Vatican Cracks Down On Dress Code

[CMatt25]

If we were asked to leave because my wife was modestly dressed in dark slacks as she usually is (a 69 year old woman doesn’t exactly have the legs of a pantyhose model) we’d leave that church gladly.

Rich, and something tells me you love her just the same in her slacks as you would if she wore a skirt or dress. As does Jesus I believe. God bless you both.

 

[CMatt25]

What you personally think is not the subject of this thread. We should be obedient to the Holy Father. It’s as simple as that.

When we go to Church we are standing before God. We can be casual elsewhere.

God bless,
Ed

OP posted a link and said she/he thought it was a good idea. I don’t. I think it’s too extreme the other way. But sorry I didn’t know only the OP could say what they think. And I certainly didn’t know the new rule was infallible or defined doctrine. Or dogma, canon, or catechism. I wasn’t even certain it made it to discipline category. Sorry. God bless you too and peace.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Myself, I’m kinda big on rules and especially in regard to Catholicism, in following them. So if a Church has a ‘rule’ regarding dress, rather than get bent out of shape because their requirements weren’t something that I normally adhered to or agreed with, if I needed to attend to fulfill my Mass obligation, I would (cheerfully) adhere to the dress rule. I wouldn’t get all, “But I’m perfectly modest in my SLACKS and I am not going to follow your dumb rule, wipe the dust from my sandals I’m outta here”.

You got me wrong. If a Catholic church had that rule, I wouldn’t complain. I’d just leave, “wipe the dust from my sandals,” and find another Catholic church to attend, even if it meant driving some distance to it on Sunday. Same as if the pastor said, “Women are not to wear slacks and men are not to wear striped ties at Mass.” His perogative to make stupid rules, and my perogative to attend elsewhere or to join a different parish if we were just moving into that area.

 

[smithm29]

I live in a warm climate and wear nice shorts to Mass all the time with a nice shirt. I’m not the only one. I have never worn flip flops but have seen ppl in them and it doesn’t bother me in the least. Why should it when we’re all there for the Lord. Jesus and His disciples walked around in sandals and you’re gonna ban all shorts? That’s ludicrous. It’s like saying Jesus would turn away someone in shorts. Sorry but IMHO that’s going to far. If the ban ever goes worldwide, that’s for sure when I walk out the door. But at least for now guess the Pope won’t be seeing me anytime in the summer. Peace.

Really? Your faith is based on what you can and cannot wear? You understand that faith is not a superficial commitment? You realize that regardless of what I wear, my faith is still in tact? I mean, do you understand how ridiculous your argument is?

No because my faith is stronger than to worry about what you or anyone sitting next to me in the pew is wearing. I have more important things to concentrate on in my walk with Christ and to focus or re-focus on in church. If my heart and mind is in the right place, and it should be when I am there to worship God, I can re-focus even if I am momentarily distracted. I do though fit Tantum’s definition of extreme abnormal remember? Peace.

You said that you would leave the Catholic Church if you couldn’t wear shorts to mass. At the very least, that’s a strong implication that your faith is not as strong as your desire to walk around with bared legs.

 

[THX]

I trulu wish every catholic Church in the USA followed this vatican dress code. Purity is a tool helping protect fidelity. Purity practically includes modesty. Let’s have the courage to live it instead of hiding behind red herrings like “someone might be offended” or “hypocrites”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You got me wrong. If a Catholic church had that rule, I wouldn’t complain. I’d just leave, “wipe the dust from my sandals,” and find another Catholic church to attend, even if it meant driving some distance to it on Sunday. Same as if the pastor said, “Women are not to wear slacks and men are not to wear striped ties at Mass.” His perogative to make stupid rules, and my perogative to attend elsewhere or to join a different parish if we were just moving into that area.

Ah. “Stupid rules”? I mean, currently the ‘rule’ (so to speak) at your parish is ‘women may wear slacks, dresses, as they see fit’ and so you are fine with that --but if your pastor, exercising his pastoral authority, were to be guided by the Holy Spirit to ask his parishioners to dress in a particular way that you didn’t like, you’d leave that particular church rather than obey?

What if all the churches in your diocese adopted a dress policy you didn’t like? Would you then leave the Catholic Church itself (assuming you could not possibly drive to a different diocese) because of the ‘stupid rule?’ I’m just wondering, I am absolutely not accusing, assuming, judging etc. After all, if one has a ‘choice’ then certainly one can ‘choose’ a ‘preferred’ dress, no problem with that. But if one has ‘no’ choice, does one submit in humility to authority, or does one insist that “a stupid rule doesn’t have to be followed, and the priest has no ‘authority’ that I recognize to make me follow a stupid rule?” When does a priestly ‘rule’ for his people become ‘stupid’ or '‘optional’?

 

[CMatt25]

You said that you would leave the Catholic Church if you couldn’t wear shorts to mass. At the very least, that’s a strong implication that your faith is not as strong as your desire to walk around with bared legs.

My faith and belief in God and His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is far stronger than for me to believe He cares whether I worship Him in a nice pair of men’s shorts. Let alone whether or not I have the same shorts or a long pair of trousers on when visiting St Peter’s Square on a vacation to Italy in the month of August. I just believe with all the problems in the world… hunger, homelessness, those facing life without adequate health care and insurance, war… we have a bit more to worry about as followers of Christ than this. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Ah. “Stupid rules”? I mean, currently the ‘rule’ (so to speak) at your parish is ‘women may wear slacks, dresses, as they see fit’ and so you are fine with that --but if your pastor, exercising his pastoral authority, were to be guided by the Holy Spirit to ask his parishioners to dress in a particular way that you didn’t like, you’d leave that particular church rather than obey?

I think Rich answered he would go and obey another priest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My faith and belief in God and His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is far stronger than for me to believe He cares whether I worship Him in a nice pair of men’s shorts. Let alone whether or not I have the same shorts or a long pair of trousers on when visiting St Peter’s Square on a vacation to Italy in the month of August. I just believe with all the problems in the world… hunger, homelessness, those facing life without adequate health care abnd insurance, war… we have a bit more to worry about as followers of Christ than this. Peace.

Sure we have ‘more to worry about.’

The question remains, though.

If we have so much ‘more to worry about’, then why would a person consider leaving the Church over dress?

If what we wear isn’t important, then why would people not even attend a Catholic Church if the particular requirement didn’t fit what the people wanted to wear? If it’s not ‘that big a deal’, WHY NOT COMPLY???

And of course there is always a ‘requirement’ to dress (no such thing as a ‘nudist’ Catholic Church. IOW, just because there is no particular dress code listed, doesn’t mean that there is NO requirement. Obviously, clothing of SOME type is required!)

So it seems that at least some people feel strongly enough about wearing a particular item, or about NOT HAVING to wear a particular item, that they would actually not attend that Church (and potentially not attend the Catholic Church at all, were the item made a ‘requirement’). It seems that ‘dress’ is more important than people say it is. . .

 

[smithm29]

My faith and belief in God and His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is far stronger than for me to believe He cares whether I worship Him in a nice pair of men’s shorts. Let alone whether or not I have the same shorts or a long pair of trousers on when visiting St Peter’s Square on a vacation to Italy in the month of August. I just believe with all the problems in the world… hunger, homelessness, those facing life without adequate health care and insurance, war… we have a bit more to worry about as followers of Christ than this. Peace.

That still doesn’t explain why you believe it’s more important to walk around with bared legs than it is to be a member of the Catholic Church. This is apparently a huge issue for you. Dare I say, bigger than hunger, homelessness, health care, and war. It’s big enough for you to leave Christ’s Church over, so it’s bigger than salvation.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Ah. “Stupid rules”? I mean, currently the ‘rule’ (so to speak) at your parish is ‘women may wear slacks, dresses, as they see fit’ and so you are fine with that --but if your pastor, exercising his pastoral authority, were to be guided by the Holy Spirit to ask his parishioners to dress in a particular way that you didn’t like, you’d leave that particular church rather than obey?

1. How do you know that he’s being guided by the Holy Spirit in such a matter?
2. Yes, I would. There are other Catholic pastors who don’t hold the same view as such a priest.

What if all the churches in your diocese adopted a dress policy you didn’t like?

Be serious. That wouldn’t happen anywhere.

But if one has ‘no’ choice,

No such thing. Any city and even larger towns have more than one Catholic church to choose from.

When does a priestly ‘rule’ for his people become ‘stupid’ or '‘optional’?

When the reasonable person sees it as pertaining to a minor matter and it is “stupid” on the face of it.

 

[CMatt25]

no such thing as a ‘nudist’ Catholic Church. IOW, just because there is no particular dress code listed, doesn’t mean that there is NO requirement. Obviously, clothing of SOME type is required!)

Well not yet as far as I know. And I have no intention of visiting a nudist colony to find out. No one is talking about visiting St Peter’s Square or attending Mass in the nude, Tantum. Nor am I talking about Rich’s wife showing up to their church in a 2 pc bikini. Lets use some common sense here. I’m talking about a pair of nice shorts. And he’s talking about slacks for goodness sakes. Sigh.

 

[CMatt25]

Be serious. That wouldn’t happen anywhere.

Sometimes I wonder if that’s even possible for some when it comes to matters like this. You’re wearing a shirt and striped tie and your wife slacks and a long sleeve blouse and they have all priests banning you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1. How do you know that he’s being guided by the Holy Spirit in such a matter?
   Why do you assume he is not?
2. Yes, I would. There are other Catholic pastors who don’t hold the same view as such a priest.
   That would be your prerogative and a reasonable choice, if a choice exists.

Be serious. That wouldn’t happen anywhere.

Excuse me? Why wouldn’t it? Lots of things that people thought ‘would never happen’. . .happen. Hypothetically speaking, it could happen, so why are you rejecting the possibility?

No such thing. Any city and even larger towns have more than one Catholic church to choose from.
What about smaller, more rural towns? I can tell you that there are many places in the U.S. where a city has only ONE Catholic church. Furthermore, there are a lot of us who don’t possess transportation (cars), or who are elderly, infirm (but not to the point of being completely housebound, only limited in ‘travel distance’), etc. so that even if another church were within ‘driving distance’, we couldn’t do it, even if transport were offered.

When the reasonable person sees it as pertaining to a minor matter and it is “stupid” on the face of it.

So you’re assuming that YOU are reasonable but the priest is not? And you assume that YOU (not he) gets to decide what is minor and what is ‘stupid?’

So the ‘ability’ to wear a particular article of clothing (and NOT to wear another) is really very important to you. . .so important that you would think the priest STUPID if what he asked you to wear, you did not WANT to wear?

 

[CMatt25]

That still doesn’t explain why you believe it’s more important to walk around with bared legs than it is to be a member of the Catholic Church. This is apparently a huge issue for you. Dare I say, bigger than hunger, homelessness, health care, and war. It’s big enough for you to leave Christ’s Church over, so it’s bigger than salvation.

Because it is my belief my salvation and righteousness doesn’t depend on my legs being fully covered. And we likely have different ideas of who constitutes the Body of Christ. And maybe read Matthew 25:35-46 for Christ’s idea before you “dare say” so you perhaps can get a bit better idea where I’m coming from. Peace and God bless you on your faith journey.

 

[CMatt25]

So you’re assuming that YOU are reasonable but the priest is not? And you assume that YOU (not he) gets to decide what is minor and what is ‘stupid?’

So the ‘ability’ to wear a particular article of clothing (and NOT to wear another) is really very important to you. . .so important that you would think the priest STUPID if what he asked you to wear, you did not WANT to wear?

Tantum, what are you not understanding about Rich talking about his wife being able to wear a nice pair of slacks to Mass? He’s not even saying a nice pair of shorts as I am. He probably even disagrees with me. But for goodness sakes, get serious. He is talking about SLACKS.

 

[smithm29]

Strictly speaking, your salvation obviously doesn’t depend on the clothes you wear. However, choosing to disassociate yourself from the Church and the sacraments so that you can wear what you want has forced the issue- you make a decision about salvation based on clothing. Shorts are more important than sacraments.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Be serious. That wouldn’t happen anywhere.

Tantum Ergo. Excuse me? Why wouldn’t it? Lots of things that people thought ‘would never happen’. . .happen. Hypothetically speaking, it could happen, so why are you rejecting the possibility?

Let’s put it this way: it might be within the realm of possibility, but not at all so in the realm of probability.

No such thing. Any city and even larger towns have more than one Catholic church to choose from.

What about smaller, more rural towns? I can tell you that there are many places in the U.S. where a city has only ONE Catholic church. Furthermore, there are a lot of us who don’t possess transportation (cars), or who are elderly, infirm (but not to the point of being completely housebound, only limited in ‘travel distance’), etc. so that even if another church were within ‘driving distance’, we couldn’t do it, even if transport were offered.

I would never live in a town like that, so it is moot for me.

So you’re assuming that YOU are reasonable but the priest is not? And you assume that YOU (not he) gets to decide what is minor and what is ‘stupid?’

Regarding something as minor as modest clothing goes, yes. My wife wears slacks, not 4 inch heels, fishnet stockings and a skirt slit up to her waist!

So the ‘ability’ to wear a particular article of clothing (and NOT to wear another) is really very important to you

We’re taking about slacks, which are as modest as you can get, not about Daisy Mae shorts.

. . .so important that you would think the priest STUPID if what he asked you to wear, you did not WANT to wear?

Didn’t say he was stupid. I said the notion of demanding that a woman wear only a skirt or dress is stupid - because it is.

 

[CMatt25]

I said the notion of demanding that a woman wear only a skirt or dress is stupid - because it is.

Exactly why the notion won’t happen in Christ’s church. (or shouldn’t unless humans dealing in silliness mess things up)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum, what are you not understanding about Rich talking about his wife being able to wear a nice pair of slacks to Mass? He’s not even saying a nice pair of shorts as I am. He probably even disagrees with me. But for goodness sakes, get serious. He is talking about SLACKS.

Oh Matt, I understand very well. And I am serious. I think it is you who is not understanding things.

I know that Rich feels (and quite understandably, considering that currently as it stands today here in the U.S., in most Catholic Churches, that slacks are perfectly acceptable wear for women) that for a given priest in a given Catholic Church to institute a dress code where slacks were NOT considered acceptable for women would (in Rich’s opinion) be a ‘stupid rule.’

That however is not the point.

What is the point is authority.

Plenty of people no doubt think that the ORthodox Church is ‘stupid’ to insist that women there not wear slacks. I mean, slacks have been ‘acceptable’ wear in secular society for decades in the U.S. (and of course in some cultures for centuries before).

But: If we profess a faith, then we should be obedient to our lawful ‘shepherds’, should we not?

Again, we are required to wear clothing. Why is it such a ‘stupid’ idea for women to wear dresses INSTEAD of slacks? Because in secular society women just love slacks? Well, gee, that’s not a really good reason. Lots of women like to wear really short skirts and very provocative dresses (see, ‘dresses’, not even slacks) which are totally inappropriate (by Rich’s standards as well as yours or mine) but that doesn’t make it ‘good’ for them to wear such at Mass, does it?

Suppose it were the other way around. Suppose that this was back in say 1960 (when the majority of women did wear dresses to Church) and suppose that the priest decided that, because dresses ‘showed legs’, women should not wear dresses and should wear slacks.

Well, Rich would cheer, right? This wouldn’t be a STUPID rule to him. . .it would be ‘reasonable’ and ‘logical’ and ‘practical.’

Even though the principle is the same – if the choice is what Rich ‘likes’, it’s a good rule, if not, it’s stupid.

And THAT is the point and the problem. Who are WE to determine what is right?

We are not the priests; we are the people. The priest (were he to institute a dress code of pants for men, dresses for women) is not being stupid; he’s being a leader. And since we HAVE to wear clothes anyway, what is the BIG DEAL about wearing an article of clothing that is ‘different’ from our ‘usual?’

Why is it so terribly, terribly important that Rich’s wife get to wear SLACKS? What makes Rich’s determination that her wearing a dress would be ‘stupid’ and ‘requiring her’ would be enough to have him leave the Church?

What IS the big deal about women and dresses? It’s not as though comfortable, reasonably priced, attractive dresses didn’t exist, or that ONLY pants were comfortable, reasonably priced and attractive, right?

It all comes down to a man (or woman) saying, “The Church doesn’t have the RIGHT to tell me that I cannot do, or wear, what I want.” That “I don’t have to do it if I think it’s stupid.”

Where do we draw the line, Matt?

If we can disregard the priest’s instructions on a SIMPLE thing like clothing at Mass, then can we disregard him on anything, pretty much, because it’s not ‘reasonable’ and he has no 'authority? WHO makes the decision on what is ‘reasonable’?

If this is such a petty issue, why do people practically froth at the mouth over the IDEA that they might be ‘required’ to do something?