Sunday Best? Church Leaders Blush at "Casual Catholic" Dress

[CMatt25]

I honestly think that there is a great deal of confusion among the younger generation about what it means to “dress up.” I once asked a group of teens to “dress up” for Sunday Mass, and they all showed up in Hallowe’en costumes.

Did Jesus lock the door to them?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Maybe we need to go in small steps. I mean, right NOW, wouldn’t we all wish for everyone to be dressed modestly and decently? Now one man’s shorts might be long shorts, he might wear long socks and be pretty ‘covered’, and so long as the shorts aren’t dirty, ripped, or hanging down with 2 inches of thong underwear showing, he’s all right. And the woman in slacks and polo is perfectly well covered and modest, as opposed to the woman dressed in an expensive but low cut, high rise, slinky see-through ‘dress’.

Once we have everybody on the same page with modest and decent, regardless of whether we feel we should be dressing our ‘best’, THEN comes the effort to think about going a step further.

And then it will come individually, but I think it will come, once we are all in agreement that whether it’s a suit or long, clean shorts, whether it is a skirt or dress or pants, provided it covers the person and is clean and not sexualized or see-through, it’s modest ENOUGH for Church.
Going beyond ‘modest enough’ to 'dressing for the Lord as King" can come once we are all there at MODEST!

Because once the majority of the people here who do dress modestly and appropriately feel that they aren’t being ‘forced’ to dress up or SHAMED for what is truly modest . . .

and once the minority of the people here who dress a little more ‘up’ feel that they aren’t going to be sneered at as hypocrites or stuck up snobs. . .

THEN the minority of the people who DO dress inappropriately --dirty clothes when they have clean ones available; shirts or hats advocating violence, vulgarity, hatred and commercialism when there are shirts and hats which do NOT show these things available; too short, tight, sexualized, see-through, feminine wear when there are well-fitting, ‘unsexualized’, opaque and appropriate clothes available; then THESE people will be facing, if you will, a ‘united front’ which shows a broad spectrum of appropriate and modest wear acceptable for Church. And it will be much easier for Joe Sweat Suit, when the priest approaches him to say, “Joe, the sweat suit is too casual for something as important to you as Mass, look at the modest yet casual outfit of most men here to see an idea of the kinds of things you might consider wearing to give good example of respect for the Lord, yourself, and others at Mass” --to look and see the fellow in the clean jeans and polo and say, “Yes, I can do that”.

Will he later choose to go even further to slacks, or suits? Perhaps. At least he won’t sink further into the slough of gym shorts and wife beaters for the summer Mass!

A constructive ideal…that’s novel…

You are right…I find it ironic to have people say dockers/jeans isn’t good enough when we do have much bigger “fish” to fry. You know…where the cleavage is way too low…or the shorts too high…like almost to their I feel so old when I say I have underwear that covers more then that.

Thanks for keeping a balanced approach that focuses more on the real issue at hand…modesty…

 

[CMatt25]

…back to the Straw Man of “need” (i.e., requirement, obligation) again. Why would you think that it was that man’s assumption that he “needed” to wear a suit to “show reverence?” He clearly chose to, wanted to. He had the option to wear different clothes, but chose to select his best outfit for the occasion of the week that is not interchangeable with other occasions, wihch is qualitatively different from occasions which assume other clothing. He chose to mirror his outward appearance with his inward disposition. He wasn’t “yoked” to do that. So your raising of the words of Jesus about the Pharisees’ yoking of others is off-topic, because there’s no evidence that this gas station attendant felt “yoked.”

That is the fundamental Straw Man of all these arguments: that when people dress ever so differently at Mass than for all the other 167 hours of the week, they are “yoked” to doing so, they “need” to do so, feel “required” to do so (by some invisible social force), and worse – are “judging” those who do not do so.

No: They choose to correspond the outer with the inner, to have their clothes reflect what’s in their hearts.

Hmmm.

What didn’t you understand Elizabeth about my words, "And that is absolutely great if that is **his choice **? I don’t care whether he believes he needs to or simply wants to. It is his choice. Nor do I care if the gas attendant referred to feels yoked or not. I do when this topic comes up here on CAF and also when people start tying clothing into witnessing and worshiping as a faith community. Afterall, all you supposedly wanted was for each of us to look at ourselves. If you and the gas attendant look at yourselves and want to dress up more, great! I have not a problem with that whatsover. I won’t attempt to determine your attitude about revering Jesus as being neither more nor less than mine or anyone else’s whose choice for their outer body is to cover it in jeans, shorts, gym shoes. or sandals.

 

[jmcrae]

It wouldn’t be hypothetical if he actually approached me. And it has nothing to do with being “so sensitive”. To me it has to do with what truly matters to God.

Matt, every detail of your whole life matters to God, right down to the number of hairs on your head. Of course it matters to Him how you dress.

I do when this topic comes up here on CAF and also when people start tying clothing into witnessing and worshiping as a faith community.

Our appearance is part of our witness, as Christians. If we look the part, people will take us more seriously than if we don’t look the part. To look the part, you have to dress for the part. How you dress depends on what part, in this little stage play we call life, you want to be cast in. Bystander? Rebel? Member? Someone who can be relied on?

 

[JHow]

Oddly enough, listening to protestant Christian radio while driving back from the airport the other day I heard a discussion on this topic. The show host (Frank Pastore KKLA) posited the theory that there might be a social class component to this as well. In his opinion, he felt like lower-income communities and churches tended to dress “up”, while more affluent communities and churches dressed “down”. He was talking about mostly protestant churches, and seemed to have the idea that Catholics dressed up (clearly he doesn’t follow CAF). He was asking callers to comment and some of the examples people gave were black southern churches where women routinely wear hats and seemed to have a “Southern belle” approach, versus our California-style laxness of dress. The host even said that when he moved to Cincinnati at one point, he was chastized for his dress at church by someone who told him “we don’t do that california style here”.

Setting aside cleavage, hairy legs, tramp stamps and plumber pants for a second (set them all FAR aside!), I still think there is a big dose of culture and class going on here. I suspect the more uniform in culture and class a neighborhood is, the less trouble there is with “dress code” - whatever people end up wearing.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m in a cooler climate, Matt. . .it would be a rare day, particularly now I have to head back to BrrrMont, that any man would wear shorts because it was just ‘too hot’. If you’re in a warmer place like Bermuda or something where shorts are always worn and long pants are not, I imagine it would be different.

And some men have really hairy legs, Matt, that are extremely 'distracting. However, a lot have legs with minimal hair and a fairly tan color that kind of ‘blend into’ the line of the shorts and aren’t distracting at all.

So I’m not judging you, Matt, but YOU’RE the one who says if somebody even SUGGESTS you consider a different style than the one you like, you’ll leave that particular church (probably just the building!). Wow. Now that to me is an example of somebody who is as ‘cast iron rigid’ in upholding the ‘casual’ style as somebody who upholds the ‘dressier’ style.

Why then do you act as though the ‘dressier types’ are all wrong, rigid, and mean, when you yourself are clinging just as rigidly and then some to YOUR preference of dress? Don’t you see that your response is exactly what you’re accusing them of doing ‘wrong?’

Tantum, TMI perhaps for which I apologize, but hair-wise you might have a point if I came shirtless. As I understand wax jobs can be painful!

But no Tantum, it’s not a matter of me saying the dressier types are all wrong. Depending on other aspects of your worship, I’d have absolutely no problem worshiping in the same community in Bermuda or somewhere, with you and Elizabeth, et al in your dress clothes, and me in shorts and Annabelle Marie in her jeans and her husband in his shorts, and others in the types of more casual attire they have spoken here of wearing. As long as you made me feel welcomed to be part of the community.

But if the priest approached me about the clothing I’ve described wearing, suggesting because of it there was something wrong with my heart or respect or reverence for Jesus, I would no longer feel welcomed. It’s like how Annabelle Marie has mentioned more than once the lady passing out her guidelines and how that turned the couple off.

Of course it we were worshiping together in 0 degrees in Montana in the midst of a snowstorm and I came in shorts, you might wonder if something was wrong with my head, Tantum! :yup: But not my heart.

Take for example what Annabelle Marie has said about how she and her husband are about to embark on holiday dinners for thousands of people. Do you think I am going to sit here and wonder about their hearts and their respect for Jesus their following of His teachings because they wear jeans and shorts to Mass? Absolutely not!

In any case God bless you Tantum and peace.

 

[Sarabande]

Maybe we need to go in small steps. I mean, right NOW, wouldn’t we all wish for everyone to be dressed modestly and decently? Now one man’s shorts might be long shorts, he might wear long socks and be pretty ‘covered’, and so long as the shorts aren’t dirty, ripped, or hanging down with 2 inches of thong underwear showing, he’s all right. And the woman in slacks and polo is perfectly well covered and modest, as opposed to the woman dressed in an expensive but low cut, high rise, slinky see-through ‘dress’.

Once we have everybody on the same page with modest and decent, regardless of whether we feel we should be dressing our ‘best’, THEN comes the effort to think about going a step further.

And then it will come individually, but I think it will come, once we are all in agreement that whether it’s a suit or long, clean shorts, whether it is a skirt or dress or pants, provided it covers the person and is clean and not sexualized or see-through, it’s modest ENOUGH for Church.
Going beyond ‘modest enough’ to 'dressing for the Lord as King" can come once we are all there at MODEST!

Because once the majority of the people here who do dress modestly and appropriately feel that they aren’t being ‘forced’ to dress up or SHAMED for what is truly modest . . .

and once the minority of the people here who dress a little more ‘up’ feel that they aren’t going to be sneered at as hypocrites or stuck up snobs. . .

THEN the minority of the people who DO dress inappropriately --dirty clothes when they have clean ones available; shirts or hats advocating violence, vulgarity, hatred and commercialism when there are shirts and hats which do NOT show these things available; too short, tight, sexualized, see-through, feminine wear when there are well-fitting, ‘unsexualized’, opaque and appropriate clothes available; then THESE people will be facing, if you will, a ‘united front’ which shows a broad spectrum of appropriate and modest wear acceptable for Church. And it will be much easier for Joe Sweat Suit, when the priest approaches him to say, “Joe, the sweat suit is too casual for something as important to you as Mass, look at the modest yet casual outfit of most men here to see an idea of the kinds of things you might consider wearing to give good example of respect for the Lord, yourself, and others at Mass” --to look and see the fellow in the clean jeans and polo and say, “Yes, I can do that”.

Will he later choose to go even further to slacks, or suits? Perhaps. At least he won’t sink further into the slough of gym shorts and wife beaters for the summer Mass!

EXCELLENT post!!!

 

[Sarabande]

I honestly think that there is a great deal of confusion among the younger generation about what it means to “dress up.” I once asked a group of teens to “dress up” for Sunday Mass, and they all showed up in Hallowe’en costumes.

For a Confirmation class that I was teaching, I asked one of the Moms, who I knew was always dressed modestly and nicely, to give the welcome speech for the Bishop on the day of Confirmation. She arrived at the Church dressed as if for an evening out on the town - low cut, no sleeves, and short - the Bishop didn’t know where to look.

She told me afterwards, “I thought I should dress up for the Bishop.”

I didn’t want to make her feel bad, so all I said was, “you would have been just fine in your normal clothes - there was no need.”

Yes, I think you are right. The older people are just as confused, I believe, because I think more parents wouldn’t allow their children (especially their daughters) to dress the way they do for mass if they weren’t confused. The lines have been really blurred for a while. For me, it’s more of the modesty problem then anything else. I feel badly for many because I truly do believe that most do not realize that they are dressing immodestly, such as what you described above and my own experiences.

I think we need to go back to showing pictures of people dressed for Church - you remember those ones, with the Mom, the Dad, the little boy, and the little girl, walking hand in hand to Church - we need to update that picture with modern-looking modest styles on the figures, to show people what it looks like, to “dress up for Church.”

You mean like this?

 

[ChiRho]

I’ve already changed churches when a priest said in his homily his answer to the poor is to get a job and he actually did suggest in his same homily to dress up. So I’d have no problem doing it again.

You changed churches after one homily? Yes, you do sound sensitive or unable to tolerate other viewpoints indeed, never mind that a priest asking you to wear less-casual clothing might, heaven forbid, actually have a point

 

[Elizabeth502]

The only time I have ever changed parishes is for flagrant heresy and/or liturgical abuse. Understand that heresy does not mean that the priest opposes some private interpretation of scripture I might have, or some preferred scriptural or moral emphasis on my part, but rather if/when the priest(s) in question preach directly and clearly against Church moral doctrine, such as in two different cases when priests advocated actively homosexual relationships as being morally acceptable within Catholicism. And that was not one homily, but several, and there was a clear agenda that had developed over time that scandalized the congregation.

I have never changed parishes because I felt uncomfortable about a homily that did not violate Church teaching. I realized later that I needed to hear that, and it caused me to re-examine my prideful reasons for resisting the message the first time.

If a priest were truly unreasonable about a dress code, such as demanding specific kinds of very dressy & expensive outfits/suits, or ankle-length women’s skirts instead of merely modest length, then I suppose I would have to consider not attending, but only as a practical matter, not as a “protest.” Such a priest would not have much of a congregation, in very short order; thus, such a possibility is not even very realistic. I can’t think of a priest that I have known in my adulthood that has time for such details of dress code anyway. (Which is why they provide general suggestions, not specific.)

 

[CMatt25]

You changed churches after one homily? Yes, you do sound sensitive or unable to tolerate other viewpoints indeed, never mind that a priest asking you to wear less-casual clothing might, heaven forbid, actually have a point

No not after one homily. Have heard many there. And I actually wished I had heard more about the poor and war and peace for instance. I actually have attended an early morning weekday Mass there since. Because it is the closest Catholic parish to my home. But I haven’t on a weekend since because the final straw for me was because of one homily that I found to be too opposite my beliefs regarding the poor as well as about attire, along with a policy of not baptizing children unless their parents not only have been registered but have also been using the prescribed envelope system of the parish for 6 mos which I likewise find too opposite what I believe should be a prerequisite for Baptism. Along with a more formal setting and in which EMHC wear matching robes where I just personally do not feel as comfortable worshiping Christ. Who walked the earth as a carpenter in sandals. If you and anyone else prefer such a setting for your worship, great! That is fine. I have no problem with it. I myself just prefer somewhere plainer and simpler. And where EMHC serve in the attire they came in. Such as when I believe it was Annabelle Marie who said, in her parish she was called to serve even though she had come in jeans to that Mass.

When you can find in Scripture where in poor ecomomic times Jesus said His answer to the poor was to get a job. To give to beautifying decor which may mean less to the poor. But they can get that job. A prescription for dressing up. And John the Baptist or St Paul requiring the use of envelopes before he baptized households, get back with me on leaving. In the meantime I chose to go somewhere else to abide in Jesus. I’ve always just felt Jesus more in a somewhat more informal setting I suppose. But that’s me. YMMV. Hope that helps! God bless you along your walk. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

The only time I have ever changed parishes is for flagrant heresy and/or liturgical abuse. Understand that heresy does not mean that the priest opposes some private interpretation of scripture I might have, or some preferred scriptural or moral emphasis on my part, but rather if/when the priest(s) in question preach directly and clearly against Church moral doctrine, such as in two different cases when priests advocated actively homosexual relationships as being morally acceptable within Catholicism. And that was not one homily, but several, and there was a clear agenda that had developed over time that scandalized the congregation.

I have never changed parishes because I felt uncomfortable about a homily that did not violate Church teaching. I realized later that I needed to hear that, and it caused me to re-examine my prideful reasons for resisting the message the first time.

If a priest were truly unreasonable about a dress code, such as demanding specific kinds of very dressy & expensive outfits/suits, or ankle-length women’s skirts instead of merely modest length, then I suppose I would have to consider not attending, but only as a practical matter, not as a “protest.” Such a priest would not have much of a congregation, in very short order; thus, such a possibility is not even very realistic. I can’t think of a priest that I have known in my adulthood that has time for such details of dress code anyway. (Which is why they provide general suggestions, not specific.)

So there ya go. If the priest was unreasonable to you, you would consider not attending. Let us pray it is not realistic such a priest would put into place what you would object to in a practical manner.

I might add homilies and music are very important parts to the worship experience for me. Not merely whether there is heresy or liturgical abuse. YMMV. And there is no need for me for instance to hear the priest’s answer to the poor is to get a job in poor economic times. I’m fully aware one answer is to teach a man to fish. But I’m more interested in hearing all of Jesus’s answers. Not one priest’s answer. Nor one priest’s opinion that we should wear our finest. I’ve yet to find infallible doctrine on that.

 

[MissRose73]

I do not think it takes a lot of effort to dress decently, modestly, and appropriately for Mass. If you can take 3 hours to get dressed up for a wedding reception with fancy hair and clothes, I am sure a few minutes can be given to put on a outfit that looks good for church.

I know some churches not in communion with the Holy See ask for people to really dress up which includes no casual wear, nothing immodest, etc for Mass & to be able to receive Communion. There are parishes that are in communion with the Holy See that have similar guidelines (or even enforced rules) that celebrate one or both forms. I would have no issue returning to the days where people dressed up for Mass but allowing nice dress pants with a nice modest top for females who are uncomfortable wearing dresses/skirts like my mother.

I would say at minimum what is accepted in most business casual and/or professional dress offices would be good for Mass as long as its neat, clean, modest and appropriate. Work uniforms/clothes, I have no issues with as long as they are also neat, clean, and modest as some people have to come to Mass directly from work or must go to work right after Mass.

 

[irishpatrick]

And here’s the judgements against people again. According to Irishpatrick, people who don’t dress well are highly implied to not be good Catholics (and he will inevidibly argue against this assessment because he always does).

.

You know, one can challenge others and ask questions without thinking they are somehow lesser Catholics. Never once have I implied that anyone here is a lesser Catholic. So, please drop that.

A simple question, like: How would people dress if they were going to meet the Pope? Is a challenge, not a condemnation.

 

[irishpatrick]

It wouldn’t be hypothetical if he actually approached me. And it has nothing to do with being “so sensitive”. To me it has to do with what truly matters to God. So absolutely I would change churches if this man thought the clothing I’ve described wearing suggested that my heart for Jesus was not sincere enough. I’ve already changed churches when a priest said in his homily his answer to the poor is to get a job and he actually did suggest in his same homily to dress up. So I’d have no problem doing it again.

I think people do not realize that how you dress is a sign of respect not only for God, but for those around us. We owe each other a debt even if we do not understand that.

Think this one through: how would you feel if Priests just started to say Mass dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, and dumped wearing vestments (forget the real abuse there, how would you feel about that and why)?

I think the vast majority of Catholics would be outraged if Priests dressed in jeans or shorts to say Mass (regular indoors Mass btw). And, they would be correct to feel outraged. Now, why is it that the Ministerial (ordained) Priesthood is held to that standard, but we “the prieshood of all believers” (lay Catholics and all Christians) are somehow exempt from showing external signs of respect?

 

[ryecroft]

I don’t have a problem with people wearing casual clothes to Mass, as long as they’re modest and decently covered. (People in the Middle Ages, after all, wore what they had—and for most of them, they only had one or at the very most two changes of clothing).

Much wose, however, IMHO, are women—usually younger women—who show up in cut-off shorts that reveal more than you want to know, sleeveless t-shirts so tight they look like they’re about ready to pop, skirts so short that if they lean over the mystery is done, and the ubiquitous flip-flops. It’s like they are either totally oblivious to the effect they’re having on the men in the pews, or else they just don’t care. Going to church should be an occasion to improve your holiness before God, not a near occasion of sin where you are surrounded by women dressed in a manner that’s one step removed from a Cosmoplitan cover.

Just a personal gripe of mine. I mean, Lord knows I’m not perfect, and I don’t claim to be, but I at least try.

In a time where something like 1/4 of Catholics in the states go to Mass, I thought showing up was trying…
God Bless
Rye

 

[CMatt25]

I would have no issue returning to the days where people dressed up for Mass but allowing nice dress pants with a nice modest top for females who are uncomfortable wearing dresses/skirts like my mother.

Once they start making such man made rules about dressing up, who’s to say some priest won’t require a dress or skirt and won’t allow your mother in with her pants and top? Btw my mother was the same way especially in her later yrs. Instead of dresses and skirts, she wore nice capris, a nice top, and sneakers.

 

[CMatt25]

Think this one through: how would you feel if Priests just started to say Mass dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, and dumped wearing vestments (forget the real abuse there, how would you feel about that and why)?

I think the vast majority of Catholics would be outraged if Priests dressed in jeans or shorts to say Mass (regular indoors Mass btw). And, they would be correct to feel outraged. Now, why is it that the Ministerial (ordained) Priesthood is held to that standard, but we “the prieshood of all believers” (lay Catholics and all Christians) are somehow exempt from showing external signs of respect?

Thinking it thru I’m in the small minority then because I would not be outraged.

 

[CMatt25]

In a time where something like 1/4 of Catholics in the states go to Mass, I thought showing up was trying…
God Bless
Rye

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Thinking it thru I’m in the small minority then because I would not be outraged.

Well, I wouldn’t be either. Fr.'s clothes right now sometimes are kind of wrinkled and his shoes could use a good polish…but I just smile because I have no issues about where his heart is. I understand that he is rushing here and there and everywhere else. It’s someone else who washes his vestments and presses them. And, scandal amongst scandal, on All Saints day last year I saw that he was wearing jeans under his vestments…I kind of chuckled…why…well because it was a Monday…which would be his only day off…and I know that he gave up that time to come and say Mass for us. That action showed where his heart was a lot more than his jeans.