Our parish priest refused Communion to women churchgoers who wore pants

[Timothysis]

I don’t see how this has anything to do with what I posted.
I never gave my opinion of Canon 915 applying to anything.

Well, let’s look at what exactly you posted:

“He does in fact, by Canon Law, have a duty to deny Holy Communion to those who live obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin.”

Your insinuation is that since this woman is wearing pants, the priest is correct to refuse her communion since she is "obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin." Unless you can show us some authoritative teaching that wearing pants is, indeed, a “grave sin,” and the continued usage of pants is “obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin,” then I will say your remarks are nothing more than personal opinion, with no support from any Church document or teaching. In order to support your remarks you quote Canon 915:

“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Since there is no mention of women wearing pants in Canon 915, nor in any other authoritative Church document, it would appear that your attempt to use Canon 915 to support your position falls short.

Next, you say:

“It has been taught by the Church in both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition that people are not to dress immodestly. If women in pants are by definition gravely immodest, then the priest is duty bound by Canon Law to refuse them admission to Holy Communion.”

Ah, but who said that “women in pants are by definition gravely immodest?” Was it “the Church in both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition?” If so, then please show us.

You then say:

“If we judge this priest bad…we must be certain that we judge him justly (based on objective morality and not subjective preference).”

And yet, your whole presupposition is not based on "objective morality," but on "subjective preference."

There is a very simple way to clear all of this up; show us where the Church has taught or defined that women wearing pants is “by definition gravely immodest.”

 

[pnewton]

I would like to point out that the OP is posting from the Philippines There may be a cultural significance to wearing of pants that I do not understand. Here in America, such an action would be dereliction of duty for a priest who is duty bound to make the Sacraments available to the faithful, not just the ones who he thinks is dressed nicely. But elsewhere I sure can not judge him. It is equally absurd though to predict his canonization or his courage based on such thin information. Obvious Shin has a major bias on this issue that overrides common sense.

Yes, he mat be courageous, but he could also just be an arrogant jerk.

 

[Wilhelm_Stoever]

+1 in support of this Holy Priest.

He is ALTER CHRISTUS, his vocation is superior to ours, he makes this call.

LIVE WITH IT!

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Well, let’s look at what exactly you posted:

“He does in fact, by Canon Law, have a duty to deny Holy Communion to those who live obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin.”

Your insinuation is that since this woman is wearing pants, the priest is correct to refuse her communion since she is "obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin." Unless you can show us some authoritative teaching that wearing pants is, indeed, a “grave sin,” and the continued usage of pants is “obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin,” then I will say your remarks are nothing more than personal opinion, with no support from any Church document or teaching. In order to support your remarks you quote Canon 915:

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Pax.

 

[benedictgal]

I would like to point out that the OP is posting from the Philippines There may be a cultural significance to wearing of pants that I do not understand. Here in America, such an action would be dereliction of duty for a priest who is duty bound to make the Sacraments available to the faithful, not just the ones who he thinks is dressed nicely. But elsewhere I sure can not judge him. It is equally absurd though to predict his canonization or his courage based on such thin information. Obvious Shin has a major bias on this issue that overrides common sense.

Yes, he mat be courageous, but he could also just be an arrogant jerk.

You make an interesting point. Something else to consider is that there have been bishops around the world who have chosen not to use the indult for the reception of communion in the hand. We need to remember that communion in the hand is a valid option, but, one that comes by way of an indult. An indult simply means that a bishop can choose to employ this option in his particulat territory, or, he can choose to not use it and, instead, mandate the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue.

 

[Sir_Knight]

+1 in support of this Holy Priest.

He is ALTER CHRISTUS, his vocation is superior to ours, he makes this call.

LIVE WITH IT!

Those who judge by a higher standard, will they, themselves, be judged by a higher standard.

… and …

If his actions cause some to leave the flock …

What was St Chrysostom quoted as saying?

 

[pnewton]

+1 in support of this Holy Priest.

He is ALTER CHRISTUS, his vocation is superior to ours, he makes this call.

LIVE WITH IT!

Just out of curiousity, if you priest allowed shorts and had a Halloween Mass with costumes, would you feel the same way?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

I think that you’re stretching it a bit. A man in a dress would be cross-dressing but a woman in pants has been socially acceptable for a long time.

 

[mick321]

This has been part of the tradition of the parish since the parish priests he succeeded also imposed this prohibition.

Was it correct to refuse communion to women churchgoers who wore pants?

To gratuitously embarrass a Catholic in public is bad form for any priest and could easily backfire. Someone could get upset. Things could get out of hand. Then in self defense…

What are we not being told here? If the dress code and kneeling COTT are established policies in this parish, how are those policies communicated to the faithful? Are these women first time visitors or regular parishioners?

For as long as I can remember, Catholic pastors have established standards of appearance and conduct for those who wish to participate in any number of parish-affiliated activities, including the Sacraments.

Traditional parishes - particularly those offering the EF - will often have a dress code posted conspicuously at all church entrances, in parish bulletins and on their websites. In these parishes, it is the responsibility of the ushers to politely ensure that visitors are aware of the policy before they are seated. Once seated though - regardless of how they are dressed - they are entitled to 100% participation.
.

 

[w_stewart]

The priest had been constantly reminding the women churchgoers not to wear pants attending the Mass. They were also ordered to inform visitors about the ordinance.

But my question really is:

Does the Church allow the refusal of communion to women who wore pants?

 

[Sir_Knight]

The priest had been constantly reminding the women churchgoers not to wear pants attending the Mass. They were also ordered to inform visitors about the ordinance.

The question is – does this “ordinance” have his bishop’s approval?

 

[marchoi]

As the Orthodox fellow earlier said, it is in fact quite within Catholic teaching to refuse Communion to those who do not show a proper disposition to do so, which the priest is the judge of.

So, implementing a dress code for a parish is quite normal, and enforcing it in this way. And as you might also have noticed the code has been in that parish for quite some time and not overturned.

However, as previously noted, whether a woman wears pants or a dress/skirt in no way indicates proper disposition. A woman who is in a state of grace wearing pants would be judged to be improperly disposed, while a woman in state of mortal sin wearing a dress would be judged to be properly disposed - when in reality, the opposite is true. This shows that the priest cannot judge one’s proper disposition to receive Communion based on dress alone.

A priest - any priest - is obligated to make the sacraments available to the people within reasonable limits, considering it is the sacraments which provide grace needed for salvation. On the flip side, a priest is also obligated to deny the sacraments for the salvation of souls - hence the usage of excommunications and interdicts - once again, within limits. In my opinion, a priest can encourage reception of Communion kneeling and on the tongue as a practice of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. I suppose a priest could also encourage the congregation to dress a certain way. But to deny a Sacrament to the lay faithful - indeed, the very practical purpose a priest is ordained - is a serious matter. Unless women wearing pants is the Filipino equivalent of walking into Mass in a bikini, I cannot think of a reason to praise this priest’s actions. Thank God for his priesthood, yes, but thank God for this specific practice, no.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I think that you’re stretching it a bit.

I’ll admit it.

A man in a dress would be cross-dressing but a woman in pants has been socially acceptable for a long time.

Socially acceptable to whom? Not everyone.

Pax.

 

[marchoi]

The priest had been constantly reminding the women churchgoers not to wear pants attending the Mass. They were also ordered to inform visitors about the ordinance.

But my question really is:

Does the Church allow the refusal of communion to women who wore pants?

The answer to your question is: does it say anywhere in the Code of Canon Law or the General Instructions of the Roman Missal to deny the sacraments to women who wear pants? Can anything even be interpreted to mean such a thing? If yes, then yes; if not, then no. I think the latter.

 

[marchoi]

He does in fact, by Canon Law, have a duty to deny Holy Communion to those who live obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin.

**Can. 915 **Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It has been taught by the Church in both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition that people are not to dress immodestly. If women in pants are by definition gravely immodest, then the priest is duty bound by Canon Law to refuse them admission to Holy Communion.

– Nicole

If by “gravely immodest” you mean “immodest to the point of becoming grave sin”, then I agree with what you’ve written above. However, I cannot see how the “if” part of your statement holds, i.e. how “women in pants are by definition gravely immodest”… OK, perhaps if they walked in with only spandex leggings that left nothing to the imagination - but that wouldn’t be considered pants… In some ways, women in pants can be less immodest than women in dresses or skirts - especially tight dresses, short skirts, etc. While I understand your reasoning, I can’t accept the premise and therefore must reject the conclusion.

 

[Secret_Square]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Pax.

If women wearing any kind of pants or slacks is “crossdressing,” then men wearing anything resembling a dress or skirt would likewise be “crossdressing”… so where does that put the priest himself if he’s wearing a tunic or alb or one of those long dress-like garbs ?

I have to agree with an earlier poster that in some ways, pants which fit properly (not too tight or sheer) and cover everything below the waist (not “low riders”) are MORE modest than dresses or skirts since there’s no danger of them being blown upward, or of accidentally exposing yourself if you fall down or bend over too far, etc. Long, billowy skirts that fall below the knee can also present a falling or tripping hazard when kneeling, genuflecting, or going up staircases, which pants do not.

Women wearing pants that are designed to be worn by women have nothing to do with genuine crossdressing or transvestism – that refers to men attempting to LOOK like or pass themselves off as women, or women attempting to disguise themselves as or look like men, to decieve others or for sexual reasons. That, I assume, is the practice which Leviticus condemns.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

If women wearing any kind of pants or slacks is “crossdressing,” then men wearing anything resembling a dress or skirt would likewise be “crossdressing”… so where does that put the priest himself if he’s wearing a tunic or alb or one of those long dress-like garbs ?

I have to agree with an earlier poster that in some ways, pants which fit properly (not too tight or sheer) and cover everything below the waist (not “low riders”) are MORE modest than dresses or skirts since there’s no danger of them being blown upward, or of accidentally exposing yourself if you fall down or bend over too far, etc. Long, billowy skirts that fall below the knee can also present a falling or tripping hazard when kneeling, genuflecting, or going up staircases, which pants do not.

Women wearing pants that are designed to be worn by women have nothing to do with genuine crossdressing or transvestism – that refers to men attempting to LOOK like or pass themselves off as women, or women attempting to disguise themselves as or look like men, to decieve others or for sexual reasons. That, I assume, is the practice which Leviticus condemns.

As I admitted in my previous post, I was providing for the priest to believe women wearing pants to be crossdressing. I don’t want to start that argument all over again. And I believe that that particular interpretation is valid, given society.

Pax.

 

[marchoi]

Well, what about the Leviticus prohibition against crossdressing? That is surely enough grave matter. So then, if crossdressing is grave matter and women wearing pants is crossdressing, then women wearing pants is grave manner and certainly manifest enough to recieve this response from the priest.

Pax.

I wouldn’t really use this example… After all, Leviticus did also prohibit eating pork and shellfish etc. etc. And mandated circumcision. And instituted specific laws regarding offerings, Day of Atonement, the Passover, and numerous other feasts… In other words, applying the laws of the Old Covenant to the present era of the New Covenant doesn’t always match up.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I wouldn’t really use this example… After all, Leviticus did also prohibit eating pork and shellfish etc. etc. And mandated circumcision. And instituted specific laws regarding offerings, Day of Atonement, the Passover, and numerous other feasts… In other words, applying the laws of the Old Covenant to the present era of the New Covenant doesn’t always match up.

But we do still consider crossdressing a sin, right? And aren’t we commanded to keep the old law unless told otherwise?

Pax.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Didn’t Jesus admonish the Pharisees for judging people on how they appeared on the outside, rather on the inside, and didn’t He also correct them for correcting HIM about not washing His hands before a meal? That the things of the outside are not what make a person unclean (sin) but rather on the inside? So, if a person is pious and zealous for the faith, she is turned away for wearing pants? Is that the message that that parish wants to project about Catholicism? That we only care what you look like, but not the content of your heart?

I think this is very sad…I don’t care where this parish is located, it’s not about a particular culture, it’s about following Church doctrine, and there is no doctrine that dictates that a priest should turn away a female because she is wearing pants. Again, what might people take away from that, about our faith? That we judge someone on how they look, only, and that priests determine who is “worthy” of the Eucharist based on their attire??? This is just wrong. *