Moving to another pew when someone sits in front of us, a scandal?

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think of flip flops as church shoes, but many in our parish think flip flops are fashionable and appropriate for church. I disagree. Any podiatrist will tell you that flip flops leave your feet vulnerable to diseases. They are not recommended except for beach wear.

But how is a ‘flip flop’ worse than an open toed shoe? Or are you saying that open toed shoes aren’t suitable either?

 

[jmcrae]

Did you pay attention to the 2nd reading from St. James this past Sunday?

He was referring to fully clothed poor people. Not half-naked or three-quarters naked sex gods and goddesses. Indeed, I think James would have been the first to ask “Venus” and “Neptune” to go home and change, or else offered them a nice warm cardigan.

 

[EasterJoy]

Uh, I was being *humorous… *

If you took a moment to read my previous posts, you’d know I was being empathetic to E_7 because I understand. I’ve been there. I know what she’s talking about. I’m also in agreement with MarkinOregon in his statement that we don’t know the immodestly dressed person’s heart, yet they’re at mass, so who knows what’s really going on.

And for the record, I never mentioned prostitution. To BE serious, there’s all kinds of night jobs that would fit that description, such as being a waitress. Yes, waitress. Or retail clerk. …

A retail clerk? Forgive me, but I do not believe for a microsecond that the night job you were referring to was waitressing or working as a clerk. People coming straight from their retail jobs in their work clothes wasn’t what you meant at all, was it? I do think you were saying that the OP was talking about people who come to Mass dressed like hookers. She wasn’t. She was talking about people who come to Mass with clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination, but she only said that the skirt was short and the clothing was skin tight. But OK…I did jump on you too much for making a reference to immodest clothing that was just a bit too all-encompassing. If I needed to chide you about that at all, I could have been much more graceful about it.

Yes, as you point out, this can be because people don’t know to choose clothing that fits properly and do not know the difference between clothing that is attractive and clothing that is sexually suggestive. You are totally right about that. Depending on your build, it can be very hard to find any clothing that has the right length or can even be hemmed to come to the right length. If you can’t sew, what can you do about that?

Yes, good points buuuuut… shouldn’t people be focusing on what’s going on in mass with the readings and gospel and God rather than looking at the person next to you with judgment? Is it really so hard to just not look? Don’t get me wrong, as I’ve said like three times already I totally understand as I’ve been in this situation, too… but we go to mass as dutiful Catholics for God, not to clutch our pearls and be like, "ohmigherd whut is she/he wearing!?..

If you do not want to sound as if you believe someone is being judgmental, then please avoid using phrases such as “looking at the person next to you with judgement” and “not to clutch our *pearls *and be like…” Oh, and when explaining the dig at people who wear pearls to Mass, please not tell me you were actually referring to the Pearl of Great Price, OK? (That was “humorous,” mind you. )

I do not think you are a bad person or trying to jump on the OP. I am sorry if you felt I have been jumping on you, too. The whole idea of the thread is trying to deal with these issues without unintentionally hurting anyone’s feelings. It is easy to see that this is far harder to do than it would seem to be.

I think we are both making more or less the same point. Let’s just call it a truce, OK?

 

[GreyWings]

A retail clerk? Forgive me, but I do not believe for a microsecond that the night job you were referring to was waitressing or working as a clerk. People coming straight from their retail jobs in their work clothes wasn’t what you meant at all, was it?

I can honestly tell you that prostitution was not what I had in mind. Truth. I was thinking of a different job. If you want to know what, I’ll tell you in a PM, not on here because it’s not really relevant to the point I was trying to make.

You’re aware of the fashion industry, right? Scantily clad is well, the norm. And you can find scantily clad people in malls, on college campuses… everywhere. Tights are all the rave right now, I wear them, but many find them to be too revealing. Just saying.

I do think you were saying that the OP was talking about people who come to Mass dressed like hookers. She wasn’t. She was talking about people who come to Mass with clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination, but she only said that the skirt was short and the clothing was skin tight. But OK…I did jump on you too much for making a reference to immodest clothing that was just a bit too all-encompassing. If I needed to chide you about that at all, I could have been much more graceful about it.

That’s a big assumption and a major jump to a conclusion, and not at all what I was saying. My later statement, the one you addressed in particular, was for the sake of argument, not in reply to her. I actually applauded the OP, did you miss that post? I thought I made it clear that I liked MarkInOregon’s response and was just adding my two cents - in general.

If you do not want to sound as if you believe someone is being judgmental, then please avoid using phrases such as “looking at the person next to you with judgement” and “not to clutch our *pearls *and be like…” Oh, and when explaining the dig at people who wear pearls to Mass, please not tell me you were actually referring to the Pearl of Great Price, OK? (That was “humorous,” mind you. )

I don’t quite understand as I was even making fun of my “ridiculous” outfit of tights, a t-shirt, the veil, and stilettos at mass, but OK.

I do not think you are a bad person or trying to jump on the OP. I am sorry if you felt I have been jumping on you, too. The whole idea of the thread is trying to deal with these issues without unintentionally hurting anyone’s feelings. It is easy to see that this is far harder to do than it would seem to be.

I think we are both making more or less the same point. Let’s just call it a truce, OK?

OK. But give people the benefit of the doubt, because we’re all good people here having an intellectual conversation. If my humorous response was immature, I’ll take responsibility for that, but I was only trying to lighten things with humor.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The flip flop thing is odd to me. Ever been in a men’s restroom? That is all over the bottoms of everyone’s shoes. This last weekend I was at a football game and used the restroom. The “splashback” from the urinal was felt all over my feet. Normally one would not notice because they would be wearing shoes. But yet it would happen anyway.

I think bare feet might be the cleanest thing around that area considering the bottom of shoes and where they go. In fact that is one of the reasons I think all germ arguments at Mass be it the flu, or whatever are silly. Logically there are worse things going on… Much dirtier and worse…

 

[EasterJoy]

… If my humorous response was immature, I’ll take responsibility for that, but I was only trying to lighten things with humor.

Do not worry about it. It did not cross my mind when you wrote “looks like they have a certain night job because maybe they do because they feel they have to in order to eat” that you could possibly have meant anything other than prostitution. Waitressing and retail are honest work and professions that people choose for careers, not work that no one would do if they wouldn’t starve if they didn’t!

I was concerned that the OP might think we were putting words into her mouth concerning her fellow parishioner, but I did not mean to hurt your feelings. Although I meant well, I think I overreacted to your posts. I need to just let this whole thing drop and believe you meant to refer to night work simply and literally. If you’ll forgive me, we can just let it go.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But how is a ‘flip flop’ worse than an open toed shoe? Or are you saying that open toed shoes aren’t suitable either?

I think sandals are better because people usually keep sandals on their feet. They tend to slip flip flops off.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you, Lily. Dress codes are constantly shifting, more quickly in some places and more slowly in others, and sometimes in different directions at the same time. It can get quite hard to keep up with the latest unwritten rules.

Regards
Bart

You’re welcome, Bart. I agree, it can be difficult to keep up. When I left the US and moved to Europe (again) people in the US were more formal. When I returned after a ten year absence, I was shocked at how casually people dressed for Mass, but I’m used to it now.

Lily

 

[GreyWings]

Do not worry about it. It did not cross my mind when you wrote “looks like they have a certain night job because maybe they do because they feel they have to in order to eat” that you could possibly have meant anything other than prostitution. Waitressing and retail are honest work and professions that people choose for careers, not work that no one would do if they wouldn’t starve if they didn’t!

I was concerned that the OP might think we were putting words into her mouth concerning her fellow parishioner, but I did not mean to hurt your feelings. Although I meant well, I think I overreacted to your posts. I need to just let this whole thing drop and believe you meant to refer to night work simply and literally. If you’ll forgive me, we can just let it go.

Of course, no hard feelings. And I’ll PM you with the job in question that I had in mind, lol

 

[pensmama87]

I apologize for the diversion into the discussion of children’s behavior at Mass. The only reason I brought it up was to specifically address how others behave when faced with something they feel is a serious distraction. In my case, I felt judged and angry because my family was clearly regarded with disgust. I think it would be very hard on any person or family to face that, and frankly can’t see a charitable intent behind it. So if and when a person feels they have to move, please please please be careful about how you do so.

I would not actually engage in correction unless there is an established relationship with the “offender.” And even then I would tread super, super carefully.

(And yes, I am absolutely certain that in my case there was no “justification” for the behavior of the offended folks. Frankly, I don’t think there’s ever an appropriate time to glare at strangers in that way - even if my children had been misbehaving at that time, which I assure you can happen, I still think it would be inappropriate. But they weren’t. And it’s not my job to bend over backwards to accommodate people who think it’s appropriate to glare at strangers. It’s my job to teach my children to be faithful, respectful people - which I am doing. )

 

[EasterJoy]

I apologize for the diversion into the discussion of children’s behavior at Mass. The only reason I brought it up was to specifically address how others behave when faced with something they feel is a serious distraction. In my case, I felt judged and angry because my family was clearly regarded with disgust. I think it would be very hard on any person or family to face that, and frankly can’t see a charitable intent behind it. So if and when a person feels they have to move, please please please be careful about how you do so.

I would not actually engage in correction unless there is an established relationship with the “offender.” And even then I would tread super, super carefully.

(And yes, I am absolutely certain that in my case there was no “justification” for the behavior of the offended folks. Frankly, I don’t think there’s ever an appropriate time to glare at strangers in that way - even if my children had been misbehaving at that time, which I assure you can happen, I still think it would be inappropriate. But they weren’t. And it’s not my job to bend over backwards to accommodate people who think it’s appropriate to glare at strangers. It’s my job to teach my children to be faithful, respectful people - which I am doing. )

Yes…that is, you may move to avoid the near occasion of sin–you may even be duty-bound to do so in spite of having to bite your tongue and accept the rash judgment that results–but not in order to register displeasure that someone else at church isn’t “up to snuff.”

What we never want to find ourselves doing, after all, is accommodating any thoughts that amount to “O God, I thank you that I am not like…that.” We have been warned that “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14) Conversely, we do not want the evil one to talk us out of developing the habit of virtue and guarding ourselves from the sins to which we are the most prone because the tempter has taught us to fear other people thinking we are some kind of “goody two shoes.”

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, that is where the only ‘scandal’ could result from the act of moving seats I think. Being like the Pharisees who like to make a show of their ‘virtue’ rather than being discreet and generous in their attitude towards fellow congregants.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I apologize for the diversion into the discussion of children’s behavior at Mass. The only reason I brought it up was to specifically address how others behave when faced with something they feel is a serious distraction. In my case, I felt judged and angry because my family was clearly regarded with disgust. I think it would be very hard on any person or family to face that, and frankly can’t see a charitable intent behind it. So if and when a person feels they have to move, please please please be careful about how you do so.

I would not actually engage in correction unless there is an established relationship with the “offender.” And even then I would tread super, super carefully.

(And yes, I am absolutely certain that in my case there was no “justification” for the behavior of the offended folks. Frankly, I don’t think there’s ever an appropriate time to glare at strangers in that way - even if my children had been misbehaving at that time, which I assure you can happen, I still think it would be inappropriate. But they weren’t. And it’s not my job to bend over backwards to accommodate people who think it’s appropriate to glare at strangers. It’s my job to teach my children to be faithful, respectful people - which I am doing. )

As parent of three children under 5 years old, I agree, and am more bothered by the behavior of adults who think Narthex is a Latin word meaning “stand here and catch up with friends” than I am about children are still learning about behavior at Mass.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Let’s get back to the topic of the thread. The OP was not distracted by clothing that she though was insufficiently formal for Mass. She wasn’t asking how to tell off the people in front of her. She was asking about how she might go about avoiding immodest dress without hurting someone’s feelings or causing someone to get upset because she moved:
“…short dresses and her undergarments are marked… the husband too wears very tight shirts and very tight khaki pants that accentuate his butt…”
In other words, she was not so concerned about getting her own needs met that she forgot that other people have needs, too. She remained charitable.

Unless the OP is unusually sensitive (which is possible), this is clothing that isn’t really appropriate anywhere. It is not the kind of clothing that is revealing in a way that is also necessary for a certain activity, such as swimwear. It is the kind of clothing chosen because it is revealing, purposefully meant to titillate, which is to say it is chosen so as to arouse either lust or envy in onlookers. The OP could avoid it rather easily out in the world, but it is hard to avoid noticing the people standing between you and the altar and less than three feet away.

***CCC 2521 ***Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

**CCC 2522 **Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

As for water shoes or flip flops, it is a stretch to forbid them “for health reasons.” What health reason would that be? What possible health hazard comes from the tops of our feet that doesn’t come from the palms of our hands, too?

Let’s face it: If these people were wearing a cloud of perfume that gave the OP a headache, we’d tell her to go ahead and move. We’d encourage her to find a church that has a section where people who are sensitive to perfume can sit. Well, unfortunately Catholic churches do not have sections for people who are trying to avoid being confronted with immodest clothing, even though we’d like to think that the entire church ought to be free of clothing purposefully chosen for the sexual thoughts it can arouse in others. I think if we did have sections like that, the Catholics who sat in them would suffer from judgment that people with a perfume sensitivity do not have to suffer. They would be accused of self-righteousness for wanting to avoid looking on people who choose their clothing for how sexy it is, even clothing to be worn to the Mass itself. Should we ask ourselves why that is, or should we just encourage this woman to sit wherever she is the most able to pray the Mass without distraction?

I gave the link to flip flops. Researchers have founds tens of thousands of different bacteria in one flip flop including bubonic plague. Every time I see someone wearing them at Mass, they inevitably take the off. I don’t want plague! And feet are the ugliest part of our anatomy. Sandals would be fine. Sneakers would be okay. Just keep shoes on.

To the people who are falling into lust just observing a stranger in church who is dressed, don’t you think you’re falling into lust too easily? I don’t know. I’m not a man, and I’m not lustful. My idea of a good time with someone is hiking all afternoon, when injured leg permitted it. Maybe I’m out of touch.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As parent of three children under 5 years old, I agree, and am more bothered by the behavior of adults who think Narthex is a Latin word meaning “stand here and catch up with friends” than I am about children are still learning about behavior at Mass.

I find both equally bothersome. Mass isn’t a social hall or a learning center. A little of both doesn’t bother me, though. It’s when they get excessive.

 

[Sugabee43]

I find both equally bothersome. Mass isn’t a social hall or a learning center. A little of both doesn’t bother me, though. It’s when they get excessive.

As a convert from High-Church Episcopal churches (pre-heresy!), it’s particularly disturbing to me the lack of reverence in dress and attitude within the Narthex before, during, and after Mass. I don’t understand why people have an utter need to chat with their acquaintances as they are entering/exiting- even while there are numerous faithful kneeling and praying obviously in the pews! I think a lot of times the problem is exacerbated by ushers who greet loudly or lead latecomers to pews after Mass has started. Why don’t we shut the doors, and the tardy can seat themselves as quietly as possible? Anyone arriving after the Gospel can be gently reminded before entering the Narthex that they can make a spiritual communion but not receive Holy Communion. Have signs requesting churchgoers maintain a reverent silence as they enter. It’s not that difficult, really. I understand the whole “Jesus wants us here, just as we are” thing, but He deserves our best, not our most comfortable.
And as a side note, gurgling babies and chatty toddlers do NOT bother me.

 

[acadiANNA]

Response: Longing Soul… Yes, open toed shoes do leave your feet vulnerable to many nail fungi and other infections. Wearing hosiery with these shoes provides limited protection. There’s still a risk. So says my foot doctor.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Response: Longing Soul… Yes, open toed shoes do leave your feet vulnerable to many nail fungi and other infections. Wearing hosiery with these shoes provides limited protection. There’s still a risk. So says my foot doctor.

There are risks with almost anything. Unless someone’s new has a severely compromised immaculate need system, I don’t see where open toe shoes with or without stockings would be an issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

Response: Longing Soul… Yes, open toed shoes do leave your feet vulnerable to many nail fungi and other infections. Wearing hosiery with these shoes provides limited protection. There’s still a risk. So says my foot doctor.

On the scale of communicable diseases though, it presents a very low risk. I live in the tropics and in summer the majority of congregants will wear open toes shoes or thongs on the steamy, sticky days. I’ve never ever heard of a Church banning them for hygiene purposes in the way we have forsaken handshaking at the sign of peace or forsaken the communial communion chalice or put sanitiser on the credence table during times when some communicable diseases are present.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Response: Longing Soul… Yes, open toed shoes do leave your feet vulnerable to many nail fungi and other infections. Wearing hosiery with these shoes provides limited protection. There’s still a risk. So says my foot doctor.

For some reason, many women don’t wear hosiery any more. Even celebrities get dressed up in a $20,000 dress, then put their feet into $8,000 shoes with no hose on. After one wearing, the shoes are filthy. I just don’t get it. I guess some fashion guru told them their legs look better without hose. Not true for most.