I just finished reading a very interesting article from abbeyroads blog about Catholic women dressing modestly. Here is a list of Marylike standards of dress from the Catholic League:
1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.
3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.
4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.
5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others. - Catholic League
In my opinion, to "dress" in Marylike clothing would take enormous courage.
This comment sent to directly to my email is from another blogger: I have a book on this topic called Dressing with Dignity that explains the position better; I think while the Marylike standards are appropriate in most cases, there are good exceptions. In the bible there are warnings to men to not wear women's clothing. Today, we would interpret that as wearing a dress, but at the time the bible was written and for 1500 years afterwards, men did not wear slacks. That is largely a Victorian invention that took about 100 years before women were able to adopt them. So, what were the differences between men and women at the time those letters were written? Today we would say they all dressed alike. Really, it comes down to fashion. In all times, women always did something to help support the breasts. Linen binding was the most common. In the Renaissance, they turned to the corset to help with support and provide a cleaner line for the fabric to be draped on. That developed into different styles ending in our modern bra.
ReplyDeleteVeils are specifically mentioned in the bible. Women are to veil in the presence of God and men are to bear their heads. This comes down to psychology. Woman's hair was considered her glory. To cover it was to hide her beauty like the veiling of the Holy of Holies in the Temple. It's going to come down to some common sense (educated).
In our culture, wearing a skirt from below the knee to the floor is completely modest. Sinfulness comes down to awareness of the effect your clothing has on those around you and what you are doing about it. If you know your clothing is producing a sinful response and you do nothing but tell yourself it is their fault, that would be considered sinful (that falls under leading others into sin). If you do something to mute or mitigate the sinful response, like put on a cardigan or a shawl, then you have done what you can to help those around you and even if you were still indecent, it would not be considered sinful. Something to think on: Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves to cover themselves but God re-clothed them because it wasn't enough.
Here is another response from a blogger: I appreciate your words on this subject. I also read the Abbey Roads post. However, I do think that we are all personally responsible for our own sins. The notion that a woman (or man) is complicit in another's sinful thoughts is absurd. Frankly, it shifts the burden of responsibility away from the sinner and onto the object of desire - which is more often a woman. It gives the sinner an "out" from full responsibility and allows him to commit an even greater sin (IMO) of contempt - which is the opposite of love. I feel that this sows the seeds of disdain toward women in general and allows for cultures to place harsh oppressions onto women (think Middle Eastern cultures not allowing women to drive or forced to be chauffeured) and ultimately fruits into the gravest of violences against them. Do you think perhaps the "loving" thing to do in this situation would be to master ones thoughts for the love of God? We're on this earth to be tested and to overcome temptation and sin. We can control the direction of our thoughts - and the Lord requires that we master that control. We cannot strengthen our resolve without adversity, right? That being said, if a person wants to dress a certain way because she thinks it will be pleasing to the Lord, then that is a wonderful thing and she should do as her conscience directs. We can choose to be loving to our fellow man by not dressing immodestly for the occasion, but let's not encourage arbitrary standards of dress based on the faulty reasoning that we might be causing another to sin when it's each our own responsibility to guard our thoughts from entertaining such sin.
ReplyDelete