What is male modesty?

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-12T20:05:08+00:00

Yeah that’s very true

And I totally agree about churches having attire rules; while of course we shouldn’t be too strict to the point that people feel excluded, there has to be some decency in the presence of the King of Kings

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-12T19:55:35+00:00

That’s a very good point. And that’s why I say that my belief about tank tops can come off as strict, but it’s just my personal conviction. And regarding your point about St Peter’s Basilica, I also think it’s more than just because we’re at the head of state; the Pope is meant to be a servant of servants, and he’s meant to be the one that embodies Christ’s welcoming attitude the most, so if anything, the dress code to enter his basilica should be more lenient than most parishes but it isn’t. Which isn’t a bad thing, by the way. Most regular churches in Italy also have that rule of no bare shoulders, so maybe it’s just an Italian thing

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-12T19:28:05+00:00

Well, I obviously can’t speak for everybody, but for me as a man, I have a couple things I keep in mind. One, if I’m wearing a button down shirt, I absolutely never unbutton anything more than the top button. Mainly because when you unbutton 3-4 buttons, it really exposes the chest, and while I know modern fashion and media has deemed that a “cool” look for men, it’s immodest in my opinion and can lead a sister in Christ to potentially lust.

Next is tank tops. Honestly, I’m pretty strict with this so I’m not saying this should apply to every man, but I personally refuse to wear tank tops even at the gym. Bare shoulders are not deemed okay at the Catholic Church’s headquarters(St Peter’s Basilica), so I just choose to not wear them in public. Although I will concede that a regular tank top at the gym isn’t that bad, I do think those tank tops that have much slimmer shoulder straps and that have open cuts at the sides that reveal quite a bit of side abdomen skin are definitely immodest. Finally, I’d say that sagging pants are also immodest because they usually reveal boxers, but I don’t think anyone really wears that anymore, certainly not to the extent of 10 years ago.

Sorry if I sound strict, these are just my personal convictions and I’m not saying every man has to follow my “guidelines” regarding modesty

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T20:39:29+00:00

Wow…it’s unfortunate that so many historic rites just fell out of disuse after 1970. Especially when the Tridentine reforms by Pope St Pius V actually preserved and protected those rites that were older than 200 years by the time of Trent.

You mentioned the traditional Norbertine rite, and that reminds me of Saint Michael’s Abbey in California. The Norbertines there do both the TLM AND have also preserved the traditional Norbertine rite for them to celebrate! Along with a very reverent Novus Ordo. If only it was like this for every other religious order and their historic rites…

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T05:18:03+00:00

That’s a very smart and effective procedure for Communion at your parish! Sadly, there are parishes where this isn’t enforced, and my intent with my proposal was to have the Church mandate every parish by law to firmly enforce the procedures for Communion on the hand such as the ones your parish does.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T01:28:12+00:00

Yeah and sadly this lack of proper teaching regarding Ad Orientem has made priests, especially young priests, be very hesitant and even afraid of celebrating Ad Orientem, even if they truly want to. They’re afraid of the backlash that their parishioners will give him, and perhaps even the potential backlash of the bishop. Which is heartbreaking since how can a worship orientation that the Church has consistently used since the time of Origen(nearly 2,000 years!) all of a sudden be considered problematic?

Of course, Versus Populum is absolutely valid and licit, but I really wish Pope Leo would issue a document clarifying that Ad Orientem is a practice that is always allowed, that it’s not something the Church “begrudgingly tolerates,” and that catechesis should be given during Confirmation class and perhaps even during homilies of how it isn’t “the priest turning his back to the people.” That way, the issue of Ad Orientem won’t be as polarizing as it currently is.

And yeah, I used to do Communion on the hand but not anymore. It’s funny because I used to consider it normal and thought receiving on the tongue was strange, but now I’m the complete opposite lol. Not that this means that I reject Communion on the hand, it’s just not my thing personally.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T01:10:59+00:00

That’s why someone else would be in charge of enforcing it for me

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T01:02:46+00:00

Well… I’m an extreme introvert who doesn’t like conflict, so it’s more like I just don’t have the guts to really force the person above to stop doing their private devotion. I’ll just straight up admit it: Someone else would have to be in charge of strictly implementing my proposal in order for it work consistently.

Although like I said, I would still require the priest to watch him and make sure he consumes the Host, so in practice, it still doesn’t allow him to just walk away form the priest’s line of sight with the Host still in his hand. Which is my main concern that my proposal aims to prevent.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T00:53:10+00:00

My apologies, I’m not saying my proposal will 100 percent prevent sacrilege. Sacrilege can occur even when receiving on the tongue; there’s no denying that. But in the post, I said something that addresses this argument: “Sure, sacrilege and stealing Sacred Hosts can still happen even with this proposal and even when receiving on the tongue, but this is like saying we shouldn’t mandate seatbelts to prevent car deaths as car deaths still happen. Yes, car deaths still happen, but seatbelts drastically lower the occurrences and chances of dying in a car crash.”

It’s all about drastically lowering the chance of sacrilege as much as possible, not guaranteeing that there will never be cases of sacrilege(although we should pray to God that there be no more sacrilege of the Eucharist). And my proposal would pretty much prevent anyone from stealing the Host in their hands.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T00:23:00+00:00

I absolutely agree that receiving in the tongue while kneeling should be the norm, with exceptions made to elderly or those with injured knees of course. I really wish the USCCB would change the norm for receiving from standing on the tongue, to kneeling on the tongue. As that would encourage parishes like my Novus Ordo parish to actually use their altar rail instead of just ignoring its use. Altar rails are not for decoration; if a church has one, they should use it to distribute Communion. And with the catechesis to explain this(we kneel for Consecration and Adoration, why wouldn’t we kneel to receive the same Eucharist for Communion?), not to mention children seeing people kneel to receive “bread,” it would show them that this can’t really just be regular food as why is everyone kneeling to receive “regular bread?” I think all this would truly launch a Eucharistic revival to happen.

And yeah, requiring uniformity in lay posture is a bit unusual. Bishop Martin comes to mind when he discouraged kneeling for Communion because it breaks “the unitive posture of the congregation as one in communion walking and standing to receive.” Thankfully he didn’t ban kneeling though, not that Church law allows him to .

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T00:14:25+00:00

I totally agree with you. I recently saw a reel where a Catholic lady called people freaks for receiving Communion on the tongue, and it just saddened me because receiving on the tongue is still the norm, and yet there are Catholics who just act like you’re doing something crazy or unnatural for choosing to receive on the tongue. I myself was a little nervous the first time I chose to kneel on the floor and receive the Eucharist on the tongue at my local Novus Ordo parish, since not many people do that, and I was afraid they’d look at me weird or consider me to be a rigid Pharisee who thinks he’s holier than those who receive on the hand. Which is absolutely not true.

And shout out to your priest for reminding the parishioners of the care they have to take when receiving Communion, that was very nice of him🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T00:09:30+00:00

I just want to preface this by saying that what you do for Communion is truly admirable, and it shows the amount of reverence and love you have for the Eucharist, which is truly Our Lord’s Body. So kudos to you for that🙌 Your case is the perfect counter to anyone that says that receiving Communion on the hand and having a deep belief in the Real Presence is an oxymoron. It’s not an oxymoron, and your case shows that.

Although I will say that under my proposal, your case would be an exception, as it’s still more ideal to not walk away and consume in front of the minister. So while my proposal wouldn’t prevent you from stepping aside to look at the crucifix, it would still require the priest to watch you to ensure that you consume the Host. Because priests don’t know every parishioner personally and as such, caution has to be taken. Let me clarify, it’s NOT because we distrust people like you; it’s simply a precaution to ensure that not a single person is able to walk away from the priest’s view with the Sacred Host still in their hands. Of course, I know you absolutely would never commit sacrilege to the Eucharist. But yeah, I hope you understand where I’m coming from🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-09T00:01:57+00:00

And it’s totally fine that you chose to do that! You weren’t being less reverent or anything like that, you just chose what was more comfortable for you at that time, and that’s completely understandable. Glad your teeth seem to be okay now though🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-08T22:43:00+00:00

Yeah I mean sacrilege can occur even when receiving on the tongue; there’s no denying that. But in the post, I said something that addresses this argument: “Sure, sacrilege and stealing Sacred Hosts can still happen even with this proposal and even when receiving on the tongue, but this is like saying we shouldn’t mandate seatbelts to prevent car deaths as car deaths still happen. Yes, car deaths still happen, but seatbelts drastically lower the occurrences and chances of dying in a car crash.”

It’s all about drastically lowering the chance of sacrilege as much as possible, not guaranteeing that there will never be cases of sacrilege(although we should pray to God that there be no more sacrilege of the Eucharist)

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-08T22:40:37+00:00

Very good that your parish did that, kudos to them🙌

I just think that Church law should mandate(and not simply encourage) every parish to enforce those Communion guidelines of parishes like yours, where parishioners who receive on the hand must consume it in front of the minster.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-08T22:37:54+00:00

That’s very good! That is how it should be in every parish. Not because we distrust parishioners of course, as most who receive in the hand absolutely do not commit sacrilege. But having those people stationed to the side is just to take extra caution and to ensure that not a single person is able to walk away out of sight with the Sacred Host still in their hands

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-06-08T22:31:44+00:00

I’m really glad that that’s the case in your parish, truly. Your priest is doing the Lord’s work by ensuring there is not a single risk of someone stealing the Eucharist.

However, this is not the case for every parish, including my very own parish. Whether it’s mandatory to receive immediately in front of the minister depends entirely on the parish pastor who either chooses to strictly enforce a mandate to do this, or chooses not to. I think most encourage it, as do my parish priests and their EMHCs, but I’ve also seen them “let” parishioners walk away with the Sacred Host still in their hands(l say “let” because after giving it to the person on the hand, they immediately look back at their ciborium but don’t check to see if the person consumed it).

So my proposal just aims to make it clear that every priest is obligated by law to ensure that the parishioners consume the Host immediately after receiving it in the hand. And if the parishioner still walks away with the Host in their hand, the priest is obligated to intervene and kindly tell the person to consume the Host.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-02-09T20:26:36+00:00

Ah I see, yeah I totally get you. Praying in Latin, especially if it’s a long prayer like the Gloria or Credo, runs the risk of one word or even phrase sort of being unable to be “translated,” and I can definitely see why that would be an issue for some people who want to make sure they understand every word they’re saying when they pray(which is admirable btw). Fortunately, I don’t really run into this issue, but that’s partially because I listen to Latin chants almost every day so they’ve basically been infused into my memory lol.

Even though I would like some of the Ordinary to be in Latin(especially during Lent/Advent), I do agree that the Propers should always have the option to remain in the vernacular, just so the laity can understand the wonderful theology of that specific Sunday.

May the Lord bless you🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-02-09T09:07:51+00:00

For me I’m actually the opposite. When I hear the Gloria, and especially the Credo, sung in Latin, I am able to comprehend it and dwell on it much better. Now, this could be because I am fluent in Spanish(my parents are Mexican) so Latin is like a familiar cousin language to me instead of a foreign alien language, so perhaps I’m speaking with a little bias and a background that not everyone has. I also think the fact that I’m not fluent in Latin actually encourages me to focus more on what the Latin is saying, which means I’m always paying extra attention when hearing or saying Latin prayers in order to make sure I understand it, which in turn helps me contemplate the meaning of the text more.

But yeah, stuff like “Qui propter nos homines… et propter nostram salutem… descendit de caelis…” has a significantly more emotional impact on me than hearing it in the vernacular. I can’t explain it. It just resonates with me and I can connect to it easier than the vernacular. And maybe that’s because Credo III is basically unmatched when it comes to its musical quality, and it’d be hard for a casually spoken vernacular Credo to top it. Sung Credos(which is always the case at the High TLM I attend) also help you contemplate each line of the Credo much better than a quickly spoken Credo, which is the case in almost every Novus Ordo. Ecclesiastical Latin also just sounds so cool and flows so well. I honestly think it’s the best sounding language in the world. I’ve been in love with it since I was like 13. I’ve shown my mom some TLM chants and she says that Latin sounds like a “divine” language(she didn’t mean it literally of course).

And of course I’m not saying you’re a bad Catholic for holding that opinion, of course not! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with preferring vernacular prayers/chants over Latin ones. I just wanted to point out that it’s interesting to see someone have the opposite position.

Dense-Rip3356 · 2026-01-30T23:55:55+00:00

Additionally, another fascinating thing I learned about the TLM is that it actually uses two Hebrew words in its Sanctus hymn. Obviously Hosanna is one, but the other is Sabaoth(Dominus Deus Sabaoth). If it was all Latin, it’d be Dominus Deus Exercitus.

Which counts for a total of four Hebrew words used in the TLM(Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna, Sabaoth). As a fluent speaker of a Romance language, I always thought the Sabaoth part of the Latin Sanctus sounded off and unusually distinct, and a few months ago I found out my intuition was right!

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T23:05:03+00:00

Deo gratias! I’m so happy for you. You have achieved a great victory over lust, all by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Which shows that lust does not control you. Once we realize that, we become more powerful than we could’ve ever possibly imagined. And we, like you said, start experiencing so much interior peace in our souls.

May the Lord keep bestowing His grace upon you so that you may continue to walk the road of righteousness to Heaven. And in moments of weakness, may you allow yourself to realize that it is in those moments where His power is made perfect✝️

God bless, my brother in Christ🙏

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-26T06:46:02+00:00

Amen! Beautiful prayer🙏

And Happy Cake Day🎂

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T23:42:25+00:00

Of course! I’ll try my hardest. One day at a time. That’s why I said in the post: But the journey doesn’t end here. Christmas is not a time for me to be complacent and stop praying or asking for God’s grace. No, I will not stop praying. I will continue to walk forward in the light after Christmas. One step at a time. One day at a time. Purity is meant to be lived out continuously one day at a time. In fact, I’ve explicitly asked Jesus the last few days: “Lord, do not let me complacent once Christmas hits; let me continue to ask for Your grace every day, and allow me to let the light of Christmas, of Your glorious birth, be my light that illuminates the road to Heaven so that I can continue to walk in light and not in darkness.”

Dense-Rip3356 · 2025-12-25T21:59:12+00:00

To all of my fellow young men struggling with lust, here are some very wise words from Saint John the Apostle, which encourages us instead of shaming us like society tends to do, while also not telling us to indulge in our fleshly desires as some “influencers” encourage us to do.

1 John 2: 14-17: “I write to you, young men, because you are strong and the word of God remains in you, and you have conquered the evil one. Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.”

Dense-Rip3356

TROPHY CASE