Should there be actions taken to improve or even control immodest dress at mass?

[Schluns]

[SIGN]NewUlm1976_2000 --I am just happy the teenagers are there. What is “immodest” is most often in the eye of the beholder.[/SIGN]

Ok, torn, ripped and dirty clothes are not immodest, and given that I am at an “inner city” parish, I can understand those that are poor.

But it is truly immodest for a young teenage girl, coming from a middle class family to wear frayed denim shorts with her bum hanging out. I don’t care who’s eye is beholding this it is still immodest, She might as well come to church in a t-shirt and underwear for what she was showing everyone. Yes this did happen in my parish; Yes, she did get pulled aside and spoken to; and No she has not done it again.

There is decorum that needs to be maintained in Church, it is not a sleepover, a party, a day at the beach/pool, you should dress better than going to school or work. It is not dress down day.

 

[Orogeny]

Matthew 22: 7But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. 8 Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. 10 And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. 12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. 13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Good. You can use that to exclude someone from Mass when you are in charge of deciding if they are dressed appropriately.

By the way, I don’t think that that story is actually about dress.

Peace

Tim

 

[estesbob]

Matthew 22: 7But when the king had heard of it, he was angry, and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. 8 Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. 10 And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. 12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. 13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

I agree that people should not wear imodest clothing to Mass. Where you and I seem to disagree is I’m not willing to ban those who do

 

[Island_Oak]

Coming from a baptist background I was shocked over the cloths that people wear to Mass.

Imagine: Here I am considering joining the One True Church in the very heart of Indiana and the ENTIRE congregation is dressed as to revere the Colts! A sea of blue! I almost turned around and walked out, except the priest opened with: (and I paraphrase)*** I hope you came here today to show the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost the same reverence that you are showing the Colts***!

Fabulous!!!

As for the dress code…it seems American culture has lost its way in terms of being able to discern “appropriate” and not just in church, but at graduations, professional (work) events, airplane trips, restaurants, etc. We needn’t dress as if we are planning to catch a ball game or do our laundry or take a nap at any moment. If you can cure the greater sensibilities, maybe some of it will show up in church–otherwise this is a germ that has infected every corner and occasion.

 

[estesbob]

But it is truly immodest for a young teenage girl, coming from a middle class family to wear frayed denim shorts with her bum hanging out. I don’t care who’s eye is beholding this it is still immodest, She might as well come to church in a t-shirt and underwear for what she was showing everyone. Yes this did happen in my parish; Yes, she did get pulled aside and spoken to; and No she has not done it again.

better than going to school or work. It is not dress down day.

If she did do it again should she be kicked out of Mass?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Then you can be in charge of who gets to attend Mass and who is denied. The responsibility is yours.

Peace

Tim

Ah, yes, why am I not surprised?

The person who is advocating truth and morality is mocked and insulted.

Right now, my friend, those who are cavalierly letting things slide with "It is not my place’, “I wouldn’t wear that but I wouldn’t dream of judging another” are deciding and taking the responsibility. . . and putting themselves and others into danger of hellfire.

Not over ‘little things’. Modesty is not a ‘little thing’. The whole point of modesty is respect, not only for ourselves, but for God.

The whole point of immodesty is that of lack of respect for others, elevation of the ‘self’, and disrespect for God.

I suppose it is just a little thing and I’m so bigoted and judgmental to even THINK that society (made up of people) is wrong, and that the Church (not ‘me’, dear, the Church) is right to insist on certain things, like not sinning, like right conduct, like proper disposal of people, like modesty and all the other virtues.

Sure, the Church recognizes that people sin. It doesn’t say, “Oh you poor dears, well, I’d better adjust things so that these aren’t sins any more, lest your self esteem be shot”. When the person sins and REPENTS, the Church says, "You are forgiven. GO AND SIN NO MORE.’

Not: Go, and keep on doing whatcha wanna do. We cool with that. We only care that you ‘show up’, not that you know your faith, live by it, show respect for yourselves, others, and God. Just show up–we’re a nation now of zombies who don’t dream of ‘judging’ anybody–least of all ourselves–because hey, we’re just fine the way things are. If God wants us to change, let Him GIVE US A SIGN. . .because we don’t accept authority from HIM, HIS CHURCH, or anybody who TELLS US. . .because WE KNOW BETTER.

So I’ll get mocked, derided, insulted, and people will tell me that they just KNOW that I’m crazy, it’s not MY PLACE, how dare I, yadda yadda.

I don’t mind. I’m not God (obviously), I’m not perfect (obviously), but I do know what God has taught. . .not just in AD 2008 but for all time. I know what is modest and what is not, not because “I” judge it but because the CHURCH judges it. . .and I follow the Church, not society.

And God bless you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Bob!

I never said ban. Ever. I gave a few suggestions as to ‘coverups’ for the offenders. . .and then, you see, it is their choice.

If you were going into a restaurant that mandated ties for gentlemen (yes, they exist) and provided ties for those gentlemen who didn’t have them for some reason, would you stand there and scream that they had darn well better seat you without that S@#(*) tie? I don’t think so. They have the right to insitute standards and expect them to be met. And if after you went in once without a tie, you came back, still without a tie, and still fussing and ultimately refusing to go in without a tie–is it the restaurant who refuses you, or you the restaurant?

There comes a point (and we are seeing it now) where the laissez-faire becomes a tyranny. Because we have not laid down the lines of proper dress now in so many social venues, we have people denying and defying modesty, and screaming when a place starts (or continues) to uphold those standards.

This iisn’t a matter of judging, condemning, or banning. This is a matter of an institution (the Church) being perfectly within its rights to insist on certain standards being met while in said Church, providing ‘options’ to those so that the standards may be met. . .and then the person either choosing to TAKE those options, or refusing.

If they refuse, THEY are not banned–they ban themselves. Do you agree?

 

[ElizabethPH]

I think it starts at home. obviously it’s not. During graduation they put up pictures of the 7th grade graduating class. We only go up to 7th grade then they go on to public school. They are how old? 12/13 yrs old? In the pictures the girls were in full make up with strapless dresses. They looked more like 16/17 yr olds. And you wonder why they go to Mass in short shorts and mid-drifts. For heaven sake their parents are condoning it. I remember noticing in a pew full of teen-agers all in shorts and flip-flops their mother in peddle pushers in a low-cut t–shirt.

I think a big dress code sign should be put up. And as used to be done at St. Peter’s, cloaks or shawls to cover immodest dress. And someone there to hand it to you if you don’t know the difference.
I have been so tempted to hand someone a shawl to cover cleavage or strapless shoulders. It is not that I have to look at it that bothers me. It’s the obvious lack of reverence and knowledge on their part of where they are at.

 

[estesbob]

Hi Bob!

I never said ban. Ever. I gave a few suggestions as to ‘coverups’ for the offenders. . .and then, you see, it is their choice.

If you were going into a restaurant that mandated ties for gentlemen (yes, they exist) and provided ties for those gentlemen who didn’t have them for some reason, would you stand there and scream that they had darn well better seat you without that S@#(*) tie? I don’t think so. They have the right to insitute standards and expect them to be met. And if after you went in once without a tie, you came back, still without a tie, and still fussing and ultimately refusing to go in without a tie–is it the restaurant who refuses you, or you the restaurant?

There comes a point (and we are seeing it now) where the laissez-faire becomes a tyranny. Because we have not laid down the lines of proper dress now in so many social venues, we have people denying and defying modesty, and screaming when a place starts (or continues) to uphold those standards.

This iisn’t a matter of judging, condemning, or banning. This is a matter of an institution (the Church) being perfectly within its rights to insist on certain standards being met while in said Church, providing ‘options’ to those so that the standards may be met. . .and then the person either choosing to TAKE those options, or refusing.

If they refuse, THEY are not banned–they ban themselves. Do you agree?

I would be very reluctant to ban someone from Mass. I guess there could be circumstances where a person’s attire is so egregious this was the only option available But the ban option should be exercised only in extreme circumstances

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, it should start at home and often it doesn’t. . .of course, often the parents do try but once the kids hit the tweens, the battles start. I have known kids who went off dressed appropriately, and in school or at a friend’s house changed into the ‘cool’ clothes, the makeup, etc., then back to the friends after school, off went the makeup, back went the 'regular clothes, and Mom and Dad never knew. Often the friend’s parents will actively help because, “Oh you poor dear. Your parents don’t realize how HARD it is for you to STICK OUT among your friends.” So not only are the friends helping, the kid is encouraged to distrust and to defy the parents. Then of course it is easier to justify the next thing that they’l defy or sneak around with. And then in order to feel ‘right’ they pretty much HAVE TO keep on wearing the ‘cool stuff’ because hey, everybody expects it. (Have you noticed how often ‘having a mind of my own’ equates to 'following what all the other kids/people say is cool and right?")

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would not ‘ban’ anybody. . .but if they refused to follow the Church’s instructions and refused to ‘coverup’ if given the appropriate clothing. . .then I still say that it is NOT 'The Church" (and certainly not I) who is banning them but they–who freely and knowingly–choose to absent themselves.

 

[Orogeny]

Ah, yes, why am I not surprised?

The person who is advocating truth and morality is mocked and insulted.

Mocked and insulted? You are kidding, right? If you don’t want to address my suggestions, don’t. Self pity doesn’t serve one very well.

Right now, my friend, those who are cavalierly letting things slide with "It is not my place’, “I wouldn’t wear that but I wouldn’t dream of judging another” are deciding and taking the responsibility. . . and putting themselves and others into danger of hellfire.

Then BAN them! You said that you don’t advocate that, but wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do if their souls are in danger?

So I’ll get mocked, derided, insulted, and people will tell me that they just KNOW that I’m crazy, it’s not MY PLACE, how dare I, yadda yadda.

There’s that self pity again.

I don’t mind. I’m not God (obviously), I’m not perfect (obviously), but I do know what God has taught. . .not just in AD 2008 but for all time. I know what is modest and what is not, not because “I” judge it but because the CHURCH judges it. . .and I follow the Church, not society.

Do you advocate dressing like those who lived during the time of Jesus? Is St. Paul’s wish for female attire what we should shoot for?

Peace

Tim

 

[estesbob]

Mocked and insulted? You are kidding, right? If you don’t want to address my suggestions, don’t. Self pity doesn’t serve one very well.Then BAN them! You said that you don’t advocate that, but wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do if their souls are in danger?There’s that self pity again. Do you advocate dressing like those who lived during the time of Jesus? Is St. Paul’s wish for female attire what we should shoot for?

Peace

Tim

I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence of your disagreement with Tantum Ergo. She makes some very good points. Accusing someone of self-pity and suggesting they need to stand outside church checking peoples dress does not lead to a very constructive conversation.

 

[Catholic90]

I’m suggesting that perhaps we could do without flip-flops, shorts and the like. :yup:

What do so many people find so darn offensive about flip-flops???

That is the ONLY kind of footwear I wear from the first snow melt to the first snow fall. I have about 10 different pairs of flip-flops - some for gardening, some for walking, some for church, etc.

I wore black flip flops with my black dress to a very elegant Friday night wedding a few weeks ago.

Guess what all the bridesmaids changed into at the reception? Pink flip flops! Guess what the bride was wearing for footwear? White flip flops with decoration!

What do so many people not like about flip flops? I just don’t get it…(and I am in my 40s).

 

[Lee_M]

Based on that, should we ban jewelry, braided hair and expensive clothes, at least for women?

Peace

Tim

I didn’t write that. St. Paul did. You said earlier that Jesus didn’t care what people wore, but I showed that his apostles, who represents Christ did care. Based on that, I think people should dress modestly when going to church. As far as jewelry is concerned, some jewelry would be considered modest by today’s standards. However belly button rings, tongue piercings, etc. are not. Perhaps people should use common sense when dressing for church, which as I’ve seen several people lack this gift.

What’s next? If two teenagers are making out in the back of the church, should we just ignore them and not look that way? There are guidelines of decency and wearing revealing clothes is not appropriate for church.

 

[Orogeny]

I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence of your disagreement with Tantum Ergo. She makes some very good points. Accusing someone of self-pity and suggesting they need to stand outside church checking peoples dress does not lead to a very constructive conversation.

I wasn’t vehement until she claimed that I was mocking and insulting her. Well, I wasn’t mocking or insulting her. I was replying to what she wrote. Writing what she did was not a particularly good way to continue a constructive conversation either.

Regarding suggesting that someone stand outside to check people’s dress prior to entering the church, isn’t that what a dress code in effect is? Someone has to do it. I’m sure she would be much more comfortable having the pastor do it, but that is, in my opinion, a cop out. If you are not willing to do it yourself, why require others to do so?

I don’t like the way a lot of people dress for Mass. I dress nicely if at all possible. However, I don’t want to be the one to tell someone that they cannot attend Mass because of the way they dress.

Peace

Tim

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil and assume good will. Thank you all.

 

[Schluns]

[SIGN]estesbob
If she did do it again should she be kicked out of Mass?[/SIGN]

No, But you can guarantee that Monsignor will be speaking with her and her parents regarding appropriate dress. This is a man who is a loving, spiritual man. Not someone you want all frowny at you.

I don’t think that any of this is a question of *banning *a person rather than trying to redirect them to a more appropriate dress. Conversely, these persons who dress immodestly may not realize that they are, as it is accepted secular clothing. That and we are all about convenience, so now there really is no reason to take a change of clothes with you to church if you plan on going to the beach afterward, right? Then it is ok to wear a bathing suit, cover up and flip flops to give reverence to the Lord.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I’m hoping that we are just having a miscommunication here, Orogeny.

I’m probably older than you. Sometimes I think I’m older than dirt. I’m almost 52. My dad was 56 when I was born and my grandparents were close to 70 so I got a lot of kind of hands-on ideas of ‘traditions’. . .everything from proper dress to virtues, etc. Not only that, I learned a lot not only from them but from studying history, and ‘observing’ my own.

I and my family (I’ve raised 3 now, all in their 20s) have seen a lot of changes in society–many positive, of course, and many not so. Of course, my ‘anecdotal’ tidbits are just that–anecdotes and personal experience and personal ideas. But other things --like what the Church has consistently taught in those ‘small-t’ things like the ideal of a Catholic man, or woman, or child–the ‘standards’ of Catholic dress, behavior, action, thought–these my family, and I, have learned and studied from quite a long time period and through various ‘eras’.

So when I say that there is such a thing as ‘immodesty’ and ‘modesty’, it is like saying that there is such a thing as vice and virtue. There are of course ‘degrees’ in both–but they are not ‘relative’, they are not ‘changeable’, they are not ‘okay for one and not another’.

Do you understand and agree with me thus far? Do you have a sense (without exploring the ‘modesty’ right now) of what I am trying to say. . which is, The Church has consistently taught ‘standards’ of behavior (to include dress), definitions of virtues and vices. . .and that these things while there may some tiny ‘adaptations’ to particular cultures are not otherwise changeable? That there is a definition of a virtue which is ‘changeless’ and that if, for example, we speak of temperance (which is not just in drink) we don’t suddenly turn around and say that gluttony is ‘all right’ and can actually be temperate for ONE man? Or we don’t suddenly decide that it is temperance which is the vice and gluttony the virtue? (For example, we should all live within our means, right? But there are times when we are told that we should spend ‘beyond our means’ to help support the economy which, being supported, will enable us to be paid more so that we can pay what we spent beyond our means and then some. It’s an attempt to make the ‘gluttony’ appear the real virtue, and temperance a ‘vice’ which keeps our economy mired down!)

 

[Orogeny]

I didn’t write that. St. Paul did. You said earlier that Jesus didn’t care what people wore, but I showed that his apostles, who represents Christ did care.

Actually, what I said was that I couldn’t remember anytime in the Gosples that Jesus required someone to dress a certain way to receive him.

Based on that, I think people should dress modestly when going to church.

I agree with that. I just don’t agree that we should keep anyone out of Mass if we don’t like what they are wearing.

As far as jewelry is concerned, some jewelry would be considered modest by today’s standards. However belly button rings, tongue piercings, etc. are not.

I would be willing to bet that in quite a few areas they would be. If we are using society as a standard, a lot of things that you and I feel are inappropriate would be acceptable. But St. Paul also listed expensive clothes for women. Should those be excluded from Mass?

I really, really don’t like belly button rings or tongue, ear, or eye piercings. But does having those things disqualify someone from attending Mass?

Perhaps people should use common sense when dressing for church, which as I’ve seen several people lack this gift.

I agree with you there!

Peace

Tim