Spaghetti straps on little girls' First Communion dresses

[Debora123]

:thumbsup:Way to go.

I guess I don’t seem why having females cover their shoulders is such a big deal.

Why do women want to bare their shoulders? I’m not talking about First Communicants, but older women. If men wear sleeveless shirts, they are either working out or dressed like a slob. Why Is it different with women?

I could just as easily ask, “why do men want to wear ties?”

It’s just the fashion today. Women and men don’t wear the same things to look nice. If that were true, then we’d either all wear dresses or all wear suit and ties for formal events.

What is considered dressed up and appropriate for one gender doesn’t mean it is for the other gender. Strapless dresses are considered elegant and fashionable. That’s why I personally like wearing them if appropriate for the event.

I personally have nothing against shoulders. Most wedding dresses are strapless now and I personally have not heard any objections from churches. I think the lady below looks beautiful in her dress. Her shoulders are showing, but I don’t think it looks provocative.

rcws-photo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/26869778_M.jpg

 

[EasterJoy]

…I personally have nothing against shoulders. Most wedding dresses are strapless now and I personally have not heard any objections from churches…

Au contraire. There are pastors who do not allow the bride or bridesmaids to wear bare shouldered fashions to the nuptial Mass. This accounts for the number of bridal houses that carry “bolero jackets” for both bride and bridesmaids, made to cover the shoulders and to go with a wide variety of strapless gowns.

 

[mommamaree]

:sad_yes:

Unfortunately, I wasted time reading your posts too. It is not up to you to determine whether I can post and what I post. You appear to have a big problem with anyone disagreeing with you or even questioning your views. It really does not matter to me if you do not address my posts as I have observed how you “discuss”.

 

[Debora123]

Au contraire. There are pastors who do not allow the bride or bridesmaids to wear bare shouldered fashions to the nuptial Mass. This accounts for the number of bridal houses that carry “bolero jackets” for both bride and bridesmaids, made to cover the shoulders and to go with a wide variety of strapless gowns.

Which is precisely why I said “I have never personally heard…”

I’m sure there are pastors out there who object to it. Have I ever heard of one personally? No. A lot of my friends have been getting married in the past 3 years. I can think of only ONE who did not do a strapless wedding dress. She did spaghetti straps. And it wasn’t because the priest objected, but because her body type didn’t quite work out with strapless.

 

[mommamaree]

Stop being personal with me. I will decide how I post. If you feel that you don’t like how I post, please don’t reply to me. It is as simple as that. What you are doing is sounding like a hypocrite here by telling me to not be personal while being personal yourself in publicly telling me this.

Also, I discussed a position. The position is in error and I stand by my charge. There is nothing wrong with that as I already explained. Now unless you have something valuable to add to the discussion after reading my post, please don’t interrupt by trying to put me down.

Sorry, this is a public forum. You do not get to decide who may participate in a discussion and who may not.

 

[mommamaree]

Why don’t you read the rest of the posts, including WH’s reply to me. It was very clear that the person has a bone to pick with the Church. She plainly said that she felt the Church made women in to victims.

So with all due respect, I defend the Church and I stand by it. This is also not a thread about me, yes? So please stick to the topic. If you continue to make this thread about ME, then I will have to report you to the mods.

Walking Home never said any such thing.

 

[mommamaree]

Although self-loathing and the shames surrounding it are to be avoided at all costs, there is a ditch on the other side of that road, the vice called vanity, in which also lurks shames because one’s body is not fit to compete in vanity’s meat markets. Even when there is no insecurity involved, pride is still a vice and a spiritual fault, they didn’t take it off the books. You do agree that anyone who has reached the age of reason can sin out of vanity, right? (There are people who don’t think that sins really count as sins until one is old enough to be beyond the reach of juvenile hall, but I don’t think there are many at CA.)

I’m not saying this with regards to spaghetti straps on girls under ten–I do not find a problem with little boys under eight or ten wearing shorts in church or little girls of that age wearing dresses much more “revealing” than would be appropriate in formal church attire for anyone closer to adolescence. I don’t think that the suits used by either gender in competitive swimming are cut that way in order to tempt towards lust. I’m saying it with regards to this whole “don’t be ashamed of your body” thing. We have to be very careful that when we say “don’t be ashamed of your body” that we do not mean “don’t hesitate to put your body on display” or “it’s OK to dress in order to garner particular attention for yourself” or “you are in a looks competition with every other girl who is out in public with you, and you must not suffer by comparison.” Shame about your body lies in both ditches. Pride lies in wait in both ditches, too, to be frank. A healthy sense of self-respect and a high regard for others is in the middle course.

No, instead I would point out that traditionally those on the center stage of rituals in a Catholic church cover themselves in the modesty not of lust prevention–for a pre-adolescent?!? Ick!–but in the modesty of moderation and care in both dress and grooming for the celebration of liturgy. We dress with a different care for worship than for swimming, because the goals are entirely different. If liturgy were first about comfort and efficiency, then vestments would be optional in hot weather, wouldn’t they? I’m thinking so…what priest would want a stole around his neck when it was in the triple digits, let alone an alb?

Presuming the bishop gives this discretion to his priests, which bishops normally do, excepting perhaps for liturgies where the bishop himself will be presiding, it seems to me that this falls into a realm where it is the pastor’s office to decide what the norm for moderate formal attire ought to be for that time of year in his parish and the example the Church ought to set, and that he is competent to decide the age at which dresses well above the knee and sleeveless dresses are either no longer moderate or no longer formal. If it were my decision, I’d ask for a standard somewhat older than for a normal Sunday when the occasion is First Holy Communion, because it is a rite of passage.

Let’s all admit, however, that this is the bishop’s decision, or if he deems fit (as he usually does), the pastor’s. We can have our opinions all we want, but excepting the little girls at our own houses, these are the pastor’s cats to herd, not our own. OK, grandparents and the parishioners or staff members helping to organize the liturgies can throw their two cents in, but they’d better realize that as long as they are within what their pastors dictate, the parents have the call.

EasterJoy,
Did you miss my other posts from earlier? Because the answer to the questions you ask me are directly addressed in them. Thanks.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy,
Did you miss my other posts from earlier? Because the answer to the questions you ask me are directly addressed in them. Thanks.

I was responding to:
“looking at yourself in the mirror with approval? No… that cannot be vanity. What do you think?”
and
“The sin of pride cannot be about reaching a great achievement and feeling happy with yourself after all the hard work you put towards it.”

Those things do not equal a sin per se, but of course looking at yourself in the mirror with approval can be vanity! Of course you can commit the sin of pride by being happy with yourself! That’s what other people pick up on…“She thinks she’s all that!” or “He thinks he’s the last Pepsi in the desert!”

 

[Debora123]

I was responding to:
“looking at yourself in the mirror with approval? No… that cannot be vanity. What do you think?”
and
“The sin of pride cannot be about reaching a great achievement and feeling happy with yourself after all the hard work you put towards it.”

Those things do not equal a sin per se, but of course looking at yourself in the mirror with approval can be vanity! Of course you can commit the sin of pride by being happy with yourself! That’s what other people pick up on…“She thinks she’s all that!” or “He thinks he’s the last Pepsi in the desert!”

What I meant is that vanity/pride is not simply those things. But rather only becomes vanity/pride if taken to another level.

I think we pretty much agree. I just wanted to clarify for those who may feel scrupulous every time they look in the mirror or feel happy about a job promotion.

 

[mommamaree]

I was responding to:
“looking at yourself in the mirror with approval? No… that cannot be vanity. What do you think?”
and
“The sin of pride cannot be about reaching a great achievement and feeling happy with yourself after all the hard work you put towards it.”

Those things do not equal a sin per se, but of course looking at yourself in the mirror with approval can be vanity! Of course you can commit the sin of pride by being happy with yourself! That’s what other people pick up on…“She thinks she’s all that!” or “He thinks he’s the last Pepsi in the desert!”

Um, I am so confused. I never said those things in any post. I do not know who did. Yet my post was quoted by you when you posted earlier. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster? Would you mind taking a peek back at your posts and mine, and then maybe we can restart?

 

[EasterJoy]

Wow… lot’s of questions. Ok. I will answer each one.
Hm, I guess I don’t really think that much into it. I select my clothing according to the occasion. Obviously I try to pick out something that I think looks nice, so naturally I think others would think it looks good too. I don’t open up my closet in the morning and thing “hm, should I wear something for myself or for someone else?”

You mean like a uniform for work or school or whatever? No, uniforms have never upset me. It makes things easier actually.

Unfortunately, no.
Self esteem and self confidence is something we should all strive for and I’m not always perfect. I have my insecurities, unfortunately.

I don’t necessarily feel “put down.” I don’t feel angry towards them or anything. I actually admire them and only wish I could look that good. I saw a gorgeous girl at the gym 2 days ago. I swear she was like a clone of Megan Fox. I obviously didn’t stare, because that’s rude… but I did see her and admired her beauty and wished that I could have some of the features she had. But there was no resentment involved or anything like that.

I don’t really understand this question…
You mean like do I feel happy for a loved one when they achieve something great? Yeah, if that’s what you mean, then yes I absolutely feel very happy for them. Naturally I would probably feel more happy with my own achievements since it’s my life, but of course I feel happy for others too.

Yes

I think so…

Probably because it’s natural to want to feel appreciated.

Lol I’m not sure. This question seems very much in the realm of business or career or something. And I am not a career women and don’t even have a job right now since my husband joined the AF. I don’t really think about the above too much, so I don’t know.

If I felt that I worked really hard and did a good job, then yeah… I’d probably feel a little hurt for being overlooked. But it wouldn’t shatter me or anything. I think some of these questions would be better suited for ambitious career people.

Hm… I don’t know, that’s never happened before. Would I keep from buying a nice car or a nice outfit if I lived in a poor neighborhood? Probably not. But I wouldn’t go out of my way to show it off or talk about it or anything either. I’d keep it on the down low.

Lol, these questions are hard for me to answer because I’ve never had a ton of money and I’ve never been able to afford fancier things than those around me. I would like to think I wouldn’t.

I agree with the above… though perhaps you and I wouldn’t necessarily always agree on specifically WHAT would be considered vanity/pride. I think it’s a hard thing to gauge. I probably wouldn’t say it’s always vanity not to care what others think about your appearance. Generally, that my be true… but then I think of St Francis of Assisi… who walked down the street nude and then dressed in rags and was shunned for it by his society (at least for a while). And I think he didn’t seem to care about how others think he looks.

Anyway, the point I was trying to get across was this:

There certainly are fundamentalist type Christians out there who take vanity/pride very literally. They are not allowed to wear colors and they are not allowed to participate in competitive sports… because to them, that’s vanity and pride. Luckily we are Catholic and we don’t think this way. At least not the most of us.

I think we’re on the same page. For instance, it is possible to view your competitors in sports as someone who brings out the best in you, and you in them, and someone to be grateful for. It is not parrot talk or a backdoor sort of self-congratulation to praise and appreciate your competition. So while some might refrain from competition because they can’t stand the temptation towards envy and pride, it is not a necessary part of competitive sports. Likewise, some women who love fashions are every bit as delighted to see someone else beautifully dressed as when it is themselves. It is not about making themselves better than others, but about making the world more beautiful, including the people in it. That is what I mean by the attitude being more important than the action. A woman may have a more humble attitude in her fashionable clothing, because she does it in a moderate way and to put beauty into the world, than a woman who dresses as severely as the Amish but does so with the idea that she’s more spiritually advanced than those who don’t dress like that. The truth be known, of all the forms of pride, there is none the devil likes better than spiritual pride. What could be more the devil’s work, than the work of ruining a saint?

We just need to remember that the first serious sin of Adam and Eve’s children was prompted because Cain didn’t get the same level of approval that Abel enjoyed, and did not handle that with humility:

"In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the LORD said to Cain: “Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.” Gen. 4:3-7

We need to be very careful how we react when we don’t get the level of approval we had hoped for. That is a spiritually vulnerable time. The virtue of humility makes us less vulnerable, but the inclination towards pride makes us more vulnerable.

 

[Debora123]

I think we’re on the same page. For instance, it is possible to view your competitors in sports as someone who brings out the best in you, and you in them, and someone to be grateful for. It is not parrot talk or a backdoor sort of self-congratulation to praise and appreciate your competition. So while some might refrain from competition because they can’t stand the temptation towards envy and pride, it is not a necessary part of competitive sports. Likewise, some women who love fashions are every bit as delighted to see someone else beautifully dressed as when it is themselves. It is not about making themselves better than others, but about making the world more beautiful, including the people in it. That is what I mean by the attitude being more important than the action. A woman may have a more humble attitude in her fashionable clothing, because she does it in a moderate way and to put beauty into the world, than a woman who dresses as severely as the Amish but does so with the idea that she’s more spiritually advanced than those who don’t dress like that. The truth be known, of all the forms of pride, there is none the devil likes better than spiritual pride. What could be more the devil’s work, than the work of ruining a saint?

We just need to remember that the first serious sin of Adam and Eve’s children was prompted because Cain didn’t get the same level of approval that Abel enjoyed, and did not handle that with humility:

"In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the LORD said to Cain: “Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.” Gen. 4:3-7

We need to be very careful how we react when we don’t get the level of approval we had hoped for. That is a spiritually vulnerable time. The virtue of humility makes us less vulnerable, but the inclination towards pride makes us more vulnerable.

 

[PaulinVA]

I could just as easily ask, “why do men want to wear ties?”

Totally different. An additional piece of clothing is different from removing a piece of clothing.

What is considered dressed up and appropriate for one gender doesn’t mean it is for the other gender. Strapless dresses are considered elegant and fashionable. That’s why I personally like wearing them if appropriate for the event.

I agree. However, I don’t think, and many others here don’t think, that Mass is an appropriate venue for strapless dresses.

I personally have nothing against shoulders. Most wedding dresses are strapless now and I personally have not heard any objections from churches. I think the lady below looks beautiful in her dress. Her shoulders are showing, but I don’t think it looks provocative.

Said bride would be handed a wrap by the priest or deacon at my parish.

It’s not that shoulders are provocative, per se. I’m not sure how to engage in this conversation without offending. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, maybe it’s generational. I don’t know.

I was taught that men wear slacks and dress shirts to Mass, and that women wear dresses, skirts, or pants with blouses that had sleeves. Every girl/woman I knew growing up (and now, for my wife and daughters), had lightweight white sweaters to wear over sleeveless blouses or dresses. It wasn’t that the dress was inappropriate always, just that you cover up in Mass. Perhaps it’s reverence for God? A little formality?

 

[Sarabande]

I think we’re on the same page. For instance, it is possible to view your competitors in sports as someone who brings out the best in you, and you in them, and someone to be grateful for. It is not parrot talk or a backdoor sort of self-congratulation to praise and appreciate your competition. So while some might refrain from competition because they can’t stand the temptation towards envy and pride, it is not a necessary part of competitive sports. Likewise, some women who love fashions are every bit as delighted to see someone else beautifully dressed as when it is themselves. It is not about making themselves better than others, but about making the world more beautiful, including the people in it. That is what I mean by the attitude being more important than the action. A woman may have a more humble attitude in her fashionable clothing, because she does it in a moderate way and to put beauty into the world, than a woman who dresses as severely as the Amish but does so with the idea that she’s more spiritually advanced than those who don’t dress like that. The truth be known, of all the forms of pride, there is none the devil likes better than spiritual pride. What could be more the devil’s work, than the work of ruining a saint?

We just need to remember that the first serious sin of Adam and Eve’s children was prompted because Cain didn’t get the same level of approval that Abel enjoyed, and did not handle that with humility:

"In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the LORD said to Cain: “Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.” Gen. 4:3-7

We need to be very careful how we react when we don’t get the level of approval we had hoped for. That is a spiritually vulnerable time. The virtue of humility makes us less vulnerable, but the inclination towards pride makes us more vulnerable.

Perfectly said!

 

[Sarabande]

With all this talk about strapless dresses and spaghetti straps, it reminded me of this pic a fellow musician friend recently put on my Facebook page as we are always looking at strapless dresses during weddings… just to add a little levity.

http://www.sicklolz.com/sites/defau...e your bridesmaids wear strapless dresses.jpg

 

[Debora123]

Totally different. An additional piece of clothing is different from removing a piece of clothing.

The difference is that one is a piece of clothing, the other is a lack thereof. The similarity (and the reason I brought it up) is that they are both fashions, and they are both considered formal and elegant. A man wears a tie probably for the same reason that a woman wears a strapless dress… because they think it looks nice.
Does that answer your question?

I agree. However, I don’t think, and many others here don’t think, that Mass is an appropriate venue for strapless dresses.

This is true. However, most people here on CAF are not a good representation of the vast majority of practicing Catholics out there. In my experience, I have found that most people don’t think wearing a strapless wedding dress is a inappropriate. In fact, the only people I’ve ever even heard object to strapless wedding dresses are people here on this forum.

Said bride would be handed a wrap by the priest or deacon at my parish.

Ok.
I don’t doubt you at all, but personally I have never seen that happen.

It’s not that shoulders are provocative, per se. I’m not sure how to engage in this conversation without offending. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, maybe it’s generational. I don’t know.

I have absolutely 0 idea myself.

I was taught that men wear slacks and dress shirts to Mass, and that women wear dresses, skirts, or pants with blouses that had sleeves. Every girl/woman I knew growing up (and now, for my wife and daughters), had lightweight white sweaters to wear over sleeveless blouses or dresses. It wasn’t that the dress was inappropriate always, just that you cover up in Mass. Perhaps it’s reverence for God? A little formality?

Perhaps we grew up in different parts of the world. I have lived in Brazil, Ohio, Florida, and now Texas. I have seen sleeveless dresses and strapless wedding dresses in all those places. Where I come from, a shirt or dress can still be very formal without having sleeves on it.

Perhaps it’s mainly just a matter of taste?

 

[Debora123]

Just to clarify, I don’t think it’s always appropriate to wear any strapless dress to any mass.

The only time I think a strapless dress can look appropriate for mass is if it’s a ball gown of some sort. Which doesn’t get worn to mass unless it’s for a wedding.

That’s why I keep using a wedding dress as an example, and not just referring to strapless dresses in general.

None the less, when I say what I think is and is not appropriate for mass, I am talking about myself and my own clothing choices. I personally wouldn’t wear a strapless dress to ordinary mass (though I did for my wedding). But if someone else does, it’s really none of my business and not my place to scrutinize their clothing choices.

 

[JackieMom]

Just to clarify, I don’t think it’s always appropriate to wear any strapless dress to any mass.

The only time I think a strapless dress can look appropriate for mass is if it’s a ball gown of some sort. Which doesn’t get worn to mass unless it’s for a wedding.

That’s why I keep using a wedding dress as an example, and not just referring to strapless dresses in general.

None the less, when I say what I think is and is not appropriate for mass, I am talking about myself and my own clothing choices. I personally wouldn’t wear a strapless dress to ordinary mass (though I did for my wedding). But if someone else does, it’s really none of my business and not my place to scrutinize their clothing choices.

Of the last 20 weddings I’ve attended, probably 19 of the brides have worn strapless. It’s just what’s in fashion right now. I don’t see any of the parishes objecting.

 

[Debora123]

Of the last 20 weddings I’ve attended, probably 19 of the brides have worn strapless. It’s just what’s in fashion right now. I don’t see any of the parishes objecting.

My point exactly. I think they look very elegant and formal… and not provocative in the least. So I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Is it just legalism maybe? Just because some skin is showing?

 

[PaulinVA]

Perhaps it’s mainly just a matter of taste?

I think you are right. We were taught differently what is in good taste and what isn’t. I don’t mean that to be snarky. I think it’s true.

Trying to apply a standard to people across cultures and across generations is indeed dificult. We both (We all on this thread, really) think we are correct based on how we were raised and our experience. That clashes with what others think.

I would like to think there is objective truth in this, but I don’t know.