Pure Fashion

Some have left comments to a thread at Catholic Light criticizing Pure Fashion. Pete Vere's second comment may seem at first to likely inspire a sympathetic reaction: "Come to think about it, what's Pure Fashion's message? In scanning photo and video galleries posted to their website, I'm surprised none of the feminist bloggers (or Catholic parents for that matter) picked up on the absence of more heavyset models (For previous discussion on this topic, click here). After all, this is a concern with the fashion industry that feminists and orthodox Catholics have often shared. And given the underlying context of character development, one would think all young ladies could benefit, not just those of a certain body type."

But on the website I see the Pure Fashion models having a variety of body types -- not everyone is stick-thin. But if we are talking about plus sizes... should people take pride in being overweight? Should we be so quick to blame it on our "genes," as opposed to cultural and character causes?

Moreover, some have expressed a concern that Pure Fashion fosters an excessive/disordered concern for appearance, as opposed to being primarily concerned for the state of one's character (and soul). One comment states, "I'm sorry, but this whole Pure Fashion idea is buying into the secular message of the day, trying to baptize a fundamentally disordered worldview. It's all 'look at me' (even if I'm pure). 'I'm to be imitated.' 'Aren't I pretty (and modest)?' Can you imagine Our Lady participating in a fashion show? I didn't think so." Another critic says that "The program is "pure" only when compared to the completely impure and immodest dress and behavior of most young women ages 13+ -- and let's fact it, often younger. The LC/RC fashion shows do not at all develop or reinforce the true ideals of Catholic womanhood, as revealed in the person of Our Blessed Mother. In fact -- far from it."

I am bothered when my first niece (who is turning 4 next month) says things like, "I am pretty," as I am concerned that she may become too narcissistic, placing an exaggerated notion on her own and ultimately, other people's appearance. However, this inclination to be pleasing to the eyes of other also seems natural to women, and I would be wary of calling it a consequence of original sin only.

Do Pure Fashion promoters emphasize a healthy lifestyle and body enough? Do they believe that it is important to maintain a "thin" body only for the sake of appearance (or attracting others)? Do they admit that there woman are concerned with their bodies, as opposed to what covers them? And what of the fact that women are often the harshest critics of other women, while what men accept in their wives and girlfriends is considerably broader? (Even if they do have limits before they become repulsed. There is a reason why the expression "letting one's self go" is in use, as it implies a character defect.) Does a Christian woman have an obligation to keep up her appearance, within reason, for the sake of her husband?

St. Josemaria Escrivá has been criticized for saying things like the following:

Another important thing is personal appearance. And I would say that any priest who says the contrary is a bad adviser. As years go by a woman who lives in the world has to take more care not only of her interior life, but also of her looks. Her interior life itself requires her to be careful about her personal appearance; naturally this should always be in keeping with her age and circumstances. I often say jokingly that older facades need more restoration. It is the advice of a priest. An old Spanish saying goes: 'A well-groomed woman keeps her husband away from other doors.'

And from Christ is Passing By:

Wives, you should ask yourselves whether you are not forgetting a little about your appearance. Remember all the sayings about women who should take care to look pretty. Your duty is, and will always be, to take as good care of your appearance as you did before you were married — and it is a duty of justice, because you belong to your husband. And husbands should not forget that they belong to their wives, and that as long as they live they have the obligation to show the same affection as a young man who has just fallen in love. It would be a bad sign if you smile ironically as you hear this; it would mean that your love has turned into cold indifference.

What of unmarried women who are trying to look presentable and attract a husband?

How do critics of immodest fashion respond without being puritannical or abitrarily choosing something from the distant past (and thus not meeting the need for some sort of cultural continuity in order to fit in and be able to open others to conversation)? Anything that is countercultural within fashion must find some sort of justification that is both negative (it's not immodest) as well as positive (it flatters while maintaining modesty), and I don't see how there cannot be a positive justification that does not touch upon having a concern for one's appearance.

The Pure Fashion Mission states: "Through an eight month Model Training Program that covers public speaking, manners and social graces, hair and make up artistry, personal presentation, and much more, Pure Fashion models learn the importance of living a life in accordance with God’s will and fostering a life of grace through purity of heart, mind, and body. The Pure Fashion program culminates in a city-wide fashion show featuring clothing that is pretty but not provocative, trendy but still tasteful."

How is that different from the charm schools or finishing schools of the past? Putting on a fashion show, though, may be a bit too much.

I think that one's appearance is a legitimate external good (for both men and women, though for men in perhaps different ways), and should be cared for, within reason, and thus ordered to higher goods. Neglecting one's appearance is permissible only for a few, if even them. (Even those who have taken the vow of poverty should take measures to be clean and presentable to others, if not for the sake of health and hygiene then for the sake of being able to discourse with others.)

Certainly Catholics should strive to maintain their health, have more physical activity in their work and daily lives, eat a healthier diet, and learn to make their own clothes--if done on a wide-scale, this would obviate the need for movements like Pure Fashion. But while they are in the world, but not of it, and not building a new society from scratch, they will have to maintain a balance between a reactive and proactive posture, and Pure Fashion may provide some sort of appropriate guidance with respect to clothing and fashion.

As for Pure Fashion's perceived lack of ethnic diversity -- the Church is supposed to be universal, but the activity of Pure Fashion seems to be limited to the United States. Should they have members of other ethnic groups involved? Perhaps. But are Catholics of other ethnic groups usually concerned with modesty in clothing? My guess is that Hispanics who are involved with LC/RC would become involved with Pure Fashion. But those who are not already associated with RC in some way probably wouldn't. (One doesn't see too many Asians here in the US involved with LC/RC. They're either ignorant of the groups or they're just not interested.)

As a national movement, I suppose Pure Fashion should be concerned with showing some cultural diversity in its [national] promotional materials. But if one group or another is present in overwhelming numbers at local events, and the photos reflect this, can we really judge Pure Fashion to be too exclusive?

Is there something analogous to Pure Fashion in Latin America? I suppose there would be complaints if that were to feature, for example, Mexicans of the upper class and not mestizos, and some would be thinking that their apostolate is too narrow. But do the poor really have the same sort of temptations regarding fashion and outward appearance that the rich do?

Related Links:
Pure Fashion Sacramento