Clothes at Mass

[foolishmortal]

There’s nothing wrong with jeans or a t-shirt if you’re just slipping away. We’re talking about principles here, but I don’t think, on a Sunday, that that many people are just slipping away for Mass.

This was pretty interesting since I’m here now.
ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/mar2007p8_2474.html

 

[Fitswimmer]

I just got back from Mass and I can honestly tell you that I have no idea what anyone else had on. I know everyone was dressed modestly, because I would have noticed that, but whether folks were dressed up or in casual clothes just didn’t register. What I did notice that we had a very full church for a 9 am New Year’s Day Mass and I was thankful to see so many starting 2008 that way.

 

[catharina]

I just got back from Mass and I can honestly tell you that I have no idea what anyone else had on. I know everyone was dressed modestly, because I would have noticed that, but whether folks were dressed up or in casual clothes just didn’t register. What I did notice that we had a very full church for a 9 am New Year’s Day Mass and I was thankful to see so many starting 2008 that way.

Lovely.

 

[markomalley]

IMO, modesty is the issue.

Women keeping their heads covered and men keeping their heads uncovered is the critical issue dealt with by St. Paul…I don’t seem to recall much else being discussed, other than a condemnation of those who concerned themselves with that which made them “appear” more holy than they were inside.

I would far, far prefer to see a family dressed in scrubs (of course with the women wearing chapel veils and the men having removed the baseball caps), but with a very, very reverent attitude as demonstrated by their actions in Mass than seeing the same family dressed to the nines without the attitude of reverence.

Consider the attire of the religious: they are simple, (mostly) clean, and modest. Not fancy.

 

[KathleenElsie]

All I ask in the warmer months is that I don’t see body parts sticking out of skin tight clothing in the pew in front of me. Wit a 60+ husband and a pre-adolescent boy sitting next to me it can be hard to concentrate. PS most of the time we sit in the first pew. This way it becomes a non personal issue.

 

[catharina]

IMO, modesty is the issue.

Women keeping their heads covered and men keeping their heads uncovered is the critical issue dealt with by St. Paul…I don’t seem to recall much else being discussed, other than a condemnation of those who concerned themselves with that which made them “appear” more holy than they were inside.

I would far, far prefer to see a family dressed in scrubs (of course with the women wearing chapel veils and the men having removed the baseball caps), but with a very, very reverent attitude as demonstrated by their actions in Mass than seeing the same family dressed to the nines without the attitude of reverence.

Consider the attire of the religious: they are simple, (mostly) clean, and modest. Not fancy.

Modesty is the issue, of course and you are allowed your preference for chapel veils but the Revised Code of Canon Law did not specify any requirement of head coverings for women at Mass. In fact, St. Vincent de Paul who reformed the priesthood in France gave this injunction to his Sisters, the Daughters of Charity, regarding their dress: " … and for their veil, holy modesty." It is modesty that guards purity, not any article of clothing.

 

[markomalley]

Modesty is the issue, of course and you are allowed your preference for chapel veils but the Revised Code of Canon Law did not specify any requirement of head coverings for women at Mass. In fact, St. Vincent de Paul who reformed the priesthood in France gave this injunction to his Sisters, the Daughters of Charity, regarding their dress: " … and for their veil, holy modesty." It is modesty that guards purity, not any article of clothing.

1 Cor 11: 4-6, 16 * Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil…If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.*
I understand that Canon Law no longer mandates a head covering. However, St. Paul pretty clearly commends the practice.

 

[KathleenElsie]

1 Cor 11: 4-6, 16 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil…If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
I understand that Canon Law no longer mandates a head covering. However, St. Paul pretty clearly commends the practice.

Anyone notice that the priests, bishops and Cardinals all take off their head coverings when serving Mass? So if it still stands for them why not us ladies?

 

[Harsalter]

Dress in 50’s and 60’s clothes if you must but men, please leave the hair grease back in the 50’s.

 

[ancilla_Domini]

Dress in 50’s and 60’s clothes if you must but men, please leave the hair grease back in the 50’s.

Haha! I agree.

Also, KathleenElsie, I really laughed out loud when I read your comment about how skin tends to hang out of all sorts of places during warm months. Well, I’m from California, and I recently graduated. You can imagine how much skin I saw during some Masses at my university’s Newman Center on some days. Now THOSE were good reasons why modesty should be observed when dressing for Mass.

Anyway, I think some of you guys are right. Formality does become an issue frequently on this topic. But I still see a correlation between a lack of formality and a lack of reverence in the Mass… I’m not saying that one causes the other or vice-versa, but the connection just seems to be there. What do you guys think? Just something to think about…

 

[catharina]

1 Cor 11: 4-6, 16 * Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil…If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.*
I understand that Canon Law no longer mandates a head covering. However, St. Paul pretty clearly commends the practice.

I’ve never had any quarrel with St. Paul. When it comes to the present (or the past for that matter), the word I hear is from Rome. St. Peter listened to St. Paul regarding a number of things related to Jewish practices in Christianity. He clearly accepted Paul’s wise advice and such things as ‘no necessity’ for ritual cricumsion or kosher dietary practices come to us from those discussions and agreements. Paul however, was the Roman citizen and if he believed that a teaching of ‘head coverings at worship’ was the best practice for women in those ancient times and places, then so be it for those “ancient” practices. Wise of Paul for the time and place; as a citizen of Rome he had a wider look at the world than fishermen from Galilee. In our time and place where Islam is present around the globe, a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

1 Cor 11: 4-6, 16 * Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil…If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.*
I understand that Canon Law no longer mandates a head covering. However, St. Paul pretty clearly commends the practice.

Is it disgraceful in this day and age for a woman to have her head ‘shorn’ or ‘shaven’?

Which should be more influential - the actions of the Church (no longer mandating a head covering) or St. Paul?

 

[markomalley]

Anyone notice that the priests, bishops and Cardinals all take off their head coverings when serving Mass? So if it still stands for them why not us ladies?

Read 1 Cor 11:4. To do other than to remove their head coverings would be inappropriate. I would also suggest paying specific attention to **when **they remove their head coverings during the Mass, as well.

 

[catharina]

It’s usually futile to speak of economics in this regard but the fact remains that for many in Africa, the requirements of head coverings for women who attend Mass is an added financial burden. In other parts of Africa, the wearing of head coverings by women marks the women (at market, out with children) as Moslems subject to Isalmic shiria codes in their home towns. How can head coverings supersede the realities of today’s world?

Should we not simply say: “Thank you, Mother Church, for considering the circumstances of all Catholic women, wherever they might live?”

 

[Orate_Fratres]

Modesty definitely is the main and important criteria to look for when it comes to what to wear to Mass, but we should also strive to dress in our best (and appropriately) since, as one church bulletin put it “We are not at the beach, nor a sporting event, picnic or other casual event”. Were here not only to worship God but to witness the representation of His sacrifice and He deserves only the best we can offer.

Plus we wouldn’t exactly go a wedding or even a job interview in “everyday” clothing now would we?

Obviously, if someone is unable to get a suit for whatever reason and all they have is jeans then by all means, wear those jeans and go to Mass! Same goes for those who just “slipped in” (I myself went to Mass on a few occasions still in my school scrubs after a mad dash, or rather drive, from class!).

 

[markomalley]

I’ve never had any quarrel with St. Paul. When it comes to the present (or the past for that matter), the word I hear is from Rome. St. Peter listened to St. Paul regarding a number of things related to Jewish practices in Christianity. He clearly accepted Paul’s wise advice and such things as ‘no necessity’ for ritual cricumsion or kosher dietary practices come to us from those discussions and agreements. Paul however, was the Roman citizen and if he believed that a teaching of ‘head coverings at worship’ was the best practice for women in those ancient times and places, then so be it for those “ancient” practices. Wise of Paul for the time and place; as a citizen of Rome he had a wider look at the world than fishermen from Galilee. In our time and place where Islam is present around the globe, a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty.

If you read my post carefully, you will note that I stated an understanding of what Canon Law says (and doesn’t say). If you read my post carefully, you’ll note that I use the word “commends” in regards to St. Paul, vice “directs.” The two words have different meanings (although I, admittedly, am taking a very ‘liberal’ interpretation of the Apostle’s words, in light of the current culture).

Bottom line is that I have absolutely nothing to say if you choose to worship with your head bare or with your head covered. Not in Canon Law; therefore, it’s not my business.

However, I would suggest that prior assigning motives to those who wear head coverings during worship (‘a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty’) you might wish to check with a woman who chooses to maintain the traditional, scriptural dress code when worshipping. I somehow believe that you may find that male ownership has little or nothing to do with it.

 

[catharina]

If you read my post carefully, you will note that I stated an understanding of what Canon Law says (and doesn’t say). If you read my post carefully, you’ll note that I use the word “commends” in regards to St. Paul, vice “directs.” The two words have different meanings (although I, admittedly, am taking a very ‘liberal’ interpretation of the Apostle’s words, in light of the current culture).

Bottom line is that I have absolutely nothing to say if you choose to worship with your head bare or with your head covered. Not in Canon Law; therefore, it’s not my business.

However, I would suggest that prior assigning motives to those who wear head coverings during worship (‘a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty’) you might wish to check with a woman who chooses to maintain the traditional, scriptural dress code when worshipping. I somehow believe that you may find that male ownership has little or nothing to do with it.

You need to reconsider as well. When I say: “In our time and place where Islam is present around the globe, a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty” I was speaking of the larger Church not of who worships next to you or me in our own parishes. Actually, I was speaking of women in African nations and Moslem lands who are quite at risk if misidentified as Islamic, but without a male proetctor present. Sorry if you thought I was casting offense on any woman who chooses to wear a head covering to attend Mass. I wouldn’t dream of doing that.

Why would you imagine that?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Modesty definitely is the main and important criteria to look for when it comes to what to wear to Mass, but we should also strive to dress in our best (and appropriately) since, as one church bulletin put it “We are not at the beach, nor a sporting event, picnic or other casual event”. Were here not only to worship God but to witness the representation of His sacrifice and He deserves only the best we can offer.

Plus we wouldn’t exactly go a wedding or even a job interview in “everyday” clothing now would we?

Obviously, if someone is unable to get a suit for whatever reason and all they have is jeans then by all means, wear those jeans and go to Mass! Same goes for those who just “slipped in” (I myself went to Mass on a few occasions still in my school scrubs after a mad dash, or rather drive, from class!).

We don’t know the circumstances of anyone that we attend Mass with, unless they have chosen to share them with us. We don’t know who has just “slipped in”, who doesn’t have a suit or dressy clothes and maybe can’t afford them or what the reasons are that they aren’t formally dressed. Yet it seems that this topic comes up over and over again on forums and in those Coffee afterwards discussions.

Issues regarding modesty and cleanliness are one thing, and probably should be referred to the Pastor for gentle handling. Other than that, I think what people choose to wear should be between them and God.

 

[markomalley]

You need to reconsider as well. When I say: “In our time and place where Islam is present around the globe, a head covering says as much about the personal ownership of women by male relatives as it might about one’s personal modesty” I was speaking of the larger Church not of who worships next to you or me in our own parishes. Actually, I was speaking of women in African nations and Moslem lands who are quite at risk if misidentified as Islamic, but without a male proetctor present. Sorry if you thought I was casting offense on any woman who chooses to wear a head covering to attend Mass. I wouldn’t dream of doing that.

Why would you imagine that?

And I also recall Christian women being required to wear a abaya while TDY in Saudi Arabia. And I’ve spent enough time in Muslim countries to know that it is far preferable for them to veil. The umma don’t treat those of us who are kuffir very well at all…From first-hand sight, if Shari’a is implemented in a country, females WILL comply with the Shari’a dress code, umma or kuffir…

But what St. Paul addressed was not a modesty code in public, he simply addressed appropriate head coverings (or lack thereof) while worshiping.

As to me “imagining” what you meant, you didn’t qualify your statement to Catholics present in predominantly Muslim lands. You appeared to use the subjugation of women (as exemplified by Islam) as your rationale…i.e., those who veil subjugate themselves to men (like Muslim women), those who don’t, assert their equality with men (or something along those lines). My apologies if I read you incorrectly.

 

[catharina]

And I also recall Christian women being required to wear a abaya while TDY in Saudi Arabia. And I’ve spent enough time in Muslim countries to know that it is far preferable for them to veil. The umma don’t treat those of us who are kuffir very well at all…From first-hand sight, if Shari’a is implemented in a country, females WILL comply with the Shari’a dress code, umma or kuffir…

But what St. Paul addressed was not a modesty code in public, he simply addressed appropriate head coverings (or lack thereof) while worshiping.

As to me “imagining” what you meant, you didn’t qualify your statement to Catholics present in predominantly Muslim lands. You appeared to use the subjugation of women (as exemplified by Islam) as your rationale…i.e., those who veil subjugate themselves to men (like Muslim women), those who don’t, assert their equality with men (or something along those lines). My apologies if I read you incorrectly.

Thank you for the apology. Yes, you did read me incorrectly.

My experience has been with Christian and Moslem women from Nigeria and Moslem women from Mali. When I say in our present time and place, I’m referring to the universal Church in most cases, not to what might or might not be popular thinking in the United States.

I was talking about what the requirement of veiling might mean to MANY around the world - in this day and age, time and place, etc… Wait - I said that already, didn’t I?