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.
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 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.

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.
 
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.
We don’t have to dress like priests, but we ought to dress like participants instead of tourists, because we are.
 
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.

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.
Ok, thats fine, I understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t see anyone here advocating for that. 🤷
 
Ok, thats fine, I understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t see anyone here advocating for that. 🤷
I do not see it happening, at any rate. Not everything the Church has a right to do is something the Church is likely to do. There are too many issues having to do with women on the burners, and this one is a hornet’s nest, both on the right and on the left.
 
Dear catholictiger,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

May I just say at the outset, my dear friend, that I recognise your good intentions for your future flock and appreciate that you have no desire to unnecessarily alienate them. Our lot is cast in very difficult times, as so many rank and file Catholics in the West have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religion, a sort of ‘Catholicism Lite’, to use George Weigel’s happy turn of phrase. However, the plain truth is that multitudes of modern Catholics, even among the doctrinally orthodox, have become thoroughly inbued with the spirit of the age and as a consequence are making some jolly catastrophic errors of prudential judgment, including their choice of clothing. Moreover, there is sadly this view among some contemporary Catholics that the Church cannot attract and keep souls by being itself, it must adapt to modern ideas and play along with the secular culture and even be a part of it. This is a grave mistake and is undermining our credibility in the eyes of the world, who look to the Church and expect to see men living unworldly lives that are very different from their own. After all, dear friend, we do profess godliness and claim to have our mind fixed upon heavenly things (Col. 3: 2). Thus the worldling, quite rightly, does not expect to see a young professing Catholic female donning provocative style fashions, such as a mini-skirt, and certainly not attending Sunday Mass attired in such seductive vesture.

In the light of this, dear friend, I think it imperative that we present the whole truth to our flock and withhold nothing that is profitable to their advancement in holy living, no matter how hard or unpaletable this may be to some. Modern Catholics must be made aware of the arduous demands of our most holy religion and that they are called to the pursuit of holiness, which involves not being conformed to the world and its vulgar tastes, be it in clothing or anything else. We are all called to sanctity and separation from the godless world, it is not merely for a few thoroughgoing spiritual types. True, dear brother, it is very possible that you will loose some half-hearted worldly parishioners, who do not want anyone telling them what to do, that I will concede. However, an obligation is surely laid upon a priest to afflict the comfortable, as well as comforting the afflicted, even if this does cause a fracture in pastor and people relationships. The alternative is to allow oneself to be ruled by a lily-livered pragmatism which in the end does not win men’s respect and only serves to undermine our Church’s mission to the world. The apostles themselves never shunned speaking unpalatable truths and did not go out of their way to court popularity to avoid giving offence. Indeed, St. Paul said to the Galatians, “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4: 16).

Sorry, dear friend, but a morbid fear of offending some unspiritual members of the flock can result in rendering a man ineffective and powerless, especially in his pulpit labours. On the other hand, a faithful and loving pastor who reproves will, at length, be respected and vindicated, perhaps even by those who at first object strongly to his supposedly ‘hardline’ approach. Moreover, his faithful and uncompromising preaching may even result in the worldly having a change of heart, provided that Father is steadfast and does not buckle under pressure.

The local church, dear friend, is only microcosom of the great Vatican church and thus equally requires a dress code in these morally decadent times. Even a gentleman’s club here in the UK has its rules with which the members must abide by. Thus, for example, I could not enter the club unless I was properly attired, which would include wearing a sober tie and at the very least a sports jacket or blazer with flannels. Now if a secular club has rules respecting dress, then why cannot a church also, especially as it is a more sacred place where God is very much present? Those who depart, simply because the priest says or does something that they dislike, are quite frankly behaving in a jolly puerile and un-Catholic manner, if I may say, and need a good dressing down. Rules are rules and must therefore be obeyed, unless they are contrary to the law of God.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Surely a tie and a jacket does not make a good man. The Church is not about superficiality.
 
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.
Something I find amazing is that anyone would think any woman would go over and over to Mass just to get men to lust over them.At one time women were considered a necessary evil, ever ready to snare men. Some today, of whatever religion still feel the same.
 
If someone says, “I want to look sexy”, then I fail to see how it is jumping to conclusions to take them at their word.
I have never across any woman who states she wants to look sexy for mass or says so before stepping into a church.
 
personally as a priest while I don’t think that is appropriate but that outfit really isn’t that bad, it should be longer but I fully expect that women would think she is dressing nicely and appropriately for mass. I think for someone like her just simply saying wear a slightly longer dress will get her to change. Doesn’t even have to come from a priest, a friend could easily convince her.
Sorry, but I think if you think that outfit is not appropriate then with respect, you should rethink your attitude towards dress today. There is nothing remotely vulgar or indecent about that outfit and I know any priest I know would agree with me.
 
Honestly, going up to a random stranger in mass and saying “excuse me, your clothes are not modest enough for mass in my opinion… you ought to cover yourself up more,” will accomplish nothing except awkwardness and probably anger in the other person.

If someone did that to me in mass, my first thought would be “wow, really? who in the world does this person think he is? Is this a joke??”
Yes.
 
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.

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.
Well said.
 
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?
I could well ask why some are so bothered about how people dress in church rather than concentrating on Mass and Christ. There is so much real sin in this world and Catholics go on about showing upper arms, knees. Let’s not travel towards dressing as Amish and Muslims, threads like this and some posts appear to be pushing towards this.

A person becomes a priest knowing about the vestments to be worn. I look up to priests as special, as specially chosen by God. It is not all about the vestments. The laity does not dress to be priest like or nun like. However, I for one would not object to a priest dressing more lightly in the heat where there is no airconditioning. I woner if a priest in the middle of a war zone has to wear vestments for the mass to be valid - I would think not. There should be more concentration on the internal.
 
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?
As opposed to dressing ugly? Really? This is a question? Even people with no interest in the opposite sex want to dress attractive. It is just part of who we are. It is why we take baths, shave, comb our hair, etc. It helps a person feel better about themselves. Even Jesus admonished us that when we are fasting we are to clean our appearance up so as not to appear to be fasting.

We should never make the assumption just because someone is dressing nicely that there is any objective, other tha simple self-inage.
 
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.
No, they need help with being over-judgemental. Why? There is simply no way, except in extreme cases, that a man can conclude from dress the motives for that dress. The Catechism mandates that in all circumstances, including looking at how a woman dress, as we ponder why she dresses that way, we are to give the most favorable interpretation of the actions of others.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Any method that addresses modesty needs to do so that reserves judgement and abides by this standard. That is why is so often deemed pastorally prudent to avoid even posting dress standards.
 
As opposed to dressing ugly? Really? This is a question? Even people with no interest in the opposite sex want to dress attractive. It is just part of who we are. It is why we take baths, shave, comb our hair, etc. It helps a person feel better about themselves. Even Jesus admonished us that when we are fasting we are to clean our appearance up so as not to appear to be fasting.

We should never make the assumption just because someone is dressing nicely that there is any objective, other tha simple self-inage.
Yes.
 
I notice we are going to lose people, but I just don’t like the attitude lets be rough tough and forget about the people who leave. It seems like you are kinda talking like that even though I’m sure your not. There are ALWAYS efficient ways to do things in a parish. Also as a priest I would never ever walk into a parish and change things on the spot, because you would loose good faithful Catholics along with half hearted catholics. Even if those changes are for the good. The only changes I would make are things that may have happened that are illicit. I think dress could fit under that category I just disagree with the way you do it. I hope you see what your getting at.

but just a couple examples lets say I go into a parish that has an alter rail that isn’t used, I wouldn’t walk in and force people to start using the alter rail, I would bring it to the parish council and say what would you think if we start using this alter rail, than bring it up in an announcement that we are going to start using an alter rail for optional use on sundays. And slowly move on.

Or lets say a church uses to many EMHC, I wouldn’t walk in and take out 5 right off the bat I would slowly decrees the use. I understand these aren’t the same issues, but a priest must do things as a pastor not as an enforcer of Catholic laws. I’m not saying to avoid the tough issues, what I’m saying is address the tough issues in a way that is charitable and pastoral. The suggested that is being debated is not charitable enough in my view, if I were put in a parish with a small dress problem, or even large dress problem.
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
 
As opposed to dressing ugly? Really? This is a question? Even people with no interest in the opposite sex want to dress attractive. It is just part of who we are. It is why we take baths, shave, comb our hair, etc. It helps a person feel better about themselves. Even Jesus admonished us that when we are fasting we are to clean our appearance up so as not to appear to be fasting.

We should never make the assumption just because someone is dressing nicely that there is any objective, other tha simple self-inage.
Absolutey.
 
I voted yes. It would be great to know that no matter what church you go to, you know what the dress requirements are. Churches should have, in addition to the sign, some shrugs for women to throw over their shoulders if they happen to be visiting and are wearing something sleeveless.

In reading the list in the OP, it mentioned no cell phones. Rather than banning them outright, a separate sign saying to silence your cell phone would be appropriate.
 
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. :o

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. 🤷
Ok fair enough…let’s shake hands when I am not wearing a skirt 😉

My husband doesn’t think I look immodest and he’s an old fashioned first generation Italian Canadian. He is way more conservative than the average Canadian man.

I guess it’s really your personal perception on what modesty is. I can only say that I would be very sorry to offend anyone with my dress and perhaps I’ll use your perspective as a benchmark the next time I dress for church 🙂
 
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.
This is EXACTLY what I wear. It’s 3 inches above the knee and shows shoulders.

Is this immodest really???

I don’t think so and I dress this way everyday. In fact, the dress I’m wearing is very similar to the picture
 
Sorry, but I think if you think that outfit is not appropriate then with respect, you should rethink your attitude towards dress today. There is nothing remotely vulgar or indecent about that outfit and I know any priest I know would agree with me.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top