Does this mean you are going to start wearing skirts?  ;)

No but on a serious note, thank you for this.  I often struggle with that balance because I am very outspoken and passionate by my nature.  I could go about the neighborhood proclaiming how much I love receiving the Eucharist and how I love Jesus, but I am not sure that is the right approach.  My life should be a quiet example.  I’m sure once we start having more kids we’ll get people talking anyways, ha!

This is so true!  I’ve thought of it in many aspects including the ever-controversial NFP or not.  Some families may be called to witness to their trust in God by having 14 kids.  Some may be called to witness to the virtue of self-discipline by using NFP when their circumstances warrant.  The really hard thing for me is not acknowledging that we can all live this life differently, but to actually live like it—to not judge people when they are “doing it wrong” according to what I have discerned best for me.  I’ve always resented people who insist it has to be their way: both the Catholic Mennonites who think my elbows are too sexy and the Opus Dei folks who think my lack of make-up is a lack of charity and my long skirts too frumpy.  I think we could all work on calmly explaining why we choose to do things the way we do when asked, but with DETACHMENT and a good amount of self-distrust.  I mean, who am I to think I’ve got it all figured out?

My question for you, Simcha, is how to discern what you are called to.  I mean, maybe I should put on make up (didn’t even wear it on my wedding day).  How do you balance the idea of being the perfect you, i.e., still you, but a saint, with just doing what is easiest?

Amen!

It’s funny you mention this because being in the world but not of it is my new life motto starting this year.

And it’s even funnier you bring up the skirt issue. I’ve started wearing more skirts this year for several reasons:

1) I feel deliciously free when I’m covered up (totally understand when Muslim and Hasidic women say that!)
2) I feel more modest
3) I automatically feel sweeter and more humble
4) It is another symbol for me, just as when I’m wearing the Miraculous Medal or a crucifix, that I should walk the Catholic walk and BE the person I like to think I am. :P God willing!

Unfortunately, I’ve been met with awful comments from family about my recharged love for God and all things Catholic but that’s when you know you’re doing something right, when persecution suddenly rains down in torrents. God Bless you and all readers/commenters (is that a word) here!

Seeing that you managed to publish this, I take it that your roof did not fall in?
And good parallel between vocations and modesty.

I tend to be more of a blending in kind of person—please don’t notice me—maybe that’s why God keeps sending me kids. When you’ve got four—and soon people are going to start noticing #5—you stand out no matter what you do. Not only at the store but even at Church people notice how many kids we have and want to come talk to me about them.

@Melanie: That’s so true! I’m forced to talk to people when my son runs up to random strangers to say hi and babble about cars or rocks.

This is a good post with larger implications.  In many ways, how to be “in the world and not of the world” is THE question.  In response to toxic media, I have many times been tempted to “go Amish”.  Should we all toss out our televisions and cut our cable lines?  Is this the answer? Do we all homeschool or at least keep our kids out of school on the days they discuss sex ed.?  Or do we immerse ourselves and our children in the world and hope our teachings, love and faith are enough for them….(they weren’t for me)...For me it was a bold move to even wear a cross in public…knowing it would attract attention…Can you even be friends with staunch atheists?  Many of my peers are thus, and it makes for thorny situations, where you find yourself silently ignoring email posts or conversational comments and wondering if it is worth piping up with a small objection.

@Evan - oh yeah, I tricked fate by postdating it to publish automatically. 
@Anita - the only method for discerning that I have discovered is trial and error, unfortunately.  You know:  achieving balance by swinging wildly from one extreme to the other. 

.

One helpful thing I remember is what a priest once said in a homily:  If you want to know if you’re becoming closer to God, just look at how you’re treating other people.  You can feel like you’re becoming more holy because you’re spending more time in prayer or thinking about God more, or wearing a veil, or whatever, but how does it translate?  I think the veil is actually a really good example:  for some people, it reminds them of their proper relationship with God.  For some people, it reminds them that they’re highly superior to people who are not wearing a veil.  You may have to actually try it for a while to figure out which category you belong in!

I LOVE this post! I have “long skirt” friends whom I love and admire and I know are fantastic witnesses. I always feel I should be striving for that but I work outside the home and that complicates things. Also I interact with people (non-Catholic family especially) who need to see what God has done for me and that I still “look like them” - they would not be able to see or hear me the same way if I looked different. But it’s a constant struggle, and for me a battle to tease out how much I’m doing in terms of my appearance because it’s my current place and stage of life and best platform to witness, so to speak, and how much it’s because I really just love those shoes. (GAH)

I am always struck by this argument as it only concerns women and I am cautious around any discussion that circles around only one gender as if women are somehow given a great burden toward ‘looking holy’ just because our culture and fashion history has given us both skirts and pants as our choices.
-
I have read some of evil spewed at women who wear pants (and I wear skirts more often) and those of us who don’t wear veils (don’t wear one) but never had read a single column about the outward dress of men. 
-
We are all called to be holy - men and women - all of us.  So, if we are determining our holiness based on skirts or veils or anything that is strictly female what does that say about the challenges of holiness for men?
-
I am not saying I have the answer to that but wanted to bring it up.  Like Simcha comments at the end - let’s look at ourselves first in all areas of holiness, not just we are wearing or not wearing, before casting any stones.

Here in the South, folks just figure I’m another member of the Full Gospel Church.Long skirts here blend into the crowd.
:)

This is wonderful!  I tend to blend rather than stand out, and sometimes I think it gives way to some wonderful and beautiful conversations, and sometimes I think I just end up looking like everybody else.  On occasion, I think the Holy Spirit has guided me (or at least the one listening to me) and ideas about sexuality or abortion have been conveyed successfully. In general, though, I have a bit of a reputation among coworkers for being a “good girl” and although they might not make the same choices I do, I think they understand that I’m not blindly following some archaic rules but instead have solid reasons for doing what I do.  And I think they respect that.  (Or maybe I’m imagining it all and have failed miserably!)

I’ve always thought that the ONLY appropriate attire for a lady to wear to church is a dress or skirt below the knee . . . until my 2 year old lifted my modest dress during mass, exposing my backside to half the congregation.  Talk about standing out from the crowd.

I am well past the age for child bearing but not for witnessing. In my day modesty was the rule of thumb not long or short or veil or not. If I’m modest at both ends when I bend over then I am a pretty good witness. I sit at a desk and greet the public. I am very conscious of how scoopy my neckline is since everyone stands above me. I don’t think frumpy is a good witness because it looks like you don’t have any self respect. So it’s a matter of balance.
Men too need to be modest. Bare chests in public or even in your own yard seems inappropriate to me. Shorts in church are just as inappropriate on men as on women. Shirts open to the navel or to display a hairy chest are just not attractive.
People should be drawn to us by how much we love one another. It is our words and deeds that should speak of our convictions and our dress should support it or we are hypocrites.

I tend more towards blending in - in other words, I will avoid standing out at all costs. I don’t think that (for me), it’s a vocation so much as a cop-out. I’m sure all my friends assume that my husband and I were having premarital sex, and that now we’re using birth control, because I’ve never said anything to the contrary. Most would be horrified if I told them otherwise.

But I’ve managed to quietly, slowly, convince some of my family members that I might be a little nuts but I’m not completely crazy. They still think it’s absurd, but they accept that I’m still me, that this is important to me, that I WILL go to Mass on Sunday even if we’re on vacation, and that, no matter how deeply ingrained it is in their psyche, it actually IS possible to avoid pregnancy and be a healthy woman without birth control. And maybe, just maybe, the next time they read an article about how the Church just wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, they’ll think, “I don’t know, the Church’s rules seem to allow my cousin to be a successful professional (and diagnosed her PCOS to boot), and she’s healthier now than she’s ever been. This portrayal of the Church’s aims don’t exactly mesh with the lived experience of the faithful Catholics I know. Maybe it’s the media/secular society that has the wrong perception of the Church . . .”

And maybe that’s the seed of something?

Which is probably evidence that for me, I need to step outside my comfort zone a little and stand out sometimes, instead.

Simcha, thank you for this! This very question plagues many Catholics lives, including my own. Should I try to blend in with my siblings over-materialistic, lax-Catholic lifestyle to try to show them how a normal, simple life is means for sanctification or should I just completely stand out and embrace the practicing Catholic, marrying young, speaking my opinion lifestyle that they don’t really understand and therefore detest? It’s even harder when that question is asked in context of your relationship with your family members, but nonetheless it’s what it takes to answer the call. Keep calm and vocation on.

@Simcha -

You write: “One vocation is not inferior to another…”

I’ve got into a number of arguments about this over the years. Some people claim (with some support from both scripture and saints) that the celibate or consecrated life is objectively superior to the secular or married vocations.

However, this is reducing the scale of “superiority” and “inferiority” to a single measure. Yes, the celibate or religious life is a closer approximation of life in heaven, where we shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, and where God will be all in all. It is “objectively superior” in that sense.

But only in that one sense. Marriage could be said to be objectively superior in fulfilling God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. The secular life could be called objectively superior in terms of being leaven in the world or workers in the vineyard.

It reminds me of what the Daleks said: “You are superior in one respect. You are better at dying.” Limiting ourselves to a single measure of “superiority” leads to absurdity.

The truth is, as you point out, that there are many vocations in the Church, just as the Body of Christ has many parts. Some stand out more than others, but none of us is the whole Body. Rather, we each have a part to play (and pray) in the whole work and life of Christ.

Here’s a “standing out” story that I hope you’ll enjoy.  Prior to our church entering the Catholic Church as part of the Ordinariate last October, we were conservative Anglo-Catholics with no teaching from the church at all on modesty, etc.  However, through personal experience and involvement with a great Catholic organization called Pure Fashion, my teenaged daughter learned about the importance of dressing to please God, not herself or others.  For her, and me, this came to mean wearing dresses or skirts and tops that covered us up in “the batting zone” (neck to knees).  She soon became the only girl in her Protestant home school group that never wore pants, even to things like bonfires.  Did what she wore make her holier?  Certainly not.  In fact, she struggled with lots of teen issues, some of which were pretty serious.  However, after sharpening her skills by dressing differently, she has become very comfortable with being the only Catholic in the group, too, as well as one of the few girls who don’t date, etc.
Postscript:  She’s a senior this year and recently told me that she and all the other senior girls have decided to wear dresses to class this year instead of jeans and T-shirts, just to try to be a better example of modesty to the younger girls.

Why is it always “long skirt,” or God help us, “long denim skirt”?  What’s wrong with this?

http://www.modcloth.com/shop/longer-length-dresses

@Meredith:  yes, of course, it’s very possible to wear a long, denim skirt which allows you to blend in and be stylish.  I actually own one, and wear it regularly.  “Long skirt” is just shorthand for “unusually modest,” but I hope it’s clear that I was talking about more than clothing here.

Didn’t Paul instruct the Corinthians (who lived in a gritty pagan port town) to be part of their society and well, blend in? Not in behaviors or morals, but pretty much is most other respects?

I consider myself “traditional” and while I find no fault in those who wish not to wear pants or any other behaviors which set one apart, what good does this do in bringing Christ to others? Let monks be monks but if you’re not a monk, don’t live like one (as in being cloistered and removed from society).

Perhaps as I live in Southern California where the very act of mentioning one is Catholic and goes to Mass is enough to set one apart I suppose the bar is pretty low. However, while my current parish is typical suburban Catholic, I used to belong to what could be labeled a “conservative” parish. While I respect those who wished to visibly stand apart by manner of dress or lifestyle or homeschooling etc, I can say that evangelizing the world around them they are not. They are excluding themselves, intentionally. Perhaps our culture has become so toxic they are the wise ones, I can’t say for sure. But I can say given how secular and borderline hostile to Christianity many of my peers are, acting pseudo-Amish does not present opportunities for evangelization. Quite the opposite.

Oh, Simcha, you just HAD to begin the post with Teh Pantz!  Now how is anyone supposed to know there is a REST of the post?
\
Ah, and now I refreshed the page I see you have already had to point that out.
\
@Rita, That story illustrates perfectly the absurdity of Embodiment,particularly as it relates to our quest to be good without feeding our egos at the same time.

@Susan: Welcome! It’s always nice to meet people who have crossed the Tiber. :)I personally hate the way a lot us dress for Mass and regular life: short shorts, flimsy shirts, etc. I’ve always been a big proponent of modesty. But wearing dresses is not inherently more modest than wearing jeans and t-shirts; I would argue that it is more graceful, more feminine, more beautiful. It seems like the sola skirtura debate likens feminine grace to modesty, when really, they’re different. Modesty is about dressing and speaking in a way that allows people to see our personhood and not be tempted to objectify us, looking upon us as bodies to be used. Feminine grace, that beautiful acceptance of God’s plan for women, I believe, is always coupled with modesty, but not vice versa. For me, modesty was a first step and working towards feminine grace is a second one. Maybe teaching girls to strive for feminine grace from the get-go would make it a simplified process? I was always modest but didn’t learn to dress like a lady until a Texan friend took to dressing me in college.

I love this post, Simcha.  I especially love your point about discerning and rediscerning.  I went through a long skirts only phase in college.  But I realized at certain point that I was (ironically) cultivating vanity rather than modesty.  I was more interested in advertising my piety and holiness than being pious or holy, evidenced by the fact that I used what others wore to make judgments about how pious or holy they were.  I found that by blending in was more germane to an interior disposition of modesty for me.  I appreciate and admire my Catholic friends who embrace either—standing out or blending in—particularly if they can resist the temptation to judge those who feel called to witness in another way.

If you want to “go Amish,” and be counter-cultural in a really effective way…,

1. Wear clothing that balances attractive stylishness with classy-looking modesty. If the skirt is a bit shorter, wear long sleeves; if the top is sleeveless or snug, wear a longer skirt. Let the fabric and colors in use in each case be ever-so-slightly more formal, or higher-quality, than the norm. Let the adornment (jewelry, makeup) be “well done, even refined, in a slightly understated way.” Save the combination of tiny tops and tiny skirts for the bedroom, where they’ll be coming off anyway.

2. Give up cable/dish television and let all your media-watching come through willful decisions about content-choice (e.g. Netflix) and not merely whatever happens to be on.

3. Stop posting comments in Internet Comment Boxes when your time could be spent in a more God-honoring and productive activity.

Oh, wait….

Thanks Simcha, spot on! Keep ‘em coming!

I’m not sure I’m understanding the point behind this column.  Am I right that the point is that there is something overtly Catholic or Christian in wearing a long skirt?  That long skirts are more feminine than a flowing pair of pants?  If so, I’m not buying any of that. 

It probably has to do with the part of the country where I grew up, but a long skirt screams Hasidic Jew to me.  If you want to show you’re Catholic in your dress, why not wear a prominent miraculous medal or brown scapular?  Maybe a crucifix or a tee shirt with a picture of the Blessed Mother on it?      While the long skirt is sort of a uniform that tells folks in my part of the world to stay away, the wearer is more comfortable with her own kind,  modest clothing with obviously Catholic identifiers shows the world you’re Catholic and proud of it.
.
If a woman wants to wear a long skirt or her husband prefers his wife in one, then I say go for it.    But I’m not getting the either/or proposition of wear a long skirt or be of the world.

re: my previous post.  I read this post this morning and came back several hours later to post.  Apparently, my take away was not really the article’s point.  Sorry for my post - I really did read the whole column earlier, just took away the whole skirt thing for some reason.
.

Excellent! Awesome! Thank you!  This is so great—I know so many people on all sides of the fence, extreme and non-extreme, and so many seem to make these decisions about how holy *they* are (“Here is what a Christian looks like:  not you.”—so true!) that they fail to realize that we are all called to use our own unique talents and gifts in our own way.  I just may print this out and tape it up to be a good reminder - for me! - since I know I’m as guilty in this as the next person!

@Eileen - oh, no problem!  I really do wish I had been more explicit that the skirt thing wasn’t the point; it was just a jumping-off point for the standing in or blending out question.

Been there
Done that
Bought the skirt.
///
Now I’m free of that temptation, through the help of a holy priest who helped me the discard unhealthy fear and a form of laziness which I masked with piety.
.
I dress to please my husband, which pleases me, and most importantly pleases God because by joyfully being at the service of love, I am worshiping the one who made my body.
.
I’m sure there are those who would be utterly scandalized by me and my daughters. Not regular people, just the fundamentalists, Catholic and protestant alike.  Now I truly believe that the best thing I can do, as the mother of many, is to show that Catholicism is attractive.  The worst thing I could do here, where I live, is to become a cliche that affirms the worst stereotypes.
.
My daughter looks stunning in her bathing suit.  Get ready for this: She has a naval piercing too. People who want to see evil, are going to see evil whether she is in a Burka a one-piece, or a bikini. She wears the same kind of swimsuits as her friends. She has converted her Christian boyfriend to Catholicism. She chose the “good” boy over the “exciting” boy.  I was worried for a while there, but she made the right choice. He blossoms by the day, and isn’t the shy, awkward boy she first brought home. He adores her.  She went with a group of seven young adults to mass on Sunday, including her best friend who was raised without *any* religion. Yesterday, her boyfriend prayed his first rosary with her for his dying Grandfather. 
.
I wore a bikini on the beach last Sunday, but I went further down the beach, so I could have more privacy with my family…There have been plenty of times when I sucked my breath in, and felt perhaps that I was walking a fine line, but my husband, who is my best advocate, encourages me.  It makes him so happy. He encourages me to go out walking, and buy myself clothing.  The finest pieces I own are the ones he picked out for me. They are elegant and contemporary. The last thing in the world he wants is to offend God.  I know this.  He is pure of heart, and I can discern this in him.

Posted by Meredith on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2012 11:58 AM (EST):Why is it always “long skirt,” or God help us, “long denim skirt”?
*********************
You’re right,there are other choices.
My long skirts cover up the poison ivy & ant bites.
:)
In the winter I might wear knee length or mid-calf skirts w/ tights.It’s too hot for that now & I’m too old/too modest to go bare-legged.Not to mention the ant bites.

Will I be shot if I remark that Muslim women look beautiful in their garb?  Also Hindu women.  Their clothing drapes modestly.  Contrast that to the other women you see at the grocery store in skin-tight anatomy-revealing pants, too-short tops, and belly hanging outside over it all.  Full disclosure, I’m Catholic and the distance I walk to church dictates that I wear comfortable walking shoes; hence, in winter I usually wear pants to church.  I’m not saying it’s not possible to be modest in pants.  I’m just saying the Muslim women look beautiful.

I think the balance is that Catholics must be in the world, but not of it.
.
Catholics believe that the world and everyone in it were created good. (See Romans 1:19-21a) The world is fallen and sinful, but this has only rendered it distorted and damaged, not totally depraved and evil. (Romans 1:21b-32) The doctrine of Total Depravity is Calvinist, not Catholic.
.
So Catholics should enjoy what is good in the world! God’s creation is good, enjoy! But at the same time, remember that sin damages the world and that we are all sinners and we all do our bit of damage. So, a Catholic should enjoy the world to the fullest, while maintaining modesty and self-control and, of course, doing our best to avoid sin.
.
As for “advertising” your faith, I am with St. Francis: “Spread the Gospel always, use words when absolutely necessary.” Of course, the friars wear their brown garments so the world knows who they are. Any “advertisement” should be enough to remind yourself and inform others that you are a Catholic, but not so much, it becomes a point of personal pride or self-righteousness.
.
These are all balancing acts with no easy answers.

Anita above mentions discerning what is God’s call for us so I wanted to link to discerninghearts.com page on Father Gallagher’s talks. My wife introduced me to these and then we got Father’s book on discerning God’s Will. It is a great blessing to listen and read on this. It is absolutely amazing for anyone who wants to listen to God and never had the training!

Please check it out if you are like me who wonders what God is really saying.

Kathleen, when I lived in the South, folks though I was a Pentecostal.  Here in the West, depending on the skirt, I’m either a Hippie or a Mormon!

ST, yes, Muslim and Hindu women look beautiful in their garb and they’re even usually in pants around here.  The ones I see are always wearing beautifully coordinated outfits and never do you see an unsightly bulge highlighted by tight fabric.

I wear dresses and skirts only and have been for several years.  I don’t dress this way for religious reasons, though.  I dress this way because I’m old-fashioned and like to.  I evangelize through my actions always and with my words if necessary.  I will say though that a lot of people have expressed surprise when they learn that I’m not “made” to dress this way.  As if wearing beautiful, feminine clothing is punishment!!!  If you ask me, wearing coarse blue jeans that cut into my skin is the ultimate in punishment.

I think chicks should be “made” to dress in skirts. if enough “cool” women do it eventually the center of gravity will shift and no one will look out of date in dresses. I don’t like the increasing trend of men wearing dresses either, though they seem to consider them “kilts” and that only very confident and edgy or eccentric men should wear them, such as Samuel L. Jackson. Men should wear pants and women dresses, as a rule, though some situations seem to necessitate pants for women, such as perhaps mule skinning or auto repair for the few women who want to change their own oil or whatever. I can’t imagine any situation that would require a dress on a man. A cassock on a priest, however, does bear a striking resemblance in some features to a dress. To me it seems the modern world in fact places fewer demands that require pants on women. Excellent heating and cooling and transportation systems have virtually eliminated the need for pants over dresses. Hardly anyone needs to straddle a horse anymore, for example. I see no reason that some sort of neoprene skirt couldn’t be worn swimming. I bet they would probably actually look edgy and cool. Girls used to swim in skirts in earlier ages. I saw an old photograph from the early 1900s of teenage girls swimming in skirts in an Idaho lake and they looked quite attractive. Downhill skiing presents a difficulty. But I skied once with a priest who wore his cassock over snow pants. The principle reason hemlines rise, necklines sink and pants proliferate and tighten is everyone else is doing it. It seems women just stare at each other and without words sort of dare each other to go a little further. It’s like boys jumping dirt bikes.
As far as the actual point of the essay, I can’t imagine blending in or standing out was even a question when modesty was the norm in Western civilization. Obviously, you didn’t want to stand out at that point. Since immodesty is the new norm, you gotta stand out and suffer at least a little because even pants that aren’t immodest look a little kooky, I think.

I just reread the original “pants” post.  So hilariously awesome…

Muslim women look beautiful in Burkas?  In other words, women look best when you can’t see them at all?  Hmmm. My problem with the skirt/veil conservative Catholics is that they dictate that every woman should dress this way, that it is holier to dress this way, that God wants you to dress this way.  It’s a moral issue and it’s black and white.  For the conservative Catholic pants people (like me), it’s not a moral issue, it’s a practical issue and we usually don’t have any judgments about what other women choose to wear.  We are perfectly fine with those wearing long skirts or burkas or whatever makes you feel holy.  The skirt people are not fine with women wearing pants even though women wearing pants are fine with them wearing skirts.

As far as blending in or standing out I agree that either is perfectly acceptable if done with the right intention.  One qualifier: everyone is not all one thing or all another.  I don’t like to stand out in what I am wearing.  I do not like to speak in front of large groups.  But I am an activist who has no problem with 4 pro-life bumper stickers on my car, a scapular flapping out of my shirt, organzing protests for religous freedom, etc.  So people don’t have to sit there and think, I have to choose one way or the other.  People don’t fit into neat boxes.  They are individuals.  The point is, people shouldn’t dictate to others that there is only one right way, one Catholic way, one holy way.  There are a bazillion ways to do God’s will.  You can even do it wearing pants.

@alsjdf;alisdjfla

Your intro with “chicks” started off on the wrong foot. No big deal though. But you really crossed the line by baldly asserting women can’t skin mules in skirts. Your misogyny disgusts me. Mule skinning can easily be done in a skirt, assuming it’s not too flowing or easily stained. Where do you get off telling women what to wear while turning pack animals into leather? I bet you’d even tell women they need to start at the mule’s neck—because you’re a bossy man and that’s how you do it—even though starting with the belly is obviously a better choice.

Other than that, excellent post. There were parts that were a little hard to follow, but I enjoyed reading it. Thanks.

Ann, I didn’t refer to burqas.  No, those are not feminine and beautiful.  What is feminine and beautiful is a pair of flowing pants, topped with an embroidered tunic, and set off with a matching scarf.  I wasn’t referring to a burqa at all.  I don’t even think the majority of Muslim women wear burqas anyway.

I can’t believe that this is still a topic of debate.  There is nothing immoral or improper about a woman wearing pants (or even shorts) as long as her clothing is modest.  Obviously, no one should wear shorts to Sunday Mass and there are social settings where women should wear skirts or dresses instead of pants.  However, the choice to wear long skirts instead of pants is a matter of personal taste.  If a woman feels more devout, wearing long skirts, fine.  But unless she tells everyone she meets that she is doing this for religious reasons, no one is going to know since this is not something that the Church requires.  If the Church required women to wear long skirts in public, then wearing long skirts would be a way of witnessing to the faith just as Muslim women witness to their belief in Islam by wearing head scarves.  In other words, there is not anything recognizably Catholic about wearing long skirts instead of pants.

actually, the Church has elaborated some objective standards for feminine modesty, which include—and I’m rattling this off from memory so I might be off a little—sleeves to the elbow, skirts that extend below the knee, and not cut lower than a few inches below the neck. yep, I looked it up out of context, that was Pope Pius XII in the ‘50s, but he was evidently speaking specifically about dresses and doesn’t mention pants at all, perhaps thinking it would be completely outlandish to elaborate modesty standards for pants: “Any pants tight enough to reveal a ‘panty line’ cannot be considered decent.” That would apply to men and women both. I suppose if men start wearing spaghetti strap tank tops cut just above the nipple line to Mass and Bon Jovi cutoff shorts circa 1987 we might need more specific standards for men.

All the weirdos come out when you write about pants.

In reply to alsjdf; alisjdfla:  Perhaps you can find some ecclesial standards for feminine modesty that are more recent than the 1950’s.  This is the year 2012.  The rules you cite from Pius XII probably applied to women visiting or attending churches in Rome as opposed to being a general rule that Catholic women were supposed to follow.  Although the Church has always exhorted women to dress modestly, it has never issued rules about what women should wear outside of Mass. 

I assume “alsjdf; alisjdfla:” is doing satire of a RadTraddie. . . right?  It’s so hard to tell real RadTrads and satire aparts sometimes.

I work at a University and the very young Muslim women wear low-slung blue jeans, skin tight long sleeve t-shirts and spaghetti strap tanks over those with their head scarves.  Every time I see one I think “the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.”

Ugh. This post is just like those ones over at Get Religion where the authors have to keep popping in to say, “It’s a JOURNALISM blog and not the place to debate theology!”
.
Sooo did anyone want to talky about the fascinating and complex topic of how to balance the demands of our vocations?
.
I mean, OR we could just keep listing descriptions of What Slutty/Pretty/Sexy-in-a-holy-way women were wearing the other day….all in the name of Catholic modesty…Hm… so hard to chose.

BTW, I meant “the *comments* on this post are like…”

It depends on the clothing and the woman. There are long skirts than can still be provocative and revealing, shorter skirts that are not, pants that are a second skin and pants that are not. To me, arguing about the article of clothing is pointless. To be lawyerly, it goes to the matter of intent. If you intend to look sexy and provocative, there are ways to do it wearing a burka (like the women I saw who was covered to her knees, with bell-bottom jeans and stiletto heels sticking out below). I agree with modesty standards for church, out of respect for the setting, but if a woman is ladylike and modest, she can achieve that with a wide variety of clothing styles—and as I said above, the reverse is also true. And modest clothing is no guarantor of virtue.

haha nope and you all guessed right I am a traditionalist convert straight out of a crazy Quakerism so what do you expect? But please! we prefer to be called Lefebvrites. The weirdo Jennifer’s talking about is clearly the above lady who is proud to wear a bikini to the beach with her husband’s encouragement right??
Mary S., they’re objective standards, not subject to the vagaries of fashion over time, so it doesn’t matter when they came out or which Holy Father issued them. That’s why objective standards are valuable. They had nothing to do directly with proper dress for Roman churhes.
There were evidently bunches of statements on modesty in the early half of the twentieth century. But we’ve undoubtedly corrected the indiscretions those popes identified in that time. That’s why there are fewer if any more recent exhortations, right? In Pope John Paul II’s presence I believe women were required to wear dresses below the knee, covered shoulders and a chapel veil. But regardless of what position more recent popes have taken, I expect the ‘50s is the latest you’re likely to find such an explicit admonition to modesty. Again, that’s basically because we’ve fixed the problem.
Corita get off your horse! This topic is more fun obviously.

Hmmmmm…well, after all that I sort of wonder.

I don’t consider myself modest, but I am certainly not immodest. I don’t think those are necessarily opposites. I have 3 children, one is a nursing baby. I choose to pull my shirts down rather than up to nurse. The elasticity in them sucks now. Does that make me immodest?

My husband loves to go shopping with me an pick out clothing. I hate it! I like my clothing, I wear skirts and pants depending on what I am doing and what is currently the cleanest.

I live out my vocation by caring for my children and husband, and not worrying about the perv at the next table staring at me. His chastity is not my concern. He needs my payers more than my burqua.

Thanks Simcha! I love all your down-to-Earth honest posts that are full of common sense.

Hmmmmm…well, after all that I sort of wonder.

I don’t consider myself modest, but I am certainly not immodest. I don’t think those are necessarily opposites. I have 3 children, one is a nursing baby. I choose to pull my shirts down rather than up to nurse. The elasticity in them sucks now. Does that make me immodest?

My husband loves to go shopping with me an pick out clothing. I hate it! I like my clothing, I wear skirts and pants depending on what I am doing and what is currently the cleanest.

I live out my vocation by caring for my children and husband, and not worrying about the perv at the next table staring at me. His chastity is not my concern. He needs my payers more than my burka.

Thanks Simcha! I love all your down-to-Earth honest posts that are full of common sense.

@Ann:  What Jenny said.  I was not talking about burqas!  Around where I live it is common to see Muslim women with a beautiful hijab scarf, long-sleeved blouse, and long skirt, and they always look beautiful and elegant.

An occasion of sin, Fr. John A. Hardon writes, is “Any person, place, or thing that of its nature or because of human frailty can lead one to do wrong, thereby committing sin.”
.
In the Act of Contrition, we resolve, especially as persons in the world, to “avoid the near occasion of sin.” In my opinion, it is safer for people to be in the world, but not of the world when they’ve had a good foundation in religious formation as well as a personal relationship with God.  In this way, they will be equipped to protect themselves from temptations of the world that can become near occasions of sin. Otherwise, it becomes easier for a person to fall for the powerful wiles of the devil. I firmly believe that timing is everything, ie. one has to be equipped with the armor of strong spiritual formation and a personal relationship with God before going to battle.
.
Also, in my humble opinion, these are helpful words from Scott P. Richert, which I’d like to share: Perhaps the best way to think of near occasions of sin is to treat them as the moral equivalent of physical dangers. Just as we know we should stay alert when we’re walking through a bad part of town at night, we need to be aware of the moral threats around us. We need to be honest about our own weaknesses and actively avoid situations in which we’re likely to give in to them.  Just as the person on a diet is likely to avoid the all-you-can-eat buffet, the Christian needs to avoid circumstances in which he knows he is likely to sin.
.
From Fr. Greg Coyne:  (We need to remember) not to be naive in thinking that “we’re strong enough to handle the situation” but to be humble enough to recognize our human weakness and prudent enough to avoid situations which could be potentially dangerous to our souls.
.
And lastly, from St. Philip Neri:  ”Humility is the safeguard of chastity. In the matter of purity, there is no greater danger than not fearing the danger. For my part, when I find a man secure of himself and without fear, I give him up for lost.  I am less alarmed for one who is tempted and who resists by avoiding the occasions, than for one who is not tempted and is not careful to avoid occasions.  When a person puts himself in an occasion, saying, I shall not fall, it is an almost infallible sign that he will fall, and with great injury to his soul.”
.
Sorry for the long post.  Thanks for your patience.

Man, sometimes I’m really happy I’m a guy. I have a stack of khaki pants, and a stack of shirts, and so long as I manage to grab one item from each stack, no one cares.

BTW, this post also made me think of Saruman the White, the wisest of the five wizards and head of the White Council in the “Fellowship of the Rings.”  Saruman definitely did not intend to become evil in the beginning, but his study of the Rings and of Sauron led to that end—something those of us in the world need to remember, if we’re not prudent and lack the strength and humility to resist when exposed to the world’s temptations.

<< Do we gather our children in to teach them at home and make them better children, or send them out to meet non-Catholics, and make the world a better place? >>

Are they equipped and ready to handle the negative influence of the world without much harm to their innocence or growth in faith or morals?  If so, by all means.  If not, I see no harm in gathering children in to teach them at home so that they can be prepared and equipped to go out into the world to evangelize and “make the world a better place” when they’re ready – just like God did with St. Benedict by first calling him to be a hermit in order to strengthen him before giving him the vocation to “take charge of a vast and unruly community of brothers.” 
.
In my opinion, putting children out in the world when they’re not ready places too much of a burden on them as they struggle to find out right from wrong.  The enemy is formidable.  As we’ve seen, children with little faith formation get eaten by the wolves everyday or grow up to become wolves or half-wolves themselves.  Preparation and timing matter.
. 
OK, this is my last post.

In my law school, students have an office attire dress code so I’ve been wearing more skirts than I used to. Knee-length skirts…not long skirts but still modest…
In college it was always pants and a shirt. And for social action activities like house-building… I think pants would be the more modest option.
As for standing out or blending in… events in my life seem to have answered that question for me. Since childhood, I’ve always stood out and have trouble fitting in. I just had different interests from my peers. I don’t know if I’d call that courage… It’s still not easy…  And unfortunately, sometimes my pride does get in the way.
I don’t really know if I’m a to witness to the faith doing what I do.

@alsjdf; alisjdfla

Please cite the exact document(s), including the author and paragraph, in which you claim that the Church has specified how women are to dress, not just when we attend liturgical functions, but in general.  Please cite the specific document that states that it is immoral for women to wear pants.

Now I know that the SSPX teaches that women should not wear pants but they are not part of the Church and in the unlikely event that they do reconcile with the Church, their opinion on this matter would not be binding on anyone.

The truth is that the Church has not issued any directive, specifying what women should wear, particularly outside of Mass.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses modesty in paragraphs 2521-2524 but does not put forward a dress code.  In no. 2524 it says, “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another.”

Oh, my gosh. I just read the pants post and the comments after it. Comments gave me a stiff neck from getting so tense! Wow! And that one person getting increasingly hysterical… kind of funny but in the end, you just feel sorry. :P

Interesting.  I live in an area where there are many Mennonites and Amish who give witness by their dress.  We are increasingly getting many Muslims who for the most part dress very Western, although I have seen some in headscarf and a coat in 108 degree temperatures.  We even have a Burmese Buddhist monk in saffron robes who shops in the local Wal-Mart.

Me - I avoid all things tight and low cut, but in the heat and humidity of a Kentucky summer, I wear my bermuda shorts with no qualms at all.

I’ve noticed that poor people\families wear whatever they are given so maybe we should all wear\buy better clothes so that we hand them on they will know that they are esteemed and loved by our better example:)

Shelley ,
Good points.
I heard a Protestant preacher once talk about whether it was wise/appropriate to send children out into the world as “missionaries.” We don’t send kids out alone into the jungle.
Obviously it’s going to be a balancing act & will be different for each family.The world’s an increasingly dangerous place for kids but they’ll have to live in it one day.

Posted by Ellen on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 8:51 AM (EST):Interesting.  I live in an area where there are many Mennonites and Amish who give witness by their dress
******************************
I’m glad you mentioned that.We used to live in an area where there were many conservative Mennonite families & I’m still friends with some of them.
I’ve never noticed Mennonite dress to be something that makes them “unapproachable” to others in the community.Perhaps their obvious kindness,charity, & humility is what makes them “approachable.” I don’t think it’s our dress that turns people away but rather our attitude.

@alsjdf;
Horse?  I am a city-dweller, where you have to be a little more understanding about the diversity of the human condition, including the ability to recognize how things are all connected, from poverty to clothing.  We don’t ride horses, we ride the bus.  And those of us who are smart don’t spend excessive amounts of time staring at other people’s state of undress or writing about it prescriptively on the internet.
.
@Jacob S:“Man, sometimes I’m really happy I’m a guy. I have a stack of khaki pants, and a stack of shirts, and so long as I manage to grab one item from each stack, no one cares.”
...And that is precisely one of the reasons women find the whole topic so tiresome, especially when you can’t seem to even suggest it without setting off a bunch of Catholics.  It’s sort of like….porn. Just a glimpse of the word “modesty” on a screen and people are off to the races!
.
Alright, I will get off my “horse” now. :) Simcha, I tried really hard to think of something On Topic to contribute but I can’t now! And now my Al-Anon work is reminding me that I do not have to pick up the problem of whether people can make themselves stop discussing modesty or not. It’s not my job to force y’all to wear—I mean, talk about—- what *I* want!
.
Peace to all of you, nutters included.  And I mean it sincerely.

Mary S. I’m only interested here in speaking with broad strokes so obviously you’re free to dismiss everything I believe. It’s easy to google modesty and find statements from popes and bishops regarding what can be considered a modest dress, though apparently not what they consider a modest pair of pants. They appear to be primarily quoting a Jan. 12, 1930 document from the “Sacred Congregation of the Council, which I’ve never heard of. I also can’t find the full text of the document after 3 minutes of googling so I think it’s lost to history. Based on the quotes of the document, it appears pants aren’t mentioned at all. Since it was 1930, I don’t think that bolsters your case since contemporary notions of modesty for women in 1930 didn’t include pants.
Please cite the specific document including the author and paragraph as well as the number of words in the sentence and the font style that says the SSPX is not a part of the Church and cite the exact place in all of my comments where I have said pants are immoral. You’re the only one who said that.

Hm.  I think I should have used *proscriptively to refer to the state of undress, and *prescriptively to convey what I meant, which was, telling people how to dress.  (I also forgot to mention the third category of talking about modesty, which is the slightly-defensive descriptions of one’s own personal dressing style.)

I can’t beleive the ridiculous ideas people have about clothing. It’s backward, and not even the point of Simcha’s post!
In Australia, where I live, we are a casual lifestyle and it’s common to dress casual (shorts, tank tops etc..), even to Church. No one blinks at this!
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to see a society where we cover up like Muslim women, with the hijab on our head. I dont find this femonine, modest or attractive. I find it backward and opressive- as is the Muslim religion. And I say this as a person born to Arabic parents immigrants!
Christianity does not advocate this extremity, nor does our Catholic faith. And whoever is saying this is the case is flat out making it up. The sign of progress in a society is not focusing on nitpicking pants or skirts- it’s treating our faith like we are idiots who can’t judge and discern what’s modest. And our Faith is one of reason and faith. Use your God given reason to know what’s tasteful clothes or not. Is that so hard??!
And about Vocations, I love how Simcha talks about going out into the world and being witness to our faith. Why do you think the Holy Family lived amongst the pagans in Egypt as Jesus was a growing boy? Mary and Jseph didn’t hide Him in a synagogue in cotton wool. This wasn’t the Fathers will,
Homeschooling or not is personal. So as long in both cases your child hits 18 yrs. old and becomes shocked by the real world. You do your child an injustice. Good, strong, home family values are imperative for a child- be solid in the way you address your child’s faith and values. 
Khalil Gibran, a Catholic Maronite poet said it beautifully:
“Your children are not your children, they are the sons and daughters of life longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they are with you they belong not to you,...You are the bows from which Your children as living arrows are sent forth…let your bending in the archers hand be for gladness, for even as He loves the arrow that flies, so also He loves the bow that is stable”

Can we read more intelligent comments about vocations and living in the world as a Christian (rather than stupid ones about pants VS skirts). Please!!!

Ez,
Just about the Holy Family in Egypt-I remember reading that there was already an established Egyptian Jewish community.The old saying about when a Jew travels to a new place he always finds another Jew there to greet him is true.
:)

Kathleen, that’s actually not the case.

if you read The Life of Saint Joseph as manifested by Our Lord, Jesus Christ to Maraia Cecilia Baij, O.S.B
(Saint Joseph lived his life hidden in the Divine Light of Sacred Mysteries. He was a living prayer of faith and trust and dedication. Read this beautiful account of St. Joseph’s life, as revealed by Jesus to Sr. Maria Baij in 1736.) approved by Catholic Church - the forward at the front of the book testifies to it’s authenticity and approval by Catholic Church.

The Holy Family lived amongst Pagans, not the Jews- Our Lady befriended pagan neighbors. Joseph worked amongst pagan Egyptians. The point being Josephs relatives slammed the door in his face when Mary was in labour in Bethleham, hence having to make do with a stable. And it was the pagans that showed them hospitality on Egypt- the irony. Not that they didn’t have struggles in Egypt.

The accounts and meditations, revealed by Jesus to this nun, is done purposefully from the point of view of St Joseph. It really puts a human understanding and meaning to the Holy Family’s struggles in life and St Josephs struggles (living with Jesus and Mary- you cant get holier..haha).

Anyway, you read it, no need my convincing…

@ alsjdf; alisjdfla

I am not going to get drawn into an argument about the SSPX.  If they were in good standing with the Church, the Vatican would not be making an effort to bring them back into full communion with the Church.

Also, did you not say in a post that “chicks” should be “made” to wear dresses, which implies that you believe it is not right for women to wear pants. 

Putting aside the word “immoral”, you still have not cited any current, binding church law about what women should wear.

RE: Certain segment of the population who cannot approach women in long skirts…
-
Really? No, really? I mean, I can understand it being difficult for certain people to approach Amish or Mennonite women or Amish Catholics. But it seems odd to simply describe “long skirts” in themselves making Catholic women unapproachable. After all, Maxi dresses and skirts are all the rage right now. 
-
And, couldn’t the same be said of preppy clothing? I live near a Catholic University campus where half the folks on campus are extremely wealthy. And, I mean *extremely*. You can tell by the quality of their clothing. I personally find them difficult to engage because they are not at all like me—a poor, country girl from the sticks. Should these wealthy Catholics dress differently? Honest question.

@Suzanne:  No, they s houldn’t dress differently.  Yes, the same coule be said of preppy clothing. That was precisely my point:  that some people find ultra-modest, conservatively dressed women approachable and appealing, and some find trendy, snappily-dressed women approachable and appealing.  Some people will be drawn to the Church if they see that Catholics can be well-dressed and well-coifed and well-spoken, but some people will be intimidated if it looks like just another club for pretty girls—so it’s also okay for Catholics to be slightly slobby or shabby or impoverished-looking, because there are some people who will only feel welcome in a crowd like that.  That was my point:  that if the Church is truly going to be welcoming of all people, then it has to be represented by all sorts of people, who look and dress and act in all sorts of ways.

.

I’m sorry I said the word “skirt.” I don’t know what got into me!

Sorry about the typos - holding a kicky baby.

Please pardon my use of the lingua franca; forgive me if I shock you by saying so:  God is *SEXY*.  He invented it. He wants you to delight in it.  So much so, that if you are a priest, nun, single, married etc. his call is one of *intimate relationship*, one of *union*; our life, a *daily tryst* with Him, that brings forth a profound fecundity in the physical and spiritual order.  John Paul the Great understood this. Children who are raised, watching their parents behaving profoundly in love with each other, will have the best advantage, no matter how they are educated. The protestant heresies, fueled by a list of previous heresies as long as my arm, are bad seed, sown from the beginning. They have been prime fodder for the evil one to wreck a lot of marriages. (Ivory tower anyone?) Have you ever noticed that sects, cults, and heresies that are obsessively repressive of women, foster the worst examples of perversion?  I think the original “Pants, a Manifesto” which was written as an answer to a Trad’s call for women to be *pure*, was rebutting a pervert with a guilty conscience.  Life should be a love story affirming all that is good and beautiful, not a list of repressive negations.  When people begin to live this, what they freely choose to wear as their conscience dictates will become a non issue.

Anna lisa, you know I love you, but the phrase “Gos is sexy” should be taken out and shot.  Maybe if my husband ever brings some bourbon home, I will write about what I really think about bikinis.

Hey, alsjdf;alisdjfla,  you said:

“In Pope John Paul II’s presence I believe women were required to wear dresses below the knee, covered shoulders and a chapel veil.”

Nope; wrong again:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SVA4nf5Whm4/TCAxViiBpyI/AAAAAAAAALw/pO51Nr_jRrs/s1600/004_JPIIPapuaNew+Guinea.jpg

Simcha, I was not talking about attire.

Oh, I know, but words are words, and “sexy” means things that we cannot mean about God!

If I wanted to sit on a lonely stretch of beach with my husband and kids in my low profile bikini, I hope you wouldn’t want to shoot it off of me.  I would wager to say that whatever *anyone* wears to the beach today would merit a battle cry of “Indecendcy!” a century ago.

Simcha, this is why I used the word “sexy”, and pardon me if we use the word “sexy” in my household.  When my husband picks out vegetables at the farmer’s market he says things like: “What a sexy tomato!” (dead serious).  Translation: “Glorious tomato”.

I would wager to say that whatever *anyone* wears to the beach today would merit a battle cry of “Indecendcy!” a century ago.

.

True enough; but it doesn’t follow that there is, therefore, no such thing as objectively indecent.

Hey, I’m just mainly teasing you, I hope you realize.  I’ve seen some tomatoes that make me want to cover my eyes when I carve them up.

I get what you mean Anna Lisa and see your point completely.

But Simcha is a writer and words are words to her- she chooses them carefully, as they are her “brushes”, so to speak. Her craft.

Hence, Different meanings, connotations are alluded to when certain words are used in certain context, I suppose….sorry to intrude on your and Simcha conversation- just thought to add my two cents, as I see it.

“God is *SEXY*.”

No, he isn’t. God is pure spirit.

It is disastrously to anthropomorphisize God to say that.

“He invented it (sex). He wants you to delight in it.”

God wants spouses to delight in their sexual expression together for holy purposes, and wants unmarried persons to hope for the love and joy they may one day in marriage. God does not want people in general to delight in *sexiness* for general entertainment purposes, anytime, anywhere, with anyone. To do so is to risk arousing concupiscence of the lustful variety, and doing that can kill your soul dead. God never wanted that.

” . . . John Paul the Great understood this.”

(Isn’t it wonderful that the late Holy Father actually understood things? I’m just so impressed.)

“. . . Life should be a love story affirming all that is good and beautiful, not a list of repressive negations.”

And it was, in Eden. And it will be once again in Heaven. Repressive negations will help to keep most of us alive until we get there. Imagine a commander saying to soldiers entering into battle, “This should be about a victory for our side, and you need to celebrate that. This should not be about weapons and commands. So throw away your cell phones and your weapons and concentrate instead on winning victory in this battle!”

Until we win Heaven, we have the world, the flesh, and the devil to strive against. Life is a battle that we will either win or lose.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was thinking about Our Blessed Lady, the woman perfectly modest, as she was the perfection of every virtue.

If a not-too-modestly young woman entered the synagogue where Our Lord was and sat down near Our Lady who had occassion to speak to the impudent one, which is Our Lady more likely to have said: . . . ?

(1) (Whispering to one of her companions) “*Honestly!* How do you like this get-up? She looks one step above a street-walker. Where do they *get* these people?”

(2) (Quietly to the young woman): “You need to go put something on over that, otherwise the men here will get the wrong idea.”

(3) (Quietly to the young woman): “Welcome. It’s good to have you with us.”

I know which one gets my vote. And I like to imitate Our Lady to the extent that I can.

I haven’t actually read Christopher West’s books, but I have read many of the rebuttals.  I think I understand what he was trying to convey when he used words and imagery which were appalling to our sensibilities.  Also, at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves why some women dress “sexy” in a way that we disapprove of.  We tell ourselves (a) that doesn’t look good (look at that fat butt!) (b) Who does she think she is, parading all that junk in front of me, my husband and my children…
Truly?  At the end of the day she *longs* for something, no matter how she skews, and deforms this, she longs for *love*.  She longs for *GOD*.  God created sex because it is beautiful.  Sex is beautiful because HE is beautiful.  The *abuse of sex*, does not make the fault lie with the word, it makes the fault lie with how our society uses it.

(head bowed)  Can I still be a member of the decent wives association of holy Catholic mothers and wives?  I assure you that I’m modest.  It’s taken my husband a lifetime to unravel all my scruples, so this might be a setback to all that therapy.  I’d rather try to understand what motivates people to do what they do.  It makes it so much easier to love, forgive, and gently correct them, if it is our place, it is justifiable, and they trust us.
.
BTW, FYI, my daughter wears a bikini.  She doesn’t play Volleyball in it like half the girls on the beach (or the Olympic team) And my confessor (the one in the cassock), advised me to allow it.  She doesn’t *stand out* on our beach.  You should see the new, tiny sequined ones.  Lol.  I’m choosing my battles carefully.

Marion ,
I hear what you’re saying, but didn’t men & women sit apart in the synagogues anyway? I think sometimes even behind a screen?
Reminds me that no one’s commented on Orthodox Jewish dress.Or perhaps I missed that.
A very good movie I saw-and relating to this discussion-is “Arranged” about 2 young women: an Orthodox Jew & a Muslim trying to keep traditional values within a wordly culture.It was very well done & not patronizing.

“Sex is beautiful because HE is beautiful.  The *abuse of sex*, does not make the fault lie with the word, it makes the fault lie with how our society uses it.”

“Society”?

“Our” society?

People have been misusing sex since the year dot. The Babylonians did it. The Mesopotamians did it. The Hottentots did it. Down to our own day people the world over offend God by misusing sex.

Here’s a slight paraphrase of what you wrote, in a way I can agree with:

God is beautiful.

God created our appetites, including those for food, drink, rest, sex, and all the rest. These appetites and the means to fulfill them were originally all perfectly beautiful, as they were created by God.

Our original parents sinned by willing that which God did not will and disobeying him.

Through their original sin, concupiscence, a tendency of our appetites to reign over us (instead of our reigning over them) entered the world.

Because our appetites are now disordered, men and women are likely to worship wealth instead of use it. We fall into working too many hours, forgetting our families, our duty to worship God and to assist the poor, and collect money, money, money. Wealth is good, when rightly used. God created the goods of this earth, not to be sought for their own sake but for His.

Our appetite for drink may be disordered. We fall into drinking too much, so much that we say and do foolish things and wake up feeling sick the next day. We embarass our spouses and put a strain on friendships when we drink to excess. Drink is good, but misuse of drink is not good. And someone who is a recovering alcoholic knows that “one drink is too many and twelve drinks are not enough.” Can’t touch a drop.

Our appetite for food may be disordered. We may fall into eating too much, for comfort, or to stuff our anger, or because we like the taste of our food. Instead of nourishing ourselves so as to serve God and our neighbor, we savor the experience of eating until we can hold no more food. To misuse food in this way may be an instance of the sin of gluttony.

And disorder has entered our sexual appetites, too. So it behooves Christians to be as careful not to stir up the sexual passions in themselves or others, (apart from due situations, such as with our spouse) any more than we would seek to direct the attention of an alcoholic friend or family member to a nearby open bottle.

Why would anyone in their right mind do a thing like that?

When sin entered the picture, it spoiled much in God’s creation. Creation remains beautiful, but there are nuances. Sex - apart from its selfish use, and apart from any unhealthy preoccupation with it - is beautiful.

Little did I know, as I was carving the chicken off the bone I roasted this morning for our picnic, that my daughter was reading this whole thread, because I left it up.  She chuckled as she sliced the heirloom tomatoes, for the sandwiches and quoted Simcha.  We had a freaking awesome discussion about sex, as God intended for it to be.  Off to the beach!
(wearin’ my one piece so I can chase kids.)

Okay, Simcha, got it. I guess my thought to that is that the hallmark of the Christian should be a sort of love and charity that makes everyone comfortable with him/her. Perhaps, they might not be initially, but it’s charity and humility, not fashion which makes people at ease with us.

Posted by Suzanne on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 3:06 PM (EST):”... it’s charity and humility, not fashion which makes people at ease with us.”
***********************
I remember reading that was the definition of good manners, too.

Mary S. You’re right I did write “chicks should be ‘made’ to wear dresses” and you can read that however you want!  I honestly have no idea what is “binding” on the faithful. When Lefebvrites say Vatican II isn’t binding because it made no formal prounouncements or whatever, no doctrine was infallibly defined, such as at Vatican I, then learned men say the Ordinary Magisterium can and does infallibly define points of doctrine in the day to day. If Pope Pius XI made a statement in 1930 explicitly explaining something that constitutes timeless indecency and that statement was reiterated by other bishops and by Pope Pius XII 25 years later, and that statement has never been replaced or retracted by successive, increasingly reticent episcopies, I don’t know if that technically qualifies as “binding” but it does sound pretty serious! I expect you would tend to think it isn’t “binding,” and I know that’s not what you’re aiming for with your gotcha request. For those who demand pants no explanation is possible; for those who do not, no explanation is necessary. After all, that was back before we had solved the problem by making everything relative. As long as we’re only a little less modest than we were 10 years ago and a little more modest than the current TV shows, and we’re acting modestly out of love for others and absolutely not out of a sense of duty, we’re doing fine!
Thanks for backpedaling on your original SSPX comment. After all, canonical irregularity due largely to the crazy fallout and chaos since Vatican II is very different from “not part of the Church.”

I grew up with a more conservative tradition that had a lot of ideas about “standing out.”  What I think a lot of this discussion misses is *why* certain people stand out.  People didn’t avoid the skirt and long sleeve crowd simply because they were weird - they avoided them because they felt judged.  They avoided them because they felt they weren’t good enough for these people.  If you’d asked the people on the street what adjectives they’d associate with these people, the answers wouldn’t have been “holy” or “godly” - they’d have been “self-righteous” and “judgmental.”

It’s important to ask, not just do we stand out, but what do we stand for and why?  These people stood out, but they weren’t being witnesses.  If anything I saw them turn many people away from God.  We have to stand for something, not just against things.

DarkLight ,
I hear you.
I think I tried to say something similar but also gave my Mennonite friends as an example of ladies who dress very conservatively and at the same time attract people to them by their kindness & humility.

To paraphrase a familiar Scripture passage: “If I unfailingly wear long and bulky skirts, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I do not darken the door of any church without covering my head with a long, lacy mantilla; if I routinely conceal my bosom with vests, jumpers or sweaters in all weather, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I purge pants from my closet, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails.”  (I Cor 13)

Human beings are built for love. We are attracted to it, like moths to a flame. We thrive on it. We crave it. Most times, we know love when we see it.

I could meet someone dressed like Bozo the Clown, and if his or her demeanor radiated the genuine love of God, I would find myself wanting to talk with that person, if only for a moment.

Love shines through no matter what.

And its absence, when it appears dressed in ostentatiously pious garb, is all that much the more repellent and lamentable.

Oh, Marion.  Amen.

I wonder if there isn’t a deeper divide, of which this is a emergent phenomenon.

How ought we (really) position ourselves in relation to the world.

Consider the modus of Catechesis in my lifetime: it’s fair to say it is designed to formate young Catholics to be, mostlly normal, functioning people of this modern age: make peace with the world, try to make you’d part a little better, according to your station and job.

But, a radically different approach could be taken:  the message could be: ‘the world’ as St Paul uses the term, is pretty much out to destroy your soul, and once in mortal sin, will happily sell you everything you might want to replace it with.

Buy low, sell high. It will devalue virginity and chastity (both of which are free), and present sexual gratification or porn, for the price of cable tv or Diinner and drinks plus the multibillion contraception industry you pay a tax to. If sex isn’t making you happy and fulfilled it for you, there’s therapy and drugs, or a little blue pill to permit the addiction to sex (never really unitive, so mostly pleasure). 

You can eat your troubles away, then diet (for a Weight watchers fee) and exercise (gym fee).

It will devalue natural beauty, and sell you cosmetics and hair styles, and magazines of people you could be like if you jusst change your hair color, get contacts, wear this cute little top, drill ink into your skin for the rest of your life.

It will devalue feminitity and motherhood, trading it for ‘accomplishments like a man’ which looks a lot more like wage slavery close up. It will devalue masculinity, but sell you the metrosexual ideal, the enlightened modern femimale , consummately recapitulating today’s MSDNC talking points from the left’s enlightened viewpoint.

It devalues honest, productive wage earning jobs that should be done well (carpentry) but happily sell you a 400k advanced, enlightened degree in utter nonsense, like Marxist power-diallectical deconstructionist political criticism which they laughably still call polisci.

Question: given the world today, which is the better mode of thought? The world is basically ok, or the world is basically headed to hell and wills to drag you down with it.

I predict that how you answer that question will strongly bias your decision whether you usually wear long shapeless skirts, or darling little skirts and pants.

Fundamentally, to take it to the end of the sorities, it comes down to if, despite what one might like to believe about themselves to be, one really is “of the world”. Or not. I vote not.

(written in bed on a cell, before sleep - excuse any typoes &c)

I stand corrected in saying that our “society” has abused the word “sex”, or “sexy”.  That this has occurred since time immemorial,really doesn’t need to be qualified.  I’d like to return to what I was trying to convey, which is really that I am *stunned* and *marvel* and strain to understand the amazing mystery that is contained within the mystery that: the two shall become *one*, and a third shall proceed forth.  Sex is amazing. Sex is jaw dropping.  That the word “sexy” was *ever* relegated to describing a poor caricature of a human being who tries to coerce or manipulate by abusing the gifts of femininity or masculinity is not just an abuse—it is simply not *sexy*.  That God gave us this stunning gift is one of the greatest insights into His being—after the mystery that he became bread for our consumption.

I still wear pants sometimes but I felt that I looked too frumpy in them and they didn’t fit right on me so I have taken to wearing long, stylish, denim skirts to work.  My tops are also stylish and I wear jewelry and cute shoes.  So, even though I am wearing long skirts now, I don’t think I am looking frumpy or standing out since many students at the university wear maxi dresses that go down to the ankles too.  It read comes down to how you carry yourself, how you treat others.  If you exude love and cheerfulness then people won’t be put off of you.  I am consciously aware that I am a Catholic so I try to be a good witness.  Granted, I’m not wearing crucifixes all the time but I do wear a scapular and I am kind to everyone.  I generally dress like this so that I feel better about myself (I have a lot of self-image issues) and to please my husband who thinks I look more feminine in a skirt.

God uses every opportunity to reach people…sometimes I blend in sometimes I stand out…I interact with the holy and the unholy, the upstanding & advantaged and crackwhores in jail and I endeavor (and normally succeed) in treating them the same and bringing God to them in the midst of their pain.

(and I wear pants)

“If wearing long skirts means being a little self-conscious, having to work a little harder, being a little chillier….”

I rarely wear pants. Nothing much behind it beyond ‘skirts are pretty (and SWISHY!) and pants are mostly boring’ (shhh. don’t tell my plaid trousers. they’ll get a complex.) So going to college in upstate NY was… fun. I re-learned the trick my mum used when I was little (and refused to wear pants because ‘I am a LADY and ladies wear dresses!’ Yes. I was THAT four year old.) of one pair of boring tights underneath a FUN! pair of tights (nice wooly ones!). Thick over the knee socks also work well and stay up better when they have the underneath pair of tights to cling onto. Long skirts are easy because you can just wear pants under them and you’ll be warm and nobody will know! Stand out in something lovely! ^_^

Ooooh!  Ooooh!  I wore shorts to Mass last Sunday!  Me bad!

It was the weekend of our parish’s golf outing, and I was playing in it.  Mass was offered on the patio of the country club that was hosting the golf outing.  And Father was playing golf after Mass as well.  They changed the Sunday Mass schedule for that day only, with a 7:30 AM Mass at the golf course and a 5 PM Mass back at the church, along with the Saturday 4 PM anticipated Mass.  All of the women who were playing in the golf outing were wearing golf shorts and tops, as were the men.  We were wearing mostly Bermuda or golf-length shorts, not your Daisy Dukes, and shirts with collars.  A couple of the really serious women golfers were wearing golf skorts.  I’m pretty sure that Father was wearing golf shorts under his vestments, because he was in the first foursome in the shotgun start, and was wearing golf shorts with a polo shirt for the game.  At the dinner afterwards, he had changed into slacks and a clerical shirt with Roman collar.

I have no desire to distinguish myself either conservatively or provocatively.  I like clothing that is appropriate to my age and activity, and for the weather.

I’m laughing a little at the pants/skirt debate, which I obviously missed before. Personally, I’ve always been a little confused by the arguments because if I look at the question biologically, it seems it would be more modest for the MEN to wear flowing skirts and women to wear the slacks! And I’ll just leave it at that.
+++++++++++++
More on the topic of standing out or fitting in, I can run into this at Mass. I’m a firm believer in kneeling in the direct presence of the Eucharist. This can be a little awkward in a church that has all folding chairs and NO ONE is kneeling. Am I simply continuing to show my respect for the Eucharist by kneeling on the floor, or am I being prideful by insisting on kneeling when no one else is? And I actually ran into an internal debate at Easter about covering my hair with the scarf/shawl I was wearing. I ultimately decided against it because I felt the real reason I wanted to do that was to show off the pretty scarf, not an appropriate motivation.

Maybe a good way to look at the questions of whether to stand out or not is to think about whether it’s part of an overall DISCIPLINE in our lives that is focusing our minds and hearts to God. I find kneeling through the rites of the Eucharist help to keep me fixed on the mass, and helps prevent my mind from wandering. Therefore, I generally kneel even if I’m the only one. The scarf thing… well, I think that would just end up being vanity on my part, so I’ll skip that unless I’m in a community where it’s expected.

While I agree that pants worn by women for Mass are not appropriate, I fail to see why modest pants or longer length shorts for other activities in one’s life are viewed as taboo by more the traditional Catholics. Putting aside here the extremists in dress, “modesty” is personally felt and lived out; an interior virtue, based upon learned, internalized Christian values.  I think one can wear both dresses and pants modestly AND appropriately. Others cannot dictate dress codes. Personally, I think slacks or jeans ARE appropriate at time, and if a Catholic woman is comfortable in slacks in a social or work situation, knows she is a modest person in her attire, and wishes to dress this way I think that this should be her decision. I personally find attitudes such as those expressed in this article oppressive and intrusive and, if one doesn’t watch out, such attitudes (and the people who hold them, well-meaning as they might be)can come across to others as “superior” to other Catholic women who might well hold opposing views. “Standing out” or apart from the secular world is evident by moral example. Skirts alone say absolutely nothing.