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

[EasterJoy]

Wanting to look sexy/attractive doesn’t necessarily mean you want people to lust after you. Attraction does not equal lust.

You’re saying that you should be able to aim to look sexy, but men who look at you dressed in that way should of course be able to stop thoughts about actually having sex with you. What* is* your objective in dressing so as to be attractive to men?

I guess I am confused. Let’s get away from loaded terms like “sexy”. Could you clarify what sort of thoughts about yourself are you trying to elicit from others, such that the aim would be defeated if you were asked to please select clothing that covers your thighs and the tops of your shoulders? What kind of attraction requires that you be allowed to reveal those particular patches of skin?

 

[catholictiger]

Well then we can agree to disagree because I think that dress is a very nice dress and perfectly fine for mass. If anyone is going to have an uncontrollable fit of lust from this, then as I said, that person may possibly have some issues to sort out.

I don’t disagree but women I think in mass should alteast cover up the parts I know they don’t want people to see and a mini skirt or a dress that only goes a few inches bellow the hips are probably to short. This may be something I would let slide, not really sure would take some discernment on my part.

But this right here is a good example of one reason why the Church does not have a universal dress code. We are not all going to agree on what’s modest. There are people out there who think this dress is perfectly modest (me) and there are people out there who think going to mass with as much as your *hair *exposed is immodest (apparently there are still people out there who think it’s a sin for a woman not to wear a mantilla to mass).

So there we have it

you are exactly right, and please don’t see me as someone who thinks if a women’s hair is exposed she is being immodest. I say if a man or women is being to revealing then he/she is being to immodest. I think that is pretty self explanatory as to what you can and what you can’t wear.

 

[catholictiger]

But that’s the point exactly. By some people’s standards of “revealing,” we are mainly discussing sleeveless shirts or dresses/skirts that show the knees.

If someone is so seriously troubled by seeing a pair of arms or a pair of knees, wouldn’t you wonder if perhaps there are certain issues there?

for me reveling would be to low cut of a dress, and not long enough dress or shorts bellow hips.

 

[Walking_Home]

OK, how do we know that someone who is bothered by revealing clothing must have a psychological problem requiring professional help? You’re applying a double standard. Why are you letting yourself off of that hook?

Besides, you have to admit there is a point at which there has been too much revealed. If Lady Godiva walked into Mass, would you think anyone who had a problem with that or finds it distracting needs professional help? She ought to just come like that every Sunday, and anyone who doesn’t like it can go get himself examined by a professional? Otherwise, where do you draw your line, and who made you holier than the Pope when it comes to deciding where the line ought to be? Considering how much he has to put on in order to say Mass, is he asking for that much?

Honestly, do you think a restaurant the doesn’t allow bikinis is pointing fingers at patrons who would come in dressed like that? No! They are only asking that patrons not draw attention to themselves. It does not really matter if the patron meant anything by it or not. Somebody can be distracting without intending it, but they are still distracting.

Again, I’m not talking about throwing anybody out. I’m just very sick of hearing women talk about wanting “sexy” clothes in one breath and then condemning people who actually do find them sexy in the next and acting like they’re being persecuted for being women. What nonsense.

---

I do not believe anyone is making the case – for people to show up for Church naked and/or in a bikini. But if a man has a problem with a woman’s bare arm and/or has some dysfunctional view of the body – that he sees a woman as body parts – yea – people like that need therapy.

 

[Debora123]

You’re saying that you should be able to aim to look sexy, but men who look at you dressed in that way should of course be able to stop thoughts about actually having sex with you. What* is* your objective in dressing so as to be attractive to men?

I guess I am confused. Let’s get away from loaded terms like “sexy”. Could you clarify what sort of thoughts about yourself are you trying to elicit from others, such that the aim would be defeated if you were asked to please select clothing that covers your thighs and the tops of your shoulders? What kind of attraction requires that you be allowed to reveal those particular patches of skin?

I must admit I did a bad job of explaining what I meant. Which is why I edited that post to explain myself a little better.

Though better yet, you should see post #210. TheWanderer does a better job of explaining it than I did.

 

[EasterJoy]

But that’s the point exactly. By some people’s standards of “revealing,” we are mainly discussing sleeveless shirts or dresses/skirts that show the knees.

If someone is so seriously troubled by seeing a pair of arms or a pair of knees, wouldn’t you wonder if perhaps there are certain issues there?

I’m actually wondering about people who are so seriously troubled about not being able to show off their shoulders and knees. What is so onerous about being asked to cover such a reasonable amount of skin? Why is that such a burden to accomplish? People say they want to be “attractive”…what kind of sentiments about you would you lose out on if you weren’t allowed show your knees and your shoulders?

Let’s imagine Father coming up to the altar during the processional. Since the weather is hot, his shoulders are bare and and four inches of skin are showing above his knees. Does no one think this would have any impact on the solemnity of the Mass, compared to the way priests typically expect themselves to be attired for Mass? If that is the standard for him, why is there a double standard for the laity?

 

[Debora123]

I don’t disagree but women I think in mass should alteast cover up the parts I know they don’t want people to see and a mini skirt or a dress that only goes a few inches bellow the hips are probably to short. This may be something I would let slide, not really sure would take some discernment on my part.

you are exactly right, and please don’t see me as someone who thinks if a women’s hair is exposed she is being immodest. I say if a man or women is being to revealing then he/she is being to immodest. I think that is pretty self explanatory as to what you can and what you can’t wear.

… Without knowing it, you have listed 2 perfectly good reasons why the Church does not have a universal dress code.

 

[Debora123]

---

I do not believe anyone is making the case – for people to show up for Church naked and/or in a bikini. But if a man has a problem with a woman’s bare arm and/or has some dysfunctional view of the body – that he sees a woman as body parts – yea – people like that need therapy.

yup

 

[catholictiger]

Perhaps, depending on the situation and on priest/friend’s approach.

I was specifically referring to people we see in mass, not to someone who’s close to us.

you are correct, it needs to be addressed somehow if it is a problem and I think one of those ways is talking to them directly, It may be difficult to approach that situation. Thankfully most people don’t dress overly immodest to church, so it wouldn’t need to be handled that often.

 

[Debora123]

I’m actually wondering about people who are so seriously troubled about not being able to show off their shoulders and knees. What is so onerous about being asked to cover such a reasonable amount of skin? Why is that such a burden to accomplish? People say they want to be “attractive”…what kind of sentiments about you would you lose out on if you weren’t allowed show your knees and your shoulders?

Let’s imagine Father coming up to the altar during the processional. Since the weather is hot, his shoulders are bare and and four inches of skin are showing above his knees. Does no one think this would have any impact on the solemnity of the Mass, compared to the way priests typically expect themselves to be attired for Mass? If that is the standard for him, why is there a double standard for the laity?

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

---

I do not believe anyone is making the case – for people to show up for Church naked and/or in a bikini. But if a man has a problem with a woman’s bare arm and/or has some dysfunctional view of the body – that he sees a woman as body parts – yea – people like that need therapy.

Men who are sexually aroused at the sight of women who dress with the goal of being sexually attractive do not need therapy because they are not abnormal, nor can they automatically be accused of objectifying women. If they are, the woman who let herself be dressed by fashion designers who had exactly that end in mind and then is surprised when that goal is achieved probably ought to have her head examined, too.

 

[Debora123]

you are correct, it needs to be addressed somehow if it is a problem and I think one of those ways is talking to them directly, It may be difficult to approach that situation. Thankfully most people don’t dress overly immodest to church, so it wouldn’t need to be handled that often.

Very true, very true.

 

[catholictiger]

… Without knowing it, you have listed 2 perfectly good reasons why the Church does not have a universal dress code.

I’m not for it so good

I’m just for slowly moving to a more reverent mass and part of that is how we dress

but I’m mainly talking about the people who show up to mass in t-shirts, and sports uniforms, athletic shorts, along with some other things. They don’t happen much but there are some churches out there that happen. I won’t turn these people away from a church but I don’t want people wearing this stuff to mass.

 

[catholictiger]

I need to go for the night watching the espys and not by a charger, can’t get to one till after this is over, than I have to go to bed so I will talk you guys tomorrow

 

[Debora123]

I’m not for it so good

I’m just for slowly moving to a more reverent mass and part of that is how we dress

but I’m mainly talking about the people who show up to mass in t-shirts, and sports uniforms, athletic shorts, along with some other things. They don’t happen much but there are some churches out there that happen. I won’t turn these people away from a church but I don’t want people wearing this stuff to mass.

LOL.

Somehow I got you confused with another poster who was commenting on this thread earlier and was definitely FOR the universal dress code.

My apologies.

 

[Walking_Home]

Men who are sexually aroused at the sight of women who dress with the goal of being sexually attractive do not need therapy because they are not abnormal, nor can they automatically be accused of objectifying women. If they are, the woman who let herself be dressed by fashion designers who had exactly that end in mind and then is surprised when that goal is achieved probably ought to have her head examined, too.

---

If a man cannot contain himself at the sight of a sleeveless arm-- that guy has a problem. The same goes for a man – who dehumanizes a woman into a collection of body parts.

 

[Debora123]

Men who are sexually aroused at the sight of women who dress with the goal of being sexually attractive do not need therapy because they are not abnormal, nor can they automatically be accused of objectifying women. If they are, the woman who let herself be dressed by fashion designers who had exactly that end in mind and then is surprised when that goal is achieved probably ought to have her head examined, too.

I don’t think anyone here is saying that…

 

[Debora123]

---

If a man cannot contain himself at the sight of a sleeveless arm-- that guy has a problem. The same goes for a man – who dehumanizes a woman into a collection of body parts.

Yes.

It is always wrong to dehumanize a human being. Being a “man” is no excuse.

It is also not right to assume that a woman actually wants to be dehumanized simply because she is exposing her arms/knees.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m actually wondering about people who are so seriously troubled about not being able to show off their shoulders and knees. What is so onerous about being asked to cover such a reasonable amount of skin? Why is that such a burden to accomplish? People say they want to be “attractive”…what kind of sentiments about you would you lose out on if you weren’t allowed show your knees and your shoulders?

You do realize that it is quite possible that no-one on this thread thinks it would be a huge burden to accomplish. The fact is this thread was started to ask if such a standard ought to be universally implemented by a poster who argued that those who do not follow this particular dresscode are in fact being immodest. So for those who seem to be disagreeing with you it might be more the fact that it is being implied that shoulders and knees are intrinsically immodest and lust-causing in males. To be honest, I have only gone to Mass without my shoulders covered once that I can remeber in at least 6 years, though probably much longer, and that was because it was much hotter than I expected in the church and my jacket was too heavy for it, I honestly might have passed out if I hadn’t taken it off. So, certainly for me I do not see it as a necessarily great burden to cover ones shoulders, but on principle I object to people demanding that others follow their own ideas of modesty when nobody is wearing anything immodest in the first place. So its quite likely that others are also replying out of the principle of the thing rather than from some deep-seated visceral reaction against them ever wearing something that covers shoulders/knees.

Let’s imagine Father coming up to the altar during the processional. Since the weather is hot, his shoulders are bare and and four inches of skin are showing above his knees. Does no one think this would have any impact on the solemnity of the Mass, compared to the way priests typically expect themselves to be attired for Mass? If that is the standard for him, why is there a double standard for the laity?

Because he is the priest. He is acting in Persona Christi, he is actually the one celebrating Mass. Just because there was a greater emphasis put on the priesthood of the laity doesn’t mean that we are all to dress as priests at Mass. The Church has laid down rules for his attire that must be followed. Pretty much all of it has specific symbolism and meaning behind it.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Yes.

It is always wrong to dehumanize a human being. Being a “man” is no excuse.

It is also not right to assume that a woman actually wants to be dehumanized simply because she is exposing her arms/knees.

I’m trying to listen to you…but I am so distracted by your bare shoulder in your picture

If a man is distracted by a bare arm or bare knees then yes they have bigger problems. I’m been leered at - at work…and I was wearing a turtleneck! Some people just have issues:shrug: