 |
| "Help! I'm being repressed!" Modest, feminine, and looks comfortable other than the shoes. Ok, ladies, now start with all the excuses about how you cant wear/afford/find this. Gee, it's almost like you need men to figure out how to dress you! Oh wait, that is what is already happening with all the crotch hugging leggings and immodest pants. Ladies, you are the crown of creation... start dressing like it! |
It is rare to hear a moderate explanation that does not get pages long with nuance, and end up with young girls wearing tight pants... the exact thing that needs to be avoided! Give me results any day over verbiage. Show me a faith by your works. Show me modest daughters seeking Christ. The Fundamentalists are far more correct that the secularists, and even more correct that the moderates, who have yet to make any impact. Show me your teen daughters you moderate Christians, and I will show you immodest dress. Given this choice, I will side with the knee-jerk "no-pants" fundamentalists any day, while realizing the excesses they can go to and trying to avoid those excesses. In the culture war, results are all that matter. Head and heart need to move the hands to battle. And when I look at your daughters, and see your failure in the way they dress, all your words grow faint and grey against the stark failure.
What follows is a comment I put on Facebook to Christopher Lake, who had encountered a rad-trad Catholic who "unfriended" him over pants-wearing for women. In my comment I urge sympathy with this "no pants" attitude and solidarity with rad-trads and fundamentalists for the sake of the faith, rather than insisting on Aquinas-like precision in their reasoning. We faithful Catholics and faithful traditional Protestants are a minority defending against a culture that tries every way it can to eat our children alive and throw them to Satan. We need to stick together and defend the more rigorous among us, and even default to them when choosing between them and the culture.
Christopher,
I 100% understand your point about the more fundamentalist attitude toward pants. I believe it often is misguided and ends up loosing sight of the *reasons* they don't wear pants in the first place. Often it simply becomes a counterculture identity marker, and the modesty aspect gets wrapped up in *specifically* not wearing pants, rather than a true understanding of modesty, which realizes that skirts and tops can be immodest as well, and often pants are the more modest choice depending on the activity. Legalism is always bad. BUT, these legalists are more right than the women wearing the "jeggings".
I would side with the legalist overreach before I sided with the disgusting immodesty which is rampant (btw, you truly must either be a saint who does not see these pants, or have a very unique destination parish to not have this problem at your Church). We are in a culture war, and although we fight the same enemy, many can't explain their reasons for fighting as well as others. This is why I still see myself standing next to the anti-pants crowd. They may be off in their reasoning a bit, and overly enthusiastic/anti pants, but their main point (modesty) is correct. The fact is that MOST of the time, particularly in the current style, pants are immodest.
Many rad-trad Catholics or Prot. Fundamentalists don't have the time or desire to articulate their points like we do. (increasingly, as a father of 5 working 2 jobs I have less and less time, too!) They see immodest pants on 70% of females wearing pants, and they condemn pants. I for one like their instinct, and I like their tenacity and willingness to go against the cultural tide.
Countercultures (faithful Catholics, traditional Protestants, Traditional Jews and Muslims) often end up being legalistic on certain points of differentiation with the secular culture that has dominated for the last 250 years. It is tiring for them to explain in detail their feelings about modesty, and precisely what is and is not modest. And often the devil is in the details, and truth can get lost with nitpicking the different aspects of female dress. drawing stark lines in the sand can be a very effective way of maintaining modesty. Does anyone deny that Christian fundamentalists (of all stripes) are by far the most modest in their dress? It is not even contested.
Guess what is easy for a mom of 5 daughters who wants them to dress modestly? It is really easy to just tell them they can't wear pants! Can they still be immodest? Yes, but it is waaay harder. Perhaps in 20 years things will be different, but right now if a girl goes to buy pants, and I mean any pants, they are most likely very immodest. Traditionalists and fundamentalists can be very easily forgiven for their simplistic "no pants" mantra. It serves a dual purpose of an identity marker which opposes modern secularism, while almost always serving its root purpose... MODESTY.
Say what you will about Catholic rad-trads or Protestant Pre-mil fundamentalists, but (other than the Amish) they are the most modestly dressed Christians living within our culture... hands down. I look past their poor reasoning and applaud them. Our culture is sick and dying, sometimes living within it requires radical thinking and drastic actions, saying ENOUGH!! even to things we *can* do. For Christian families in modern secular culture, often this means drawing lines where God does not, fasting when we *could* eat, sacrificing when we *could* indulge. A 16 year old wearing leggings to mass will likely not be Catholic in 10 years. If her parents let her dress that way, most likely they have caved in other areas to the secular culture. Expecting modesty could be what makes the girl and her parents re-examine their trajectory and draw a solid line of demarcation between the family and our infectious culture. Peace
 |
| Dresses from an Evangelical dress shop in Brazil. Very feminine, very modest, very expressive. Yeah, its Brazil, so the style is different. But my point is that Godly modesty is not repressive, but liberating and beautiful. Modern secular fashion is what is degrading and repressive to women. |
 |
| Women in in Hong Kong. Feminine, modest, modern. |
 |
| Every parish should have this sign |
Along these lines, my wife, too, believes that women can be both modest and lovely in the way they dress: http://itsfuntobeagirl.com/
ReplyDeleteMy wife subscribes to your wife's site! We need more corageous women like ours to lead the way. So many women say how hard it is to find pretty yet modest clothing, conservatives like us have to bring this issue into our everyday consciousness... because clothing is an everyday thing.
ReplyDeleteDevin, I love Katie's website as do my teenage girls. David, great timing on this post - my own little post on my daughter's Sunday style from yesterday dovetails. :-) http://nettiesworld.com/?p=8450
ReplyDeleteIt's remarkable to me how much heat this topic generates...
Hey, brother David,
ReplyDeleteI know that you and April seen and responded to my reply on Facebook, but I just wanted to post it here, because I don't want any of your readers thinking that I am peachy-keen with immodesty in the Church. I don't see myself as a "moderate" *or* a rad-trad on this issue or many other issues. You and I agree in principle and in spirit but disagree on application. As you said, it's a big Church. I know that you, and I, and April are all just trying to be faithful Catholics and care for the health of the Church. In that vein:
I *completely* understand David's point of view, as a Catholic man who wants to have purity of heart and mind and not be distracted at Mass by inappropriately suggestive dress, whether on the part of men *or* women. (I don't have homosexual inclinations, but men who dress inappropriately get on my nerves too.) With that said, though I do understand and "get" most of your points, David, I find myself agreeing more with what April has written. I do think it would be an absolutely *wonderful* idea for every parish to have a visible sign posted, somewhere that is easy to see, about dress that is appropriate for Mass. There is such a sign here: http://www.nationalshrine.com/ Even at the National Shrine though, I do see inappropriate dress at times. The only way to completely *stop* its appearance at Mass would be for there to people standing at the door, on the way into Mass, to check peoples' clothing and to say, "Ok, your dress is fine, you can go in," or, "That's not appropriate; I'm sorry, but you can't enter." Well, now that I think about it, there actually is another way. It would be to have such people there to check clothing, and to offer some form of clothing to "cover" those who are dressed inappropriately. From what I understand, this is what is actually done in Vatican City. I think that's a great idea, although I know that many people would be offended by it. Something has to be done about the way that many people dress at Mass these days. Multiple things *could* be done. The one thing that I *don't* think should be done is to tell people, "You are dressed inappropriately. You have to leave. You cannot participate in Mass here today." People who dress inappropriately at Mass need to be there every bit as much as everyone else, if not even more so.
David, my parish is not a "destination" parish. It's not FFSP. It's an "Ordinary Form" parish in which the Mass is done according to the documents of Vatican II, with most of the Mass being in English, but with Latin and chant as well. http://www.silverspringcatholic.com/ I didn't say that all of the people there dress appropriately, but from what I have been able to tell, at least 80% of them do. Maybe I have missed some of the ones who dress inappropriately, Whenever I intend to receive the Eucharist at my parish, I sit in the very front row in the middle of the church, right hand side, and the priest brings the Eucharist to me, while I am on my knees on the kneeler. After I receive, I bow my head, close my eyes, and pray until the entire parish has also received the Eucharist, Therefore, I may be missing some people who are dressed inappropriately. I do see some at times, including on the way out of the parish after Mass. I just look away, very quickly, and try to remember to pray for them and also remember that if I had ever gone into a Mass when I was a teenager, I very likely would have been dressed inappropriately myself... There but for the grace of God go I.
I meant to write *have seen* in the first sentence above... I did major in English, hehe!
ReplyDeleteChristopher,
ReplyDeleteGood conversation. I think this is an important issue and it is good to sandbox ideas.
I think there is perhaps a tension between two things you said:
"The only way to completely *stop* its appearance at Mass would be for there to people standing at the door, on the way into Mass, to check peoples' clothing and to say, "Ok, your dress is fine, you can go in," or, "That's not appropriate; I'm sorry, but you can't enter." Well, now that I think about it, there actually is another way. It would be to have such people there to check clothing, and to offer some form of clothing to "cover" those who are dressed inappropriately. From what I understand, this is what is actually done in Vatican City."
And:
"The one thing that I *don't* think should be done is to tell people, "You are dressed inappropriately. You have to leave. You cannot participate in Mass here today." People who dress inappropriately at Mass need to be there every bit as much as everyone else, if not even more so."
But telling people they are dressed inappropriately is exactly what they do at St. Peters. If someone refuses to dress appropriately, they may not enter. Perhaps what you are saying you would be opposed to is not offering a remedy, as in saying “your immodestly dressed, go home!” without offering something to cover up with (which they do at the Vatican)? If so I agree.
It is a simple enough thing to have items on hand for people to cover up with. (they do it in restaurants!) But there is nothing wrong with insisting they cover up, and if they refuse, then to insist they leave… nicely of course. If we would do this for a girl in a string bikini, we should do it for girls in crotch tight pants. In fact, good ushers already do things like this. I have seen ushers tell young men to take their hats off, or ask men to move to let an older lady sit. I think it is totally appropriate to have a sign (like the Vatican) and/or ushers approach people about basic modesty, offering covering for the worst offenses and turning them away if they refuse (in Christian charity and politeness of course).
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the ushers could approach people about things like sweatpants, t-shirts, shorts, sneakers, flip-flops and bluejeans, and gently encourage them not to wear that in the future. One motto should be “If you would not wear it to a wedding or funeral… then don’t wear it to mass on Sunday.” With the added bit for ladies to cover shoulders and dress down to the knees. I mean, this is basic self respect stuff.
Peace,
David
I updated the post with the sign from the Vatican. I love it.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, the stick figure man in the "yes" picture is not wearing skin tight black spandex showing off his junk. So the woman in the "yes" picture with pants should not be either. Just common sense.
Thanks y'all!
ReplyDeleteAt the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Alabama (the Shrine built by Mother Angelica of EWTN), they have someone at the door who, if a person; man, woman, or child is dressed inappropriately, asks that the person dress in clothing that they have available for borrowing. The one asking admittance takes the garment/s and pulls it/them on over his/her "street clothes". Works like a charm.
ReplyDelete