P
Popes_Soldier
Guest
Yes, but skimpy clothes on girls is on a whole other level that “body odor”: The wrong kind of sexuality and sexual message comes into play. Body odor is just smelly.
Should there be actions taken to improve or even control immodest dress at mass?
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
I hope i dont get thrown off for this but my Dad just came to my mind. One day we were going to church and my sister wasn’t exactly dressed for church if you know what i mean.
So Dad said where do you think you are going? She said Church, He said WHAT. You get you *** back in that house and get it covered. Show some respect.
Well let me tell you this, When she walks in church she is covered.
Now 20 years later, her daughter was going to church, Guess what, you got it history repeating itself. Her kids have also learned respect too.
But be direct, be kind, be whatever you need to be, but it comes from us guys. Its our duty to teach them.
And to the guy who cant seem to keep his eyes where they should be in church, were gonna put you by the stinky girls. Nothing like the nasty smell to get your mind off the nasty. Sorry just kidding.
So Dad said where do you think you are going? She said Church, He said WHAT. You get you *** back in that house and get it covered. Show some respect.
Well let me tell you this, When she walks in church she is covered.
Now 20 years later, her daughter was going to church, Guess what, you got it history repeating itself. Her kids have also learned respect too.
But be direct, be kind, be whatever you need to be, but it comes from us guys. Its our duty to teach them.
And to the guy who cant seem to keep his eyes where they should be in church, were gonna put you by the stinky girls. Nothing like the nasty smell to get your mind off the nasty. Sorry just kidding.
J
JRKH
Guest
My Dad would not have said that - exactly, but you can be He would have made the same point!!
It does come from the parents to the kids.
Peace
James
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Evening all. . .
Hope I make sense–somebody managed to give me a summer cold which is really starting to do a number on me physically (let’s hope not too much mentally) so if I start making less sense than usual, chalk it up to this --and p.m. me and let me know so that I can shut up and go to bed, LOL)
Keeping firmly to the topic (I hope). . .yes, I do think there should be actions taken to improve/control immodest dress at Mass.
And in doing so, we need to remember that in doing this, we are necessarily going to also be doing the same things for ‘outside of’ Mass.
Mass doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and we didn’t go overnight (literally) from centuries of respectful modest wear (men and women) into the extreme examples that virtually all of us have seen at least once.
What we did was start ‘losing’ the idea of there being any such thing as ‘appropriate’ wear.
With due respect to my friend FreckleFace, jeans have been around a long time (19th century). It wasn’t the ‘cheap’ factor although there were times and places where jeans were ‘marketed’ as being such things. Don’t forget, at nearly 52 (yeah, you can all wish me Happy Birthday on St. Bartholomew’s day) I was around and I know exactly what ‘jeans’ cost as opposed to the "little house’ look, and especially compared to the ‘modestly priced’ bastions of Sears, Montgomery Wards, JC Penney, etc. Not every place had an Army-Navy (and in shopping at the Army Navy in the 1990s for my son, the prices there for jeans were at least as high as the prices for Dockers at the Penney’s sales . . .which most of us know are pretty much weekly by now, LOL).
After all, it wasn’t just us ‘kids’ buying them. It was the young adults and even the then over 40 crowd (in 1970 for example this would be people of my mother’s vintage, she being born in 1929. Yes, by 1977 even my mother had a pair of ‘jeans’ that she would wear into town to do the grocery shopping. The polyester pantsuit --be kind, we knew no better and there wasn’t much else available!!–was for Church! And even my Aunt, born in 1918, working in a college, was wearing casual pants and flannel shirts most of the year for work (this was Vermont–9 months of snow and 3 months of poor sledding).
The ‘casual’ style was marketed, then and now, as part of the ‘youth is supreme’ stage. Wearing jeans was not the image of being ‘cheap and invisible’. . .it was the image of youth, hipsterdom, and ‘we are family’. If some people DID feel ‘invisible’ in them, it was more their perception of the ‘we are equal --I am not dressed ‘better than you’, therefore I do not stand out’.
So FF, you’re actually proving my point --part of the marketing strategy was to make jeans seem ‘natural’ to those who were ‘back to nature’’ ; ‘youthful’ to those seeking desperately to hold onto youth; ‘unpretentious’ to those who were either fearful of looking ‘snobby’ or downright determined NEVER to have to put themselves through the ‘discomfort’ of ‘dressing up’ for another person. Whatever your persona was, there was a marketer out to make jeans seem like they were designed especially for YOU. And the prices began to reflect it, as most of us remember in the 1980s where the designers for jeans skyrocketed in number and in price!
Now onto another page to continue this. You are hereby warned, LOL.
Hope I make sense–somebody managed to give me a summer cold which is really starting to do a number on me physically (let’s hope not too much mentally) so if I start making less sense than usual, chalk it up to this --and p.m. me and let me know so that I can shut up and go to bed, LOL)
Keeping firmly to the topic (I hope). . .yes, I do think there should be actions taken to improve/control immodest dress at Mass.
And in doing so, we need to remember that in doing this, we are necessarily going to also be doing the same things for ‘outside of’ Mass.
Mass doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and we didn’t go overnight (literally) from centuries of respectful modest wear (men and women) into the extreme examples that virtually all of us have seen at least once.
What we did was start ‘losing’ the idea of there being any such thing as ‘appropriate’ wear.
With due respect to my friend FreckleFace, jeans have been around a long time (19th century). It wasn’t the ‘cheap’ factor although there were times and places where jeans were ‘marketed’ as being such things. Don’t forget, at nearly 52 (yeah, you can all wish me Happy Birthday on St. Bartholomew’s day) I was around and I know exactly what ‘jeans’ cost as opposed to the "little house’ look, and especially compared to the ‘modestly priced’ bastions of Sears, Montgomery Wards, JC Penney, etc. Not every place had an Army-Navy (and in shopping at the Army Navy in the 1990s for my son, the prices there for jeans were at least as high as the prices for Dockers at the Penney’s sales . . .which most of us know are pretty much weekly by now, LOL).
After all, it wasn’t just us ‘kids’ buying them. It was the young adults and even the then over 40 crowd (in 1970 for example this would be people of my mother’s vintage, she being born in 1929. Yes, by 1977 even my mother had a pair of ‘jeans’ that she would wear into town to do the grocery shopping. The polyester pantsuit --be kind, we knew no better and there wasn’t much else available!!–was for Church! And even my Aunt, born in 1918, working in a college, was wearing casual pants and flannel shirts most of the year for work (this was Vermont–9 months of snow and 3 months of poor sledding).
The ‘casual’ style was marketed, then and now, as part of the ‘youth is supreme’ stage. Wearing jeans was not the image of being ‘cheap and invisible’. . .it was the image of youth, hipsterdom, and ‘we are family’. If some people DID feel ‘invisible’ in them, it was more their perception of the ‘we are equal --I am not dressed ‘better than you’, therefore I do not stand out’.
So FF, you’re actually proving my point --part of the marketing strategy was to make jeans seem ‘natural’ to those who were ‘back to nature’’ ; ‘youthful’ to those seeking desperately to hold onto youth; ‘unpretentious’ to those who were either fearful of looking ‘snobby’ or downright determined NEVER to have to put themselves through the ‘discomfort’ of ‘dressing up’ for another person. Whatever your persona was, there was a marketer out to make jeans seem like they were designed especially for YOU. And the prices began to reflect it, as most of us remember in the 1980s where the designers for jeans skyrocketed in number and in price!
Now onto another page to continue this. You are hereby warned, LOL.
P
Popes_Soldier
Guest
Oh, I’m not so sure. For hundreds, even over a thousand, years, women were pretty modest. Its only since the 60’s that things have gone over board. In the great scheme of things, thats pretty much overnight
K
KenEOTE
Guest
Actually the Egyptians and Romans had some pretty skimpy attire. We just brought it back with a vengeance.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Back again.
So what we have is a societal watershed . . .part of which surfaced in things like the Civil Rights movements, the Equal Rights movements, the hippies, the ‘activist’ movements, and above all, the “YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH” movement and the concurrent, 'we are all one, we need to be more simple, we need to be more ‘in tune’ with nature, we need to be more equal" which led to the preponderance of the jeans-and-T, not just in the young, but in older people. Along with that (and you will find, if you look, a lot of articles from sociologists which support my position) a huge ‘change’ in the fashion world. Vogue, for example, used to be about designers for the more ‘upper class’ and those of us in the lower and mid would watch the ‘trends’ to see if hems went up or down, hats were large or small, shaped or free form. . .etc. etc. Then with Twiggy and the ‘mod’ crowd, there was a step away from Fashion as ‘appropriate’ dress for ladies and gentlemen into ‘FADS and TRENDS’. Designers were out to ‘shock’, they were out to appeal to youth --who were, even among the poor, developing deeper pocketbooks when it came to ‘disposable’ income as wages in the 70s were increasing, and savings was going DOWN among all ages and classes. Plastic (credit) cards were booming. The ‘older’ ones wanted to look as ‘good’ as the younger ones (because everybody knew that being sexy meant looking as young as possible for as long as possible–instead of aging gracefully as most French or Italian women still do).
And along with the style catering to youth came the concept of rebellion (a typical ‘development stage’ of youth). Rebellion, equality (the cry of the 60s), ‘nature’, and ‘shock’. Now, even the ‘upper class’ and the ‘business attire’ began to reflect the trends. Even the brief period of the ‘female business suit’ of the 1980s was more geared to make the ‘unisex’ look even more popular (once we got over being 25, most of us women would have wanted to look like women, and in order to keep us looking–and acting, since we would be 'dressed that way–more like men, first came the 'we’re women, we wear suits but look HOW we wear them–we’re ‘softer’, we show SKIN, we can look sexy in anything". . .and then, the “Suits? We don’t need suits! We are women, we are powerful, we can wear ANYTHING and still get the job done. How dare you try to ‘label’ and box women into some 'suit.?” And then the men, of course, ‘rebelled’ against suits. If women could wear what ‘they’ wanted, then by God, so could men.)
“Casual Friday” became first a ‘gift’, then a requirement, and now almost a necessity in that few people under age 65 have memories of ‘appropriate wear’ that are not ANGRY or CONTEMPTUOUS.
Look at the posts from people who say “If somebody wanted me to wear a suit, I’d refuse. It’s not me.” “I don’t see why I should HAVE TO dress up.” “When I was a child and my mother made me ‘dress up’ I hated it, and HER, and I will never put myself through that again.”
Emotions run high, and the emotions are all about “me” and my feelings. The social engineerings of 40 years seem more important than centuries of contrary teachings that dignity of the human person doesn’t consist of making everybody into the ‘least’ or the ‘lowest common denominator’ so that nobody stands out. . .but instead in making the ‘best’ of each individual. In that case, while everybody is ‘different’ (and yes, would ‘stand out’, and there is nothing wrong with that), the dignity of the man who truly is poor and wearing jeans as HIS BEST is just as much as the man who is wealthier and is wearing suit and tie as HIS BEST.
I think we have been conditioned to think that unless everybody ‘has the same thing’ as everybody else, that somehow some people are ‘unfairly’ elevated and some ‘unfairly’ humbled. . .so let’s go down to the lowest possible ‘look’ so that nobody is trying to be doing his or her ‘best’ for God, but instead trying not to OFFEND some hypothetical person who might be upset at not looking as ‘good’ as somebody else.
To me, this kind of thinking is backward. While we should certainly not be trying deliberately to hurt other people we should also not ARTIFICIALLY CREATE A SITUATION in which ‘dressing down lest we offend a HYPOTHETICAL’ is more important than ‘dressing up’ (as much as we personally CAN) for God.
In fact, the latter idea is so important that it is found right in the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis.
I’ll talk about that on the next page.
So what we have is a societal watershed . . .part of which surfaced in things like the Civil Rights movements, the Equal Rights movements, the hippies, the ‘activist’ movements, and above all, the “YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH” movement and the concurrent, 'we are all one, we need to be more simple, we need to be more ‘in tune’ with nature, we need to be more equal" which led to the preponderance of the jeans-and-T, not just in the young, but in older people. Along with that (and you will find, if you look, a lot of articles from sociologists which support my position) a huge ‘change’ in the fashion world. Vogue, for example, used to be about designers for the more ‘upper class’ and those of us in the lower and mid would watch the ‘trends’ to see if hems went up or down, hats were large or small, shaped or free form. . .etc. etc. Then with Twiggy and the ‘mod’ crowd, there was a step away from Fashion as ‘appropriate’ dress for ladies and gentlemen into ‘FADS and TRENDS’. Designers were out to ‘shock’, they were out to appeal to youth --who were, even among the poor, developing deeper pocketbooks when it came to ‘disposable’ income as wages in the 70s were increasing, and savings was going DOWN among all ages and classes. Plastic (credit) cards were booming. The ‘older’ ones wanted to look as ‘good’ as the younger ones (because everybody knew that being sexy meant looking as young as possible for as long as possible–instead of aging gracefully as most French or Italian women still do).
And along with the style catering to youth came the concept of rebellion (a typical ‘development stage’ of youth). Rebellion, equality (the cry of the 60s), ‘nature’, and ‘shock’. Now, even the ‘upper class’ and the ‘business attire’ began to reflect the trends. Even the brief period of the ‘female business suit’ of the 1980s was more geared to make the ‘unisex’ look even more popular (once we got over being 25, most of us women would have wanted to look like women, and in order to keep us looking–and acting, since we would be 'dressed that way–more like men, first came the 'we’re women, we wear suits but look HOW we wear them–we’re ‘softer’, we show SKIN, we can look sexy in anything". . .and then, the “Suits? We don’t need suits! We are women, we are powerful, we can wear ANYTHING and still get the job done. How dare you try to ‘label’ and box women into some 'suit.?” And then the men, of course, ‘rebelled’ against suits. If women could wear what ‘they’ wanted, then by God, so could men.)
“Casual Friday” became first a ‘gift’, then a requirement, and now almost a necessity in that few people under age 65 have memories of ‘appropriate wear’ that are not ANGRY or CONTEMPTUOUS.
Look at the posts from people who say “If somebody wanted me to wear a suit, I’d refuse. It’s not me.” “I don’t see why I should HAVE TO dress up.” “When I was a child and my mother made me ‘dress up’ I hated it, and HER, and I will never put myself through that again.”
Emotions run high, and the emotions are all about “me” and my feelings. The social engineerings of 40 years seem more important than centuries of contrary teachings that dignity of the human person doesn’t consist of making everybody into the ‘least’ or the ‘lowest common denominator’ so that nobody stands out. . .but instead in making the ‘best’ of each individual. In that case, while everybody is ‘different’ (and yes, would ‘stand out’, and there is nothing wrong with that), the dignity of the man who truly is poor and wearing jeans as HIS BEST is just as much as the man who is wealthier and is wearing suit and tie as HIS BEST.
I think we have been conditioned to think that unless everybody ‘has the same thing’ as everybody else, that somehow some people are ‘unfairly’ elevated and some ‘unfairly’ humbled. . .so let’s go down to the lowest possible ‘look’ so that nobody is trying to be doing his or her ‘best’ for God, but instead trying not to OFFEND some hypothetical person who might be upset at not looking as ‘good’ as somebody else.
To me, this kind of thinking is backward. While we should certainly not be trying deliberately to hurt other people we should also not ARTIFICIALLY CREATE A SITUATION in which ‘dressing down lest we offend a HYPOTHETICAL’ is more important than ‘dressing up’ (as much as we personally CAN) for God.
In fact, the latter idea is so important that it is found right in the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis.
I’ll talk about that on the next page.
E
ellammcg
Guest
Sounds just like my Dad!
P
Popes_Soldier
Guest
I meant in Christian societies
K
KenEOTE
Guest
Fine well with the Christian ones. Although one might argue the Rome thing.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Hopefully winding up here:
In Genesis, remember Cain and Abel? Both of them offered ‘first fruits’ to the Lord. Abel offered ‘The Best". Cain offered "hey, it’s good stuff’. Probably Cain thought his offerings were pretty decent. It doesn’t say that Cain didn’t offer anything, or that he offered rotten tomatoes or anything like that.
Now here is a prime place for God to say, “Abel, Abel, Abel. Just look at this. Did I ask for THE BEST? (Well, I did but. . .) Anyway, you put more effort into this than your brother. Now he’s mad at both of us. Oh Abel, why didn’t you offer ‘good enough’ but NOT ‘the best’, like your brother? Oh Abel, you’ve hurt Cain’s self esteem. How wrong of you. Don’t you know how sad you’ve made me at having to notice that your gift is BETTER than Cain’s?”
But. . He doesn’t.
God doesn’t want a false ‘equality’. He doesn’t want us to give less than our best.
Also, God doesn’t want us to give a ‘false’ best. A ‘false’ best is like Cain. “Gee, God, I’m giving you my best. . .It’s just that hey, I need these tomatoes that are perfect because Mrs. Cain is making pizza. . .So here. . .these other tomatoes are almost as good.”
If we are ‘holding back’ for ourselves, and claiming we’re ‘doing what God wants well enough’, it’s a false best.
Are we saying we won’t dress modestly AND WELL for our own reasons?
It is one thing to say, “God, you know that I love you. I’m poor but I am clean and covered as best I can be.” That is fine.
It’s another to say, “God, you know that I love you. Yes, I could go and get something that is less ‘revealing’ than this halter top. . .but it’s HOT in church, and everybody is wearing these. Isn’t it GOOD ENOUGH that I come to church?” THAT is a false best.
And even more, when we say, “God, you know that I love you. Yes, I know these jeans are modest. I also know that I could wear something ‘dressier’ and more suitable to the respect you deserve along WITH the love. But. . .God. . .I don’t ‘look’ as good in those other things. You don’t want to look ugly, dowdy, frumpy, or 'stuffy, or pretentious, do you God? Don’t you want me to be comfortable? Isn’t wearing what I want good enough?” Again, a false best. Putting our own comfort or style or desires as the most important things to consider when dressing for God is a false ‘best’ offered to God.
Now to sum. . .the thing is, as we see, this is far more than just a ‘dressing for Church’ thing. That could be more easily dealt with. What we have is a complete turnaround of society that makes ‘appropriate dress’ a vanished ‘thing of the past’ and permeates every activity of life with the idea that ‘it’s your thing’, ‘do what you want’, ‘wear what you want’, "it’s all about you’.
It is no wonder that people dress in both immodest and inappropriate ways at Church when they pretty much do the same thing in every way of life. And so in order to redress the situation we not only have to put the modesty AND appropriate (and I mean dressier dressing. . .just as has been the case in Church AND in SOCIETY for the ‘gentlemen and ladies’ that we ALL should be. . .for centuries or even thousands of years) clothing BACK into Church. . .but back into SOCIETY as well.
In Genesis, remember Cain and Abel? Both of them offered ‘first fruits’ to the Lord. Abel offered ‘The Best". Cain offered "hey, it’s good stuff’. Probably Cain thought his offerings were pretty decent. It doesn’t say that Cain didn’t offer anything, or that he offered rotten tomatoes or anything like that.
Now here is a prime place for God to say, “Abel, Abel, Abel. Just look at this. Did I ask for THE BEST? (Well, I did but. . .) Anyway, you put more effort into this than your brother. Now he’s mad at both of us. Oh Abel, why didn’t you offer ‘good enough’ but NOT ‘the best’, like your brother? Oh Abel, you’ve hurt Cain’s self esteem. How wrong of you. Don’t you know how sad you’ve made me at having to notice that your gift is BETTER than Cain’s?”
But. . He doesn’t.
God doesn’t want a false ‘equality’. He doesn’t want us to give less than our best.
Also, God doesn’t want us to give a ‘false’ best. A ‘false’ best is like Cain. “Gee, God, I’m giving you my best. . .It’s just that hey, I need these tomatoes that are perfect because Mrs. Cain is making pizza. . .So here. . .these other tomatoes are almost as good.”
If we are ‘holding back’ for ourselves, and claiming we’re ‘doing what God wants well enough’, it’s a false best.
Are we saying we won’t dress modestly AND WELL for our own reasons?
It is one thing to say, “God, you know that I love you. I’m poor but I am clean and covered as best I can be.” That is fine.
It’s another to say, “God, you know that I love you. Yes, I could go and get something that is less ‘revealing’ than this halter top. . .but it’s HOT in church, and everybody is wearing these. Isn’t it GOOD ENOUGH that I come to church?” THAT is a false best.
And even more, when we say, “God, you know that I love you. Yes, I know these jeans are modest. I also know that I could wear something ‘dressier’ and more suitable to the respect you deserve along WITH the love. But. . .God. . .I don’t ‘look’ as good in those other things. You don’t want to look ugly, dowdy, frumpy, or 'stuffy, or pretentious, do you God? Don’t you want me to be comfortable? Isn’t wearing what I want good enough?” Again, a false best. Putting our own comfort or style or desires as the most important things to consider when dressing for God is a false ‘best’ offered to God.
Now to sum. . .the thing is, as we see, this is far more than just a ‘dressing for Church’ thing. That could be more easily dealt with. What we have is a complete turnaround of society that makes ‘appropriate dress’ a vanished ‘thing of the past’ and permeates every activity of life with the idea that ‘it’s your thing’, ‘do what you want’, ‘wear what you want’, "it’s all about you’.
It is no wonder that people dress in both immodest and inappropriate ways at Church when they pretty much do the same thing in every way of life. And so in order to redress the situation we not only have to put the modesty AND appropriate (and I mean dressier dressing. . .just as has been the case in Church AND in SOCIETY for the ‘gentlemen and ladies’ that we ALL should be. . .for centuries or even thousands of years) clothing BACK into Church. . .but back into SOCIETY as well.
E
ellammcg
Guest
Actually, as far as the Romans were concerned, that was only true for, shall we say, non-respectable women…
“it (the stola) was not a particularly fashionable or flattering garment, but wearing the stola was a way for a woman to publicly proclaim her respectability and adherence to tradition.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
vroma.org/~bmcmanus/clothing2.html
R
Rickwood
Guest
I think if a pastor was VERY respected and if he used great tact, things would change.
He could put a short essay in the bulletin explaining the need to dress better. He could preach on the same subject. Most importantly he could then thank those who made the effort.
If it took hold, peer pressure would do the rest.
He could put a short essay in the bulletin explaining the need to dress better. He could preach on the same subject. Most importantly he could then thank those who made the effort.
If it took hold, peer pressure would do the rest.
R
Rickwood
Guest
- No clothing with questionable graphics or verbiage.
- No revealing tops, sleeveless tops or bare midriffs.
- No blue jeans.
- No shorts.
- No skirts/dresses above the knee.
P
Podo2005
Guest
I go to mass in blue jeans sometimes, and in shorts during the summer. I don’t see how those two attire qualify as problem attire.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
My family already lives by this. I think it’s perfectly reasonable and certainly respectful of the mass and the eucharist. Catholics have gotten accustomed to dressing like slobs at mass and then use the excuse that “God doesn’t care what you wear as long as you’re there.” Well, it’s one thing if you really have nothing else to wear because you can’t afford it. But in America, this is not the case with the vast majority. Slobbish and indecent dress at mass is a recent phenomenon and is tied to lax attitudes about everything else church-related, including tithing, religious education, marriage, contraception, and the list goes on and on. It all ultimately comes down to selfishness and lack of humility.
Now I don’t think you can codify this as canon law, but it’s too bad many Catholics don’t have the good sense to do this on their own without being told. And rarely do you hear a priest or bishop make any mention of such things. I think nowadays most of them are too afraid of offending people. Can you imagine St. Paul or St. Peter being afraid of holding church members to certain standards? No way. I don’t say anything to other people of course. We’ve taught our kids from very early on that church is special and we should dress appropriately and not treat it like we’re going to the beach. We don’t get any arguments because it’s just expected, and that’s the way it is. It’s not up for debate.
Now I don’t think you can codify this as canon law, but it’s too bad many Catholics don’t have the good sense to do this on their own without being told. And rarely do you hear a priest or bishop make any mention of such things. I think nowadays most of them are too afraid of offending people. Can you imagine St. Paul or St. Peter being afraid of holding church members to certain standards? No way. I don’t say anything to other people of course. We’ve taught our kids from very early on that church is special and we should dress appropriately and not treat it like we’re going to the beach. We don’t get any arguments because it’s just expected, and that’s the way it is. It’s not up for debate.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And that’s what we need, Rick. When (not if, but when) our priests and our bishops start being leaders (and some have already started and they are indeed having a positive effect) in this, the people will indeed become aware of what needs doing and will start to do the right thing. If some at first do so grudgingly, with God’s help they will come to do it not only willingly but joyfully–and not only ‘in Church’ but ‘outside’. . .showing that modesty isn’t ‘just’ for ‘in Church’ but for everywhere.
C
Cavaille-Coll
Guest
Sounds good to me. What is a polite way of saying “no visible cleavage?” Sometimes when I am distributing Holy Communion, I’ll find myself looking at the ceiling to avoid looking down at an area my eyes have no right to behold. Come on, ladies!
J
JRKH
Guest
I agree. Be Tactful, but be firm. Be Friendly, but be clear.
The pastor needs to preach to protect His Flock and teach the Truth. He should not be worried that they might “go down the road” or report him to the Bishop or whatever.
Improper Dress causes occasion of sin, shows disrespect for the blessed sacrament and probably poor Catechesis.
the Pastor should take the time to preach on Modesty, Chastity and Revenece.
Peace
James
F
FickleFreckled
Guest
Tantum Ergo,
Yes, I know jeans existed prior to the 60’s. My salt-of-the-earth humble grandfather wore denim overalls every day of his life (including to his little Missionary Baptist Church.) The popularity trend started in the 60’s however and it wasn’t Maoist…although Maoists would probably like people to think so.
I disagree with you on many levels; unfortunately I still can’t quote - it’s a system problem probably on my end. So I 'm just going to say that it’s easy to blame one thing or another for most of the ills of modern society but it isn’t that simple. Denim is not inherently evil, and neither are jeans. The problems we have are systemic and we could discuss that ad infinitum and ad nauseum on every CA forum under lots of topics and never get done. Personally, I don’t want to. I joined this thread to discuss immodesty in church, which, in my mind, is a sacrilege.
There can be a lot of spiritual safety in invisibility - ask a contemplative in a cloistered order if there aren’t times he or she isn’t so glad to be hidden under a cloak of uniformity or sameness or anonymity (did I spell that right?). Why do you think they all dress the same? It’s not because they get a quantity discount on the fabric. If that proves your point about the evils of invisibility and lack of striving, ok.
Yes, I know jeans existed prior to the 60’s. My salt-of-the-earth humble grandfather wore denim overalls every day of his life (including to his little Missionary Baptist Church.) The popularity trend started in the 60’s however and it wasn’t Maoist…although Maoists would probably like people to think so.
I disagree with you on many levels; unfortunately I still can’t quote - it’s a system problem probably on my end. So I 'm just going to say that it’s easy to blame one thing or another for most of the ills of modern society but it isn’t that simple. Denim is not inherently evil, and neither are jeans. The problems we have are systemic and we could discuss that ad infinitum and ad nauseum on every CA forum under lots of topics and never get done. Personally, I don’t want to. I joined this thread to discuss immodesty in church, which, in my mind, is a sacrilege.
There can be a lot of spiritual safety in invisibility - ask a contemplative in a cloistered order if there aren’t times he or she isn’t so glad to be hidden under a cloak of uniformity or sameness or anonymity (did I spell that right?). Why do you think they all dress the same? It’s not because they get a quantity discount on the fabric. If that proves your point about the evils of invisibility and lack of striving, ok.
- Status