The Humility of Style

One of the chief characteristics of post-enlightenment man (modernist heretics) is that they disregard the lessons of their forefathers as they brave forward in "progress". I've heard this attitude even when it comes to clothes. We're not the first people to put a leg in a pair of pants, but its amazing how quickly and with such prideful arrogance we cast off the time-wasting traditions of our forefathers. It might go something like this:

Man 1 - "Your pants are suppose to just grace the tops of your shoes. Don't let them be too long."
Man 2 - "What do you mean 'suppose to'?? No one tells me how to wear my pants! What could be so important about pants that we need to have rules for them? You're so stifling and outdated."
Man 1 - "I see. Well, enjoy those pants then!"



Man 2 doesn't realize that rules are helpful. Adopt some rules or figure them all out on your own. Rules enshrine a lesson learned from the past. In this case the lesson is you look like a child when your pants are too long. They look burrowed. They actually call attention to your clothes rather than your person. Pants that fit properly flatter the male body and make him look strong and put together. When you're dressed properly no one notices and this is a good thing. A gentlemen doesn't need to draw attention to himself. Noble, silent, respectable.

This is a much less important tendency of the I-am-smarter-than-all-before-me attitude, but its a symptom of it nonetheless.

Style, unlike fashion, is inherited and learned. Fashion is clamored for and sold. Style takes the lessons of the past and applies them today. Do you see the humility in that? I guess we could shake it off as uneccesary, uncomfortable and inconvenient. Thats what we do with important matters like marriage so we might as well do it with clothes.

PS - Many men, especially young, have simply not learned the rules. They would eagerly do the right thing, if anyone had the goodness to teach them.

Ceremonies of Life

Life is full of small ceremonies. Repetition is not bad as long as its its not a bad thing. A man actually has quite a few - we wear lots of hats (formerly that was actually) - home, social gatherings, work and sometimes school. Each of these places we go has a distinction and our clothes can help distinguish those things in our own mind. Distinctions are good. Vague blending is bad. Do what you are doing.

Or we could just wear the same thing every where - gym shorts for most things, jeans when its time to get formal.

But, as you've guessed, I propose something else. The very act of getting ready for each "element" of our life (work, home, etc.) is an opportunity to enjoy the ceremonies of life and to show the recipients of our presence what we think of them. It also shows that we take it seriously - whatever it is. I start at the home, because we tend to give our families the worst presentation. Now, it would be ridiculous for us to wear a suit around the house (well... maybe not too ridiculous). We don't need to act like suits are all we wear just because that was the basis of clothing 100 years ago. But, we also don't need to be in crap. It matters.

I think there's an unspoken expectation that women be at least presentable. For a housewife, that is her vocation and duty, so I think its reasonable that she dress reasonably well - at least with some preparation. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. Yes, there are times when the kids are too much and the jammies stay on all day and no one in their right mind would say that's wrong. But it seems the norm is that a woman is presentable to the very people she lays her life down for.

Men dress like a college dropout who woke up on the couch to continue last night's video game.

Wake up call: men, your family is your vocation. I propose that you don't "dress up" but that you dress like a respectable adult. Here's what I think is reasonable:

Most of your shirts should have a collar (polo, oxford, etc). T-shirts are undershirts. You are not a damn billboard. Clean, cared-for and ironed clothing is not extravagance - its basic maturity. It takes just as long to pull up some cotton khakis as it does cotton/poly sweatpants. Khakis are your go-to pants. (They're actually more comfortable than your average jeans.) Your waist is not at your ass. Give this a try and see if it doesn't help you take your family duties more seriously. The home is not "formal" but its not for beasts either.

And from there consider your work attire. It naturally needs to fit your work environment, but for an office your basic get up is a tie and jacket. At least a jacket. Tucking in an iron shirt, donning a tie and wearing some freshly shined shoes are not abnormal acts - it should be more normal. See how it helps your productivity. See how seriously you and others take you and others when you dress like you and others matter. The goal is clothes that gown-ups wear. Your comfort is not all that matters. For the job site, durable khakis and work shirts (like LL Bean's) are your go to. Not oversized or undersized band shirts.

Without making you think that I want to dictate how you dress in your life, let me say that this has more to do with the ceremonial of your life and less with style (style is not a sin though). You can tell what a priest is doing and how seriously he takes what he is doing by the preparation he puts into what is covering his body. When he puts on a chasuble his mind and heart are preparing for what he is doing. When he removes his stole he is returning to a more vulgar activity (not in the negative way, but true sense of the word). Similarly, when a man returns from work, removes his suit and puts on his house khakis, he is entering a different part of his life. Its not that there's irreconcilable distinctions, but there's simply a difference in those things. It helps to put work on and take it off. If you have trouble separating these two things, consider having distinct garb set aside for each element - it'll help.

You Are Not A Damn Billboard

If you're slowly working through thrift stores in the pursuit of a manly wardrobe that is right and fitting (I hope you are), you'll probably come across Brooks Brothers. This is a good brand to look for. As I learned more about brands, I figured out that you can tell how old a Brooks Brothers suit is by the presence or absence of an inside label sewed on one of the inner pockets. Older suits only have the label up by your neck near the "locker loop". Why? Because if your jacket were to open someone may be able to peak in and see a label!

This was apparently really bad back in the day as what would be the purpose of having a label visible to the public?

Compare that with newer brands that use you (read that again: USE YOU) to advertise for their crap. Take North Face jackets - they actually have their name on the back of your jacket! I get a kick seeing people walking around with this sort of thing. I can think of two reasons this is done, one from the manufacturer and one from the wearer:

Reason 1 - The retailer says, "Look at this person. They look happy right? It's the jacket, you NEED one! We're all wearing one.... why aren't you! C'mon... you have a credit card!"

Reason 2 - The wearer says, "Look at me. I have this. It's really good. Sure, it's a little expensive, but hey, these things last for... I'm not sure, I'll probably get a new one next year in the newer style, but I think they're really good. Yeah, I got this."

(Possible reason 3 - The thrifter says, "Some jackass threw this out. I got it for .75$ and North Face can kiss my ass." Rock on thrifter.)

Why do we allow brands and the Scarface movie use us to sell their product? Can't quality work speak for itself? There can be no virtuous reason why we all need to walk around telling everyone who made our stuff. Not to even discuss that it's actually a fad to keep the price tag on what you're wearing. It's amazing what we convince ourselves to do.

This is why I love this old Brooks Brothers stuff. They made it by hand in the USA. They made it to last. I wore a thrifted 30 year old suit to Mass this morning (older than me) that looks brand new. It's Brooks Brothers, so yeah, it cost a lot, but I'm not showing this off to anyone. Quality fabric, good fit, craftsmanship is all you need. Oh yeah, and style. And maybe a pipe for your pocket. But whoever bought it first made an investment (it was custom made for him, but you have to look inside the inside pocket to find out). I'm just glad they didn't wear it to their funeral... then what would I wear?

You have dignity man! Don't let anyone use your body to advertise. This does not apply for t-shirts that expose liberal lunacy... those are always acceptable.

Theology of the Beard

It seems if men have facial hair, and women don't, that men should grow beards. Seems reasonable. They can be vessels of new life, but we can grow velcro on our face! But what were the thoughts of the Fathers? Wikihelp to the rescue:

• St Clement of Alexandria
  • "The hair of the chin showed him to be a man." St Clement of Alexandria (c.195, E), 2.271
  • "How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!...For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest—a sign of strength and rule." St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.275
  • "This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature....It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness." St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.276
  • "It is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man's natural and noble adornment." St. Clement of Alexandria, 2.277

• St Cyprian
  • "In their manners, there was no discipline. In men, their beards were defaced." St Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.438
  • "The beard must not be plucked. 'You will not deface the figure of your beard'." (Leviticus 19:27) St. Cyprian, 5.553
• Lactantius
  • "The nature of the beard contributes in an incredible degree to distinguish the maturity of bodies, or to distinguish the sex, or to contribute to the beauty of manliness and strength." Lactantius (c. 304–314, W), 7.288

• Apostolic Constitutions
  • "Men may not destroy the hair of their beards and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the Law says, "You will not deface your beards." For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men." Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c.390, E) 7.392. (1)

• Augustine of Hippo
  • "There are some details of the body which are there for simply aesthetic reasons, and for no practical purpose—for instance, the nipples on a man's chest, and the beard on his face, the latter being clearly for a masculine ornament, not for protection. This is shown by the fact that women's faces are hairless, and since women are the weaker sex, it would surely be more appropriate for them to be given such a protection." City of God (c. 410) book 22, chapter 24

St Josemaria on Detachement, Material Possesions

"Following this example we see in Our Lord, who is our model, I preach that detachment is self-dominion. It is not a noisy and showy beggarliness, nor is it a mask for laziness and neglect. You should dress in accordance with the demands of your social standing, your family background, your work... as your companions do, but to please God: eager to present a genuine and attractive image of true Christian living. Do everything with naturalness, without being extravagant. I can assure you that in this matter it is better to err on the side of excess than to fall short. How do you think Our Lord dressed? Haven't you pictured to yourself the dignity with which he wore his seamless cloak which had probably been woven for him by Our Lady? Don't you remember how, in Simon's house, he was grieved because he had not been offered water to wash his hands before taking his place at the table? No doubt he drew attention to this example of bad manners to underline his teaching that love is shown in little details. But he also wants to make it clear that he stands by the social customs of his time, and therefore you and I must make an effort to be detached from the goods and comforts of the world, but without doing anything that looks odd or peculiar.

As far as I am concerned, one of the signs that we're aware of being lords of the earth and God's faithful administrators is the care we take of the things we use: keeping them in good condition, making them last and getting the best out of them so that they serve their purpose for as long a time as possible and don't go to waste. In the Centres of Opus Dei you will find the decoration simple, attractive and, above all, clean, because poverty in a home is not to be confused with bad taste or with dirt. Nevertheless, it seems quite natural to me that, in keeping with your means and your social and family commitments, you should possess some objects of value which you take care of with a spirit of mortification and detachment."

Don't dress like the poverty of the beggar

Someone showing up in gym shorts and a t-shirt to everything is not living poverty - he's living sloth. Does he not have the time to dress like an adult? Does he not have the means to dress with dignity and actually prepare for how he presents himself? We wouldn't show up to meet royalty in gym shorts, so why do we slob it for the rest of society? Do we think them not worth the time? Maybe dressing with the simple dignity of a coat and tie would put some off, but eventually they'll get use to it and even appreciate it. I've had two older men pull me aside recently and thank me for the respect I show by wearing a coat and tie. By the way, coat and tie does not mean "dressed up", but that's another post.

A beggar who sees a man dressed like him talking to him might be delighted, but the man in the suit who talks to him and shows him respect lifts his dignity (not in reality, but in the beggars perception). He tells him that his clothes don't raise his dignity any more than the beggar's clothes lower his. Picture a beggar that assumes a man in a suit will pass him by. He's going to ignore him because he has means and maybe he'll toss a few coins. But what if that man stopped and talked with him? There's some worthy reflection in that. (Yes, I know clothes don't make the man, that's the point. But if both were naked the story would change drastically... so they mean something)

Personal presentation matters and can help lift society. Of course, the right understanding and intention is important.

Mother Teresa said, We would never dream of using dirty, torn clothes as a tabernacle veil which covers the door of the dwelling Christ chose for Himself on earth since He ascended into heave." She goes on to point out that we shouldn't cover our body in dirty worn out clothes if we believe it to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. This woman understood poverty, and she encouraged us to mend out clothes well, dress with dignity and dress well. This is right and fitting. Mother Teresa said our poverty is that of Christ's, not the beggar.

If you're looking for a first step. Here it is:

Get a blazer, tie and shirt that fit. We'll get a post up about fit, but you can google that for now. (This assumes you have some khakis too... please have some khakis if you're older than 7.) Then, wear this to Holy Mass. In fact, I don't care if you're in the Keys, commit to wearing your best for Holy Mass. Do you dress up for weddings? Well...

Gyms May or May Not be Stupid AND Sinful

I've finally been convinced that a gym is not stupid or sinful... always.

I grew up working and slacking. What I mean is that I was always taggin' along some blue collar gig - getting dirty, cut-up and dog-tired in order to make money. When I had money I had fun (the slacking part). I hope it's not surprising that my youth lacked any prudence and discipline. I was a prophet of public schooling as I lived logical expression of the relativism and pragmatism I was taught.

Anyway, my work had a purpose. I also learned a simple southern view of work - it's good and... it's just what men do. Folks like JPII and Josemaria drive this point home quite well. As much as I pretended at times, I never really got that into sports because the very thought that I would work most of my ass off for the sake of playing another team in a game and that if we won I got something.. trophy or girl or something (sometimes those are the same thing) - this just didn't appeal to me.

I was wrong about sports. I can see now the value and lessons taught there. Did I miss out? Nah, I got the same things elsewhere and met my wife on the fence, not on the field. But I had a lot of friends that spent those hours at the gym and I would go there and it always seemed like the main goal was not actually physical fitness but being able to physically dominate or to physically look good. Very different from what physical fitness is. It's a real machismo mentality. "I'm working hard so that I wont get beat or so that my bicep is as round as my head." No thanks.

So, just to recap why I, years later as a Catholic, always felt that I had a philosophical issue with gyms: (a) working out to be able to dominate is a goal based in insecurity and/or pride, and (b) working out just to look good is vanity. Both issues seem to have a hefty dose of the old Adam and revolve around intention. I gained muscle from cutting down trees, digging holes, laying brick, shoveling shit, detailing cars, planting trees, changing oil, roofing, building shed, etc. etc. You can see the inherent value in physical work that has a goal outside of yourself, lessons for life and not to mention cash at the end! The working man is fit because he's doing what men do, but the gym fit man is fit for himself.

Manual labor is how men are suppose to stay fit, not air conditioned rooms with a cushioned floor and mirrors everywhere.

But then I got into different work. I put the boots up for some Allen Edmonds and after a while of that I couldn't see what kind of shoes I had on...

Somehow our world has made it difficult for men to do things that we've been doing for centuries - like work. No longer do I store logs from a tree to chop later for the fireplace. Nope, I just flip a damn switch to a fire that I can't even poke behind the damn glass. I hate the glass...

So, I need to go to the gym. It's just a reality. My life is just situated in such a way that I don't get opportunity to work (though I did just design the landscape for my FSSP church and will put it in when the time comes). I have a family and they don't need to wheel their patriarch around in an over-sized stroller.

But, I'm not doing something until I can reconcile it in my head. Blessedly,a real man came to my rescue on this issue. I don't know who he is, but I should thank him someday, somehow.

I started going to the rec center ran by the local government. I figure they take my money to keep it open so I might as well go. I have to pay to get in which sounds like double taxation to me. Anyway, in that rec center I saw the man who changed my mind about the gym. He was in cut off jean shorts, loafers and his undershirt - I guess this was the closest thing to workout clothes he has, which I dig. And he was old. Somehow he managed to workout without paying other companies to use his body as an advertisement (you're a person not a billboard for Adidas).

He was there to stay alive. He was old and knows that he's not in a world where he's milking cows and gathering berries, so he better do something. That's a reason I can get behind to to the gym. His arms hang down with stretched tattoos he probably regrets from military days. His arms are awesome because I can tell that he's strong, even though he doesn't look like the young men next to him with glistening biceps strapped with and iPod blasting Creed or Praise and Worship (you can't tell the difference without hearing the words closely). I think the reason they like iPods strapped to their muscles is because it makes muscles look bigger since iPods are so small. This must be the reason no one strapped walk-mans on back in the 90's.

I can tell he's strong and worked hard. I remember when people would show up to work in muscle shirts and some skinny old guy would work circles around him and be able to lift more. There's a big difference in the strength and big muscles.

I'll follow that man in the undershirt. I'll go to the gym, because I need to. I want to stay alive for my kids, I want to be healthy, I want by body to know I'm in charge and I want to see that man again pumping iron and scowling at the punks that get in his way.

By the way, this is not saying it's ok to wear your undershirt in public, t-shirts are undershirts... unless it's your only t-shirt and your at the gym... that would be awesome.

The Virtue of Thrift and the First Tip

Thrift is indeed a virtue, so if there's a store with that in the name it might just be virtuous to shop there instead of other places. Why? Here's some of my reasons:

• What better way to fight materialism than to buy the "toss-outs" before they get shipped to South America? In some cases these items are not the best of quality, but they'll serve a purpose and in that case I feel fine buying there. Whereas shopping at a retail store stocked with sweatshop merchandise draped over anorexic manikins makes me feel icky. There's a cycle in clothing where you buy something, feel satisfied, then become unsatisfied and toss it - this is a bad cycle. Since we're not so shaky in our understanding of things, we can capitalize on this and draw something from it - like a good shirt.
  
• Thrift stores have real clothes. As in clothes made by people in the USA - and made to last! You can find some seriously top shelf (talking thousands brand new). It takes patience, but that's the next point...
• You don't always get what you want. To build a wardrobe from thrifting can take years, but in the end you can have a great wardrobe (fir for a man) at a ridiculous price. This built-in patience, I think, is a good thing. Instead of saying, "I want this, so I'm going to this store and I'll get it" you must have an idea of what you're looking for and then wait until it shows up. This requires consistency. Which brings us to the first tip of thrifting:

It ain't easy so stop by often. Learn to drop in at thrift stores when you get a moment and just glance around. Don't look at everything, just survey what's there and if something stands out (color, size etc. - looks right) then examine it. If it lacks holes and smells (both of which can be fixed sometimes) then pay the $1.75 and get back on the road. Expect to find nothing most of the time, but there are days when you just can't believe what you find. One of my first trips I found a pail of Allen Edmonds in my size practically new. These shoes are 300+ new, and you can send them back to the manufacturer at any time for re-crafting. I'm still wearing them years later, but soon I'll send them off to be renewed again. I'll have these shoes the rest of my life - quality, comfort, style... yeah, that was a good day.

And if you're reading this on folding chair in sweatpants, read this article to get started:

Dress Like a Man

The Name of the Man Who Made Your Clothes

As mentioned before, its a bit of a concern for a man who desires to cover his body is where his clothes came from. Not just in their "fashion", but where and by whom they were fashioned.

Consider this photo.


If you don't know this man, Mr Peck, he's here to prove a point outside of the courtroom. Consider that he is wearing a seersucker suit. He found out about this fabric, because it's cool and he lives in the south. He talks to a tailor, his tailor gets the fabric, measures him up, makes a suit, adjusts it and then he wears the heck out of it.

When you see photos of men from back in the day, they all seem to have well fitting suits. That's because they were custom made. When we say custom now, we think luxury, but that was before mass production of polyester and when the man down the road had the last name "Tailor" for a reason.

As a Catholic, would we not consider this more ideal? A few items of clothing made by hand by a man we know who feeds his family by making and standing by the work of his hands? - there's something right and fitting about that. We know his name, we have his "product" - better yet, "craft" - for a large chunk of our life and we go to him if we gain a few, loose a few or get a snag in the park.

But, it's just not like that anymore and we have to accept that. It may be unreasonable to have a suit made for us, but if we could do that - ya know... interact with someone who cares about their craft and not just making a buck with a mass produced piece of crap garment - if we could do that we would and should. We're Catholics!

But most of us can't.

In this vein however, I'd still point us to thinking and considering our clothing more. Not just asking whether we're going with the flow of mass produces, ill-fitting, fake, exploitative fashion, but whether we're thinking a bit about our habits. Is grabbing a tie from Wal Mart "poverty"? Does paying less mean we have true thrift? How long do those things last? How often do we just stop by in a pinch and grab whatever we need at a cut rate price? Really, how man times are we going to do that before we consider the habit? I can tell you one thing, it may involve poverty, but it ain't yours.

Don't worry, practical solutions are coming. Be prepared to learn the laws of thrifting.

Avoiding Extremes - Snobbery and Slobbery PART I

Photographs of our not-so-distant forefathers, with their ties, jackets and well cared for shoes, reveal a serious slide into the realm slobbery when we see photographs of our compatriots. It's hard to tell from clothing alone which era of our lives our photographs are from, because we're always dressed like a high school gym class. We may by guilty of slobbery.

Slobbery is the exact opposite and equally disordered sister of Snobbery. The snobberist tries in vain to have his material surroundings define him as a quality man. The slobberist tries in vain to say that no material surroundings define his quality. Both men are silly, wrong and lamentably laughable. Both are rooted in self-absorption.

Mark Twain noted that clothes may not make a man, but naked people rarely hold power. Thomas Carlyle warned not to trust a man that doesn't consider old clothes venerable. Now, I would avoid the religious temperaments of both men, but I think they got it spot on with that advice.

The slobs rule of life is comfort. He blames his far less than "wedding ready" clothing on the fact that "fancy" clothes are uncomfortable, because everyone knows that Wal Mart jeans are sooo comfy - you can just where them for months (the normal lifetime of sweatshop clothes). He is not the same as the man simply deprived of the basic manly etiquette of dressing well, although both need some instruction on the basics of life. I was both - ignorant and slothful - in my early young adult life.

Even if comfort really was the culprit (I suspect otherwise), is man made for comfort? If clothes give at least a glimpse into the thoughts and ethos of a man, what do the descriptors of comfy clothes reveal? Do the descriptions of "soft, comfy, stretchy and synthetic" reveal something? Sadly, those words probably mean quite a bit. It's like taking the concept of the house slipper and making it's rubrics the norm for everything that touches the body. Look at the average "man room", it's nothing but a reincarnated college dorm room of stupid posters, mystery-stained couches and screens of all kinds for all kinds "entertainment" - and comfort. (As an aside, Scarface is not a hero and dies at the end!)

If this sounds judgmental, be weary of judging this judgment as the evidence has been weighed. When a man comes out of the average "man room", is he a better man? The men of these "man rooms" might just be soft, comfy, stretchy and synthetic.

(Another aside, I love good manly rooms.)

The culprit here is not comfort, but sloth. The man who retreats eagerly to a room away from things like family, responsibility and the demands of life, is a man running from uncomfortable things (Aquinas says sloth results from lacking magnanimity - not living up to a greatness of soul). Sloth is rightly a capital sin as it permeates our world, instead of just corrupting one's own sole. Love, marriage, children and a healthy ascetic rhythm nearly always involve discomfort but always provide fulfillment and true happiness.

Clothing requires some effort and even a little discomfort. But as we cover our bodies, we consider not only ourselves but those we are sure to encounter. While trying to avoid being costumy or off-putting, dressing well invites those around us to feel that we indeed care about their company and believe that we prepare for their presence. Many men done khakis only when they have to (like a visit from a Queen), but it takes just as long to pull up a pair of cutoff sweatpants as it does to pull up khakis - how 'bout just start with khakis as the basics? And a nice pair of all cotton khakis is far from comfortable than polysomethingate sweats.

If you are merely avoiding dressing like a man because it's uncomfortable, requires a little study and effort or because you like your jean shorts too much... it's time to grow up and shake off the shackles. If you just honestly don't know how to dress like a man from deprivation of this sort of life lesson, it's also time to learn. Now that you know... well, you know what they say about willful ignorance.

Part II will discuss the extreme of snobbery which is a possible fall as you slip into a realm of adulthood.

The F-Word and Manliness

Catholics wear clothes. I know of one exception, but it was practiced by some heretics, and I can't remember the name... Anyway. For a Catholic, matter matters because that's what is all around us and God made it - simple as that. It's easy for us to see the ceremonial and power of clothing on military men, clergy and religious - soldiers wear uniforms, priests wear vestments, religious have habits and bishops have tall hats (some taller than others). Do laity have ceremonially clothing? Sure they do! Our clothes accompany our vocation and the laity (historically) dress with simple refined dignity that fits their state in life and culture - without excess or neglect. Ponder the picture of Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati - I know of some girls nicknaming him Bl. "Fra-hottie". Clearly a saint unafraid of manly style.

We (historically) build beautiful churches and use the pure materials because they have significance. We use beeswax candles because the bee itself gives glory to God. His work produces something that works quite well for our worship, candles - in a way that synthetic candles don't. Catholics are not afraid of the physical world and freely give significance to things that may even begin from simple necessity.

For example, the maniple, a nearly extinct liturgical garmet rarely seen outside of the extraordinary form of Mass, probably has roots in a overheated priest wiping sweat from his brow. The Latin word for surplice refers to fur worn over the clothing, probably to keep warm as it originated in England. These items were not just "grandfathered" into use, but since they served a distinct purpose, we could even say they were "baptized" from vulgar use into a useful symbol or ecclesial designation. They worked well then and work well now, even if the original necessity no longer presents itself. Not only were they made to be beautiful, but they were and remain right and fitting in their uses. Yes, some of those things we can get rid of, but Chesterton reminds us that the imprudent reformer removes something that doesn't seem necessary while the wise man asks why his ancestors put it there in the first place.

Knowing the origin of things gives them a certain air of significance because the wisdom of that item did not come from us, but was handed on to us. And it should not be wistfully discarded since it made it to us on down the line - who are we to throw it out now? I get more "sir's" when dressed like an adult man and more "bud's" when dressed for basketball practice - significant to society? Of course it is - clothing that draws from another politeness and civility must be a good thing (charity suggests we assume their sincerity).

Maybe when I have a lifetime under my belt I'll more easily disregard some things, but not yet. Now, this might not be as significant when dad hands down his cleanest pair of New Balances, but imagine discovering your grandfather's cuff links... it'll make you done a french cuff shirt at a moment's chance. One day I opened a box and found my grandfather's handkerchief - to this day I have a handkerchief in my pocket (in case I need to whipe off the blade of my great grandfather's Case pocket knife). I would say that handkerchief helped me to rediscover manly style.

What about fashion? Where do most of the fashions we commonly see now originate? Well, actually, the word right there is the issue - fashion. It's a nasty f-word. I don't think it's worth going into, but we know in our gut there's a difference between fashion and style. If you don't know here's a summary:

Fashion ; (a) clothing looks hawked by culture vultures to manipulate the way people dress in order to get their money, (b) constantly changing and shifting way of dressing that children and gullible adults follow leading to unquenchable thirst for poorly and amorally made clothing that only looks subjectively good on celebrities and manikins.

Style : (a) the nearly permanent way of dressing that shows maturity, stability and detachment from the whims of fashion, (b) the way men have dressed for centuries due to it's derivation from military clothing and it's general ability to present the male form in the most positive light, (c) part of the simple and slow-to-change ceremonial that surrounds confident men of integrity and firmness.

(Yes, I made those up)

For my Catholic geek friends: Fashion is moral relativism and style is scholasticism.

I'll get some pictures up of my grandfather soon. From the style and dignity of his clothing, you wont be surprised that he was an intelligent, virtuous scientist who loved life and his family with deep passion. Fidelium anime per misericordia dei requiescant in pace. Amen.

Fashion is folly! It's time to rediscover style as Catholic gentlemen. You in?

Theology and Clothes

I've had many conversions, but one of them was on the way I dressed. It was, yet again, a theological conversion. It was also, yet again, probably over thought and over applied. However, it was firmly authentic and led to a lot of pondering about the ceremonial of masculinity. On another post, we'll discuss the whys, but the outcome of the "garment conversion" ended in me wearing extremely expensive (though the goal was quality and that it be right and fitting) clothing which I purchased at insanely discounted prices at thrift stores and eBay (we'll talk about how to do that later).

I remember being overdressed for an event and someone remarking on it and I said, "At least it looks good and wasn't made by slave labor in a country that is feeding America's disgusting culture of gluttony for fashion." He said, "You didn't think about that when you bought that." Actually, I did. I wish I thought about that sort of thing more, but I don't.

I think before talking about how your clothes are fitting, or other important topics for the lay Catholic gentleman, we need to discuss where your wears originated and why you're wearing them. Are your clothes right and fitting for your state in life and as a Catholic? Catholics should think of such things.