Vatican Cracks Down On Dress Code

[Rich_Olszewski]

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

No, not always. Suppose the priest said, “No fried foods.” Should we be obedient?

Again, we are required to wear clothing. Why is it such a ‘stupid’ idea for women to wear dresses INSTEAD of slacks?

Because it’s immaterial regarding modesty. To give a crude example, one can look up a woman’s skirt, one can’t do that with slacks. Which allows more modesty???

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.’

It would be an equally stupid rule. One can be modestly dressed in slacks or in a skirt.

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.

I disagree. Suppose his code were blue shirts for men at Mass, yellow blouses for women - or else go elsewhere. A stupid rule or not?

Why is it so terribly, terribly important that Rich’s wife get to wear SLACKS?

Because she prefers them. Just as I like to wear striped ties over solid colored ties.

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?

Not about leaving The Church, but about not attending church in that particular parish.

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’?

It all has to do with what are petty matters and what are not. What of my example of the priest telling his parishioners that they may not eat fried foods?

 

[CMatt25]

Exactly! I draw a line at the priest telling me I can’t eat fried scallops on Fridays of Lent. :yup: Or Tantum, so if he tells you, you have to jump off a bridge, you’re going to obey that too? Anything is possible, right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Exactly! I draw a line at the priest telling me I can’t eat fried scallops on Fridays of Lent. :yup: Or Tantum, so if he tells you, you have to jump off a bridge, you’re going to obey that too? Anything is possible, right?

So the idea is to present totally off the wall examples (jumping off a bridge) and saying, “See, that is crazy, therefore the example that YOU gave is crazy too.”

I don’t think so.

It’s not a very good example of an argument, Matt. . . I know it’s a logical fallacy too, but then again, as I said, obviously the question of being ‘deprived’ of wearing what you want really has some people in a tizzy.

The IDEA that a priest, or a bishop, or a Church, could put in place RULES which we don’t like. Why, it’s not to be thought of–so we’ll bring up all sorts of crazy extreme ideas which we will ‘compare’ to the original question, in order to make it look ‘crazy by association’.

The whole point is that apparently there are some here who do not believe that a priest has authority to determine things like a dress code. EVER.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Open questions:

WHO gets to decide what things are ‘petty’ matters in regard to the Catholic Church and any given dogma, doctrine, discipline, or practice?

Who decides who has the authority in case of a particular decision?

Where is this documented?

What are the precedents?

Why is what you wear --or eat–more important than obedience to your parish priest?

Why is it assumed that asking parishioners to do a particular action --whether it is wearing an article of clothing, or to refrain from eating a particular food–is STUPID?

 

[smithm29]

The diocese owns the church building. If the diocese says “the only place to receive the sacraments of holy confession and holy communion is in an official church building” then you know that you have to go to a church building to receive those sacraments without which you cannot receive eternal life. As a property owner, the diocese has the right to say “men must wear pants and women must wear skirts or dresses to enter a church building”. Is your eternal life worth entering the church building at the expense of wearing clothes that you consider uncomfortable, or would you really prefer wearing comfortable clothes to entering the kingdom of heaven?

Would you feel comfortable telling Jesus at the time of judgment: “I could not receive that sacraments because I would not wear pants. It’s not my fault they were being unreasonable!”

 

[CMatt25]

So the idea is to present totally off the wall examples (jumping off a bridge) and saying, “See, that is crazy, therefore the example that YOU gave is crazy too.”

I don’t think so.

It’s not a very good example of an argument, Matt. . . I know it’s a logical fallacy too, but then again, as I said, obviously the question of being ‘deprived’ of wearing what you want really has some people in a tizzy.

The IDEA that a priest, or a bishop, or a Church, could put in place RULES which we don’t like. Why, it’s not to be thought of–so we’ll bring up all sorts of crazy extreme ideas which we will ‘compare’ to the original question, in order to make it look ‘crazy by association’.

The whole point is that apparently there are some here who do not believe that a priest has authority to determine things like a dress code. EVER.

Tantum, you’re the one who brought up authority and obeying and any rule is possible to come about. See you think jumping off a bridge is a stupid rule and won’t happen because that’s what you think. A dress code like you and others are espousing. Jumping off a bridge. Not eating fried scallops. Well the latter maybe not to our SDA brethren. All stupid rules to me but which under your scenario, you would have to obey. Hope you’re a good swimmer! Peace.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As a property owner, the diocese has the right to say “men must wear pants and women must wear skirts or dresses to enter a church building”.

No DIOCESE I’ve ever heard of has such a rule. Some PARISHES, however, do. If a parish’s rules aren’t acceptable to a Catholic, he or she may go to a parish will less strict rules. No problem.

 

[smithm29]

The question is more for Matt than for you, since he implies (actually, outright states) he will leave the Catholic Church if he’s not allowed to wear shorts to mass.

 

[CMatt25]

Why is what you wear --or eat–more important than obedience to your parish priest?

Why is it assumed that asking parishioners to do a particular action --whether it is wearing an article of clothing, or to refrain from eating a particular food–is STUPID?

Why is staying dry and alive while you’re at it (especially for someone like me who doesn’t swim) more important and less stupid than it would be to obey your parish priest?

Tantum, you could really get into some scary mindboggling indocrinating situations here if there’s no common sense and drawing lines as to what to obey.

 

[KCT]

I was in Italy last month. Many churches offer a cover up for those who do not meet the requirements. I saw LOTS of people using the cover ups. Some over their shoulders and some as a wrap to cover their legs.

Near us in line to go through security at St. Peters were a couple of girls in shorts. They saw the signs and went through security anyway. (initial security doesn’t stop you) When they got nearer to St. Peter’s, the guys there told them to cover up or not go in. The girls were not happy.

They saw the signs and ignored them.

My (non church going) brother commented that while covering shoulders and knees was good, why was there so much cleavage showing? Good question . . .

 

[CMatt25]

The diocese owns the church building. If the diocese says “the only place to receive the sacraments of holy confession and holy communion is in an official church building” then you know that you have to go to a church building to receive those sacraments without which you cannot receive eternal life. As a property owner, the diocese has the right to say “men must wear pants and women must wear skirts or dresses to enter a church building”. Is your eternal life worth entering the church building at the expense of wearing clothes that you consider uncomfortable, or would you really prefer wearing comfortable clothes to entering the kingdom of heaven?

Would you feel comfortable telling Jesus at the time of judgment: “I could not receive that sacraments because I would not wear pants. It’s not my fault they were being unreasonable!”

You only think you’ll see people in eternity who have received Catholic Sacraments in a church bldg? Guess you’ll see no non-Catholics in eternity. And forget about seeing anyone anointed on their deathbed by a priest who comes out of the church bldg. Smithm is the judge I guess.

 

[CMatt25]

No DIOCESE I’ve ever heard of has such a rule.

Well we haven’t just not yet apparently.

 

[smithm29]

I have to edit my post because it wasn’t exactly charitable.

Here’s what’s wrong with your train of thought.

Yes, there will be people in heaven who did not receive the Catholic sacraments in the ordinary form. People who were prohibited from receiving the sacraments (through ignorance) through no fault of their own, but who truly loved and searched for God will be in heaven. Those who wanted the sacraments but could not receive them (through disability, imprisonment, etc) will be in heaven. The big qualifier here is that the impediment to receiving the sacraments has to be through no fault of their own.

The above are extraordinary. The ordinary forms are to receive the sacraments from the appropriate ministers. If you refuse to do so on the idea that you will repent on your deathbed, do you think Christ will look at your life and say “You knew me and did your best to serve me”? When you respond “But my Lord, their requirement to wear pants in Church was just too much for me! I know that you are love, so I know you can’t turn me away!” I can’t know with certainty what his response will be, but I can imagine it would be “Yes, I am love- but I am also justice. You took something petty and decided that it was more important than me, presuming I would admit you into the Kingdom anyway.”

Do I know this 100%? No, of course not. I do know that the Church teaches that we must receive the sacraments unless we’re somehow prohibited from receiving them. We must attend mass unless we’re somehow prohibited from attending. Unless we actually own no pants, the requirement to wear pants does not prohibit us from attending mass and receiving the sacraments. When some face martyrdom an permanent imprisonment to receive holy communion, can you really say that Christ would say “Hey man, that’s OK” for missing out over apparel?

 

[CMatt25]

I was in Italy last month. Many churches offer a cover up for those who do not meet the requirements. I saw LOTS of people using the cover ups. Some over their shoulders and some as a wrap to cover their legs.

Near us in line to go through security at St. Peters were a couple of girls in shorts. They saw the signs and went through security anyway. (initial security doesn’t stop you) When they got nearer to St. Peter’s, the guys there told them to cover up or not go in. The girls were not happy.

They saw the signs and ignored them.

My (non church going) brother commented that while covering shoulders and knees was good, why was there so much cleavage showing? Good question . . .

Maybe the vendors could sell something for that problem too. Or why not the Church setting up kiosks on the Square. They could sell long men’s pants and shawls and wraps and dresses (long enough of course), all sorts of things. As long as it’s done outside the basillica it might not be considered to be moneychanging in the temple. Might be a good way to increase monetary contributions.

 

[CMatt25]

I have to edit my post because it wasn’t exactly charitable.

I can’t know with certainty what his response will be… Do I know this 100%? No, of course not.

Smith, and I amend mine for it being not exactly charitable too. I see you clearly know you are not the judge. Peace my brother. And we shall know when He comes again. :hug1:

 

[DexUK]

I am just reminded of the only time I have ever commented to my parish priest about someone’s appearance at Church.

The daughter of one of our parishioners - the girl was then about 13 or 14 - once came to Mass accompanied her mother and older brother dressed in a very sparkly fashionable top. With regard to bodily modesty, I’m sure it was ok. Her arms were covered.

The problem?

The sparkly sequins across the whole of the back of her top were arranged in a very particular pattern. One that I found decidedly inappropriate for church.

The pattern was that of the Playboy Bunny symbol.

I trust that nobody here would ever consider that appropriate.

(Quite why her mother considered it appropriate is also beyond me).

 

[canadianguy1143]

I would like to ask CMatt a few questions:

Would you think it would be appropriate if I came to Church dressed in my baseball uniform? Or Basketball uniform?

I think the problem with shorts is that some of them are immodest (especially tight fitting ones or are very short) but even ones that aren’t immodest could be considered a little too casual.

Would we wear shorts to a job that is in indoors?

The problem I see here with you is that you would leave the Church over this issue. The danger is not so much that it would ever come to your diocese. I doubt it would ever reach the US diocesan level in our lifetime but the fact that interiorly you would leave could be a problem with your relationship with God

 

[richard_wang]

Simple Rule

Wear what you would wear for a job interview.

Wear what you would wear to meet the President of the United States.

Christ Deserves No Less.

 

[DWC_RC]

So the idea is to present totally off the wall examples (jumping off a bridge) and saying, “See, that is crazy, therefore the example that YOU gave is crazy too.”

I don’t think so.

It’s not a very good example of an argument, Matt. . . I know it’s a logical fallacy too, but then again, as I said, obviously the question of being ‘deprived’ of wearing what you want really has some people in a tizzy.

The IDEA that a priest, or a bishop, or a Church, could put in place RULES which we don’t like. Why, it’s not to be thought of–so we’ll bring up all sorts of crazy extreme ideas which we will ‘compare’ to the original question, in order to make it look ‘crazy by association’.

The whole point is that apparently there are some here who do not believe that a priest has authority to determine things like a dress code. EVER.

Authority is a big problem with US Catholics. In my family, what the Holy Father says is what goes. He is the Vicar of Christ. What he says matters.

 

[Onyx88]

I think the people’s reaction are hilarious:

Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, and other religious venues have parallel restrictions on the appearance and behavior of visitors; Mormon venues don’t even allow visitors inside. I don’t hear anyone hurling accusations of hypocrisy over these.

that’s because the Church is always singled out