Vatican Cracks Down On Dress Code

[Tantum_ergo]

Not at all. We all believe what we do because we choose to believe it to be The Good for us. Catholics do that, the Orthodox do, and even Buddhists believe what they do on the basis of perceptions of what The Good is.

But Rich, it isn’t ‘just’ the Good for us, right?

There is a Good which is absolute, and not just (solely) ‘for us’. We don’t just ‘perceive’ something in our independent, and ‘widely divergent’ views (because after all, individual perceptions can err) --there is something there that is Good even if we don’t ‘perceive it’ as good ourselves.

Jesus is the Truth. Atheists, for example, may not ‘perceive’ Him as the truth, but that doesn’t mean that they are ‘excused’ or that their ‘view’ of Him as “not Truth” is just as ‘valid for them’ as our perception of Him as Truth is ‘valid for us.’

If I’m looking at the Washington Monument and commenting about it, and somebody else sees it as the Eiffel Tower, well, I don’t just smile and say, “Yes, fine, it’s the Monument for me, the Tower for you, it’s all in what we perceive a thing to be. . .”

 

[DWC_RC]

But Rich, it isn’t ‘just’ the Good for us, right?

There is a Good which is absolute, and not just (solely) ‘for us’. We don’t just ‘perceive’ something in our independent, and ‘widely divergent’ views (because after all, individual perceptions can err) --there is something there that is Good even if we don’t ‘perceive it’ as good ourselves.

Jesus is the Truth. Atheists, for example, may not ‘perceive’ Him as the truth, but that doesn’t mean that they are ‘excused’ or that their ‘view’ of Him as “not Truth” is just as ‘valid for them’ as our perception of Him as Truth is ‘valid for us.’

If I’m looking at the Washington Monument and commenting about it, and somebody else sees it as the Eiffel Tower, well, I don’t just smile and say, “Yes, fine, it’s the Monument for me, the Tower for you, it’s all in what we perceive a thing to be. . .”

 

[CMatt25]

Can you make a comment that isn’t snarky?

I can and do. I do think on forums such as these where we can not actually hear one’s tone, something may appear snarky when the intent certainly was not to be. But I confess at times my weariness no doubt might show thru of seeing ppl profess total allegiance and faithfulness to Catholicism in one part but write against basic Church teaching when they question or deny whom the Church IDs a Catholic. Yet are quick to pounce on another for questioning Church teaching. Or for instance when someone implies my faith is not as strong as my desire to go barelegged. Or when it is suggested one is not properly catechized or is ignorant simply because they might not agree with the other person. When the other person thinks they have something more than faith. Then I confess sometimes my wearness might well show thru. I know I shouldn’t let such folks drag me down to their level and in those times I sincerely am sorry. So I am sorry and peace to you Smithm and to all. God bless.

 

[CMatt25]

I know that (supposedly) we live at a time when normal average daily temperatures might average a degree higher than previous times (although ‘great’ variations in temperature and climate have always occurred). . .but I find it hard to believe that only 100 years ago both men and women in Rome (and in the U.S.) wore quite a bit ‘more’ clothing (and covered a greater area of ‘skin’) than we do today, and somehow these people not only functioned ‘outside’ but flourished. Were they that much ‘stronger’ than we are?

Do some people think that having a very small proportion (on average) more clothing coverage in Church is some kind of mortal sin against the god of choice?

Personally, I have found (and I live in VA where right now the heat index outside is 109 degrees) that I will feel cooler going outside wearing a short elbow-length sleeve mock turtle tee and a long peasant tiered skirt–with half slip–than I would going out in a halter and shorts. Plus, I run far less risk of skin cancer. When I get on the bus, I’m covered enough that I don’t shiver from the AC, and when I get out, I don’t break into such a sweat going from AC to ‘broil’. My skin is covered and it’s actually cooler.

I see quite a few Muslim women in town. . .wearing long skirts or pants, long sleeve top AND the hijab (veil) . … and they seem cooler and more comfortable than the women standing next to them wearing jogging shorts and cami tops!

Now, I’m not advocating hijabs and burkas as mandatory, by any means. But I do think that a lot of people think that ‘heat’ equals ‘take off as much clothing as possible to be comfortable’ --and that is not necessarily the case. . .not even in humid hot weather.

Some call it global warming, Tantum. And it has indeed been a hot one. On some days the northern states have been even warmer than hot and humid FL. In any case I’m glad you feel comfortable in your choice of clothing. I actually today had to switch from one tee to another. Both 100% cotton but the first one was thicker or heavier material and I was cooler in the thinner one. I also love AC on hot days. Once it gets into mid or upper 80s. 90 for sure.

I have seen some Muslims in full dress as well. But many I see including my Muslim neighbors usually don’t dress in the manner in which you describe.

So to each his or her own I guess. God bless you. Stay cool! And peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Jesus is the Truth.

Jn 14:6.

And Jn 3:16 speaks of for whomever believeth in Him, life everlasting.

And Whom called Himself the truth said He shall come again.

Faith and belief.

Peace.

 

[canadianguy1143]

But if your priest decrees you can only eat fried foods but if you’re arteries were ever clogging, think about believing you must obey him on such a silly rule.

First off no Priest would and if he does, he would have to rescind it by order of his Bishop within a day. Secondly that scenario is entirely different from what is being discussed. You eat food at home or at a restaurant and neither of them is a Church. This is for the Church grounds of St. Peter’s.

Do you wear shorts to a wedding? What about a job interview for say an office job? I don’t know what your profession is but if you went for one I doubt you would mouth off to the Interviewer the way you are about this rule.

As I said earlier, I don’t think the shorts you are wearing are immodest per se but is a reflection of the post Vatican II mess we are in. A parish I used to go to near Toronto, that is considered quite progressive, even mentioned in their bulletin not to wear shorts.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

But Rich, it isn’t ‘just’ the Good for us, right?

There is a Good which is absolute, and not just (solely) ‘for us’. We don’t just ‘perceive’ something in our independent, and ‘widely divergent’ views (because after all, individual perceptions can err) --there is something there that is Good even if we don’t ‘perceive it’ as good ourselves.

Yes, but each of us has decided for ourselves where that truth lies. For you and me, Catholicism because that is what we personally perceived as holding the truth. For a Jew, Judaism, for a Muslim Islam and so forth.

If there were an objective measure of the truth, all would perceive it. But, we each decided where truth lies by our own subjective means. And, we all did so through faith, not through some logical means not be open to opinion.

Do you think that devout Protestants are Protestants because they want to bedevil the Catholics? Do you think that the faithful Jew doesn’t believe in Judaism in his own heart?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, but each of us has decided for ourselves where that truth lies. For you and me, Catholicism because that is what we personally perceived as holding the truth. For a Jew, Judaism, for a Muslim Islam and so forth.

If there were an objective measure of the truth, all would perceive it. But, we each decided where truth lies by our own subjective means. And, we all did so through faith, not through some logical means not be open to opinion.

Do you think that devout Protestants are Protestants because they want to bedevil the Catholics? Do you think that the faithful Jew doesn’t believe in Judaism in his own heart?

I see what you mean, but the thing is, we are not limited to belief on ‘personal perception.’

Here for example is the sun shining in the sky.

Different people ‘perceive’ that sun.
One sees the sun ‘as it is’. . .light shining down from the sky, warmth, etc.
Another (who is blind) cannot ‘see’ the light but can feel the warmth.
Another, though with full sight, says that he does not ‘see’ anything and that those who claim a light, or warmth, are in error.

So: Though these people all make a choice and profess a belief based on ‘personal perception’. . .

IOW, one person personally ‘perceives’ what actually IS in truth.
One person personally ‘perceives’ what is, but in a limited way. What he ‘perceives’ is accurate in so far as it goes but it is not complete.

And ONE person’s person perception is completely opposite to what actually exists.

So while we choose by faith and perception, what we choose is either truth or not truth. If we choose truth we may choose it completely or we may choose only a part.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I see what you mean, but the thing is, we are not limited to belief on 'personal perception.

So while we choose by faith and perception, what we choose is either truth or not truth. If we choose truth we may choose it completely or we may choose only a part.

True, but we may not be able to know objectively what the actual truth is. That’s why we go by our personal perceptions and our faith. I truly believe that the Messiah has come, a Jew truly believes the the Messiah is yet to come. We both believe it devoutly. And, even among Christians, I believe Catholicism holds the truth, a Lutheran holds to his Lutheranism. Every one has come to believe what he or she does believe by themselves.

 

[paperwight]

Many churches in Italy, which are popular tourist destinations, have signs posted out front which illustrate a similar dress code. I’m honestly surprised the Vatican hasn’t done this before now.

Ah yes, the tourism factor.

I have to say, my first thought was that the policy was a way of filtering out the coachloads who were only ‘doing’ St. Peter’s as a tourism site, rather than a place of worship.

 

[CMatt25]

First off no Priest would and if he does, he would have to rescind it by order of his Bishop within a day. Secondly that scenario is entirely different from what is being discussed. You eat food at home or at a restaurant and neither of them is a Church. This is for the Church grounds of St. Peter’s.

Do you wear shorts to a wedding? What about a job interview for say an office job? I don’t know what your profession is but if you went for one I doubt you would mouth off to the Interviewer the way you are about this rule.

As I said earlier, I don’t think the shorts you are wearing are immodest per se but is a reflection of the post Vatican II mess we are in. A parish I used to go to near Toronto, that is considered quite progressive, even mentioned in their bulletin not to wear shorts.

One poster said it would not happen that a dress code of no women’s slacks or one of dresses below the knee and men’s suits only would ever be implemented and another was saying anything is possible. I guess what rules are possible depends on what the individual thinks.

I haven’t but I have worn a golf shirt and slacks. And the differences I see between a job and our salvation I have already addressed. Yep blame the Church sanctioned Vatican 2 council. That always works on whatever the issue is. This kind of immaterial (no pun intended) stuff can drag people down and they lose their spirit for the Catholic Church. Blame Vat2 on this and that. The vernacular. CITH. Expressing His love by holding hands for the Lord’s Prayer.

Peace.

 

[pismopal]

Dress codes are not “preaching morality”…it is simply a dress code. For crying out loud even the Magic Castle in Hollywood has a dress code.

 

[CMatt25]

Btw I would wear shorts to a casual outdoor Protestant wedding, say on a beach, where they believed God would be present. God loved walking on the beach afterall. And I’ve worn a black jacket and long pants and solid tie to a funeral. When far greater faithful male Catholics than myself came in pullover fleece tops.

 

[sojo]

The Vatican can do or require anything they want in such a matter. But I would hope the Swiss Guard would use some discretion. If a pilgrim from Bermuda came with his dress suit (which would be pressed and tailored Bermuda shorts with matching jacket, shirt and tie, high socks and dress shoes), I would not consider that the same as a man in grungy old cargo shorts.

Likewise if a pilgrim from Scotland came in his dress suit - a kilt with shirt and jacket, would he be refused entry?

And children should have some latitude. Some cultures still keep their young lads in shorts until they reach a certain age. If a busload of young children arrived in their school uniforms, with all the lads in neatly pressed shorts, would they be refused entry?

But I applaud getting women with skimpy tops and exposed navals to cover up. Hope that includes the exposed thong look. I’m a woman myself and just sick of seeing all that flesh. Combine it with multiple piercings and tatoos… yuck!

 

[CMatt25]

The Vatican can do or require anything they want in such a matter. But I would hope the Swiss Guard would use some discretion. If a pilgrim from Bermuda came with his dress suit (which would be pressed and tailored Bermuda shorts with matching jacket, shirt and tie, high socks and dress shoes), I would not consider that the same as a man in grungy old cargo shorts.

But I applaud getting women with skimpy tops and exposed navals to cover up. Hope that includes the exposed thong look. I’m a woman myself and just sick of seeing all that flesh. Combine it with multiple piercings and tatoos… yuck!

Would you consider the same as a man in nicely pressed, clean. almost brand new cargo shorts?

Well of course YOU get tired of seeing all that women’s flesh! I’m just kiddin ppl. I’m not checkin out women in church!

 

[sojo]

Well, I retract the “clean and pressed” part… after all, if a poor person wants to visit the Square, they should be allowed. And not everyone has hot running water, or access to an iron and washing facilities. All I would ask is that one do one’s best.

I think shawls should be available in the back of every Church for loan, just like yarmulkes (spelling?) are available for loan in synagogues. Shawls can also be wrapped around the waist of women wearing short-shorts or too short skirts.

Prohibiting men in shorts just seems silly IMO – not really much of a turn on there.

 

[CMatt25]

Prohibiting men in shorts just seems silly IMO – not really much of a turn on there.

My pt exactly. Peace.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

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.

The OP, me, forgot I even posted this thread. I didn’t think it would cause such a debate. It’s always been a rule in Rome that woman’s shoulders should be covered. I knew that when I went there 20 years ago. I wore sleeves and a skirt because I liked wearing skirts at the time. Now, I’m 20 years older and I dont like it as much. I think the rule was put in place because fashion has become exteme, at least girls fashion. Too tight, too short etc. I have a teenage daughter so I know what I’m talking about. I also think the Vatican was aware of it’s PR lately and put out a dress code for men and women, both. Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a man wearing dress shorts in the summer. It is, after all, business attire in parts of the world. I thing I did notice when traveling through Italy was how well the Italians dressed. Always and everywhere. Perhaps the Vatican was acknowledging the dress code in the city of Rome.
I don’t understand why anyone who may have a different opinion is treatled so badly here. How does one even jump from wearing shorts to church to walking away from the Church and questioning another’s faith.
Didn’t Christ admonish the Pharisees for taking the laws too literally and sticking to the rules now matter what.

 

[smithm29]

He said he would leave the Catholic Church if he was told he couldn’t wear shorts to mass. That’s not a leap, it’s repeating what he said.