Christian Modesty Attacked

Our Lady of Fatima versus Theology of the Body

The Pontificate of JP2 is still damaging the Church, and the Tip of this Spear is the lamentable and disgusting:  Theology of the Body.  In a recent video "Modesty Guidelines De-Bunked with Christine Niles", Miss Happy Catholic, aka Laura Vander Vos and Christine Niles, are spreading vile disinformation.  Hopefully, the two are just complete ignoramuses.  If they are malicious, they are really going to have a terrible Judgment Day.
Our Lady of Fatima said that "most souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh" and that, "certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much".  St Jacinta added that people "ought not follow these fashions".  These statements, of course, are eminently Catholic, and reflect the fact the Catholic standards of modesty apply to all times and places, from the Starship Enterprise in the 23rd Century to a Polynesian Island in the 4th Century.   Reality is ontological- cats are cats and wolves are wolves on all five continents, and Salvation History is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
But not so for Christine and Laura.  In line with their liberal, nominalist thinking, standards are going to shift- quotes oncoming.  So sit back for a Blow by Blow account- and get ready for some real zingers...
Both Christine and Laura are sporting shirts which, at the very least, strain the boundaries of modesty, as the necklines are low and Christine is obviously dressed in short sleeves.  (But we would not want to appear "frumpy", would we.  The Dictionary defines frumpy as "Dowdy, unkempt, or unfashionable.  Primly out of date."  Prim means more or less "fussy", while dowdy loosely translates as "shabby".)   Our Lady of Fatima never said anybody was in Hell because they dressed like Amish.
Christine sets the tone for the whole presentation when she says that: "God gave us natural beauty; he wants us to be beautiful."  As we shall see, Christine is going to make no distinction between spiritual and natural beauty, but more on that as we proceed.
Laura reveals early on that modesty is "an issue that I run into a lot in the work that I do with recovering traditionalists".  (This Wolf does wonder:  from what are these "Traditionalists" recovering?  In this case it would seem to be the Catholic Faith.)
Most Traditional Catholics are familiar with the following: "“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”   Some attribute this quote directly to Pius XI.  Christine says the origin of the quote is The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Basilio Pompili on September 24th, 1928, and that it only applies to women in religious institutions.  This Wolf has bigger fish to fry, so he will take this at face value.  Meanwhile, Christine Niles, given this fact, now tells us that women have no objective standards to evaluate their dress, and discretion is entirely theirs.  What logic!  Vulcans would be impressed!
Christine goes on to assure women that "the church expects us to use our God-given brain and Common Sense and Prudence when it comes to dressing modestly so how you dress at the park is not going to be how you dress at Mass... a graduation...(or)  a business party... God has given us freedom which is the wonderful thing... (and) free will."  Women can be "prudent in accord with common sense in accord with the dictates of modesty."  Of course, since no benchmark or touchstone for modesty exists, women can just make things up as they go along (as is everything in the Conciliar Church).
And now Christine is going to instruct the audience on one of the Capital Sins of the Conciliar Church: "the problem comes when you try to impose those standards on every single woman out there and then you beat them over the head with it which I've seen a lot happen people have done it to me, saying 'you're not dressed "this way" and therefore you're sinning' or 'you're being a temptress; you're being a seductress."  ...completely ridiculous things."
Completely ridiculous things?  Well, first off, it depends on some context.  This Wolf has actually seen women come to Church dressed in Bikinis- maybe not the ultra slim strappy type, but Bikinis nonetheless.  Would Christine consider admonishing such a woman that she is being a temptress "completely ridiculous"?  
"I've seen women dress completely and perfectly modestly" Christine continues, "but because they run afoul of the exact  height and length according to that that quote therefore they're sinning..."  (Objectively, yes)  "and I'm sorry that is simply false and it's actually very harmful it drives people out of the church... It makes them think that God is...  ready to smite you."
Laura adds:  "I too for years believed they were binding under sin'"  She hastily assures us that  "it's not like I'm gonna just go run around in a bikini now because  you have to use your common sense and some things still aren't modest even if we have not got these very specific guidelines to follow in every case."  Whew!
Seriously, the problem here should be seen by anybody who understands human nature, especially feminine human nature.  Devoid of firm guidelines, women, particularly the eligible ones, are naturally going to tend to fashions that show off their wares, so to speak.  And of course Christine said that "God wants us to be beautiful".  (Somehow this Wolf does not recall that being in any of the Commandments, and he knows them quite well.)
Christine is now going to address that "extreme Fringe of Catholics " who think "makeup is a sin".   Once again, she is going to insist that some "makeup" is absolutely essential for a "business party"- that job or career is all important, of course- or other occasions when, according to St Francis de Sales, it would be an affront to the guests and perhaps your husband to be "frumpy".
Christine will now quote St Thomas Aquinas: "if (women) adorn themselves with the intention of provoking others to lust they sin mortally whereas if they do from frivolity or from vanity for the sake of ostentation it is not always mortal but sometimes venial."  That is to say, it is always a sin for women to dress inappropriately.  (No dispute there.)
And now for the zingers: "It's important to remember... that dress can change from culture to culture and from generation to generation."  Oh yes Christine, AND HOW!  But that does not mean that standards of modesty change.  She cites how Queen Marie Antoinette and Empress Zita wore low-cut bodices and of course that was okay since that was how Queens dressed in the 18th century and Empress Zita is in Heaven Now.  (We will not pillory Christine's utter lack of knowledge concerning the canonization process and what is implied.)
All of this, of course, is the runup for an extended quote from Dr Andrew Swafford concerning the "theology of the body" (Get ready for some real Orwellian Newspeak): "What is shameless in dress is that which clearly contributes to a deliberate obscuring of the most essential value of the person by the sexual values...  that is when someone deliberately seeks to accentuate their sexual values in a way that overshadows their true dignity as persons in terms of concrete specific ... to the consideration of function for an outfit- for example, during physical labor in hot weather, while bathing or at the doctor- if the clothing essentially serves the function then it's not immodest.  When a person uses dress within the framework of its objective function then we cannot see shamelessness in this but to employ such stress outside the context of its specific function does become immodest for the dress no longer serves the function but is obviously done for some other reason presumably to get attention."  Got that men?  If the temperature is above a certain point, that topless woman is not immodest, so do not get aroused.  (Christine goes on to say that men who are too easily aroused have a problem and women really need not worry about that as occasions their dress, in complete contradiction to Traditional Catholic teaching, which has standards of modesty exactly to accommodate men subject to temptations.)
But let us just cut to the real zinger: "How would Mary dress today?  Mary would dress like a normal woman. She wouldn't stand out in any way.  Obviously, she wouldn't go around dressed like a Middle Eastern woman from 2000 years ago.  That would be ridiculous because then that's not modest she'd be standing out!  She would dress tastefully; she would dress modestly; she wouldn't do anything to stand out. right you know maybe she'd be wearing a dress but in some cases maybe pants."

Yes, you read that correctly.  These two do not see any problem with Our Lady wearing pants.  Because, after all, modesty is all about not standing out in the New Sodom.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.  You are our only hope!