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

[CroCatholic]

I was respoding to this, by Joe5859:

“I can see the headlines now: “Who Cares about the Poor? Catholic Church Wants To Make Sure Knees Are Covered”. People would get angry. People would feel alienated.”

I don’t know whether Joe5859’s analysis is correct. But if he is correct, we are in deep trouble. In that case, we have become totally arrogant crybabies with no sense of humility, no sense of obedience, and no sense of duty. In that case, we aren’t any better than the stale water that God will spit out of his mouth.

^ this

 

[garn9173]

It seems to me that the Philippines, a country of 90+ million people, has universally accepted a dress code.proposed by their Ministry for Liturgical Affairs. The poster below is ubiquitous in Filipino churches and on Filipino websites:

I believe we should learn from the Philippines. I have seen this same poster being used by Filipino churches in Manila, Mindanao, and Malaybalay. Btw, the poster is essentially in full harmony with the Vatican’s instructions. Priests in the Philippines put this poster in front of their churches, on their churches’ websites, and they instruct their parishioners about how to dress modestly for church, and for Mass.

I truly don’t get it. Is the weather any hotter and any more humid in America, than in the Philippines? Why can the Filipino people abide with a dress code, and we in the USA and Canada can’t? Why are the Filipinos humble enough to **LISTEN and OBEY **their bishops and priests, but we can’t expect to be instructed and abide with a dress code? Why are we in America these thin-skinned, egotistic cry-babies?

Every Good Friday Filipino Catholics have a pretty hard time listening to and obeying church leaders leaders by disobyeing the church and carry out actual, live crucifixions, which IMO is a far worse than the subject at hand.

 

[thewanderer]

I was respoding to this, by Joe5859:

“I can see the headlines now: “Who Cares about the Poor? Catholic Church Wants To Make Sure Knees Are Covered”. People would get angry. People would feel alienated.”

I don’t know whether Joe5859’s analysis is correct. But if he is correct, we are in deep trouble. In that case, we have become totally arrogant crybabies with no sense of humility, no sense of obedience, and no sense of duty. In that case, we aren’t any better than the stale water that God will spit out of his mouth.

Thats one way to look at it. Another is to recognize that culturally many people don’t see any reason to cover their knees. (Personally I see absolutely nothing immodest about a skirt that comes just above the knee. and I am quite conervative compared to the US at large) and so forcing them to follow some new rule for which tthey see no reason is bound to end up with dissenters, that is human nature and says nothing about Americans beyond that they are human.

Also, I would note that this is talking about the Secular reaction to such a rule. Not the response of Catholics, there’s no denying that there are people who would take such a rule as an opportunity to try to bias more people against the Catholic Church. As Catholics we are called to be prudent in our actions. We are also taught to act by the principle of subsidiarity. As in, further removed the authority the less they should be taking care of. In other words, if it can be taken care of by the local bishop or priest it is not the job of Rome.

 

[Serap]

When did I ever say we should turn people away??? I’ve said the exact opposite,many many times.

Well that is a good thing. I hope you’re not as judgemental as you are coming across.

 

[Serap]

Thats one way to look at it. Another is to recognize that culturally many people don’t see any reason to cover their knees. (Personally I see absolutely nothing immodest about a skirt that comes just above the knee. and I am quite conervative compared to the US at large) and so forcing them to follow some new rule for which tthey see no reason is bound to end up with dissenters, that is human nature and says nothing about Americans beyond that they are human.

Also, I would note that this is talking about the Secular reaction to such a rule. Not the response of Catholics, there’s no denying that there are people who would take such a rule as an opportunity to try to bias more people against the Catholic Church. As Catholics we are called to be prudent in our actions. We are also taught to act by the principle of subsidiarity. As in, further removed the authority the less they should be taking care of. In other words, if it can be taken care of by the local bishop or priest it is not the job of Rome.

My skirts are often 3 inches above my knee and I don’t think it is immodest.

 

[thewanderer]

My skirts are often 3 inches above my knee and I don’t think it is immodest.

I’m not trying to make any claims about skirts 3 inches above the knee, I’m just showing that I honestly don’t see anything wrong with skirts that come just above the knee. Some people seem to think there is something sexy about the kneecap that is going to be an occasion of sin to men if it is seen.

 

[Debora123]

My skirts are often 3 inches above my knee and I don’t think it is immodest.

 

[Lady_Love]

Since when is a bare arm immodest/shoulder immodest? I suppose if you were muslim.

If someone was lusting after my arm I think I would laugh at them and think “poor guy, he’s really got problems.”

I think the real problem is not with what we wear but how we look at the body! What if a woman has to feed her baby with her boob? Would that be considered immodest? The baby has to eat!

 

[L_piperatus]

My skirts are often 3 inches above my knee and I don’t think it is immodest.

However I do think it is immodest, and I wouldn’t want to sit anywhere near you in a church, Serap, when you are dressed like that.

This is not personal… I really like you as a person, I enjoy reading your posts, I don’t feel any animosity against you, Serap - it’s just that I wouldn’t want to see you wearing that stuff, and I would try to sit somewhere far far away from you, if you were dressed like that.

Perhaps we should bring back segregated seating in our churches, men in the left, women in the right… or men in the right, women in the left… whatever, just keep us segregated, while you ladies won’t dress in a manner that we gentlemen consider modest.

 

[L_piperatus]

Since when is a bare arm immodest/shoulder immodest? I suppose if you were muslim.

If someone was lusting after my arm I think I would laugh at them and think “poor guy, he’s really got problems.”

I think the real problem is not with what we wear but how we look at the body! What if a woman has to feed her baby with her boob? Would that be considered immodest? The baby has to eat!

I would not feel comfortable sitting near a woman whose arms and shoulders are bare, in church or in an adoration chapel. It has happened to me, at perpetual adoration. A woman came and kneeled right next to me, and I felt… my space violated… I stood up and left. It’s not lust, it’s something else. A very uncomfortable feeling. I don’t want it, I will not take it, I will stand up and leave.

 

[LightBound]

I would not feel comfortable sitting near a woman whose arms and shoulders are bare, in church or in an adoration chapel. It has happened to me, at perpetual adoration. A woman came and kneeled right next to me, and I felt… my space violated… I stood up and left. It’s not lust, it’s something else. A very uncomfortable feeling. I don’t want it, I will not take it, I will stand up and leave.

I’m sorry, but it would take a lot more than someone that I felt was dressed inappropriately to make me stand up and leave adoration or Mass.

 

[thewanderer]

…

whatever, just keep us segregated, while you ladies won’t dress in a manner that we gentlemen consider modest.

I know this wasn’t aimed at me directly, but I would just like to point out that different men have different ideas of what constitutes ‘modest’ dress. Especially in this day and age where people who grow up with different ideas from different sub-cultures can easily meet/talk to each other because of modern technology. Some men are uncomfortable ever being around a woman in pants, some men are uncomfortable around women who don’t cover their elbows, just like some men are uncomfortable around women who don’t cover their knees or shoulders, or even who wear mid-length shorts. In the past men such men would have been uncomfortable around women who uncovered their ankles. It, to a large extent has to do with what a person was exposed to growing up and what was always kept hidden as a part of the mystery of the female. There is no one-size-fits all description of which clothes are modest and which are not, mostly because it all entirely depends on the situation. I know many men who would have no problem sitting near women with their shoulders or knees uncovered and these are not men who go around lusting after women, but men who are honestly striving for holiness.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

However I do think it is immodest, and I wouldn’t want to sit anywhere near you in a church, Serap, when you are dressed like that.

This is not personal… I really like you as a person, I enjoy reading your posts, I don’t feel any animosity against you, Serap - it’s just that I wouldn’t want to see you wearing that stuff, and I would try to sit somewhere far far away from you, if you were dressed like that.

Perhaps we should bring back segregated seating in our churches, men in the left, women in the right… or men in the right, women in the left… whatever, just keep us segregated, while you ladies won’t dress in a manner that we gentlemen consider modest.

You don’t want to see or sit near a woman wearing a skirt or dress that is 3 inches above the knee? You don’t want to see bare arms?

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinions the same as we all are, but what you’re talking about isn’t a modesty issue.

P.S. When was seating in Church segregated by sex?

 

[maryjk]

However I do think it is immodest, and I wouldn’t want to sit anywhere near you in a church, Serap, when you are dressed like that.

I would not feel comfortable sitting near a woman whose arms and shoulders are bare, in church or in an adoration chapel. It has happened to me, at perpetual adoration. A woman came and kneeled right next to me, and I felt… my space violated… I stood up and left. It’s not lust, it’s something else. A very uncomfortable feeling. I don’t want it, I will not take it, I will stand up and leave.

You don’t want to see or sit near a woman wearing a skirt or dress that is 3 inches above the knee? You don’t want to see bare arms?

Of course, you’re entitled to your opinions the same as we all are, but what you’re talking about isn’t a modesty issue.

P.S. When was seating in Church segregated by sex?

You are right, Do Good Then Go. This isn’t about modesty. This is about a personal problem.

 

[L_piperatus]

You are right, Do Good Then Go. This isn’t about modesty. This is about a personal problem.

Of course it’s a modesty issue. I have a personal problem sitting next to people who are dressed immodestly, just like many other people have the same personal problem. See Fr. Dominic Mary’s sermon on EWTN, for example. He has a personal problem sharing space with people dressed immodestly, and therefore he exclaims, You have violated my rights and it needs to stop!

 

[L_piperatus]

The difference between Fr. Dominic Mary and myself is that Fr. Dominic Mary can, as a priest, demand that people who show up in his church stop dressing immodestly (hence the exclamation You have violated my rights, and it needs to stop!), while my only practical option is to stand up and move to another part of the church, or leave altogether if it’s not possible at all to find a spot devoid of people dressed immodestly.

 

[maryjk]

Of course it’s a modesty issue. I have a personal problem sitting next to people who are dressed immodestly, just like many other people have the same personal problem. See Fr. Dominic Mary’s sermon on EWTN, for example. He has a personal problem sharing space with people dressed immodestly, and therefore he exclaims, You have violated my rights and it needs to stop!

But your definition of modesty is not reasonable. To think that a skirt an inch above the knee is immodest is not normal. As I said, this isn’t about modesty. It is a personal problem.

I have a question. If you are at a restaurant and a woman walks in with a shirt that shows more than two fingers below her collar bone, do you leave?

Hint: I haven’t violated your rights. You simply misunderstand what your rights are.

 

[L_piperatus]

I know this wasn’t aimed at me directly, but I would just like to point out that different men have different ideas of what constitutes ‘modest’ dress. Especially in this day and age where people who grow up with different ideas from different sub-cultures can easily meet/talk to each other because of modern technology. Some men are uncomfortable ever being around a woman in pants, some men are uncomfortable around women who don’t cover their elbows, just like some men are uncomfortable around women who don’t cover their knees or shoulders, or even who wear mid-length shorts. In the past men such men would have been uncomfortable around women who uncovered their ankles. It, to a large extent has to do with what a person was exposed to growing up and what was always kept hidden as a part of the mystery of the female. There is no one-size-fits all description of which clothes are modest and which are not, mostly because it all entirely depends on the situation. I know many men who would have no problem sitting near women with their shoulders or knees uncovered and these are not men who go around lusting after women, but men who are honestly striving for holiness.

While it’s true that different men have different ideas of what constitutes ‘modest’ dress for church, my own idea is the very same idea espoused by the Vatican, by the churches of Rome, Venice, and Italy, and by dozens (probably thousands) of Catholic bishops and priests located in Italy, the USA, Mexico, France, Ireland, Croatia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Australia, and so on. Even the Buddhist shrine of Angkor Vat in Cambodia requests visitors to do the same thing - to cover their shoulders and knees. In another thread, I posted the specific norms of a modest dress code, as requested by bishops and priests from various places across the globe, and that’s what they requested. They want parishioners to cover their shoulders, to wear shirts with sleeves, to stop wearing shorts, and to wear skirts and dresses that come down to cover the knees. In addition, they regard showing cleavage, bare backs, and exposed midriffs, as immodest.

 

[Walking_Home]

"L piperatus:

However I do think it is immodest, and I wouldn’t want to sit anywhere near you in a church, Serap, when you are dressed like that.

This is not personal… I really like you as a person, I enjoy reading your posts, I don’t feel any animosity against you, Serap - it’s just that I wouldn’t want to see you wearing that stuff, and I would try to sit somewhere far far away from you, if you were dressed like that.

Perhaps we should bring back segregated seating in our churches, men in the left, women in the right… or men in the right, women in the left… whatever, just keep us segregated, while you ladies won’t dress in a manner that we gentlemen consider modest

I would not feel comfortable sitting near a woman whose arms and shoulders are bare, in church or in an adoration chapel. It has happened to me, at perpetual adoration. A woman came and kneeled right next to me, and I felt… my space violated… I stood up and left. It’s not lust, it’s something else. A very uncomfortable feeling. I don’t want it, I will not take it, I will stand up and leave.

---

Seems to be – you have personal “issues”-- and using the “modesty bandwagon” – to cover up your personal problems and pass the buck. It may be better for you to seek out some type of professional clinical help.

 

[garn9173]

While it’s true that different men have different ideas of what constitutes ‘modest’ dress for church, my own idea is the very same idea espoused by the Vatican, by the churches of Rome, Venice, and Italy, and by dozens (probably thousands) of Catholic bishops and priests located in Italy, the USA, Mexico, France, Ireland, Croatia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Australia, and so on. Even the Buddhist shrine of Angkor Vat in Cambodia requests visitors to do the same thing - to cover their shoulders and knees. In another thread, I posted the specific norms of a modest dress code, as requested by bishops and priests from various places across the globe, and that’s what they requested. They want parishioners to cover their shoulders, to wear shirts with sleeves, to stop wearing shorts, and to wear skirts and dresses that come down to cover the knees. In addition, they regard showing cleavage, bare backs, and exposed midriffs, as immodest.

Honest question, what is the difference between shorts that cover the knees and skirts & dresses that come to the knees? I’m wearing a cloth pair of shorts that when standing covers the knees.

How could a lady get away with a skirt that covers the knees, but as a guy, I cann’t wear nice khaki shorts that come to the knees and a polo shirt.?