Wearing jeans to Daily Mass

[kevinfraser]

Melman:

What’s to think about? Neat, clean, conservatively cut are the key words. You’re apparently upset by the word “jeans”. By a mere fabric, and a handful of rivets.

Melman, as the article I referenced pointed out explicitly, jeans emphasize anatomical details. Near occasions of sin. Lusting in the heart. I’m restating what the Church has always taught: disabling those temptations for everyone, by our acts of free will. Showing more, rather than less modesty before the Eucharist isn’t about my opinion.
Melman:

Who is to say that your standard of dress is correct interpretation?

The Apostolic teaching authority of the Shepherds and Doctors of the Church, protected from moral error by the Holy Spirit as as guaranteed by Jesus Christ. It isn’t about my opinion, Melman it’s about being the best we can be in every way to Honor His Passion and Death and the inestimable gift of Holy Communion. See the post I wrote to IreneJ.

Hiding your opinion behind the “poor persecuted me” card won’t earn points.

I thought my post made my opinion clear, but: My opinion is that following the teaching of the Church is the best choice. Sorry I didn’t write that sentence in the post, my bad.

God bless you, and thank you, Melman.

 

[BILL_BRADLEY]

Jeans, slacks, a formal woolen suit, are all matters of taste. The original post dealt with a young person walking 2.5 miles to daily Mass. Even in my best and only suit, I am humbled. The walk to Mass may even be considered a pilgrimage. Certainly, jeans being utilized in a walking pilgrimage is most appropriate.

I can relate to her quandry though. My work requires the wearing of a uniform and my work schedule is such that I am not always able to be off duty on Saturday and/or Sunday. On weekends that I am on duty, I have had to wear my uniform to Mass or miss it. I try to be sensitive to the people of the Parish and sit in the back. The Parish which I attend Mass was extremely welcoming as I tried to slip out. The Deacon there was a Chaplain at one of our facilities. I was assured by both the Pastor and Deacon there that my dress was appropriate for the circumstances and this Parish was made my home away from home when I can not attend Mass with my family in our Parish.

 

[Tom]

kevinfraser:

I found this article, written by a much wiser and more learned person (a lady).

Thanks, I enjoyed the article, although I did not agree with many of her points, there were some I did agree with. The vast majority of the article was her personal opinion. I have no problem with people having their own opinion, mine just differs. I do however want to make sure my attire is in conformity with Church teaching, not necessarily someone’s personal opinion.

kevinfraser:

If I read what the 2002 GIRM says in paragraphs 327 and 328:

This deals with “Sacred Vessels”

kevinfraser:

When I receive Holy Communion, is the Eucharistic Jesus not being physically transferred from one vessel to another?

The answer here is no, you’re not a vessel in the context of the GIRM.

kevinfraser:

Can’t I at least wear a tie and a jacket, as a discipline to remind myself of His infinite value?

I guess my point would be, He’s much more concerned with the condition of my soul than the condition of my body. I do however understand your points. My point is it’s not required to wear a tie and jacket.

kevinfraser:

“Well that’s your opinion, but mine is different.” It isn’t about opinion, but obedience and diligent application of principle.

Well, no, it is about opinion. Scripture says God provided Adam & Eve with garments, tunics as the article says. O.K. so that’s the only attire we should wear. It says so in Scripture doesn’t it? Scripture tells women to not wear gold and pearls. Must be sinful to wear them then right?

kevinfraser:

It’s about finding a loophole and justifying by popular acclaim a lowering of reverence before the Holy Eucharist and everywhere else.

No, I am not looking for “loopholes”; I’m also not looking for opinions. I’m looking for Church teaching.

kevinfraser:

In many readers minds, I have just revealed myself as one of “those” people who “need to chill out” or are “fanatics” or are “sweating the small stuff” or “missing the big picture.” I may now even be very unpopular with certain readers, who may even make demands of Catholic Answers to stop me.

Well, not in this readers mind. I appreciate your comments. I don’t advocate sloppy or immodest attire for anyone, ever, but especially at Mass.

 

[cmom]

“…as the article I referenced pointed out explicitly, jeans emphasize anatomical details. Near occasions of sin. Lusting in the heart. I’m restating what the Church has always taught: disabling those temptations for everyone, by our acts of free will. Showing more, rather than less modesty before the Eucharist isn’t about my opinion.”

It depends on the jeans, now doesn’t it.
Most women cause a lot more lust in a dress than a pair of jeans.

 

[kevinfraser]

I have spent and could spend a lot more time thrusting and parrying here. If I’ve touched off your ire, try praying for me. Really hard. I will thank you for it in all eternity no matter where I choose to wind up. Thank you for blessing me by your replies. People keep asking me for my opinion and I keep saying “I’ll take doing my best to deduce propriety at Mass from Apostolic Tradition for All Eternity, Alex”

Try this on:

If I love the Eucharistic Jesus and I can dress up/‘nicer’/modest or down/common/immodest, which is the best choice?

If I TRULY cannot change into nicer clothes without unreasonable trouble, or it’s not practical (like Karl and his beautiful succession of stone Altars), it’s probably fine to wear jeans or shorts–assuming conservative cut and fit, and anything else neccessary to protect others from sins of the eyes.

I in some degree subsumed protestant cultural imperatives of minimalism, legalism, consensus, and the most important of all–personal convenience and comfort, except for really important situations (meaning monetarily or emotionally profitable). It’s where I grew up.

So if you’re like me and say to that “but wait I’m Catholic!”, or “But wait, what about the President test?” you ask yourself how important is receiving Christ’s very body and blood as real and temporal and spiritual food and drink? As a practicing Catholic, the answer is a stone slam dunk: More important than anything in all of time and eternity. Agreed?

Having stated the obvious, if I were a woman NEEDING (as opposed to choosing) to wear jeans or reasonable shorts to daily Mass, I would want to take care to also wear a long enough garment on top that it would protect all others from any near occasion of sin. That would be loving my neighbor as myself. I don’t think I’d be wise to use that exceptional situation to justify a newly lowered standard. How many people flaunt speed limits?

Today, modesty and respectful reserve is subversive and counter-cultural. This culture of ours that says “Kevin, chill out dude. It’s just a pair of shorts!” is the exact same culture that poisons and/or maims to death in range of 5,000 babies a day – legally. Who’s the author of that? Not God. According to Fr. Benedict Groeschel, ‘culture’ means ‘how we worship.’ Pull or push against it, but don’t go with the flow. And take as many souls as you can with you because it empties into The Eternal Cesspool.

So I invite you to join the revolution. Fight it if only because The Way is narrow and not wide. Dress like there’s no tomorrow - for Mass or anywhere - because one day there won’t be.

May holiness always haunt you.

 

[kevinfraser]

cmom:

…Most women cause a lot more lust in a dress than a pair of jeans.

Please excuse me for disagreeing, but pants on women by their nature emphasize anatomical details that skirts can’t. I know, dresses aren’t the same thing as skirts, I was just trying to compare, well, apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Oh no…

Can’t… breathe… … ankle… blocking… airway…

Have mercy on me. I grew up in a family of boys. I have a wife and a teenage daughter. Sometimes it’s like we don’t share a mother tongue.

 

[IoA]

There should be one rule for dressing at Mass, whether on weekdays or on Sunday: Dress Modestly.

I wear jeans to daily Mass, to Sunday Mass, and to any other Mass I might attend (outside of the Big Deals, like the Easter Vigil or the Chrism Mass, where I am forced by convention to dress like those around me).

I quite simply do not care about clothes, nor do I care how people dress around me, except when it’s lewd and not appropriate. Why should I care? Paul warns against it, and I doubt Jesus cares. Our focus should be on Christ, not with the fact that Man X decided to wear sandals, khaki shorts, and a Packers t-shirt to church. If I criticize him in my mind for it, I’m falling in to a judgemental trap.

 

[kevinfraser]

Melman:

What’s to think about?

I was referring to the contradiction in terms. Dungarees were working clothes of the working man. The antithesis of “dressy.”
Melman:

You’re apparently upset by the word “jeans”.

If I came off as upset, I goofed. Sorry. What can I say, I’m a goof. Goofs goof. :whacky:
Melman:

Why do you need a reminder?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe the lifelong torrent of sensory impressions of all kinds hiding in the most innocent locations to ambush me and pull my attention from eternal truth to temporal sensuality, then with my unholy will of attention and imagination, risking the lake of fire our Lady showed the children at Fatima to explain that “more souls are lost to sins of impurity than any other.” Yeah, that’s it. Better not let ME drive!

Lost souls like snowflakes into the lake of fire. You said it, my Brother in Christ: “Either you believe it or you don’t”

That’s why I need a reminder. And mercy, mercy, mercy. From God and from any woman I can see. St. Francis never lifted his eyes from the ground in the presence of a woman so he wouldn’t see her brow–her BROW, Melman.
Melman:

Either you believe it, or you don’t.

If you’re questioning my belief in the Real Presence, you are right to do so. Maybe if I keep dressing up for Mass, and begging God for increased faith, it’ll start sinking in through my NUCLEAR BLAST-HARDENED SKULL!:banghead: Hey, if Einstein couldn’t figure it out…
Melman:

In order to justify your opinion as the “correct” one.

If only Christ is Truth, and Truth is Eternal and Unchangeable, and cannot contradict Truth, then only Christ can be Correct. Right? So giving up my opinion on matters of faith and morals is the only way I have to entrust my soul to Jesus. God demands not sacrifice, but only obedience. You follow all 10 of 'em, you win!
Melman:

Who is to say that your standard of dress is correct interpretation?

I’d have to say the Apostles, and about 2000 years worth of Popes, for starters. Now, if you’re not Catholic, I’m afraid we’ll have to meet up in another thread on that one.

The Holy Spirit has never taught through the Church that more common forms of dress, like jeans (which also expose the faithful to near occasions of sin–especially men) are preferable for the Mass. Not teaching something is a teaching. I know, sometimes it drives me nuts, too. :banghead: (Note: same head, different wall.)

The Magi went to Jesus, with the best they had, by a longer route. Any comforts I give myself can’t help at my Judgement.
Melman:

What if someone came along saying “you heathen, a mere suit and tie? It’s a tuxedo (flowing robe, sackcloth, spacesuit, etc.) or nothing.”

Heathen? I admit I’m a little confused by this one.

I think you’re equating what I’ve said with the personal opinion you told me I have about jeans–“upset” you said, especially when worn by ladies to daily Mass.

Now you’ve commented on my opinion, on this matter of morals. If that’s the subject, I defer to the Church. As a Catholic, if my opinion wasn’t in sync with Church teaching, then you commenting on my opinion about that, would be like me commenting on the value of my garbage. Who cares if I like my garbage or not? Wow, did I ever convolute that. I see we’re about to wrap up. (whew!)
Melman:

Hiding your opinion behind the “poor persecuted me” card won’t earn points.

You imply that I consider myself ‘persecuted.’ I don’t because I’m not. I haven’t been scourged or even put in a kangaroo court. I probably should be. I’m even lousy at cards. ‘Giving me the gears’ a little because like most Catholics, you’ve been robbed of proper catechesis, isn’t persecution. And even if it were, the Bible tells me I am to “dance for joy.” :dancing:

Even if you feel mad at me, I’m trying to show you something maybe no-one else has.

Stay with Him one hour, He’ll bless you.

 

[kevinfraser]

IoA:

There should be one rule for dressing at Mass, whether on weekdays or on Sunday: Dress Modestly.

Amen, my Sister in Christ!

IoA:

I wear jeans to daily Mass, to Sunday Mass, and to any other Mass I might attend (outside of the Big Deals, like the Easter Vigil or the Chrism Mass

As a daily communicant, surely you especially love these solemn Masses for the sake of the beauty of the Bride of Christ alone, and gladly dress in a special way for those special liturgies, offering any inconvenience that might entail as a love offering to Jesus?

IoA:

where I am forced by convention to dress like those around me).

Everything can become your prayer.

IoA:

I quite simply do not care about clothes, nor do I care how people dress around me, except when it’s lewd and not appropriate.

When it’s improper, don’t you wish they had chosen to dress appropriately instead? I sure do.

And if it’s a woman who has made a permissive choice of clothing, I am confronted with the risk of a near occasion of sin that she could have protected me from.

If someone is driving all over the road missing other cars by inches, and putting others at risk of injury or death, isn’t the source of the problem the way that person is driving?

IoA:

Why should I care?

Because by your good and sisterly or motherly good example, counsel, and instruction to those women who don’t undestand, you can influence the salvation of souls by showing them the reality of the ease of serious sin, especially for men, and of how they themselves may save souls, by simple wardrobe choices, after the perfectly chaste example of Our Lady?

IoA:

I doubt Jesus cares

Even if only one sheep is lost to sins of the eyes, what does The Good Shepherd go and do? Should we not imitate Him, and become more perfect (meaning improve) as our father in Heaven is perfect? What if there are things you can do to prevent that sheep from being lost, like ensuring you are not displaying your body in a way that tempts men to sins of the eyes?

I explained how especially we men today live in an ocean of visual temptations to my wife (44) and she said “You know I never looked at it like that before.”

IoA:

Our focus should be on Christ

Amen, sister. But what if your feminine beauty, reserved to your husband is rendered visible by your choice of clothing to me a man with a fallen nature, and I commit adultery with you in my heart, as Jesus warned against?

IoA:

not with the fact that Man X decided to wear sandals, khaki shorts, and a Packers t-shirt to church. If I criticize him in my mind for it, I’m falling in to a judgemental trap.

True. The Magi brought only their finest to Our Infant King. But what if Man X’s body attracts lustful thoughts from your fallen nature? Wouldn’t you wish he had considered the risk to your immortal soul when he was selecting his ‘comfortable’ wardobe?

 

[Lonevoice]

DenRat:

I think anyone should be able to attend daily mass in work clothes, casual clothes, or anything that is not in poor taste. Shorts on some people are fine. Not on me. I also think people should try to dress up more for Sunday mass. Those of us who believe so should do our best to set a good example. We should also not condem those who wear jeans and T-shirts. However, I draw the line when it comes to spaghetti strap tops and bellies showing.

God Bless,
Denise

I agree! Sometimes I wonder what some of the parents of teenage girls are thinking, but I guess they might just be happy that their kids are going.

Please forgive me if I sound judgemental, it was not my intent.

 

[system]

kevinfraser:

You imply that I consider myself ‘persecuted.’ I don’t because I’m not. I haven’t been scourged or even put in a kangaroo court.

Your honor, could the reporter read back the record, please? Ahem…

kevinfraser:

I may now even be very unpopular with certain readers, who may even make demands of Catholic Answers to stop me.

It’s hard to have a two-sided discussion when one side has the attitude of “God knows I’m right, please give me a hard time because God will just exalt me all the more”. No one in this thread has made any threats, and I hope no one has been reported for anything they’ve said. You’re presuming a malice that doesn’t exist.

Disagreement is one thing, but please don’t patronize (“like most Catholics, you’ve been robbed of proper catechesis” … “I’m trying to show you something maybe no-one else has”). We’re all capable of forming our own opinions. You’re taking the overly legalistic view that you expressed concern about, in comments like “Dungarees were working clothes, the antithesis of dressy,” “pants on women by their nature…”. It seems unwarranted.

Clean, non-immodest clothing of any kind is acceptable. This includes plenty of clothing styles - jeans, slacks, shorts, suits, etc.

 

[kevinfraser]

John Higgins:

No, this is the standard for religious women.

John, you only “found the loophole.” national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html …otherwise, what do we make of this?

The excuse usually given for ignoring the Pope’s modesty crusade was, that it was not directed to the United States, but to Italy . . . perhaps nowhere in the world were Catholic women and girls dressing more scandalously than in the United States, (my emphasis)

 

[John_Higgins]

Here’s the quote again:

…in order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women … we recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper …

This was 1928. If it had been put out earlier, a dress which revealed any calf at all would have been prohibited. Hey, next time I go to the beach, I’ll wear my striped coverall bathing suit and straw hat. Please!

There is no reason to adhere to 1928 standards at all, and certainly not those which were directed to Italy. Different countries have different standards.

John

 

[CD4]

Karl,

What is Fr. Fessio doing? He is one of my favorites, but I have not seen or heard of him for some time. Watching Fr. F. and Morter A. together is something else…Two Italians!

 

[DrCat]

I went to confession this morning. When I got to the parish office, there was a woman there filling out papers for a wedding. Didn’t pay any attention to her, but when the pastor came out to get me, he saw her.

“Never come to this office dressed like that.” (I quickly looked down to see if I was dressed poorly, and then realized he wasn’t talking to me.)

“And don’t come to your wedding like that either.”

Then I noticed that there was about an inch of skin visible between her blouse and her pants. As I’ve said before, my pastor is a stickler for proper dress on church property.

John

 

[kevinfraser]

John Higgins:

Different countries have different standards.

So does that mean in, say 2418 in the UK, that receiving Holy Eucharist nude could be acceptable before God, depending on local custom?

 

[kevinfraser]

John Higgins:

Different countries have different standards.

So does that mean in, say 2418 in the UK, that receiving Holy Eucharist nude could be acceptable before God, depending on local custom? I exaggerate to make the point. Pope Pius XI was trying to stem a tide, bend a vector, just as Pope Paul VI did in Humana Vitae. Because of what the dangers they warned to protect against indeed came to pass, their warnings seem to have a prophetic nature.

Heaven is of such value, the wise will pay it safe.

 

[John_Higgins]

kevinfraser:

So does that mean in, say 2418 in the UK, that receiving Holy Eucharist nude could be acceptable before God, depending on local custom?

Maybe. You don’t remember all the hubbub when there was a bare breasted woman participating in some way (I’ll check) at a Papal Mass in the Pacific? Many things are set by the local bishops’ conferences because they know the customs.

It was New Guinea. Here’s a link to the pictures: TIA Pix . NOTE: I don’t agree with the tone of this website in any way at all. I am just providing a link for a picture of a papal Mass with local customs.

John

 

[kevinfraser]

John Higgins:

Many things are set by the local bishops’ conferences because they know the customs.

Yes. But, again, my point is a vector Popes warn against following. Their vector hasn’t led to covering themselves as we do. If our vector leads from covering ourselves to gratuitously uncovering ourselves (how could it be other than gratuitous) do you think a Pope would ever say to a wastern country "you used to cover yourselves, but now nobody does anymore, so we’re going to say it’s OK to " (fill in the blank) regarding faith and morals…

P.S. I didn’t and don’t need to look at the pictures you indicated. I’ll take your word.

 

[kevinfraser]

Melman:

Your honor, could the reporter read back the record, please? Ahem…

I was emotional, I apologize if it upset you, but worse, I wasn’t clear enough.

Just because he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, he was still writing through his Cardinal on a matter of moral principle (giving scandal and near occasion of sin by choice of clothing):

See also CCC 2520-2533.

Just because Pope Pius XI addressed a specific group about applying a valid moral principle, doesn’t make that principle suddenly invalid if spoken or written outside that group. Unchangeable principles of Moral Truth remain true always, because that is a nature of Truth: eternal. As Catholics we look to the Church to define and illuminate Eternal Truth for us. Location, group, time are irrelevant details in eternity.

Saying “that was then there, this is here now” is tantamount to saying “that’s YOUR truth then, and this is MY truth now.” Satan’s lie called moral relativism says “don’t trust any Popes about what is moral because they’re old and celibate and foreigners, and besides that was a long time ago.” Satan has all the time in the world, too.

The general case was implied–to some nations, groups and individuals it was, and is obvious. In other cases, such as in the U.S. Catholic Press in 1928, moral relativism became the editorial policy used to determine coverage of a definition of morality by the Pope. This is nothing less than the Catholic Press and laity ignoring the Pope speaking about a grave matter of morality (giving scandal and near occasion of sin by choice of clothing).

That seems a lot like accepting and rejecting faith and morals by concensus rather than by sheep following the Shepherds.

You claim is that “taste” – or more accurately the changeable social mores used in place of authentic decency – is the bottom line. I don’t know what your authority is for that moral interpretation of the bottom line, but this “taste,” as you call it, like all human mores, changes radically between times. The current ones can be inculcated in the young by observing immoral mores–to the degree that future generations can miss morality altogether. See Pagan Rome.

There’s an otherwise very bright 19-year old woman in my office who energetically defends Bill Clinton and ALL THAT HE DID by accusing “You just don’t like him because he had sex in the White House!”

Pope Piux XI kindly offered our elders an anchor. They either never heard about it, or decided it only applied to Italian School girls of 1928, so applying the moral principle was unneccessary, even if he and Pope Benedict XV had previously warned the U.S.A. So after the long slippery moral slide of the 20th century, many didn’t teach their children defined moral standards. And to boot, people who express nothing more than what Pope Pius XI had, are often chastized or worse for saying so.

Many secretly or publicly define the worst sin as “getting caught.” We’re all going to “get caught.”

What if the Popes only and ever taught us what was truly right and best for the salvation of our eternal souls as Jesus taught?

What if they never over-reacted or went ‘over the top’ out of a desire to “control our lives” in petty and inconsequential ways, deluding themselves that they somehow could. Popes aren’t stupid.

What if instead, everything they or their assigns ever taught on the subject of morality was everything they could conceive of to keep us all out of hell?

What would that mean to us today about this letter from 1928 to all the Ordinaries of Religious overseeing Girls’ schools in Italy in 1928?

“… with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole strength…”

That’s vague, and addressed to foreigners way before 1928. But that was then, and this is now, right? And besides the guy who wrote it is dead now anyways.