repute, as well as those possessed.

They stripped Our Lord naked during His crucifixtion because it was a disrespectful thing to do. A removing of his manhood, of his dignity.
If being naked was just fine, this would not have been a suffering for Our Lord on the cross.

Oh that Catholics today, would find the fullness of their faith and find Christ!

“I do NOT want to turn into one of those trad dads who monitors with paranoia everything his wife or daughters wear.”

I find this sentence bothersome.  If you’re the husband and father, you need to be, as the spiritual head of your family, monitoring what happens to keep them from falling into hell!!!

Also, to say its the “attitude” in which someone is wearing something immodest is a joke.  Vanity is a mortal sin.  You cannot tell me that you’re wearing something that does not keep you covered for any other reason.

“They have, as their main goal, not that you be tempted to lust (you are far too well-fortified against that…)”

Dude??!!  If I make it to 100 years old, I will never be too well-fortified against a temptation to lust.  And I don’t think any scrupe or other human being will ever be ‘too well-fortified’ either.  But maybe that’s just me and my projections…

A particular note on bikinis: I’m not sure how swimwear fashions are right now because I haven’t had to buy a non-maternity bathing suit in years (I keep being pregnant or having post-pregnancy weight over the summer), but a few years ago, it was extremely difficult to find a non-bikini swimsuit. My much-loved one-piece tore irreparably while I was on a beach vacation five years ago, and my husband and I had to find a new suit. I couldn’t find a single one-piece suit or tankini in my size. The one-piece suits were all at least size 20 (or XXL for the unsized ones), because the manufacturers assumed that the only reason any woman would wear a one-piece was because she was ashamed of her weight. My options were to wear a bikini, wear a one-piece so big the ocean would drag it off with the first big wave, or not swim at my beach vacation. I opted for the bikini. (I had a similar problem finding a wedding dress—I got married before Kate Middleton brought sleeves back, and the only gowns with sleeves instead of straps looked awful on me.)

My point is that even a highly scrupulous Christian may end up stuck in a bikini from time to time. Blaming the woman in these cases is unproductive. I think Marthe said it best up above—the problem is with the man looking with lust, not the woman who wears a certain style of clothing with no malicious intent.

The problem is that too many confirm their conscience to the world. Modesty in clothing has objective and subjective standards. Too many think their is no objective standard. That is not being a rigorist that is being a relativist. That some fashion is worn today at this time is not proof it is modest. That would make anything acceptable simply because it is in fashion.

Mark and R.C.  Good Lord, *thank you*!  I wore a beautiful and tasteful bikini on the beach last Sunday, covering it with a beach coverup that my husband loves.  His compliments are so sweet.  I only remove it to sun a bit and then put it back on to watch kids at the seashore.  It makes my husband so happy to see how I make an effort to keep myself relatively fit,contemporary and *modest*.  I’ve spent a lifetime making sure I don’t over eat.  People freak when I tell them we’re expecting our thirteenth child.  They think I should should look like Michelle Duggar or should at least look destroyed.  We are often with just our last-born and people think she is our first.  Women should respect their husbands enough not to let themselves go.  As someone who once struggled with scrupulosity, I can’t begin to tell you how free I feel from that evil oppression, and I’ve never experienced this much joy in loving and serving God.

I would be a horrid TradDad on this issue.  Due to my asperger’s, I barely notice if people are dressed at all, let alone HOW they are dressed.  (heck, I once mistook a black guy at work for a white guy just because they both wore beards!).

@yan, and others who struggle with lust: A friend who used to struggle mightily with the problem of objectifying women told me this: “I spent years and years going to confession and feeling guilty.  The problem is that I had a filthy little marble that I guarded, hidden in my pocket.  It wasn’t until I realized that I was trading the almighty God for my dirty little marble that I said, *enough*!  Now, I can’t believe how I substituted the pearl of great price for, that dirty, worthless lie.”  He told me that even if a beautiful woman was dressed modestly he would look at her wrong, and that this was ALWAYS an act of the WILL, even when engrained.  Once he truly gave his life to God, the struggle ended.

This atheist wonders how many Catholics are equally plagued by scruples over whether they are loving others enough. Do they constantly question whether they are conscious enough of their brothers’ and sisters’ daily burdens and question whether they do enough to demonstrate the love of Christ, thus drawing others to the beauty of Catholic belief? One doesn’t come across this problem with scrupulosity on NCR.

Or is it more rewarding to meditate self-righteously on the horror of bikinis and short skirts on women? Is there just a pleasant little frisson derived from contemplating the sinfulness of a woman “dressed immodestly” when she is completely alone at home? That is an example of a man obsessed with sex.

As far as psychological health goes, one would do much better to heed Mr. Shea’s advice.

@cowalker- I for one am.  It’s why I started a Knights of Columbus council in my parish, and why I often get criticized by my Trustees for being “too generous”.

(1) Why on EARTH are modesty discussions always directed at women and girls? It’s like the whole pants debate - if pants are immodest for women, why are they modest for men? If you ask me, it seems rather backwards when you consider the biology of it. Much ado about nothing, indeed! I can’t tell you what I would give to see someone ask how to teach their SONS about modesty, along with their daughters.
.
(2) For those claiming modesty has no context, just look at the crucifix. Our Lord is clad in nothing but a loincloth, but we do not consider it immodest to display Him in our churches, homes, and schools. It’s ALL about the context!
.
(3) I’ve always seen modesty as an act of *charity.* It’s charity to others by not making them uncomfortable, and charity to the self by avoiding shame and protecting that which is private. Getting all rule-bound and strict about it, though, certainly seems to defeat the charitable aspect of it.

there is no doubt that bikinis are immodest.
no man or wooman should ever wear a bikini in public.
you are not suffering from scrupulosity in this instance.
rather you are simply being sane.

Which brings something up- the pants debate that is.  Can anybody explain to an autistic who due to eye avoidance hardly ever looks at people below the forehead why pants are supposed to be immodest on anybody, or rather, more immodest than a skirt?

It occurs to me, speaking strictly hypothetically of course- that if I was an evil rapist overcome by lust at the sight of a clothed female figure, I’d target the skirts rather than the pants- easier access.

I case someone is interested, I just wrote a very long comment on Mark’s own blog, where he gives the link to this article, and I don’t think it would be useful to copy it here, it would just take too much room…

Good question, Ted. I have been under the impression that some people just think that clearly showing that women need 2 legs to walk with, just like men, is lust-inducing… However, there are pants and pants… Some are very revealing. But again, it still means that men need to discipline their thoughts. And, tell me, why should young girls in particular be ashamed of their bodies and refrain to express some pride in the beautiful bodies they have given by God? Personally, as an artist, I tend to admire the beauty instead of judging the clothes…

@cowalker, I find that I agree with you a fair amount of the time.  In this case you defended the Catholic position beautifully… which leads me to believe…

Colleen,

Our Lord was naked on the cross. The artistic representations you see show a covering because of modesty.

Not unveiling what should be veiled is not only out of respect for men, but because women should value their own dignity.

That this is even much of a discussion shows how far off the mark Catholics have fallen.

Posted by cowalker on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 12:36 PM (EST):

This atheist wonders how many Catholics are equally plagued by scruples over whether they are loving others enough. Do they constantly question whether they are conscious enough of their brothers’ and sisters’ daily burdens and question whether they do enough to demonstrate the love of Christ, thus drawing others to the beauty of Catholic belief? One doesn’t come across this problem with scrupulosity on NCR.

Or is it more rewarding to meditate self-righteously on the horror of bikinis and short skirts on women? Is there just a pleasant little frisson derived from contemplating the sinfulness of a woman “dressed immodestly” when she is completely alone at home? That is an example of a man obsessed with sex.

As far as psychological health goes, one would do much better to heed Mr. Shea’s advice.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The usual deflection I see. The discussion is about modesty and you misdirect it to some other issue.

My suggestion is go to the EWTN website and read the addresses by JPII regarding theology of the Body. He discusses shame, among other things, that would shock some here.

Clicked the wrong line and was removed from receiving more comments. Sorry for my mistake; please correct.

Anon: The post was about scrupulosity, and was “deflected” to modesty… And, IMHO, emphasizing even more scrupulosity. There is nothing wrong with bringing up another, much more important, aspect of possible scrupulosity! After all, some saint once said: “Love and do whatever you want”, putting loving our brothers and sisters at the forefront.

Posted by Marthe Lépine on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 2:04 PM (EST):

Anon: The post was about scrupulosity, and was “deflected” to modesty… And, IMHO, emphasizing even more scrupulosity. There is nothing wrong with bringing up another, much more important, aspect of possible scrupulosity! After all, some saint once said: “Love and do whatever you want”, putting loving our brothers and sisters at the forefront.
***********************************************************

One of the first lines in the OP talks about bikinis. Misdirecting the discussion only serves as a way to disregard that modesty in clothing is not simply relative.

The question asked about a specific issue.

@anon, I love what JPII writes about the original “fullness” of nakedness, in his TOB talks.  The only thing that shocks me is how fearful and shameful some Catholics are when they are supposedly taking the moral high ground regarding holy modesty.  “See how they love one another”—this is what converted ancient Rome.  They weren’t wielding modesty sticks.  The human spirit craves wholesomeness, and generosity.  Asking women to cover themselves to suit some narrow version of Catholicism that is fueled by fears and manias, is in the service of something dark and ominous, that HATES the human body. Judgement day, will be a day of surprises for *everyone*.  I’d rather have failed by erring on the side of immodesty, while being leaven in mainstream society, than by being an oddly dressed member of the modesty police.  I’d rather be able to get past attire and see the *whole* person.  After all, people who judge others based on their attire are *objectifying* them, are they not?

This podcast will offer some help for the scrupulous: http://thescrupulouscatholic.wordpress.com/the-scrupulous-catholic-podcast/

To anna lisa: Thank you for this post replying to Anon’s comment about my own comment! And in my opinion you are perfectly correct: It is as much an “objectification”  of women to constantly watch what they are wearing as to lust after them. It reminds me of a French play from the 17th century that was banned because it pointed out to hypocrisy on the part of some Pharisee types, and a famous sentence that has passed into the realm of proverbs: “Cachez ce sein que je ne saurais voir.” Translation: “Please hide your breast so I cannot keep looking at it”!

Sorry: I forgot the reference. The play is “Tartuffe” by Molière.

It is pitiful how you all call people who spread the truth about modesty(which is a work of mercy) pharisees. Lucia of Fatima said that it would please our Lady and Lord to start a modesty league in America and that those who spread modesty will get the most beautiful crowns in heaven. The pharisee is the person who is not aware of his sins and failings and has no need for forgiveness and conversion like that of the tax collector. The pharisee’s consciences no longer accuse them but justifies them.  The pharisee’s conscience is not formed with Jesus, they rejected Jesus and falsely accused him and tried to trap him because he was the truth.  Today also, the pharisee’s in the church are those who reject the Magisterium’s teachings, the truth, which is Jesus.  Mark Shea is not teaching from the church’s doctrine’s on what true modesty is.  Mark is teaching on his opinion, not church teaching, and therefore he is like that of the pharisees and he is calling anyone who teaches and is spreading the sound teachings of the C.C. on what true modesty is, a pharisee. Our conscious’s have to be formed to ALL the Church’s teachings (the truth = Jesus) otherwise we are pharisees.  BTW, “Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond is loaded with Church teachings and so is this site here www.catholicmodesty.com

Thus, Pope Pius XII states that “An unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed,” without indicating any distinction of place, ‘on the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets, etc.’” (Aug. 20, 1954)
Further, His quotation of the “ancient poet” as saying that “vice necessarily follows upon public nudity” (Ibid.) applies to all places, beach or elsewhere. American modernists will be shocked to learn that His Eminence Enrique Cardinal Pla y Daniel, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, issued the following directives in 1959: “A special danger to morals is represented by public bathing at beaches, in pools and river banks . . . Mixed bathing between men and women which nearly always is an approximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must be avoided.”  http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html#chap3

I’m a faithful Catholic.  I have carried, delivered, and nursed three kids (so far).  I just bought my first swimsuit in 9 years.  It’s a bikini, and I love it!  And so does my husband.  I don’t wear it in the yard.  I wear it to the beach and the pool.  The only human person I care about impressing with my body is my husband.  Given all the terrible, ridiculous things going on in the world today, I don’t think a woman wearing a bikini to go swimming is even in the top 1000.  There are teachings in the church that are meant to last forever (ie: marriage is between one man and one woman) and there are pronouncements of the church that fit into a particular time and place (ie: a woman’s dress sleeves must extend to her elbows).  I wear my bikini proudly (or as proudly as I can with a million stretch marks across my belly).  Obviously, if the people around me were visibly “turned on,” I would cover up.  In this day and age, I’m pretty sure - though someone will want to comment on how sure I can really be -  that the only people looking at me on that empty beach are my husband and my kids.

Immodesty is a real issue these days, and it’s not just the ultra-traditionalists who notice.  Ladies, us guys could really use some help here.  Custody of the eyes will only take a person so far.  I should be able to go to the beach without being tempted to unchastity.  I’m not calling for all ladies to wear long denim skirts or anything, but most bikinis do show too much.  I think we need to work toward a reasonable balance rather than coalescing into “for” and “against” camps.

bikinis = contraception

Fr. Bobby, I’m giggling because your comment can be taken two ways - (1) an assumption that a woman wearing a bikini uses contraception, or (2) bikinis are generally so unflattering as to repel interest. LOL! (Which honestly, I lean toward #2, which is why I don’t wear them. You need the lines of a 12 year old to pull off a true bikini!)

I personally think most people who are cursed with scrupulosity who are Catholic, really need to learn the difference between Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline.

Because while they are usually right on Doctrine, they’re often far out of date on Discipline.

Lisa and the two honored priests who have deigned to comment, fit that description.  This isn’t the 1950s anymore.  What shocked your generation isn’t even remotely immodest to mine.  In fact, I’m seeing signs that lust has been perverted so much, sexuality diverted from procreation so much, that I have strong doubts that the United States will still be an English Speaking Country in 100 years.  Spanish will take over- because English speakers are failing to breed at all.

A huge part of that is due to immodest behavior, yes.  A bigger part of that is due to a general fear of pregnancy, a fear of children, a fear of parenthood that has set in in the United States.

We’ve got MUCH bigger battles to fight than merely being immodest- starting with 54 million human beings killed in the last 40 years for merely being young.

‘Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circumstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion.

These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality.’

Pope Pius XII

Modesty doesn’t change fundamentally. Not in different cultures, not in the Amazon or the Arctic. What has to be covered, always has to be covered—and that is in deed, the majority of the body, and the standards are unchanging and stated by popes and saints consistently for throughout Catholic history. And so we can know they are the standards with certainty.

We live in a corrupt time. But modesty is a virtue and spiritually beautiful. Relationships between men and women in a Christian society are very different than they are today, different standards, different behaviors, different clothes, different desires, different entertainments. Many people who have been searching for the answers about what it is to live a truly Christian life, and why they feel they are missing or ignorant of many essentials will find a great deal of what it is to truly be Christian—in learning about modesty. Where Christ is, there modesty is found. 

Modesty & Purity Resources, over one hundred quotes from the Popes & Saints on modesty:

http://saintsworks.net/

Shin, that’s discipline, not doctrine.

And what *must* be covered, in all cultures, can be covered in both men and women with a pair of shorts.  Most primitive cultures found modesty to be sufficient even with topless women.

Good reply, Ted. Maybe we could add that the “clothes” that were put together with fig leaves in he Garden of Eden probably did not cover much else… That too is from the Bible, after all!

Posted by Ted Seeber on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2012 9:35 AM (EST):

I personally think most people who are cursed with scrupulosity who are Catholic, really need to learn the difference between Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline.

Because while they are usually right on Doctrine, they’re often far out of date on Discipline.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ted,

The virtue of modesty is not a discipline. The objective aspect of modesty does not change. That is what is lost in these comments. It is not all simply relative. Some times and cultures are closer to the Gospel imperative than others. Some are farther away.

As JPII said even in primitive cultures people will eventually tend to cover more skin and that is not simply due to climatic changes.

In the Victorian era the word “leg” could not be spoken by modest members of society; not even in reference to tables and pianos.  Just the word was far too scintillating.  As for the actual leg itself, shown in public?  Heaven help us!  Only a lady of the night would have such temerity.

The Virtue of Modesty itself is indeed dogma.  It isn’t even doctrine.  It is absolutely necessary to build a civilization free from the base instinct of lust.

The length of a woman’s sleeve for a given culture and time, is discipline designed to teach the dogma.

Do you understand the difference?

Modesty, it is true, is an unchanging dogma.  Change it, and you get what we’ve got in America today.  While minor (and I’m absolutely certain the fear of pregnancy, children, and parenthood is more important) it leads to the more important sins.

But what is absolutely modest in a tropical rainforest, is not what is modest in Northern Europe.  Fashion changes, and the discipline of dressing modestly changes with it.

And as proven by a famous atheist experiment a couple of years back, cleavage doesn’t cause earthquakes, as much as certain Islamic preachers in Iran think it does.

Ah, no Ted, it’s matters of unchangable virtue and vice. Morals. Not discipline.

Our Lord found it necessary to clothe Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden again—that is how important it is, he emphasized it at the very beginning. Fig leaves were not enough.

The witness of these morals is constant. Temporary bad behavior in cultures always has this witness inside and out contradicting it with holiness.

And what were the first clothes?  Please quote what sleeve length Eve Wore.

There is also modesty in conversation.

When I was a young wife and mother, I hosted a small gathering of women in my home.  A lovely old mother of six, and grandmother to about thirty would give us Catholic instruction on various topics. The topic of modesty came up several times, from clothing, to what kind of movies we should allow ourselves to see.  Some of her advice was a bit alarming.  She told us that witnessing a kiss in a movie was a fault against chastity.  When I brought this to confession, the priest laughed heartily, telling me to think nothing of it.  But a story she once told about a teenager wearing pants in mass continues to haunt me at the worst moments.  She explained to us that one Sunday in mass at her church, a man had physically pulled a woman out of the communion line saying “If I can’t receive communion because of you, than you can’t either!”  When I first heard this story I was horrified.  To this day, on the rare occasion that I wear pants to mass, it never fails that as I approach communion, I have to fight to think Jesus! Jesus!  Because all I can think of is that my hindquarters have suddenly grown so ominous that they fill my head and the entire church, assaulting the males in attendance.  I’ve been known to make the entire family late, as I suddenly remember the peculiar ass phenomenon in the car, and need to turn back and get a long sweater.

@wife- I sure would like some older gentleman to explain to me what’s so awful about women in pants that it incites lust.  Because it simply never has for me.

I guess I should have mentioned earlier- I’m so autistic that I barely notice that other people are dressed *at all*, let alone what they are wearing.

@Ted, how sad that some can’t get past their inner mammal (reptile).

Okay, I may be the only one to mention this…. But I do not believe that Mr. Shea made any pronouncements on what actual modest dress was.  I was under the impression that the writer was plagued by his scruples, the trigger being modesty.  My understanding of this post was some wonderful, beautiful advice on how to rebuke the evil one and his tricks… Not bikinis…

Give Katheryn the cigar for reading comprehension! :)

Agreed, Mark, it seemed to take a long time for someone to actually get the real point! However, I have been thinking back about some other comments, and I feel strongly led to comment on @wife’s story: “But a story she once told about a teenager wearing pants in mass continues to haunt me at the worst moments.  She explained to us that one Sunday in mass at her church, a man had physically pulled a woman out of the communion line saying “If I can’t receive communion because of you, than you can’t either!” In fact, at best, that man was guilty of assault; and, at worse, it might even fall within the current definition of sexual assault in Canada. I am concerned about the way this story still haunts her. It sounds to me like another of those “earworms from hell” you were describing in the article. If I can be allowed a suggestion, I would tell @wife to go back to reading your article and to pay particular attention to the paragraph that starts with: “The Spirit speaks with peace and mercy, not with accusation.”

There is nothing scrupulous about being uncomfortable about wearing a bikini or about letting one’s daughter wear one. It is basically wearing your underwear in public. It is totally irrational for women to wear bikinis when they would not go outside in their bra and underwear. Just because it is brightly colored and spandex, or because you’re standing on sand, it’s somehow not the same thing? It’s the same thing!

This is not the same issue as sleeve length. In a bikini, or most current bathing suits, one is nearly naked, and the idea that it’s ok for women to walk around nearly naked in front of men other than their husband is not Christian.

I do not suffer from scrupulosity. It’s just this simple: once the Lord led me to understand modesty, it became absolutely impossible for me to wear such a thing. If that means I never go swimming again, or only in an all-woman gym or something, that is fine. I prefer pleasing the Lord to swimming.

But as for how you see other people, the Lord knows that your heart is in the right place and you are not seeking to see other people lustfully. You can be at peace knowing that he has compassion on your struggle.

The fault is with us women, who wear things that are inherently immodest. And the Lord knows whose fault things are!

As for the pants issue - and what a war this starts among women, I have no idea why - if you are wearing pants at Church, you should wear something that covers your rear. Because the fact is—and studies show—that the shape of pants brings the onlookers eyes right to your rear, and when men look at women’s rears, most of them think about things that you are not trying to make them think of at Mass. And it’s not just “their problem.” It’s our responsibility in love to dress modestly so they can focus on Jesus.

To Mouse: If you are correct, men should also wear long jackets that cover their r… Or maybe even kilts? Because you might be surprised to learn that it is not just a matter of men looking at women; SSA men do look at other men… And even women have been known to be looking at the lower parts of men’s bodies… I do grant that it is a responsibility in love of people of both genders to dress modestly, but it is also their responsibility to train themselves (and their children) to not look at other people as if they were objects. In addition, there is something to be said about training oneself (and our children) to have other things in mind apart from the shape (and use) of other peoples’ bodies.

While modesty IS important- and very much a lost art- any man incited to lust by a woman in a bathing suit needs to spend more time on the corporal works of mercy to learn that beauty is not superficial.

    The devil is deceiving many catholic souls!  Some good information is available at this website:

http://littleflowersfamilypress.com/catholic_modesty__purity_resources_64421610.html

    A good youtube to watch is:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWKipaNH83E