Thursday, September 8, 2011

The Inanity of the New Catholic Moralism

Consider this article from The Anchoress, in which Elizabeth Scalia joins a host of other voices from the Catholic Blogosphere in condemning spaghetti straps, short shorts, and tight t-shirts, among other violations of the American bourgeois Christian dress code. This issue is just one of many that now has become almost a point of obsession in what I believe is an emerging hyper moralistic, neo-conservative Catholicism possible only through the Internet. The new Catholic moralism does not merely attack what it perceives as the gross immodesty of many contemporary parishioners, but has at various times set its sights on rock and roll, the Novus Ordo Mass, and handshaking during Mass, and which makes an almost painstaking conformity with (their interpretation) of every and any proclamation originating from ecclesiastical sources one of the most fundamental marks of true Catholicism.

The truth is, there is much to be commended in such a crusade. In many ways, today's Catholics, especially the younger to middle aged Catholics more familiar with technology, the Internet provides a method of seeking communion with other Catholics who are not impressed with the more liberal direction the Church has often taken in the recent American past. There is no doubt that there is truth behind their objections, and most importantly their objections and concerns indicate a genuine interest in the preservation of a genuine Catholic culture, something that is in danger of becoming an almost non entity in the public and popular sphere.

Yet there is also a danger to the inanity of certain aspects of the crusade, a danger that results from the new insular nature of the Catholic blogosphere. By sequestering into an online enclave capable of mutually reinforcing rants about everything from flip flops to a scrupulous level of concern over the perfect form of confession to worries about less-than-ideal liturgical celebrations, the entire programme risks more than irrelevance: it risks an insidiously deformed vision of Catholicism and a disordered sense of the most important battles against the culture of death. Not only is condemning (mostly young female) parishioners for wearing the most widely available, most current, and most popularly ingrained styles to Church likely to be a failed crusade more probably resulting in the loss of their interest in an increasingly condemning environment, but it errs in two other ways as well: the recognition that modesty is always to a great extent a culturally determined concept and secondly the recognition that Catholicism is the religion of the masses. When it comes to Catholicism, "here comes everybody."

We would not expect an African tribeswoman to observe the standards of dress as a Victorian widow. There are areas of the world in which going topless is considered completely normal (often not only for purposes of comfort but for the utility of breastfeeding; an often neglected part of the culture of death is a war on breastfeeding which manifests itself in the ironic labeling of breastfeeding as an immodest act). Our culture, too, has norms about what is appropriate, although these norms are in constant flux. You will get no argument from me that much of the western proclivity towards less covering is not so much motivated by environmental or parenting considerations as a movement towards the over-sexualization of every aspect of life. But at the same time, the new cultural norms are so ingrained that to an extent it is not even a sign of immodesty for a woman to attend Mass wearing a short skirt and spaghetti strap: it is merely a sign that she has purchased the latest fashion. And while it is rather easy for us to compare our current dress with the vogue of the fifites (or, more likely, the late 1800's) and wag our finger at the change, we might just as well wag them at the bust raising corsets of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Furthermore, the concern over standards of dress at religious occasion is primarily bourgeois in nature: Church becomes a primarily social event in which attendees must conform to particular expected norms of dress, behavior, attitude, and demeanor, and in which failure to conform results in, at the very least, being subject to a thorough "looking down the nose." More regularly, it may result in explicit condemnation and provide an occasion for those who abide by the expectation to reaffirm for themselves their own goodness. But as I have already mentioned, there is the genuine possibility that these "immodest young women" are not by any means intending any disrespect to the proceedings: it may be the case that they are actually wearing some of their best clothing, clothing which happens to form to a style no longer in conformity with the expected standards.

Of course, this is probably only a concern in a few Churches in any case. But whereas before the invention of the Internet, those few zealous and sincere if possibly overly moralistic watch hounds would be mostly confined to their local parish, they now have the capability of banding together and condemning spaghetti-strap-wearing Catholic women all over the country. This has resulted in a false sense of what I like to call hyper-Catholicism, a self-appointed enclave whose imagined jurisdiction covers the face of the earth.

Furthermore, it draws much attention and effort away from true calamities. Abortion, war, disease, economic exploitation, poverty, lack of access to health services, and so forth are regular fare for the human race, and the faith must still grapple with the challenge of scientism as well as the ever changing existential struggles of postmodernity. In such an environment, concern over flip flops becomes not quaint, but downright inane. If the world wants to walk around topless, all it would mean is that half the allure of sins like pornography would probably be gone, especially if it were coupled with a society-wide insight among believer and non-believer alike that the breasts are primarily for nurturing the young, not for sexual fetishism. But the struggle against meaninglessness and violence would still be one of the most important social missions for the Church, and the spreading of the Gospel of peace might trump the concerns of pietistic moralism.

5 comments:

  1. Interesting article and perspective. Point taken. But I do think it is worth asking people to think about their dress. Dress, like postures (standing, sitting, kneeling), does help set a frame of mind/spirit. And it can also be very distracting to others in the pews. I've been in parishes where the only way to safely and effectively practice custody of the eyes is to keep them firmly fixed on the floor or closed!

    But again, I think you have a point. Balance in all things - priorities and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dale,

    It's a question of balance, true, but to some extent it's also a question of condemnation. Making the judgment that someone is sinfully immodest requires us to assume the intentionality behind their garb.

    That being said, everyone must act so as to avoid sin according to their own proclivities. So if someone finds short shorts lustfully distracting, choosing to look at something else is a wise idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You wrote, "the recognition that modesty is always to a great extent a culturally determined concept and secondly the recognition that Catholicism is the religion of the masses. When it comes to Catholicism, "here comes everybody." We would not expect an African tribeswoman to observe the standards of dress as a Victorian widow..."

    I think you're mixes apples and oranges here a bit. The African tribeswoman's dress (or lack thereof) has likely been so for generations. In America, there is a culture war going on - and standards of dress have been changing. I would argue they have been changing *precisely* to further sexualize women and the culture in general. And for this reason, I think it makes good sense to push back against the culture as Catholics rather than simply saying "it is what it is, let's embrace or at least accept it." As someone with considerable experience with pre-teens and teens, I see the very real-world effect this hyper-sexualization is having. I see the effect even on older men. It's evil and if the Church isn't supposed to stand up and say "no", then who is, exactly? Can it be done without condemnation? Sure. But I believe it does need to be done. Too many young girls have simply accepted that this is the norm and that they must dress in ways that say, "notice me sexually." Some feel pressured into it. And they need to know they don't have to fall into line.

    Sexual sin is rampant in this country. It's celebrated. Lust. Fornication. The culture is saturated with it. And modesty in dress is no small part of that degeneration. Heck, it seems that they can't even sell diapers or suppositories without a scantily clad woman.

    Now, if we're talking about shaking hands during Mass and whether everyone is receiving Holy Communion on the tongue....okay, I will agree completely with you there. But I think modesty is right at the forefront of the culture war.


    Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with your basic assumptions but not entirely with your conclusions. You will note that I wrote,

    "Our culture, too, has norms about what is appropriate, although these norms are in constant flux. You will get no argument from me that much of the western proclivity towards less covering is not so much motivated by environmental or parenting considerations as a movement towards the over-sexualization of every aspect of life."

    I totally agree that sexual sin is rampant. However, I would also argue that regardless of the source of change in a culture's standards of dress, they remain cultural standards. We are choosing the wrong people to preach at and occasionally condemn. The teen girl or young woman who dresses in the style of today's pop stars, celebrities, etc., is probably not intentionally committing an act of immodesty. Relative to her culture, she is simply dressing as others do. I highly doubt that they put on that short skirt with the intention of either disrespecting the Mass or leading others astray.

    For a secular example, take Lamar. Half the girls walk around Lamar in shorty shorts and tight T-shirts, because it has become a cultural norm. When they get dressed in the morning, putting on such clothes does not constitute a conscious choice, but rather an assumed standard. If they wore the same clothes in Victorian England, however, it would be clear that they were making a conscious choice to break cultural norms.

    So my difference with you is not that I disagree that the culture is becoming oversexualized in some aspects. My point is that the new Catholic morality is pointing the finger at the wrong person and has the danger of becoming the source of a simultaneously condemning and self-congratulatory judgment. And the source of the culture of death is rooted in a much larger tangle of intertwined issues that are far more important in my mind than short skirts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously, we generally agree, but there are one or two not insignificant nuances in which we see things a little differently.

    "I highly doubt that they put on that short skirt with the intention of either disrespecting the Mass or leading others astray. "

    I agree that it's probably not consciously intentional, at least in the case of disrespecting the Mass. Although, it may well show that a young woman is less interested in the Mass than on the attention she gets from boys/men. So, in that sense, it may well be at least reveal a subconscious disrespect for Mass. But I disagree in the case of "leading others astray." All I can say is that I have a lot of experience with teens over the years and the girls generally know very well that exposing themselves gets the attention of guys and what kind of attention it gets. They're generally not that innocent. Also, not nearly all girls dress that way. It's not as if it really is a universal norm. True, some do it to "fit in" with their particular peer group. But even most of those are not *solely* doing it for that reason.

    I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears the kinds of things that even 12 and 13 year old girls are saying and writing to young men and it would even make a sailor blush. No exaggeration. I'm not talking about occasional messages from extreme cases. I'm talking about "nice", mainstream girls here. Listen, I'm no prude. I was no goody-goody, at all. And I can't believe what I'm seeing and hearing over the past 10 years. It's jaw-dropping.

    "And the source of the culture of death is rooted in a much larger tangle of intertwined issues that are far more important in my mind than short skirts."

    I agree about the root, but disagree as to the importance of modesty. IMO, the perversion of sexuality is one thing that is at the base of the culture of death. And modesty is one of the easiest, most common entry ways by which one slides down into the abyss. I've seen it first-hand.

    Again, I'm not saying that a priest or parishioners should be pointing fingers in condemnation at these girls and young women (or older women). So I agree with you there. But I disagree that immodest dress should be basically ignored as being in the same category as shaking hands at Mass.

    These young girls and young women need to be taught that if they want to stop getting frogs instead of princes, they need to start behaving like princesses rather than floozies. They need to be taught respect for themselves and others. Men will change their behavior if women demand it and show that's what they want. And modesty in dress is a significant part of that process. Dressing scantily sends a clear signal that boys/men are genetically wired to pick up on. And they don't miss it. Men tend to be very visually centered when it comes to sexuality.

    So, avoid the condemnation, self-congratulations and finger pointing? Absolutely. But teach modesty to these young girls and women and explain why it's so important. This is not on the level of hand-shaking, imo.

    ReplyDelete