E
EasterJoy
Guest
I guess I’m tired of seeing grown women who wear skirts that barely cover their behinds and grown men all but show up with a racket dangling from their wrists, expecting to be congratulated because “at least we’re here”. Well, yes, that’s nice, but as they say on ESPN: C’mon, Man! It doesn’t take a perfectionist to hope for a bit higher standard than what prevails, and it really chafes to be treated like a puritanical Pharisee for daring to say out loud that you think so. You have to hope in any particular case that it couldn’t be helped, but when you hear people talk, you know that is not usually the case. When someone says they’re dressed like that because they think it is fine, you kind of have to believe them.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.
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.
I would not have a problem with a dress code like this, but I am also quite sure the priests I know would say, “This is what you ought to be doing” not “You’re to go home and not come back until you get it right.” The Church has lots of standards, and excepting among those directly representing the Church, the rules are almost never enforced on a “go home and don’t come back until you get it right” basis. That doesn’t mean someone is pushing false piety if they dare to bring up the subject that maybe perhaps somebody around here could put a few more clothes on.
Meanwhile, a dress code can be enforced at the Vatican because a) every Mass at the Vatican is of a heightened formality solely because of where it is and b) you can’t throw a rock in any direction without hitting another Catholic church. There is no worry that someone turned away will find nowhere nearby to go to Mass.