Church attire (all kinds)

[crazzeto]

---

Does the sight of a woman’s arm distract you.

The site of a woman in see through, tight, form fitting clothing with visible chest area’s sure is. I’m sure women could be distracted by similarly ill dressed men.

The problem is, in today’s culter we have so forgotten modest dress that even “dressing nicely to church” can be far too sexy and apealing. I like the 3B’s, this should, to the extent possible, apply to men and women equally.

We should all be dressed appropriatly to approch the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. This means modest, and dressed well for us lay folks (religious would wear their modest habbits).

 

[eegardner]

---

Does the sight of a woman’s arm distract you.

I will answer this with the assumption that you are seriously asking and not being patronizing.

No, I do not have an issue with women wearing sleeveless tops. I am not suggesting Puritan dress. I am talking about clothing that is too tight, too short and too revealing. Believe me I can appreciate an attractive woman as much as the next guy but there is are places that modesty and respect should be the rule.

By too tight I mean clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination as to the shape of the body. Clothing that looks like it was painted on.

By too short I mean shorts and skirts/dresses that are barely covering what should be covered. I do not see a problem if they are not shorter than mid-thigh. Shirts/blouses should not expose the stomach.

By revealing I mean dressing like the waitresses at work, at Hooters. This is NOT appropriate for Mass.

Cleavage and a skirt slit to the hip may have it’s place in a party dress but not at Mass.

BTW, men should be respectful in their dress as well. Tank tops and running shorts are, in my opinion, in bad taste for Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

The site of a woman in see through, tight, form fitting clothing with** visible chest area’s** sure is. I’m sure women could be distracted by similarly ill dressed men.

The problem is, in today’s culter we have so forgotten modest dress that even “dressing nicely to church” can be far too sexy and apealing. I like the 3B’s, this should, to the extent possible, apply to men and women equally.

We should all be dressed appropriatly to approch the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. This means modest, and dressed well for us lay folks (religious would wear their modest habbits).

---

I don’t believe anyone is advocating for the see through/chest exposing mode of dress–in either women and/or men. But when women wearing slacks-- short sleeves and/or the sight of “gasp” knees–puts women in the “immodesty” category–yea-the “modesty” issue is becoming a monster.

 

[eegardner]

I would like to say that the “Jesus wore sandals” argument is not valid because sandals were the normal accepted footwear of that time. They really had no other option.

If you want to base it on this way of thought then we all should dress similar to Muslim traditional clothing. And women of that time were completely covered.

 

[severus68]

I am not being judgemental. It is all about respect. Just because God has seen us “in all our naked glory” that does not mean everyone else needs to. Too much skin is distracting. It be be distracting to those that are offended and to those that like what they see. Teenage boys and most men are weak and susceptible to impure thoughts in such situations. I know I am a man and we can catch ourselves looking when we did not realize that we were looking. Mass is the one place that you should not be exposed to the Near Occasion of Sin.

My Church is not called St. Hooters, but too many women dress like it is.

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…

When I put down someone’s taste in home decoration for instance, I admit I am being judgemental even if it is some stranger. It is about being judemental based on your views about dressing. I have never seen a half naked man or woman walk into a church to distract anyone…

I think you are also being disrespectful and insulting to both men and women in your comments. Men are not some poor simple things who have no control over themselves. That remark about the name of your church is crass. More praying, less looking around please.

 

[Walking_Home]

**I will answer this with the assumption that you are seriously asking and not being patronizing. **

No, I do not have an issue with women wearing sleeveless tops. I am not suggesting Puritan dress. I am talking about clothing that is too tight, too short and too revealing. Believe me I can appreciate an attractive woman as much as the next guy but there is are places that modesty and respect should be the rule.

By too tight I mean clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination as to the shape of the body. Clothing that looks like it was painted on.

By too short I mean shorts and skirts/dresses that are barely covering what should be covered. I do not see a problem if they are not shorter than mid-thigh. Shirts/blouses should not expose the stomach.

By revealing I mean dressing like the waitresses at work, at Hooters. This is NOT appropriate for Mass.

Cleavage and a skirt slit to the hip may have it’s place in a party dress but not at Mass.

BTW, men should be respectful in their dress as well. Tank tops and running shorts are, in my opinion, in bad taste for Mass.

---

No I was not being patronizing. I asked because–as was posted prior–even short sleeves have come under the “immodest” category.

Now as to the tight clothes. There are clothes that are form fitting and there are clothes that are tight as in several sizes to small. I believe there is a difference between the two-- in how a person looks.

I do agree–Mass is not the place for the Hooter’s look, shorts/skirts/dresses that barely cover the bottom, tank tops, muscle shirts, running shorts.

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

I don’t believe anyone is advocating for the see through/chest exposing mode of dress–in either women and/or men. But when women wearing slacks-- short sleeves and/or the sight of “gasp” knees–puts women in the “immodesty” category–yea-the “modesty” issue is becoming a monster.

A more sensitive view on what constitutes modest dress is not a “monster”. An earlier post referred to so much discussion about modest as “nuts”. I disagree again.

What is a “monstrous” and “nuts” is that you can’t walk down the street, go to the store, or worship at Mass without running a very high chance of viewing men and women dressed immodestly in modern America.

Was Pope Pius XI a monster when he said

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”

Was St. Padre Pio a monster when he posted this notice at his church:

By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 inches below the knee. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the Confessional

Was Pope Pius XII a monster when he said

“Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles, like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impression they make and the feelings they arouse in those who see them.”

Was Our Lady of Fatima a monster when she warned us that coming fashions would offend the Lord greatly?

It is a common objection that “people must be judge by the standards of the society they live in”. That is true in some cases, but not when the society is debased and corrupt.

Or were the Masons monsters in 1928 when they wrote:

“Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc.”

Before dismissing concern about bare arms as Puritanism, consider that an organization the Vicar of Christ has condemned as working with Satan to destroy the Holy Church sought to change the culture so that woman would go about…with bare arms, as a means of corrupting the Church.

I take the amount of interest and discussion on these forums about returning to a more modest society to a sign of great encouragement.

Pax

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Funny thing… I’ve heard what you write many times… “It’s not whats on the outside, it’s what in the inside so if I want to “sex up” or just dress down for church that’s fine”. The problem is, what’s on the inside is so clearly visible on what is on the outside. This is the simplest understanding of “faith and works”. **How you feel about the faith, the Lord and the blessed sacrament will be made quite visible by how you decide to dress your self when you go to Mass.**For me, I know that when I was a bench warmer, and esp when I was Christian in name only I was fine wearing shorts, ripped on clothing, whatever to church. It didn’t really matter. When I reverted (rather powerfully), I came to realize where I was and what I was doing. When I realized the lack of reverence, of my own volition I dressed up. I now dress as you suggest every Sunday. Button down shirt, khaki pants, dress shoes… And that’s when I’m dressing down.

Not necessarily true. I sit next to my husband at Mass…who is in shorts, a polo shirt, and sandals (not flip flops). He is not a bench warmer nor is he luke warm about the faith…being at Mass with me every Wed, Sat, and Sunday as well as adoration. So, what was maybe true for you is not true for everyone else. Of course his clothes are not ripped shorts…more like docker shorts.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A more sensitive view on what constitutes modest dress is not a “monster”. An earlier post referred to so much discussion about modest as “nuts”. I disagree again.

What is a “monstrous” and “nuts” is that you can’t walk down the street, go to the store, or worship at Mass without running a very high chance of viewing men and women dressed immodestly in modern America.

Was Pope Pius XI a monster when he said

Was St. Padre Pio a monster when he posted this notice at his church:

Was Pope Pius XII a monster when he said

Was Our Lady of Fatima a monster when she warned us that coming fashions would offend the Lord greatly?

It is a common objection that “people must be judge by the standards of the society they live in”. That is true in some cases, but not when the society is debased and corrupt.

Or were the Masons monsters in 1928 when they wrote:

Before dismissing concern about bare arms as Puritanism, consider that an organization the Vicar of Christ has condemned as working with Satan to destroy the Holy Church sought to change the culture so that woman would go about…with bare arms, as a means of corrupting the Church.

I take the amount of interest and discussion on these forums about returning to a more modest society to a sign of great encouragement.

Pax

What century was this? Men also dressed differently back in that day too.

Geez…if I get accused of letting Satan choose my wardrobe just because I wear dockers and short sleeves…then holy cow…isn’t there bigger fish to fry? Like the mini skirts or see through items?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Have you talked to him about his dress? Since he is sincere in his faith, he may be open to considering that his dress is innappropriate. If he went to a wedding or a business dinner or some other “dress up” occasion, would he dress up? Why? If he would, why are those occasions more special or more deserving of his effort and attention to dress then worshiping the Ever Living God in the Eucharist?

I am not questioning what you said at all about the sincerity of his faith. However, even with a very sincere faith, his dress may be sending an different message to those around him, and thus leading them to a less reverant view of the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Wampa]

Dan, can you provide a citation to the source document for the Masons’ quote? That is intriguing and I’d like to look into that more. Thanks!

 

[Dan_Daly]

What century was this? Men also dressed differently back in that day too.

Geez…if I get accused of letting Satan choose my wardrobe just because I wear dockers and short sleeves…then holy cow…isn’t there bigger fish to fry? Like the mini skirts or see through items?

Our Lady of Fatima appeared in the 20th Century.

The Masons plotted to change the culture of dress in order to corrupt the Church in the 20th Century.

Popes Pius XI and Pius XII issued their warning and guidance regarding immodest dress in the 20th century.

Yes, a mini skirt and see through top is more immodest then mid thigh shorts and a t-shirt. But people didn’t go from modest attire to mini skirts like that. As the Mason predicted, the change was gradual. So when people on here talk about sleeves and hemlines that sound WAY out of the societal norm, it’s because:

1. It IS way out of the societal norm- because our society has changed so much in a relatively short time.

and

1. We seek to dress modestly, not merely in a LESS immodest manner.

It’s also worth noting that a reason to focus on modesty in ADDITION TO (not instead of) our “bigger problems”- divorce, contraception, abortion, etc. Is that the eroding of modesty through revealing dress and the sexualization of our culture was a precursor to the advance of those “bigger problems”. They are connected, not seperate issues.

 

[Walking_Home]

A more sensitive view on what constitutes modest dress is not a “monster”. An earlier post referred to so much discussion about modest as “nuts”. I disagree again.

What is a “monstrous” and “nuts” is that you can’t walk down the street, go to the store, or worship at Mass without running a very high chance of viewing men and women dressed immodestly in modern America.

Was Pope Pius XI a monster when he said

Was St. Padre Pio a monster when he posted this notice at his church:

Was Pope Pius XII a monster when he said

Was Our Lady of Fatima a monster when she warned us that coming fashions would offend the Lord greatly?

It is a common objection that “people must be judge by the standards of the society they live in”. That is true in some cases, but not when the society is debased and corrupt.

Or were the Masons monsters in 1928 when they wrote:

Before dismissing concern about bare arms as Puritanism, consider that an organization the Vicar of Christ has condemned as working with Satan to destroy the Holy Church sought to change the culture so that woman would go about…with bare arms, as a means of corrupting the Church.

I take the amount of interest and discussion on these forums about returning to a more modest society to a sign of great encouragement.

Pax

---

Well I disagree with you–it is getting out of control. Depending on what thread one reads–its seems that the only option women have to meet all the differing parameters of “modesty” —is to throw a tent over themselves.

And you know what else–I have a hard time imagining–our late Pope and current Pope turning down a woman from confession–because her skirt was/is not 8 inches below the knees.

As to the quote being attributed to our Lady of Fatima—it has been coming out–that quote is not actually from our Lady.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dan, can you provide a citation to the source document for the Masons’ quote? That is intriguing and I’d like to look into that more. Thanks!

International Review of Freemasonry 1928.

I’ve read it at a few places online and in a book- all Catholic, pro-modesty sources. I’ve also heard it from an FSSP priest in his sermon. I have looked some for an original (or scan) of that document but haven’t found it yet. If you are able to dig up the full document please let me know.

Pax.

 

[eegardner]

When I put down someone’s taste in home decoration for instance, I admit I am being judgemental even if it is some stranger. It is about being judemental based on your views about dressing. I have never seen a half naked man or woman walk into a church to distract anyone…

I think you are also being disrespectful and insulting to both men and women in your comments. Men are not some poor simple things who have no control over themselves. That remark about the name of your church is crass. More praying, less looking around please.

First I want to say I do not appreciate being called “disrespectful and insulting”, you are making it personal, and personal attacks diminish a persons point of view.
However, I will not respond in kind. I will stick to the idea of appropriate dress.

I did not put down anyone or their taste. I do not judge the way they dress. If you look at my reply to your question “Does the sight of a woman’s arm distract you.” I said that this type of dress may have a place in a party dress, but Mass is not the place.

I said “susceptible to impure thoughts”. I did not say men had no control.

If you intend to insult someone using their comments, try to get it right.

I am not going to get in an argument about this. I just made my point, a point that I can say confidently that most people that take Catholicism seriously (as well as other Christians, Jews and Muslims) would agree with.

I have an idea, why don’t you take two photos to Church, one of a woman dressed like she works at Hooters and one of a woman in modest tasteful clothing. As people are leaving Mass as them if both photos represent dress that is appropriate dress for Mass. You must poll people of all ages and genders equally. If you get the majority of people saying the short, tight and revealing clothes are appropriate, I will make an apology on this thread.

Ask a priest, ask a Deacon, ask a Nun or use this site to ask an apologist if they consider this type of dress appropriate. I believe you honestly know what the answer will be. Check the dress code for St. Peters at the Vatican. Their views are a lot stricter than my views are.

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

Well I disagree with you–it is getting out of control. Depending on what thread one reads–its seems that the only option women have to meet all the differing parameters of “modesty” —is to throw a tent over themselves.

And you know what else–I have a hard time imagining–our late Pope and current Pope turning down a woman from confession–because her skirt was/is not 8 inches below the knees.

As to the quote being attributed to our Lady of Fatima—it has been coming out–that quote is not actually from our Lady.

A lady can look quite beautiful in modest attire. Actually more beautiful then when dressed immodestly.

St. Padre Pio was not from the middle ages. He died in 1968 and was declared a Saint in 2002. No not all priests, turn women away from confession because of their dress, but this man who we know is in Heaven did, and I would have to think if a Priest was refusing the grace of the sacraments to people for trivial or foolish reasons, that would be a very grave matter indeed.

Who else said what I’ve attributed to Our Lady of Fatima, and where did this news “come out of”?

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

A lady can look quite beautiful in modest attire. Actually more beautiful then when dressed immodestly.

St. Padre Pio was from the middle ages. He died in 1968 and was declared a Saint in 2002. No not all priests, turn women away from confession because of their dress, but this man who we know is in Heaven did, and I would have to think if a Priest was refusing the grace of the sacraments to people for trivial or foolish reasons, that would be a very grave matter indeed.

Who else said what I’ve attributed to Our Lady of Fatima, and where did this news “come out of”?

Pax

---

Saints are not always correct in all they say and do. From what I have read–that quote attributed to our Lady of Fatima–is not found anywhere in the Vatican site. It is usually found as a disembodied quote via “Trad” sources.

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

Saints are not always correct in all they say and do. From what I have read–that quote attributed to our Lady of Fatima–is not found anywhere in the Vatican site. It is usually found as a disembodied quote via “Trad” sources.

Saints are not correct in all they say and do. But as I said, a Priest refusing the sacraments to people for no good reason would surely be a very grave matter indeed.

So we have two options:

St. Padre Pio’s rules for confessional attire were improper. He was refusing the sacraments for no good reason- and possibly eliminating a last chance at confession before someone died. Abuse of the sacraments in this manner would very likely be a mortal sin, and St. Padre Pio repented of it before his death.

OR

St. Padre Pio’s rules for confessional attire were proper.

 

[crazzeto]

I will answer this with the assumption that you are seriously asking and not being patronizing.

No, I do not have an issue with women wearing sleeveless tops. I am not suggesting Puritan dress. I am talking about clothing that is too tight, too short and too revealing. Believe me I can appreciate an attractive woman as much as the next guy but there is are places that modesty and respect should be the rule.

By too tight I mean clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination as to the shape of the body. Clothing that looks like it was painted on.

By too short I mean shorts and skirts/dresses that are barely covering what should be covered. I do not see a problem if they are not shorter than mid-thigh. Shirts/blouses should not expose the stomach.

By revealing I mean dressing like the waitresses at work, at Hooters. This is NOT appropriate for Mass.

Cleavage and a skirt slit to the hip may have it’s place in a party dress but not at Mass.

BTW, men should be respectful in their dress as well. Tank tops and running shorts are, in my opinion, in bad taste for Mass.

Or in short, if you like the outfit your wearing to church because it makes you feel sexy… Something has gone wrong.

 

[crazzeto]

---

Saints are not always correct in all they say and do. From what I have read–that quote attributed to our Lady of Fatima–is not found anywhere in the Vatican site. It is usually found as a disembodied quote via “Trad” sources.

True, but as the saints clearly did more right than wrong it is worth closely inspecting their actions and observing them with the assumption of truth. In this case, St. Pio has done nothing the Holy Father him self (who is in fact protected from teaching error) is doing diocese wide in Rome.