Spaghetti straps on little girls' First Communion dresses

[Portrait]

I have to disagree with those who are saying it doesn’t matter because these are little girls. No, they are not dressing that way to be sexy, but it’s not appropriate Mass dress. If they aren’t taught to wear proper attire to church as a child, how are they supposed to know how to do so as they get older? Light sweaters and wraps are so in style right now, it’s easy to find a white one. Also, it’s extremely easy to find white dresses for young girls with shoulders because of flower girl dresses. There isn’t really a good excuse to need to have a spaghetti strap showing. If anything, I’d say it’s harder for adult women to find appropriate dresses for Mass because very few adult dresses are cut to cover everything without adding layers to them and making a conscious effort.

Dear WingsOfEagles,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. A hearty Amen to your above remarks - bang on target. Parent’s have an immense moral obligation to ensure that their children are modestly dressed with decency and propriety, especially at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The clothing styles today, dear friend, are simply a reflection of the moral and cultural deterioration of our age (e.g. that seductive style gament, the mini-skirt) and should be steadfastly resisted by all the faithful. After all, “Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevaling ideologies” (CCC, para. 2523).

God bless and thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Chantal25]

My daughter had her first communion this year and was baptize last year, she did wear a dress with straps (for her baptism only). She was six then and now seven.

If the priest was fine with this, then you should be ok with this. Little girl are so young, it isn’t like having a women body. Myself, i wouldn’t wear a dress like this at church but little girl is ok for me.

 

[Portrait]

Personally, I don’t believe there is some sort of universal standard of modesty that applies to all people of all places at all times.

Dear Debora123,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust you and your husband are both keeping well.

Prior to the permissive revolution of the Sixties, the ‘decade of decadence’ that gave us among other things the pill and the decriminalization of homosexual vice, there did exist an accepted standard of modesty. This was because the moral sense of the faithful was still vigorous and healthy, ensuring a wholesome instinct for modesty. Such is sadly no longer the case, dear sister, and that is why so many modern Catholics take their cue as to what is modest and acceptable from the prevailing culture, notwithstanding that that culture is in a deplorable state of moral deterioration. In 1921, for example, you had Pope Benedict XV assuming the existence of a ‘Christian modesty’ (see Sacra Propedium), without giving ‘rules’ or spelling out specifically what that modesty entailed. This is because society at that time was pervaded by the Christian consciousness and people understood instinctively what was appropriate and seemly attire and what was not. Of course, you always had those who rebelled against convention and who were avante garde in the matter of clothing choices, hence the reason why the Popes had to rebuke those ungodly trends. Generally speaking, however, men and women conformed to standards of decency and propriety and society was a better place for it, but all that was antecedent to the sexual revloution and that “whole generation with a new explanation”. We today live in the aftermath of the Sixties, where today’s younger generation have often inherited their parent’s rebellion and ‘anything goes’ attitudes, coupled with an intense dislike of anything that even whiffs of ‘tradition’. This mindset has, alas, increasingly infilitrated the Catholic Church in recent times, as more modern Catholics adopt a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice.

Contemporary Catholics who are genuinely confused or/and uncertain as to what modesty entails, need to consult the moral sense of the faithful prior to the Sixties permissive revolution. This will mean, dear sister, paying careful attention to what our Popes, moral theologians and saints have said in times past, since they lived prior to the sexual revolution and before the ‘New Morality’ negatively impacted Catholic thinking. Their thoughts and insights upon certain issues, such as modest clothing, are to be highly prized as they are likely to be in full accord with Catholic orthodox teaching. Indeed, I would go further and say that this is jolly imperative and indispensible to our own spiritual formation as Catholics, especially given the decadent climate when a reliable and sound moral compass is so urgently needed. Our current Catechism does not and cannot contain all the answers to our questions regarding modesty, otherwise there would not be all the numerous discussions as to what clothing is modest and what is not. The Catechism gives us good guiding principles, but if we are not to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgment then we must consult the moral sense of the faithful throughout the Church’s history. What I find very disturbing is the way modern Catholics display a sheer prejudice against any Church teaching or opinion that preceded the day before yesterday, through fear that it might not support their liberal attitudes. It also seems to be tacitly assumed that it must be wrong and worthless because it is old, which is just silly.

Finally, dear sister, we must remember that it was to the Church, not the secular cultures of the globe, that our Lord entrusted the supernatural wisdom to discern what constitutes a spiritual hazard, for example, soul destroying customs such as unseemly and inappropriate clothing. Modern Catholics must repair to the collective wisdom of the faithful for enlightenment and direction concerning modest and decent apparel. Enlightenment and guidance respecting traditional values on modest attire can be found by consulting past sermons, lecturers and addresses given by the Popes to society, in a time where modesty was a core value of culture, unlike today. We can even learn from our grandparents and mature posters here on CAF, such as edwest2, who knows what the pre-moral revloution culture was really like. As a matter of fact, I have learned a great deal from Ed since being a member. At any rate, there is much instruction and counsel for those prepared to dig it out.

God bless and may you and all other contributors to this thread have a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[PaulinVA]

Personally, I don’t believe there is some sort of universal standard of modesty that applies to all people of all places at all times.

If there was, I think the Church would have addressed it by now, and would have made rules like “Exposing the knees, shoulders, collar bones, etc etc (whatever it would even be)… is immodest.”

I disagree with Eufrosnia and with other posters here on CAF who have tried to say there is a particular standard.

I think you might be on to something. As was said previously, modesty and appropriateness are different.

What is considered immodest in a particular culture should not be worn to Mass. That’s easy to understand as a standard.

What is considered inappropriate for Mass includes that which is immodest as well as other types of clothing that are appropriate for other times and venues but not for Mass.

These are, unfortunately, not published anywhere. As an example, my family does not wear jeans to Mass (the kids can wear jeans to the youth Mass, if they can stand the screeching music). All tee shirts are out. Logo polo shirts are out. Dresses are encouraged. Wraps/sweaters are required for sleeveless blouses/dresses. Is this a good standard for all? Well, I sure think so. Do others agree? Obviously not.

 

[Sarabande]

I think you might be on to something. As was said previously, modesty and appropriateness are different.

What is considered immodest in a particular culture should not be worn to Mass. That’s easy to understand as a standard.

What is considered inappropriate for Mass includes that which is immodest as well as other types of clothing that are appropriate for other times and venues but not for Mass.

These are, unfortunately, not published anywhere. As an example, my family does not wear jeans to Mass (the kids can wear jeans to the youth Mass, if they can stand the screeching music). All tee shirts are out. Logo polo shirts are out. Dresses are encouraged. Wraps/sweaters are required for sleeveless blouses/dresses. Is this a good standard for all? Well, I sure think so. Do others agree? Obviously not.

Yes, I think I would agree with this. I was raised to always make sure that your shoulders and cleavage were covered while in church, as well as keeping your skirts at or right above the knee. No shorter. That was the standard in our family. We didn’t even wear jeans to mass, unless we were attending our country, farming parish where the nicest clothes that many of the people in that community had were their clean pair of jeans. To dress any better than that might have been considered inappropriate because it was showing the “wealth” of my family. People were dressed modestly, but they just didn’t have the income to buy additional clothes.

Since I am a cantor at mass almost every Sunday, I have pretty much the same uniform because I’m expected to set a standard of appropriate and modest wear for the congregation. It is not usually published by the parishes where I work, but when I first start working at a particular parish, the music directors will tell me what kind of clothing is expected of me to wear and that sometimes the priests will complain to them if the cantors aren’t wearing appropriate attire. They don’t ever complain to the cantor, but right after the mass, some priests will come up to the music director and dress them down about the cantor’s attire at that particular mass. Because of how I was raised, I already was aware of this, but apparently many of the cantors who are just a few years younger or the next generation younger than me are not and the music directors sometimes have a difficult time trying to teach them what is appropriate and modest attire - for mass. One music director I work with actually has a very detailed sheet in the choir loft of what kind of clothes we are allowed to wear and not allowed to wear.

Even though I do think common sense should work, not everyone has common sense because they weren’t raised to know the difference of what’s appropriate at mass. (The wedding party I described with the super short dresses in a previous… think Jersey Shore, and it was along the Jersey coastline. The more I think about it I just don’t think that bride knew any better. I don’t think the church was expecting that the dresses would be that short, otherwise, I think they probably would have added that in the guidelines when they told her no bare shoulders or cleavage.) So, I do think in today’s culture (at least in the U.S. since it is different in Europe), written guidelines of standard attire for every parish or diocese could be helpful. Now, for the parishes I have freelanced in who have written guidelines, it’s pretty much the same - no bare shoulders, no cleavage above and below, no tight clothes or very short skirts or shorts. There is definitely a disconnect, though. Although all of the parishes I have worked in on a regular basis have clothing guidelines for their cantors and other musicians so that we represent what the proper attire at mass should be, it is never expressed to the congregation by the priests or pastors that this is what they would like them to aspire to. I don’t think people usually associate that a well-dressed cantor or lector is also serving as a model for them in terms of appropriate attire. I know I never did before I worked as a professional musician.

Again, though, if the parish says that your daughter can’t wear spaghetti straps for their communion dress, just follow the rules and buy her a sweater or shrug to cover up at mass. I don’t see the problem with that. And although I personally don’t see a problem with spaghetti straps for little girls (even though I would personally have my daughter wear a sweater at mass just because of how I was raised… she wouldn’t need to wear it outside of mass, especially if she was running around, getting all sweaty and hot), some parishes want their shoulders covered up… so just cover them up. When in Rome…

 

[Debora123]

These are, unfortunately, not published anywhere. As an example, my family does not wear jeans to Mass (the kids can wear jeans to the youth Mass, if they can stand the screeching music). All tee shirts are out. Logo polo shirts are out. Dresses are encouraged. Wraps/sweaters are required for sleeveless blouses/dresses. Is this a good standard for all? Well, I sure think so. Do others agree? Obviously not.

I think it depends on the mass too though. Some churches are just much more formal than others.

Personally, I’m glad I’ve never been to a mass with a dress code. Especially a dress code as strict as the one above. Do you know how much more extra clothes I’d have to buy? Lol. I never go to church looking like a slob, but I do wear jeans to church a lot. Not the ripped up, rugged kind… but nice jeans with a nice shirt.

As for what other people wear? I honestly don’t care. It’s none of my business and honestly I’ve never even thought to look/scrutinize until I started seeing forums like these.

It’s just not a big deal to me I guess. I personally make sure I look nice without setting any hard rules like “no jeans” or “no polo shirts with a logo” or “no sleeveless,” and everyone else can take care of themselves.

 

[Kelfa28]

Part of me wishes there were a dress code and part of me doesn’t.

The part of me that does is because I can’t believe some of the things I’ve seen in Mass. Super short shorts. Sweats and pajamas. Leggings and tank tops that leave little to the imagination. Sweatshirts and team jerseys when it’s football season.

The part of me that doesn’t is because of how strict these rules can go. I don’t have much purpose to wear business attire. I’m a stay at home mom…and, before that, I worked as a paramedic and had to wear a uniform. The clothing I own is modest…but comfortable. Nice jeans, polo shirts, button downs and flats. The few pieces I do own for Mass I had to pick up separately. I own two nice dresses and a sweater for the colder months.

But sometimes I try to make it daily Mass or adoration and that means heading to Church in what I have clean and available. If that means a nice pair of jeans and a polo or button down…well, that’s what I’m wearing. I’m cleaned up and covered up.

As for the wedding situation.

I was brand new to the Church when I got married. I literally got all of my sacraments in about a weeks time frame…both from my marriage and finishing RCIA.

I didn’t know what was considered appropriate and what wasn’t. Plus, I had a deadline and a bunch of bridesmaids on a budget. We couldn’t special order their dresses, not enough time, so I gave them their color and told them to pick their dress…so long as it wasn’t too short.

They all picked out strapless gowns that were floor length. They looked so nice and I never would have dreamed that a strapless gown would not be considered appropriate for a wedding Mass.
My bridal gown was strapless too. However, I had a long veil that covered up my back and shoulders. Plus, it was my dream dress. It fit me like a glove, it was absolutely gorgeous and within budget.

The priest that married us had two rules. Make sure we had the wedding certificate and no one was allowed in the Church if they had had too much to drink. He would stop the wedding entirely if anyone from the bridal party was drunk. We weren’t given any kind of dress code or suggestions on how the bridal party should dress.

 

[Eufrosnia]

ok, well, then the society I am talking about certainly fits that primary criteria, as I already said. The people definitely live close enough to talk with each other, in person, on a daily basis.

Sure, but does it welcome correction? If not, they might as well have been dispersed.

As for the age thing… I guess I don’t entirely understand that one. What determines the age of a modest society? I guess I mean, if a particular sub-society is started by people who have personally lived in a larger society that valued modesty and chastity and who personally kept those same values of modesty and chastity and made sure that they were an important part of the new sub-community that they started why would that new little “modest society”, if you will, not be just simply a continuation of all the countless years before?

Well for one thing, we have no reason to think your little community has done any of that because we don’t even know it exists or who exactly founded it

Anyway, besides that obvious elephant in the room, any society that tries to do something over a long time, can refine its values. This not just modesty but with anything. So I am not sure what is keeping you from really understanding things.

Now here in lies the problem. You state that your community was started by those who KEPT what was there before. This can be verified by looking at what was there before and looking at what they kept. If there is a discrepancy, then you know they didn’t really keep anything other than what they wanted. If they match, then you have confirmation that your society has a good set of values that you can adhere to.

Although, to be honest, I don’t know how to determine whether previous societies really cared about modesty nearly as much as this particular one I’m talking about… I’ve heard that there were a shocking number of children conceived shortly before a couple married… as well as many other things which make me hesitant to call any particular society from the past a modest society without a lot of historical research into that particular society. But I guess thats a different issue entirely, as that starts to get into the particulars again rather than focusing on the universal “how to determine whether or not a society can be considered modest for the sake of determining the universal standard of modesty”.

People having lots of children before marriage is usually a very Western phenomenon of today. Nearly every civilization has some concept of a marriage or family. It might not be one man - one woman, but it certainly has the idea of family, tribe etc.

Anyway, what we are talking about here is modesty. You certainly cannot be oblivious to the fact that at least the Jewish communities of the past valued sexual purity highly and emphasized modesty.

But of course, if you don’t know history, you could be at a loss now. Ignorance is not bliss. So if you are serious about all of this, you will have to hit the books at some point, given the current state of things.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Personally, I don’t believe there is some sort of universal standard of modesty that applies to all people of all places at all times.

If there was, I think the Church would have addressed it by now, and would have made rules like “Exposing the knees, shoulders, collar bones, etc etc (whatever it would even be)… is immodest.”

I disagree with Eufrosnia and with other posters here on CAF who have tried to say there is a particular standard.

If we look back in history, and we look around the world, we will see that the standards of modesty change drastically.

As an example, we can look at the Bushmen from Africa. They wear hardly anything. The women walk around with nothing on their chests except beads and necklaces. Are they being immodest? In my opinion, no. Not where they are, and not in their culture. (Heck, they haven’t even been hit by any sort of “sexual revolution” and for the most part, their society doesn’t even have a sexual/lustful view of the human body.) But if someone were to dress like that here in the States, then yes, absolutely that would be very immodest!

On the opposite extreme we have traditionalist Islam in the middle East, where it is considered immodest to expose the eyes. Would I be immodest if I was Muslim living in the Middle East and I stripped down to pants and a sweater? Yes, absolutely. Would I be immodest if I did that here in the States? Absolutely not.

We go back 100 years ago in Europe and it was indecent for women to expose their ankles. Would it be indecent if I did that now in Europe? Nope.

So, which is it? Since there is no set standard, I think we just follow whatever is considered modest in whatever society we are in.

I nearly missed your post because you didn’t quote me but rather mentioned my name instead

Anyway, first thing you have to understand is that your personal belief, if not based on objective and valid logical reasoning, can be false.

Now your main line of objections seem to be as follows.

Argument 1

1. There have been different societies with modest values that differ from each other
2. Therefore there is no universal standard of modesty

This reasoning is flawed because (2) does not follow from (1). You have forgotten that each of these societies may have been at various stages of refining its values on modesty. Some may have held the positive attitude toward modesty and sexual purity for a short time compared to those that had held it for a longer time. Also, they might have different forms of dress to begin with.

You cannot therefore use this as an argument to then justify embracing the value system regarding dress today from a culture steeped in a positive attitude toward sexual impurity and a very negative attitude toward the concept of modesty.

Argument 2

1. The Church has not stated explicit guidelines on how to be modest
2. Therefore, there is no universal standard of modesty

Now apart from the premise 1 being false since various Popes have indeed made clear, especially those who lived at the beginning of the sexual revolution, what standards of modesty to follow, there are other problems with the above argument.

The main problem with the above is that it does not seem to comprehend the teaching on modesty. The Church states, with respect to dress, that modesty is about not tempting others and covering up what should not be on display for everyone. When a society acknowledges this truth and holds it with a positive attitude, each of these societies form and refines its values on how best to achieve this.

The Church does not interfere because not every country has the same form of dress. If we just take the world today, in one part of the world you might have gowns, pants in another, or some form of traditional dress in another etc. Each of these cultures, as long as they hold sexual purity and modesty at high esteem, will refine its dress and values around it to better reflect modesty with time.

Now the Popes during the time of sexual revolution, did give clear standards regarding dress for those who of the Western part of the world because that is what they were more familiar with. Local Bishops in other parts of the world have done the same, and unlike in the West, DO CONTINUE to do the same. Surprising is it not?

So for one thing, your premise 1 is false because you seem to be unaware of the actions of the Church in history and its activity in other parts of the world even to this day. Secondly, your entire argument is false because you do not seem to understand how the Church carries out its duty to make sure society values modesty.

Perhaps the problem might be that you are fixated on the word “Universal”. But in any case, I hope this sheds some understanding to you.

 

[Debora123]

I nearly missed your post because you didn’t quote me but rather mentioned my name instead

Anyway, first thing you have to understand is that your personal belief, if not based on objective and valid logical reasoning, can be false.

Now your main line of objections seem to be as follows.

Argument 1

1. There have been different societies with modest values that differ from each other
2. Therefore there is no universal standard of modesty

This reasoning is flawed because (2) does not follow from (1). You have forgotten that each of these societies may have been at various stages of refining its values on modesty. Some may have held the positive attitude toward modesty and sexual purity for a short time compared to those that had held it for a longer time. Also, they might have different forms of dress to begin with.

You cannot therefore use this as an argument to then justify embracing the value system regarding dress today from a culture steeped in a positive attitude toward sexual impurity and a very negative attitude toward the concept of modesty.

Argument 2

1. The Church has not stated explicit guidelines on how to be modest
2. Therefore, there is no universal standard of modesty

Now apart from the premise 1 being false since various Popes have indeed made clear, especially those who lived at the beginning of the sexual revolution, what standards of modesty to follow, there are other problems with the above argument.

The main problem with the above is that it does not seem to comprehend the teaching on modesty. The Church states, with respect to dress, that modesty is about not tempting others and covering up what should not be on display for everyone. When a society acknowledges this truth and holds it with a positive attitude, each of these societies form and refines its values on how best to achieve this.

The Church does not interfere because not every country has the same form of dress. If we just take the world today, in one part of the world you might have gowns, pants in another, or some form of traditional dress in another etc. Each of these cultures, as long as they hold sexual purity and modesty at high esteem, will refine its dress and values around it to better reflect modesty with time.

Now the Popes during the time of sexual revolution, did give clear standards regarding dress for those who of the Western part of the world because that is what they were more familiar with. Local Bishops in other parts of the world have done the same, and unlike in the West, DO CONTINUE to do the same. Surprising is it not?

So for one thing, your premise 1 is false because you seem to be unaware of the actions of the Church in history and its activity in other parts of the world even to this day. Secondly, your entire argument is false because you do not seem to understand how the Church carries out its duty to make sure society values modesty.

Perhaps the problem might be that you are fixated on the word “Universal”. But in any case, I hope this sheds some understanding to you.

Lol my argument is not false at all. Sure, some popes/saints have given their opinion on what they consider modest for THEIR TIME. This does not mean the Church has some sort of standard dress code for modesty that applies to all people of all time in all places. Even you yourself recognize this. As much as you wish there was, their isn’t. And thank God for that.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think it depends on the mass too though. Some churches are just much more formal than others.

But, what you wear to Mass to show respect for our Lord should not change. True, you should not dress way above what everyone else is wearing, so that you don’t show others up, but just because you go to Mass with a bunch of people you don’t know how to dress properly doesn’t mean you join them.

Personally, I’m glad I’ve never been to a mass with a dress code. Especially a dress code as strict as the one above. Do you know how much more extra clothes I’d have to buy? Lol. I never go to church looking like a slob, but I do wear jeans to church a lot. Not the ripped up, rugged kind… but nice jeans with a nice shirt.

This is not a strict dress code at all. But, it does show the differences that we have previously talked about. You should have to go home and change to continue on with your daily activities after Mass unless you are going out to a nice restaurant for lunch or something like that.