Elegance, Fashion, And Reverence

Appropriately dressed at all times.

An interesting comment appeared in my combox related to the proper way to dress in church. The gist of the message was that at times people “dress so far out of the fashions that it draws attention to yourself and distracts others from prayer”. In contrast, simplicity should be preferred, then the well dressed person is also a simply dressed person.

I agree with what precedes, if we first agree about definitions.

I call elegance the way a person of both sexes, but particularly a man, dresses in order to enhance his appearance in a stylish but traditionally accepted way. Elegance changes only extremely slowly, and the well dressed man of 1913 did not dress – considering the time which elapsed – much differently than the well dressed man in 2013 does. In fact, even elements like morning suits and frock jackets are still seen, even today.

The matter is a bit different for women, as the Downton Abbey lady would dress much differently than her modern counterpart; but in every age, men and women were able to distinguish between a well-dressed woman and a gaudy, inappropriate one. Similarly, whilst fashion always played a role in female dress, there has always been an underlying standard of beautiful modesty and simplicity. A good girl of today might appear in church dressed not much differently than the girls in the “little house in the prairie”, and kudos to them.

It is generally said that elegance is for men, and fashion is for women and homosexuals. Fashion changes continuously, and has elements of flash that can easily be misplaced in a woman, and look outright disturbing in a man. The “faggot look” you see so often today among boys and young men (those strange faggoty trousers, the v-shirts, and the generally effeminate look and demeanour) is a prime example.

The elegant man never follows fashion, because fashion is not manly. The elegant woman always pays attention that she follows a conservative, decent, modest fashion, though her sex will be allowed some more leeway.

This, elegant men and women do because, having been properly raised, they know that proper appearance is a way we show respect to other people. Whilst the modern slob ideology puts comfort and the self before everything, the old mentality gives right of way to proper appearance as a way to show proper manners. This is, I was raised to believe, a matter of basic respect and decency. Decency fully forgotten in times in which people think they can walk around in flip-flops “because it's more comfortable”; and if one is not ashamed of the flip-flops on the road, it won't be long before the flip-flops visit the church.

At the same time, I do not believe much in the modern rhetoric of “overdressing”. In a world in which slob is the new elegant, no man should be cowed into uniforming himself to the general decay in appearance. A man should be always properly dressed according to his means, instead of following the modern fads of “leisure Fridays” which end up meaning jeans and t-shirt in the office, or worse. Least of all should a real man be persuaded to go around like a bum because “nowadays everyone does it. Don't be an “everyone”. Be a proper man.

Now, we live in times when the general flattening towards the worst of everything may let one appear “overdressed”, who simply cares about proper appearance. More power to him, say I, and may his clothes always fit him well.

This does not mean, though, that elegance should be confused with bad taste. The Earl of Grantham will always be appropriately dressed for church, exactly as Elton John will never be. Extravagance isn't elegance, and it indicates bad taste, if not outright faggotry.

My conclusions are therefore as follows:

1. The elegant man will always be appropriately dressed in church, and the more elegant, the better. No one would say one could be overdressed in the presence of the Queen; the more so in the presence of Jesus.

2. Elegance doesn't mean being unduly flashy, or outright vulgar.

3. If an elegantly dressed man is considered “overdressed” in church, this is more likely to say something about how underdressed the people around him are, and about the extent to which slobbish dressing has become mainstream.

Proper appearance is a matter of respect for our neighbour. Proper appearance in Church – according to one's means and basic common sense – should go without saying. I find it very good – and very natural – that such a beautifully conservative mentality should find expression among the supporters of the Mass of the Ages.

M

 

 

Homo, Faggot, Straightness, And Decency

No, they aren't good Catholics

In the wake of a controversy between the blogging priest and the blogging queen (search, and you shall find) I would like to offer my two cents in matter of what I see as proper terminology, and proper behaviour for everyone.

I use the word homosexuality to describe the perverted attraction toward people of the same sex. Concerning this, then Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say:

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

There can be no mistake here: the churche hates homosexuality, because homosexuality is intrinsically evil. This not only corresponds to 2000 years of Christian teaching, but also to sanity and common sense. The one who is not disgusted at the thought of sodomy isn't better than the one who is not disgusted at the thought of incest, bestiality, or child rape. Still, the Church will tell you that the inclination of a person to incest (or homosexuality; or child rape) is in itself not a sin as long as no consent has been given to the thought. I never see this argument used to say that the Church “loves child rapists and hates child rape”. I wonder why?

Therefore, yours truly uses the following words to mean the following:

Homosexuality: that particular kind of sexual perversion consisting in sexual attraction for those of one's sex. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is in the same ballpark as incest, & Co.

Homosexual: the person afflicted by this particular sexual perversion. This person might try to be a good a Catholic, and not consent to his perversion. In this case he might not sin, but he is still a pervert, and the fact that he fights the good fight may exclude the sin, but it will not negate the perversion.

Faggot (Fag, Sod, Sodomite, Queen): the man who commits the sin of the sodomites. Often, he is vocal about it, adding scandal to sin.

Homosexuality is a perversion. It is extremely bad, revolting, disgusting, an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. The homosexual who does not consent to his homosexual attraction may not sin in the particular instance, but he is not less of a pervert than the paedophile who does not consent to his own kind of abomination. Whilst we try to be charitable to everyone, we can't make what is bent straight for the sake of niceness, and I personally wouldn't want either as neighbour (thank you very much; and you're welcome), particularly if I had children.

“Oh, but he is sooo chaste”

Bully for him. Wish him all the best. My next rosary is for him, that he may get rid of his perversion by God's grace. Sincerely.

But would you have a pedophile as neighbour because he says – or you think – that he is reforming himself? Thought not. If in doubt, ask your wife.

The faggot is, in all probability, Satan's fodder. He bears very clear signs of reprobation, and extremely strong ones if he also gives scandal. I can't imagine many of them repenting, and I can obviously not imagine a single one of them escaping hell who does not repent.

It is a great mystery to me how modern Western societies have de-coupled their judgment of the child rapist from the one of the sodomite, but the most probable reason is because they have forgotten what a sin is: the violation of God's law, rather than the act of ” harming” someone. Sheer stupidity might play a role, though.

The question remains how a homosexual is supposed to behave concerning his affliction. I get rather angry when I read of homosexual, and allegedly pious ones, insisting that they be allowed to “out” themselves.

Why?

Does society allow people to say “I am a Caholic and I would love to foxtrot my dog, or my mother, or the neighbour's little child?”. No, it doesn't. The one who has such perversion is required to pray very much and shut up more, lest he gives scandal.

In every demand that one's perversion be “acknowledged” lies the implicit demand that such perversion be accepted. There can never be anything like “Homos for Christ”, because the very shouting that one is a homo goes against the very idea of shouting that one is a Christian.

In fact, the very fact that one is a homo precludes him the Priesthood, and for extremely good reasons. Here it is recognised that a great flaw is present: a flaw that is there even in those instances in which no sin occurs. Said in a blunter way, it's never OK to be a “homosexual Christian”, because it's never OK to be a homosexual.

Therefore, the homo is required to think, speak, and behave straight, without any “born that way” bullcrap. There can be no excuses of “it would be as absurd for me to play straight as for you to play bent”. God does not make any man a homosexual, He makes every man man. Therefore, the homo who adopts a manly behaviour is still going with, not against, his nature, and is conseuenly rightly required to behave accordingly.

Any other behaviour is scandalous, implies the desire for acceptance of one's perversion, and unavoidably leads to the demand of its approval.

There. Now you even have Mundabor's code of conduct for Catholic homos.

What more can you want.

Mundabor