Immodesty and the lack of respect for women - two sides of the same coin.

[spunjalebi]

True, but the Burkah is hardly a truly modest piece of clothing. Modesty is far more than just how much skin is covered. I would bet that the rates of rape in countries where the Burkah is commonly worn are probably not as low as we’d expect, as the Burkah demeans the woman, and makes her appear to be a helpless target with no identity.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that we could go to great lengths to be modest but for some people it may never “be enough.”

I read the blog “Veiled Glory,” where the woman writing it is a recent convert to the Orthodox Church and felt compelled to dress very modestly and cover her hair. She once wrote about how she realized that wearing a nice long skirt to church was enough and head covering for church was enough. In her blog, she was trying to talk about how our efforts to be modest at times are probably more than “enough,” and there are times where we dwell on it too much.

You mention an interesting point Alexander-- if modesty is “far more than just about how much skin is covered,” how do we establish a standard for modesty? After all, if I go to church covered up from head to toe, and even from my collarbones to my wrists, what more can I do for modesty? I’m really trying not to be pokey here, but do you see what I am getting at?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

The point I was trying to illustrate is that we could go to great lengths to be modest but for some people it may never “be enough.”

I read the blog “Veiled Glory,” where the woman writing it is a recent convert to the Orthodox Church and felt compelled to dress very modestly and cover her hair. She once wrote about how she realized that wearing a nice long skirt to church was enough and head covering for church was enough. In her blog, she was trying to talk about how our efforts to be modest at times are probably more than “enough,” and there are times where we dwell on it too much.

You mention an interesting point Alexander-- if modesty is “far more than just about how much skin is covered,” how do we establish a standard for modesty? After all, if I go to church covered up from head to toe, and even from my collarbones to my wrists, what more can I do for modesty? I’m really trying not to be pokey here, but do you see what I am getting at?

We don’t establish a standard, we establish an attitude. You think it’s okay to wear shorts and a t-shirt for Mass as long as they are clean, but in the past, people would probably never do that. Why do we have to dress so much more casually than people 50 years ago? Why am I the only guy at Sunday Mass wearing a suit? Out of 300 people, why is there only one suit? Is it because the concept of “sufficient attire” has been degraded more and more over the years? I am already told by so many people that I am “dressed up” because I wear boots/shoes, proper fitting pants, a belt, tucked in button up shirt, and I keep my hair cut and clean. Don’t make excuses for poor attire. People in the past could dress so much better than us, and our clothing is cheaper!

 

[spunjalebi]

Cultural standards change. In the past, it wasn’t considered decent for a woman to be wearing nylons and skirts which were at the knee, yet now it’s considered appropriate and modest.

Why does wearing a suit have to be the standard? Should wearing a suit be mandatory for men? Should wearing skirted suits and dresses be mandatory for women? Why?

If we say it’s because we’re in the house of God, and that’s why we have to dress so nice, why is it okay to dress down in public? If what I am wearing in public isn’t good enough to be wearing in church in the first place, should I be wearing it at all? I wouldn’t want to wear clothes in public that I wouldn’t feel comfortable wearing in church, and I’ve already experienced this by going through RCIA, where immediately after I was done with school I literally rushed to church. God is not simply trapped in churches, He is everywhere. I was taught that like the story of the angels who visited a town in the Bible, we could run into God in the world and not realize it. Shouldn’t my attire be fitting anyway? And if it’s not, do we imply that men should wear suits all the time and women should wear dresses all the time? Do we continue to spiral down drain of legalism?

A long time ago when I was a new Christian, I had Buddhist friends who complained that they thought Christians were hypocrites. They cited that they would see girls wearing jeans and casual dresses and skirts in public-- such as jean material or light-knit woven material-- yet they thought they were holier than thou because when they went to church they wore their “Sunday Best.” You are certainly right that we are in need of a new attitude.

 

[Prayerfully]

We don’t establish a standard, we establish an attitude. You think it’s okay to wear shorts and a t-shirt for Mass as long as they are clean, but in the past, people would probably never do that. Why do we have to dress so much more casually than people 50 years ago? Why am I the only guy at Sunday Mass wearing a suit? Out of 300 people, why is there only one suit? Is it because the concept of “sufficient attire” has been degraded more and more over the years? I am already told by so many people that I am “dressed up” because I wear boots/shoes, proper fitting pants, a belt, tucked in button up shirt, and I keep my hair cut and clean. Don’t make excuses for poor attire. People in the past could dress so much better than us, and our clothing is cheaper!

I agree that we should strive to dress up for Mass, but there are people who cannot afford a dress and a suit. Especially those that are out-of-work blue collar types who didn’t own a suit prior to being out of work. I am quite serious about this! While you haven’t made a comment about “people should just go to Goodwill…they can find something there” , I have read that flippant comment on other forums here. I will say, that a couple of years ago, when my husband was laid-off from work, my teen son was being Confirmed. He was in need of a suit, and with his height of 6’ 6, a suit that would fit him was not to be found in any of our city’s dozen Goodwill stores. I noticed you have a size 12 shoe, he wears 18 wide. Now, imagine trying to find used dress shoes in a size 18. Other than the Big and Tall shop, you can’t find them new, let alone used. Same with the suit. We ended up going to the payday loan place and borrowed the money to get him his suit and shoes at the Big and Tall store. Total cost with shoes…around $400 (not including the interest rate fee from the payday loan people).

I actually read something in one of the Traditional Catholicism threads a while back that suggested a family forgo paying bills and buying groceries for one week just to buy dress-up clothes for Mass. Unbelievable!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Okay JLV, what are you going to do about it? No offense but you can post and post and post till kingdom come, but I am really wondering what you think you’re going to accomplish.

Until the day comes where every single diocese in the entire world receives formal instructions that men aren’t allowed to wear shorts, women aren’t allowed to wear jeans, pants, slacks, trousers, sleeveless tops, or have their calves and knees showing unless they want to be forbidden from church attendance and possibly excommunicated, what do you think you are accomplishing here? Hmm?

And you still haven’t answered how people who may not be wearing perfect clothes should handle going to church right after the job. Or are you implying that they shouldn’t bother going to church anyway? For the record, my husband refused to not go to church simply because his job at the time required him to wear grungy clothes. I’ve seen people at church wearing nursing scrubs, but then again how dare they show up in those clothes since it’s not appropriate? Or better yet, why can’t they just find a different church to go to?

Actually, I already posted the following:

• what Pope John Paul II, as Bishop of Rome, instituted in his diocese of Rome
• what Pope Benedict XVI enforces throughout the Vatican
• what’s being enforced in Catholic churches in Italy and elsewhere
• the dress code at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, Hanceville, Ala
• what the Bishop of Baker, Oregon had to say
• what the Bishops of Manila, Philippines enforce
• what the Bishops of Colombo, Sri Lanka enforce

These rules are not my rules. These are the rules of the Pope, and of the Catholic Bishops. And nowhere did they say that people shouldn’t be allowed when they wear jeans, t-shirts, or work clothes. The Bishops of Manila specifically tell us that they do not mean to hinder, for example, construction workers from attending church in their work clothes. The universal theme, however, is that shorts, short skirts, and sleeveless or shoulder-, back-, and midriff-baring shirts and dresses are not appropriate for church.

 

[edwest2]

I think Serap may have been a little tongue-in-cheek here. I don’t think wearing high heels, halter tops, or low-waisted pants necessarily means one was dressing sleazily. Most of the pants nowadays are low-waisted and it’s almost impossible to find high-waisted unless you want to look ridiculous, or even mid-rise jeans. Heels are worn almost everywhere-- I see girls at my university wearing heels with jeans and sweaters. And halter tops aren’t necessarily immodest, as long as you’re looking for the correct fit and coverage. I have a halter top that ties by the neck, exposes some back, but is high cut in the front. I’m just saying.

I think the question of whether the Holy Mother would have walked around in that attire is moot, considering the fact that at that time, women were required to cover their hair all the time and wore Islamic-style clothing.

When in doubt, play the Islamic card. I was in a store when a full figured women walked in front of me. After every third or fourth step, she had to pull up one side or the other of her low-cut pants. The ‘you can’t buy it’ idea is nonsensical.

At one time, makers of women’s clothing made modest clothes. It was after a handful of radicals got involved that we got the first mini-skirt, then the mini-dress and then the mini-everything. Women were gently encouraged to show more skin. Seriously, immodesty is immodesty. And thong underwear? I see ads for this and who is going to pay money for a tiny piece of cloth and string? Seriously.

And in the 1970s, the Marxist National Organization for Women victimized women by convincing some to become victims of the eternal enemy - men. Those male chauvenist pigs only viewed women as sex objects. Today, Sex and the City shows us how women can act exactly like male chauvenist pigs. This is equality!!??

Catholic Women - wake up. Don’t become carbon copies of women around you who feel men won’t even look at them unless they’re wearing something from the Street Walker collection. I was taught to hold women in high esteem. I opened doors for them, and so on. This sort of behavior was regarded as polite and showing respect for another person.

I am sickened when I see beautiful women on TV playing characters that engage in ‘just sex’ with men. Ladies. It’s time to step back, look at how women are portrayed today, and ask yourself: Is that me? Is that my daughter? I sometimes wonder what Britney’s mom thinks when she opens the paper and sees her daughter in a stripper outfit on stage. Proud? Of what?

Women may have a nice face and figure but that’s not who you fall in love with. The person inside had better enjoy your company and sincerely want to be with you. Again, it sickens me when beautiful women (Desperate Housewives’ Eva Langoria) tell other women to go on “test drives” with men as if both are cars and not people.

Both men and women need to be interested in each other as people, not playthings.

To reclaim human decency we need to observe standards of human decency and reject the nonsense going on around us.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[EasterJoy]

I do think we are treading a dangerous line here-- I personally wouldn’t want to teach the idea that if we aren’t showing up to church in formal clothes, such as fancy dresses, suits, and ties, that one isn’t being respectful or modest. I’ve seen that sort of legalistic thinking in many Protestant churches and thought that I left that when I joined the Catholic church.

Join a Church with 700 million or a billion people in it, the thinking will run the gamut, believe me.

I don’t think the phrase “fancy dress” showed up. In keeping with the topic of the thread, the Vatican rules are not about fancy, but about covering particular parts of the body during worship. Everyone would agree that there are things that ought to be covered. The only question is where the line is. I think of it kind of like when Dad checks you out before going out on a date. If the look is “pleasant” or “well-groomed”, that is OK. It does not have to be “fancy”, and actually ostentation of dress ought to be avoided. If the look is “sexy” or says “slob”, try again, if at all possible.

This isn’t about dressing anyone else, though. It is about what we wear and what we let our kids wear. Let the bishops make the rules for the crowd.

 

[LittleSoldier]

When in doubt, play the Islamic card. I was in a store when a full figured women walked in front of me. After every third or fourth step, she had to pull up one side or the other of her low-cut pants. The ‘you can’t buy it’ idea is nonsensical.

It is quite possible that the woman was losing weight and her slacks were too big in the waist. It is also possible that the waist was of the elastic kind and had simply lost its stretch. I once lost a large amount of weight but was living on disability and had no money for new clothes. When I finally got some money I literally had to hold my jeans up with one hand when I made it to the store to buy a new pair of jeans. You don’t know the story. You don’t know why she was pulling up her slacks.

At one time, makers of women’s clothing made modest clothes. It was after a handful of radicals got involved that we got the first mini-skirt, then the mini-dress and then the mini-everything. Women were gently encouraged to show more skin. Seriously, immodesty is immodesty. And thong underwear? I see ads for this and who is going to pay money for a tiny piece of cloth and string? Seriously.

Unless I’m mistaken, underwear is worn under other clothes. Thong underwear is very comfortable. And yes, people pay for it. Obviously. What difference does it make to you? It’s covered up! Why are you so interested in women’s underwear anyway?

And in the 1970s, the Marxist National Organization for Women victimized women by convincing some to become victims of the eternal enemy - men. Those male chauvenist pigs only viewed women as sex objects. Today, Sex and the City shows us how women can act exactly like male chauvenist pigs. This is equality!!??

Women are not stupid idiots that can be tricked. We know what equality is. We don’t look upon men as the “eternal enemy.” And you seem to know a lot about Sex and the City.

Catholic Women - wake up. Don’t become carbon copies of women around you who feel men won’t even look at them unless they’re wearing something from the Street Walker collection. I was taught to hold women in high esteem. I opened doors for them, and so on. This sort of behavior was regarded as polite and showing respect for another person.

Yes, Catholic women - wake up! Don’t open doors on your own! Let men do it. Pretend to be helpless creatures who need men to make the decisions and treat you with kid gloves and put you high upon a pedestal.

I am sickened when I see beautiful women on TV playing characters that engage in ‘just sex’ with men. Ladies. It’s time to step back, look at how women are portrayed today, and ask yourself: Is that me? Is that my daughter? I sometimes wonder what Britney’s mom thinks when she opens the paper and sees her daughter in a stripper outfit on stage. Proud? Of what?

I sometimes wonder just how you know so much about these shows. I wonder why you don’t turn your TV off and read a book.

Women may have a nice face and figure but that’s not who you fall in love with. The person inside had better enjoy your company and sincerely want to be with you. Again, it sickens me when beautiful women (Desperate Housewives’ Eva Langoria) tell other women to go on “test drives” with men as if both are cars and not people.

Again, you know an awful lot about those shows.

Both men and women need to be interested in each other as people, not playthings.

To reclaim human decency we need to observe standards of human decency and reject the nonsense going on around us.

Hope this helps,
Ed

It doesn’t help me, Ed. Not one tiny bit. Methinks you really have a low opinion of women and that you are obsessed with TV shows and the way women dress when they are at the beach. Why do you watch those TV shows? And did you go to the beach at all this past summer? It seems to me I remember a thread where you said you wouldn’t go to the beach ever again because of the way women dress there.

 

[lovemybatman]

By this “logic”, a woman who is not dressed modestly is not worthy of your respect and charity. I’m sure Jesus (you know, the one who spared the woman caught in adultery?) would agree.

Related? Yes. (See below.) “The same coin”? No. As has been said, the definition of modestly is highly fluid depending on culture. It has also changed depending on time period (e.g. 100 years ago showing an ankle was practically illegal).

In mainstream American culture, women are seen as sexual objects who exist to pleasure men and have to display their “wares” for their benefit. Dressing immodestly is widespread for this reason. I don’t think we disagree on this. What you don’t seem to understand is that this is related to the lack of respect for women because it is this same lack of respect that perpetuates the notion that they have to dress as sex objects to be seen as worthy!

I’m not defending women who dress sleazily but how dare you posit that they don’t deserve your respect and that the way our culture is is all their fault. In so doing you’re treating them the same way that our mainstream anti-Catholic culture is.

Please, people, pray for humanity in general and stop blaming genders, races, etc. for HUMAN vices we ALL have.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you so very much for this wonderful post, stccp. When I realized I could not find modest professional clothing in stores, I began to sew my own. It is very difficult to find skirt suits that are a proper length (several inches below the knee at the very least), and don’t even get me started about the walking vents which open up to the middle of the thigh. It embarrasses me to even type it knowing that men may be viewing this thread.

Several years ago, I began praying earnestly about Deuteronomy 22:5, a Scripture that prohibits the wearing of men’s clothing by women, and reading Cardinal Siri’s “Notification concerning Men’s Dress Worn By Women”, here is a link: catholicmodesty.com/Mens_Dress.html

Deuteronomy 22:5 states the matter quite succinctly: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel : for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.”

I began to realize how very inappropriate this attire is for a woman. Once again, God’s Word and the teachings of the Church were right!

Here is a brief excerpt from Cardinal Siri’s article that particularly struck me: “Male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man.” Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.”

I take care with my appearance, so that any time I step outside my door I am neat, well-groomed and dressed with dignity. Even when I go out to wash my car I wear a pressed button-down blouse and an ankle-length denim skirt. Because this is my “work skirt”, worn when I am washing my car, or cleaning out the garage, or moving, or doing any sort of physical work, the longer length ensures modesty whether I am bending down or reaching up, or climbing a ladder. Frankly, wearing a skirt offers much more freedom of movement and is much cooler than encasing my legs in denim pants.

I work in a very professional office environment, and I am frequently complimented on my professional attire. My skirts are, for the most part, column skirts that are ankle-length or a couple of inches above ankle-length. I wear jackets with blouses that reach my throat and long sleeves. I have heard some women complain that the warm weather where they live prevents them from dressing modestly. I live in a very warm region, where summer temperatures reach 115 or higher on a regular basis. This is not an appropriate excuse to relax the standards of modesty.

Women are daughters of the Most High, infused with the dignity and graces appropriate to her gender and station. I believe so very strongly that modest dress and demeanor are virtues that, as the original poster stated, should be cultivated from a young age. The womanly virtues of gentleness, meekness and quietness as described by St. Peter (I Peter 3:4-6) were the virtues that the “holy women of old” used to adorn themselves. These virtues are considered “of great price in the sight of God”.

There was an age when women dressed with modesty and dignity, and the culture reflected the importance of those virtues. As Catholics, I believe we are called to live apart from the world and to separate ourselves both in dress and demeanor from the “nations around us”. Allowing our dress and behavior to be governed by the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church clearly sets us apart from the age in which we live, where self-discipline and respect for others, and a sense of our duty to God and those around us has been sadly lost.

You wash your car in a pressed blouse and a denim skirt? You are richer than I am. I couldn’t afford to get such an outfit dirty. When I wash my car I wear denim cut-offs and an old t-shirt. You don’t think that heat is a good reason to not dress as you do? Do you call 911 when a woman faints from the heat? Just because you are comfortable does not mean that other women are. What gives you the idea that you are the one who gets to decide how women should dress, anyway? You can wear your fancy clothes all you want. That’s fine if it makes you feel good about yourself. But I won’t dress like that and frankly I think it’s ridiculous to wash a car dressed in a skirt and blouse. I honestly can hardly believe you do that.

You know what? I’m just as modest as you. God created me and when He had finished He looked at me and said “It is good.” We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not going to hang around to be attacked again by you and your clique. I just have a few things to say.

I read a post awhile ago and I apologize for not knowing the thread or the author. But it made an impression on me. The poster said (paraphrasing) that he would wear a sackcloth and ashes on his face to Mass if he could because it is humbling and he was better able to participate in the Mass.

That is the way I feel. I do not need to wear a dress that covers my knees, elbows, and most of my neck. I can wear rags to Mass. I can wear a sackcloth and have ashes on my face. I can stay by the back door because I know I am a sinner and I don’t deserve anything God gives me. I do not need to prance up to the front of the church in my finery, showing off. I will stay in the back. God is there, too.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

God is there and He loves me. And I don’t care what you wear to wash your car or what you wear to Mass. I really don’t care one iota. Do what you need to do but be aware of the man who proudly stood at the front of the temple where people could see him pray. What a good man he was! Look at him! He is dressed well and see how he prays!! Now look at that little bundle of rags in the back of the temple who is praying quietly.

Which of these two people did Our Lord say we should be like? Hint: It’s not the one standing at the front of the temple.

All I ask is that if you don’t like what I wear to face God, don’t look at me. If I offend you, turn away. It won’t bother me at all. I got used to being slapped around and hurt a long time ago. I know God loves me and accepts me - yes, even me; the one who leads men to sin by my immoral clothes. God loves me.

Remember that.

And let he (or she) who is without fault cast the first stone at me.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, I already posted the following:

• what Pope John Paul II, as Bishop of Rome, instituted in his diocese of Rome
• what Pope Benedict XVI enforces throughout the Vatican
• what’s being enforced in Catholic churches in Italy and elsewhere
• the dress code at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, Hanceville, Ala
• what the Bishop of Baker, Oregon had to say
• what the Bishops of Manila, Philippines enforce
• what the Bishops of Colombo, Sri Lanka enforce

These rules are not my rules. These are the rules of the Pope, and of the Catholic Bishops. And nowhere did they say that people shouldn’t be allowed when they wear jeans, t-shirts, or work clothes. The Bishops of Manila specifically tell us that they do not mean to hinder, for example, construction workers from attending church in their work clothes. The universal theme, however, is that shorts, short skirts, and sleeveless or shoulder-, back-, and midriff-baring shirts and dresses are not appropriate for church.

But shorts ARE what construction workers wear to work - at least in hot weather. Likewise, sometimes, sleeveless shirts. They have to, some of them, if they don’t want to keel over from heat exhaustion. So of necessity having a hard-and-fast ‘no shorts or sleeveless shirts’ rule must exclude some of them from coming to church in their work attire.

Either the rules are guidelines that are flexible, in which case they mean nowhere near as much as you’d like them to. Or they aren’t. In which case anyone who says ‘we don’t want to hinder construction workers from coming to work in their work clothing, but they can’t if it includes shorts rather than long pants and sleeveless rather than sleeved shirts’ is speaking with a forked tongue.

 

[JaneGrey]

You wash your car in a pressed blouse and a denim skirt? You are richer than I am. I couldn’t afford to get such an outfit dirty. When I wash my car I wear denim cut-offs and an old t-shirt. You don’t think that heat is a good reason to not dress as you do? Do you call 911 when a woman faints from the heat? Just because you are comfortable does not mean that other women are. What gives you the idea that you are the one who gets to decide how women should dress, anyway? You can wear your fancy clothes all you want. That’s fine if it makes you feel good about yourself. But I won’t dress like that and frankly I think it’s ridiculous to wash a car dressed in a skirt and blouse. I honestly can hardly believe you do that.

You know what? I’m just as modest as you. God created me and when He had finished He looked at me and said “It is good.” We’ve had this discussion before and I’m not going to hang around to be attacked again by you and your clique. I just have a few things to say.

I read a post awhile ago and I apologize for not knowing the thread or the author. But it made an impression on me. The poster said (paraphrasing) that he would wear a sackcloth and ashes on his face to Mass if he could because it is humbling and he was better able to participate in the Mass.

That is the way I feel. I do not need to wear a dress that covers my knees, elbows, and most of my neck. I can wear rags to Mass. I can wear a sackcloth and have ashes on my face. I can stay by the back door because I know I am a sinner and I don’t deserve anything God gives me. I do not need to prance up to the front of the church in my finery, showing off. I will stay in the back. God is there, too.

-----continued in next post-----

I know modesty is meant to include dress as well but only to an extent. I think tests of true modesty come from the character of the person itself. People who spend more time judging others’ ‘immodesty’ rather than focusing on ways to improve themselves IMHO cannot say that they are completely modest. It is easy to put on a sack and sit on a high horse but it is much harder to work on one’s mind. In that sense, I am not modest all the time as I too at times make the human error of judging others. However I can say that though if certain posters on this thread might think I dress immodestly if they ever saw me, I can say in my heart that I only dress that way out of neccessity.

Thank you for bringing up the problem of overheating. I often have heat stroke and Im not going to risk it at the beach or while bathing my dogs in the garden for the sake of some arbitrary measure of modesty.

Love your quote about ‘chivalry’. When will people realise modesty is about far more than relations between the sexes? Also that we as humans do not get to decide who is the ‘bad, loose woman’ and who is the ‘pure, good’ lady more worthy of respect?

God bless

 

[BlueSprite]

I’ve been thinking more about this post lately lol…(not to beat a dead horse) - but I was thinking that perhaps, maybe, what people are sort of arguing about, isn’t so much about the idea of modesty, but rather, ceremony?

That is, going to church…wearing one’s “glad rags” or nice clothes…or what was nice for them (as we all know not everyone can afford the same level of niceties) made going to church a special occasion - something not of the norm. And this was part of the ceremony, the celebration, of mass.

Of course this doesn’t mean that if you’re in a hurry, or don’t have time to change that it makes ANY DIFFERENCE what you wear because like so many have said, the point is that you came and of course showing our reverence to God in this matter, by simply attending Mass, is ultimately, what matters.

But by dressing up - wearing something a little different, a little “special” - sort of embraces the ceremonial aspect of going to Mass, and separates it from the times when we pray on our own.

I don’t think most people are judging others while in Mass. Ok…strike that, that’s not true…I have belonged to churches where it was more of a “fashion show” rather than anything else. (Or so it seemed to me…). In which case it was all ceremony - all form and no function.

But I think the key is to perhaps try to embrace or unify the form AND the function?

Because in doing so, by making the effort to conform, to wear something “nice,” to do something out of the norm - we’re in effect saying, by showing, that this is special. This is a special event. This is something worthy of my best effort…and by dressing in such a way, I’m reflecting that.

And the only reason I have this perspective, is because I am the worst of offenders…I know it. I have worn yoga pants to Mass (and no it’s not funny I know…they weren’t tight but sloppy)…and baggy, rather bulky, ski jackets and so forth. But I didn’t know really, any better, at the time. Yet during Mass, I was there in spirit. However going even FURTHER back in time, my mother used to make us dress-up quite a bit for Mass…however I wasn’t there in spirit…my mind was elsewhere and I only cared about local gossip or whatever nonsense was happening in the pews (ya know…the furtive glances…ooooh…look a that coat! Did she get her hair done? Maybe you don’t know…but trust me, I did this. ).

And now, in thinking about this thread (which is great because it’s really got me thinking) I feel I understand more clearly, what it means to dress appropriately - and it has got me thinking about the idea of modesty, what it means, and where it fits in society and in church.

In sum, very interesting points have been raised, and at the very least, very thought provoking!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

But shorts ARE what construction workers wear to work - at least in hot weather. Likewise, sometimes, sleeveless shirts. They have to, some of them, if they don’t want to keel over from heat exhaustion. So of necessity having a hard-and-fast ‘no shorts or sleeveless shirts’ rule must exclude some of them from coming to church in their work attire.

Either the rules are guidelines that are flexible, in which case they mean nowhere near as much** as you’d like them to**. Or they aren’t. In which case anyone who says ‘we don’t want to hinder construction workers from coming to work in their work clothing, but they can’t if it includes shorts rather than long pants and sleeveless rather than sleeved shirts’ is speaking with a forked tongue.

Lily, as far as I’m concerned, this is not about what I would like those rules and guidelines to mean. I know that there are crazy “Catholics” out there who push their own agendas, and pretend that they are more Catholic than the Pope, essentially to the point of disagreeing with their own Bishops and Pope and to the point of causing schisms in the Church, but I am not one of those. Please don’t confuse me with disobedient people pushing their own agendas. I am genuinely interested in learning and obeying what the Catholic Church teaches.

Since the situation of construction workers was discussed in and around Manila, here are again some quotes from the Archdiocese of Manila (see posts #215 and #216):

Quote:
Manila: The Archdiocese of Manila has issued a dress code that calls on the faithful to present themselves in formal and more conservative attire when attending mass, a local paper said.

In a circular sent to parish priests on Sunday, Father Godwin Tatlonghari, assistant minister of the archdiocese’s Ministry of Liturgical Affairs (MLA), said a new dress code was being imposed following complaints from worshippers that the slack dress sense of some was proving to be disturbing, the Star said.

Male Catholics should wear “long-sleeved polo shirts, collared shirts, or t-shirts paired with either slacks or jeans”, the circular directed, advising against wearing caps, basketball jerseys, tank tops, and shorts to church.

Women were told to stick to dresses, long gowns, or collared blouses as against spaghetti-strap tops, tank tops, short skirts, skimpy shorts and sleeveless shirts with plunging necklines, the MLA stipulated.

Carefully crafted

Corporate attire and school uniforms are also allowed inside the church, the MLA said, adding that the guidelines were “carefully crafted” in deference to requests from thousands of conservative people and priests.

“They usually cite the increasing number of people who come to church to attend Mass or other liturgical functions garbed in a way that disrespects the sanctity of the House of God and the sacredness of the liturgical celebration,” Tatlonghari said.

Quote:
In Cebu City, 565 kilometers (about 350 miles) southeast of Manila, Monsignor Esteban Binghay told reporters that pastors tend to be “considerate” about how people dress depending on their situation. If the church is near a park or public place, he said, people understandably come to Mass dressed for a picnic.

He also said that some laborers, especially in the construction industry, work even on Sundays and want to attend Mass. He said undershirts and shorts may seem “improper” in one context but are alright in another.

Now, back to the USA. There’s a church on Miami Beach which I attend sometimes, and there’s a large construction area around it. On this particular site, the construction workers wear long pants, not shorts. I know exactly the situation, because I used to work in the constructions and as a dock worker (moving up to 34 tons per day with my own hands) myself, every summer, for 7 years. I know exactly what heavy physical work means. If you do such work, you typically wear long pants, in order to shield your skin from dust, paint, scratches, abrasion. You may wear a sleeveless shirt but you always have a long-sleeved shirt on hand, for the same reason. Because you may need to go into an area where you need to protect your skin, or into an area with air conditioning on, where you suddenly need a long-sleeved garment. Using the construction workers’ case as a cover for the immodesty of others would probably offend most the construction workers themselves. It’s the same tactic as using the fight for social justice for African-Americans to push the gay agenda, or talking about saving women’s lives and using it as justification for wanton murders of unborn babies. I have NEVER seen a construction worker attend church in shorts or A-shirts, even though in their case it may be understandable that they had to attend Mass like that. I see, on the other hand, brides and bridesmaids dressed like whores. Women coming in work-out clothes - skimpy shorts and sports bras. If I sit in the back, I risk one of these shameless creatures come and sit right in front of me. If I sit in the front, a wedding party shows up in front of the altar, facing me, and having nipple slips while bending forward and arranging themselves for photography. And then, we wonder that Fr. Alberto Cutie ended up leaving the Church. That’s exactly Father Cutie’s former parish I’m talking about, with this endless procession of temptresses showing up in everything from mini skirts to sports bras, and especially those wedding parties that are a total disgrace. Let’s not blame the construction workers, here. Let’s put responsibility to where it belongs - those who could easily manage to dress up decently, but they won’t.

 

[Serap]

:compcoff:

:takethat:

uch:

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I don’t think the phrase “fancy dress” showed up. In keeping with the topic of the thread, the Vatican rules are not about fancy, but about covering particular parts of the body during worship. Everyone would agree that there are things that ought to be covered. The only question is where the line is. I think of it kind of like when Dad checks you out before going out on a date. If the look is “pleasant” or “well-groomed”, that is OK. It does not have to be “fancy”, and actually ostentation of dress ought to be avoided. If the look is “sexy” or says “slob”, try again, if at all possible.

This isn’t about dressing anyone else, though. It is about what we wear and what we let our kids wear. Let the bishops make the rules for the crowd.

This is also what I gathered so far. People are not banished from the Vatican or from churches in Rome, for wearing simple, poor, or non-fancy clothes. They are banished when they fail to cover areas of their bodies that the Vatican says must be covered.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

:compcoff:

:takethat:

uch:

LOL…

Think about Brother Andre…

:coolinoff:

:getholy:

:heaven:

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is also what I gathered so far. People are not banished from the Vatican or from churches in Rome, for wearing simple, poor, or non-fancy clothes. They are banished when they fail to cover areas of their bodies that the Vatican says must be covered.

And I witnessed it to my eternal embarassment.

When I say, “I don’t think you should wear that, they won’t let you in…” Please take my advice.

 

[Prayerfully]

I’ve been reading all the posts on this thread for a while and what I get from it is most all of us agree that both sexes should be dressing modestly…but it’s what constitutes “modesty” that seems to be in question. For some, modesty means wearing a floor-length denim skirt and long-sleeved blouse buttoned to the neck…for others, it means not wearing mini-skirts, spaghetti-straps, and tight or cleavage-revealing clothes. Some posts on here have been quite legalistic about women not wearing pants…well, in Biblical times, men didn’t wear pants, either.

It’s all a bunch of self-righteous legalism. As far as that “study” in Colleen Hammond’s book about people “following the vertical line” and staring at crotches when women are in pants…if our human make-up shows we are drawn to that way of subconscious thinking, I say “Stick the men in robes” because everyone is going to be staring at the end of their “vertical lines”, too!