Appropriate attire at mass for women

  • Thread starter Thread starter white_sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

white_sheep

Guest
So what do you think is a minimum acceptable length for women’s skirts and dresses at mass? Knee length. No more than 3 inches above the knee. Ankle length. Somewhere below the knee.
 
I have been joking lately upon seeing what young women wear to events where “knee length” is required that the knee is a lot farther up on the leg now than it was when I was young. The practical problem, however, is that young women who can’t sew are limited in their choices when it comes to ready-made garments. If a woman has a very long upper leg, it can be next to impossible for her to find a dress that truly comes near to her knee.

There isn’t a universal standard of “long enough” for women’s clothing at Mass, because the Church recognizes that what is and is not “alluring” is cultural. Knee-length or close to it is considered modest in the US. Some men would be thankful if burlap sacks were the style, so they’d have an easier time paying attention to something besides the women around them. The standard of modesty we might like, however, isn’t always available in stores.

IOW, if you are dressing yourself or your daughter, don’t aim at overtly “sexy.” The idea behind dressing in a becoming way isn’t to imply you’re “becoming” an item for sale. (This is generally true, not just at Mass.) If you are not dressing someone else, try to assume that it is not always easy to find the same clothing you’d choose if you could make it yourself, and that sometimes a dress that is shorter than ideal is what was available. Make the charitable assumption that the woman is not trying to seduce you or anyone else into impure thoughts, turn your head, and think about other things.
 
In our house, the skirt/dress has to touch the kneeler to be long enough, so just about knee-length or right above the knee. Also, blouse or dress has to cover the top of the shoulder - anything less means a wrap or shrug. That’s for me; I think I’ll only enforce this for my daughter after elementary school, so curious what others say.
 
At our parish, we request that the women who serve in the Liturgy (Readers, EMHCs, Ushers, etc…) wear their skirts to at least a modest length - that being to the knee. We ask that they not wear shorts, gym clothes, spaghetti strap or shoulder-less shirts/blouses, and that they do a “mirror check” (bow in front of the mirror, to see what the Priest/others will see when bowing before the Eucharist at communion) - for modesty in the neckline.
Through example and gentle pushing (see pictures below we have posted inconspicuously around the building), we are hoping that the rest of the community comes into line with this “dress-code”
 
I’d say that you should stick with, at the very least, business casual for church. You want to cover your shoulders and knees and no workout clothes or swimwear. Men should wear a collared shirt and avoid ball caps and jerseys.
 
The passages in the Bible referring to modesty seem to me to define it as the opposite of being ornate or prideful. So, in modern terms, to wear simple/plain clothes rather than expensive brand labels. I don’t think it has a lot to do with skirt lengths.

Much more important, I think, to wear a skirt or dress and not any kind of pants (Deut 22:9, from memory).
 
KatieM2 said:
The passages in the Bible referring to modesty seem to me to define it as the opposite of being ornate or prideful. So, in modern terms, to wear simple/plain clothes rather than expensive brand labels. I don’t think it has a lot to do with skirt lengths.

Much more important, I think, to **wear a skirt or dress and not any kind of pants (Deut 22:9, **from memory).
Click to expand...
But then there’s that pesky new covenant and all so we get to wear pants now. Yay!
 
A poster addressed it above.

Business casual should be appropriate. I wear dresses or skirts that are either knee length or lower and no exposed shoulders.
The only thing I do that might be considered slightly “immodest” is wear a lower cut top or a wrap shirt with my skirts.
The reason being is that I nurse my 8 month old while I wear her in the baby carrier. I think it’s far more practical and modest then wearing a high-collered top with no hint of cleavage and try to lift my shirt for her to nurse.
She likes to look around and tends to get distracted during Mass and will unlatch herself frequently to see what’s going on…all the while mommy is trying to fight to cover up when she does. 😃

But, with the carrier, she is covered up and has very easy access to me and I can stay in the pew.
That’s my excuse for wearing a lower cut top.

Hubby keeps things standard with a button-down and slacks.
 
Personally, I really don’t understand this whole “cover the shoulder” rule so many people have. There are plenty of shirts/dresses that do not cover the shoulder but are perfectly modest and appropriate for Mass, such as the picture posted earlier in this thread. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
Personally, I really don’t understand this whole “cover the shoulder” rule so many people have. There are plenty of shirts/dresses that do not cover the shoulder but are perfectly modest and appropriate for Mass, such as the picture posted earlier in this thread. 🤷
Click to expand...
The picture posted earlier does not meet my church standard, or my business casual standard. Put a white sweater over it, and it would be fine.

My objection is not that bare arms are somehow a ticket straight to temptation. They are not. However, through the years, women’s bare shoulders have come to be appropriate in highly formal venues (dinner parties and State dinners) or extremely informal places (doing errands or hanging at home), not in the middle ground of church and business.

If men should be wearing collared shirts and nice slacks, I don’t think bare shoulders are a commensurate look.
 
white_sheep said:
So what do you think is a minimum acceptable length for women’s skirts and dresses at mass? Knee length. No more than 3 inches above the knee. Ankle length. Somewhere below the knee.
Click to expand...
Any length is fine as long as they are not holding a Harry Potter Book or try to hold hands at the Our Father.
 
PaulinVA said:
The picture posted earlier does not meet my church standard, or my business casual standard. Put a white sweater over it, and it would be fine.

My objection is not that bare arms are somehow a ticket straight to temptation. They are not. However, through the years, women’s bare shoulders have come to be appropriate in highly formal venues (dinner parties and State dinners) or extremely informal places (doing errands or hanging at home), not in the middle ground of church and business.

If men should be wearing collared shirts and nice slacks, I don’t think bare shoulders are a commensurate look.
Click to expand...
And I disagree. I just really don’t see how it is inappropriate in any way. 🤷
 
And somehow I remember a thread about wearing one’s underwear under one’s robes in church… 🙂
 
thewanderer said:
And I disagree. I just really don’t see how it is inappropriate in any way. 🤷
Click to expand...
Think of Mass as a “conservative” work environment. Every site you hit if you Google “sleeveless dresses to work” says that sleeveless blouses and dresses should be covered by a jacket or sweater. Why would we do less for the Lord?
 
The basis for wearing a jacket or sweater over a sleeveless dress or blouse is meant to convey more of a serious, businesslike mien for a woman. In these situations, suit jackets are usually de rigueur for men. (This is not considered necessary in any but the most staid, formal businesses today.)

I fail to see how not dressing in a businesslike manner is somehow “doing less” for God, especially since men are not being held to the suit-and-tie standard.
 
I also keep the business casual rule for sure. If I wouldn’t wear it to my job I wouldn’t wear it to church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top