The Dress Code for the Vatican - Should it be Universal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter L_piperatus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholictiger said:
for me what was the slight objection to it was the fact that there is a possible you can see up it when sitting, I think women should be careful of wearing things above the knee for that reason. Has nothing to do with showing the knee and everything to do with what can be seen while sitting. But because most people won’t have a chance to see up it then it is probably ok.

I guess what has a little influence on me in this regard is that if a women in a concert wore that it would be considered inappropriate because it was to short. Every honor band I did in high school girls would have to wear dresses or skirts that came bellow the knee so that the private parts would be covered.

you are probably correct it really isn’t that inappropriate I just think it should be a little longer.
Click to expand...
AHHHHHH HAAAAA! We GOT ya!!! 😉

Well I always cross my legs or slant them to the side.
 
Debora123 said:
If the Church issued a universal dress code that forbade me from wearing a sleeveless shirt or exposing my knees, I would abide by it of course.

However, the Church, in her wisdom, has not applied such code. And all I’m saying is that I can definitely see why. And that I agree.
Click to expand...
Dear Debora123,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Our Church, dear sister, is not required to provide us with a universal dress code because it has no need to do so. However, a well-formed conscience should inform us that any garment which draws undue attention to our anatomy, making it the chief focus of attention, is unseemly and inappropriate for those who profess the religion of Christ. Moreover, the Church does expect the faithful to use their own prudential judgment or sanctified common sense in such matters and so it is an evidence of our spiritual immaturity if we desire to be spoon-fed as to which specific garments transgress the boundaries of propriety. Spiritual maturity and growth in personal holiness will enable one to discern what is immodest and unseemly attire by the application of the general principles of the Catechism and Sacred Tradition. However, this pre-supposes that a man or woman does not have a radically defective conscience, which has become virtually desensitized by the prevailing decadent culture, thus preventing it from functioning properly and making it liable to catastrophic errors of prudential judgement.

It is, dear sister, a very sad indication of the Laodicean lukewarmness of the contemporary Catholic Church, that multitudes of young Catholics ( and some not so young) are uncertain as to what constitues an immodest garment. Poor catechesis and worldliness are undoubtedly largely to blame for our very sad plight. A well-formed conscience ought to tell one that, for example, tightly-fitting jeans, which cling indecently to the legs and accentuate the posterior in an unseemly manner, are most unbefitting for a pious Catholic women. Again, a mini-skirt, which reveals an inordinate amount of flesh, violates Catholic standards of decency and is inclined to arouse unchaste thoughts in the opposite sex. It should be self-evident that such sexually seductive garments are a grave fault against Christian modesty in any public place, but they are especially inappropriate and disrespectful within the house of God. Unfortunately, many professing Catholics have allowed their clothing choices to be dictated by the godless immoral culture in their midst and seem utterly ignorant that their attire is an offence to our all-holy God. There are also those rebellious souls, I regret to say, who know fully well what articles of clothing are indecent and inappropriate but continue to be disobedient and supress the voice of conscience.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Debora123 said:
The problem here is that these responses are not particularly aimed at women who dress extremely provocatively to Church specifically to try to get people to lust. Women who do that are in the vast minority anyway. (personally, I have never seen anyone dress extremely provocatively to Church 🤷)

We are talking here about women who wear sleeveless shirts to Church, or skirts/dresses that expose the knees. Such as this, for example:

http://content.nordstrom.com/imagegallery/store/product/large/1/_6357681.jpg

I agree with WalkingHome. People who are so fixated on a pair of knees or bare arms to such a degree probably have a few issues to sort out.
Click to expand...
She’s Hot! 😃
 
Frankly – the ones with a malformed conscience – are the ones going round pushing women to hide their shape and lechering over some exposed skin. And it looks like some have gone so far off-- they’ve fallen into Jansenism and very likely Machineanism.
 
Portrait said:
Dear catholictiger,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your splendid contrributions to this thread, dear brother.

Please understand, dear friend, that I am not advocating being unduly harsh or uncharitable towards those that are erring as regards their indecent choice of clothing. However, I do believe, as do you, that their priest and close friends must be very firm with them, especially at a time when so many modern Catholics are slavishly adopting, rather than resisting, the debased fashions of the prevailing culture. It is not unreasonable to expect women (or men) who profess religion to dress with decency and propriety, especially within God’s holy sanctuary. After all, if there is inward purity and chastity, then that will surely manifest itself in outward modesty as regards clothing choices. Moreover, ostentation and extravagance in dress hardly point to a mind set upon heavenly things (cf. Col. 3: 2) and an unworldly outlook on life. Indeed, this whole issue of modesty in dress is bound up with the much broader issue of sanctity and separation from the world - a subject of which we hear so very little nowadays.

As I remarked yesterday, dear friend, I am essentially in wholehearted agreement with what you say and only beg to differ as regards the dress code thing.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
not much to say this time,

but let me ask you a simple question

what for a man is appropriate dress

what for a women is appropriate dress

is there anything that while you wouldn’t wear it as a man or women, you wouldn’t say anything to that person.
 
Portrait said:
Dear Debora123,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Our Church, dear sister, is not required to provide us with a universal dress code because it has no need to do so. However, a well-formed conscience should inform us that any garment which draws undue attention to our anatomy, making it the chief focus of attention, is unseemly and inappropriate for those who profess the religion of Christ. Moreover, the Church does expect the faithful to use their own prudential judgment or sanctified common sense in such matters and so it is an evidence of our spiritual immaturity if we desire to be spoon-fed as to which specific garments transgress the boundaries of propriety. Spiritual maturity and growth in personal holiness will enable one to discern what is immodest and unseemly attire by the application of the general principles of the Catechism and Sacred Tradition. However, this pre-supposes that a man or woman does not have a radically defective conscience, which has become virtually desensitized by the prevailing decadent culture, thus preventing it from functioning properly and making it liable to catastrophic errors of prudential judgement.

It is, dear sister, a very sad indication of the Laodicean lukewarmness of the contemporary Catholic Church, that multitudes of young Catholics ( and some not so young) are uncertain as to what constitues an immodest garment. Poor catechesis and worldliness are undoubtedly largely to blame for our very sad plight. A well-formed conscience ought to tell one that, for example, tightly-fitting jeans, which cling indecently to the legs and accentuate the posterior in an unseemly manner, are most unbefitting for a pious Catholic women. Again, a mini-skirt, which reveals an inordinate amount of flesh, violates Catholic standards of decency and is inclined to arouse unchaste thoughts in the opposite sex. It should be self-evident that such sexually seductive garments are a grave fault against Christian modesty in any public place, but they are especially inappropriate and disrespectful within the house of God. Unfortunately, many professing Catholics have allowed their clothing choices to be dictated by the godless immoral culture in their midst and seem utterly ignorant that their attire is an offence to our all-holy God. There are also those rebellious souls, I regret to say, who know fully well what articles of clothing are indecent and inappropriate but continue to be disobedient and supress the voice of conscience.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
Dear Portrait,

Following your views, men should not wear trousers either as they do accentuate the posterior unless they are made very loose like that of a samurai or of a ju jitsu black belt.
 
It’s hard to pick an answer because I don’t think the Vatican dress code should be universal, but I don’t think the Vatican dress code is too strict either. So neither choice fits how I would answer.

Let me explain.

Does any culture have the right to define modesty, for everyone else?

I think the Vatican dress conforms to cultural modesty in Western Europe (and North America). Is that standard somehow better than the standard in another culture? What about cultures who find the Vatican’s minimum to be immodest? What about places that find it to be “overkill?” Would Americans be willing to adopt the standard of of say some West African cultures where men wear billowing robes (and pants aren’t really considered “modest”).

I think it would be great if there were some kind of guidelines–but I really think it should be up to the local Bishops since they understand the culture and modesty expectations of the culture in their particular areas.
 
severus68 said:
Dear Portrait,

Following your views, men should not wear trousers either as they do accentuate the posterior unless they are made very loose like that of a samurai or of a ju jitsu black belt.
Click to expand...
Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

All of my trousers, dear sister, are conventional affairs, even my chinos, and do not in the least give undue prominence to the posterior and they are jolly stylish to boot.

God bless and hope that you are well, dear sister.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Walking_Home said:
Frankly – the ones with a malformed conscience – are the ones going round pushing women to hide their shape and lechering over some exposed skin. And it looks like some have gone so far off-- they’ve fallen into Jansenism and very likely Machineanism.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
severus68 said:
dear portrait,

following your views, men should not wear trousers either as they do accentuate the posterior unless they are made very loose like that of a samurai or of a ju jitsu black belt.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHA!! 😃

I think men should also wear skirts in order to hide their shape. 😉
 
Walking_Home said:
Frankly – the ones with a malformed conscience – are the ones going round pushing women to hide their shape and lechering over some exposed skin. And it looks like some have gone so far off-- they’ve fallen into Jansenism and very likely Machineanism.
Click to expand...
Let’s stay on the topic of widespread adoption of the Vatican dress code, which is the topic of the thread. Let’s hope you’re not suggesting that the Pope has a malformed conscience with regards to the value of having standards of modesty, let alone in his standard of propriety with regards to clothing appropriate to be worn in church.

After all, we’re not talking about the Church requiring the faithful to cover their knees and shoulders while playing basketball. This code only applies inside churches. On that front, may I point out that the men shown on the sign have to cover up more than the women do? Obviously, this isn’t just about modesty, then, is it? It is about propriety, about dressing in a way that shows mindfulness concerning the place and the event.

Really, is this code so awful and draconian as all the uproar suggests?* Is it really?* Or is this rather a defense of the principal that “No matter where I go, I don’t want anybody telling me what to wear, and that includes the Pope and that includes inside Catholic churches.”

People seem to be defending the thought that “I’m drawing that line, and if they don’t like it, I’m prepared to give up my life in the Church to defend my right to dress as I please.” Are we really saying we ought to bow to what sounds like an entitled and petulant attitude, because we’re afraid to do otherwise might be detrimental to souls?

Does this really make sense? Is this fearfulness of setting behavioral boundaries of even the sort that might easily be accepted if set by a school or a restaurant truly in the best interest of souls? I don’t think it can automatically be assumed that it is.
 
So does this clear me then to wear my old jiujitsu gi to Mass? I have to concede I never made it past blue belt so I won’t be as stylish as the black or brown belts that people normally wear to Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top