A reader writes:
My mother related an event to me that her friend witnessed.
During the distribution of Eucharist, a young girl about 14 approached to receive. She was wearing a typical teenage dress with spaghetti straps. As she approached the priest, he looked past her and waved her on. Her mother was behind her and said it’s okay, she’s old enough to receive. He didn’t answer, just waved her on again. She moved on without receiving. An older woman who saw what happened, took her shawl and wrapped it around the girls shoulders….the priest then went to where the girl was sitting and gave her communion once her shoulders were covered.
My question is…can he do that? I’m in agreement with dressing appropriately for church. But is it within the scope of the priest’s authority to deny someone Eucharist based on her outfit?
It is very difficult to establish a basis in the law for what the priest did in this case. First, let’s start with a general, hermeneutical canon:
Can. 18 Laws which
establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an
exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
Laws that would restrict the faithful’s right to receive Communion therefore must be interpreted strictly. If there is doubt as to the applicability of a law, the doubt must be read in favor of the free exercise of the right of the faithful.
Now let’s hop forward in the Code:
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
This canon is phrased negatively–that is, it says what sacred ministers cannot do. If a person meets the qualifications listed then a pastor cannot deny them the sacraments. Whether the canon is convertible such that a pastor can deny a person who seeks the sacraments at an inappropriate time, who is not properly disposed, or who is prohibited by law is not stated, but it seems clear that the minister can do so.
If the minister were to deny the girl Communion based on anything in this canon, it would have to be the on the grounds that the girl was not properly disposed, since her clothing has nothing to do with what time she is seeking to receive Communion and since there are no laws that expressly prohibit a person from receiving Communion based on the clothing they are wearing.
But there is a problem here. Actually, there are three.
First, the Code says further on:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Whatever else it does, this canon lays additional stress on the gravity of reasons that a minister must have for denying Communion to one seeking it (at least during the context of a Mass). The fact that the earlier condition of proper disposition is omitted from this canon is at least suggestive that the minister should not be attempting to judge the dispositions of the communicant. He should not be trying to judge whether the person is displaying sufficient reverence, for example. He should only focus on whether the person is prohibited by law from receiving.
Thus he should be asking questions like, "Is this person baptized?", "Is this person a Catholic?", "Has this person been admitted to Holy Communion?", "Is this person under a penalty like excommunication?"–not "Does this person appear sufficiently reverent?", "Has this person fasted for an hour?", or even "Has this person been to confession?"
This is further undrescored by the following canon:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
You’ll note that the condition needed to deny someone Communion in this canon on grounds of sin is not just that they are in mortal sin or have not been to confession since committing a mortal sin. It is that they are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin," which means a whole bunch of things–not only is the sin mortal (or at least grave), it must be publicly known, they must be continuing to do it (as opposed to having stopped it and just not gone to confession yet), and they must do so after some kind of warning (obstinately).
This indicates that, if a priest knows that a person does not have the proper disposition of being free of unconfessed mortal sins then he cannot deny the person Communion. For example, if he knows that the person recently committed secret sin X and that the person has not been absolved of it because just before Mass the person attempted confession to the priest in question and the priest denied him absolution because he wasn’t actually contrite then the priest still cannot refuse him Communion because the sin was secret (not publicly known and thus not manifest) and thus he is not "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."
The conjunction of canons 912 and 915 thus suggests that, in the case of the Eucharist, the question of whether a person is properly disposed is to be judged by the communicant and not by the minister. He can deny you Communion if you are prohibited by law from receiving it (e.g., if you are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin) but it is not his job to judge whether you are sufficiently disposed. That determination is your job, not the ministers. (And, after all, do we really want extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion making that determination on our behalf?)
So that’s problem #1: There is a significant case to be made–particularly in light of the strict construction that canon 18 requires–that canon 912 modifies canon 843 in such a way that the minister is not to attempt to judge the proper disposition of a person seeking to receive holy Communion.
But then there’s problem #2: Even if it is within the minister’s purview to judge the proper disposition of a communicant, there are no canons dealing with proper vesture for receiving Communion. There are other laws establishing the proper dispositions for receiving Communion–you must be reverent, you must have fasted for an hour, you must not be conscious of unconfessed mortal sin, etc.–but nowhere does the law list what kind of clothing you are wearing as a requirement for proper disposition.
The absence of any laws dealing with this thus creates a case for saying that a particular kind of vesture is simply not required for proper disposition as the law understands it, and thus–per the struct construction required by canon 18–the minister would not be allowed to bar a person based on their type of vesture (unless, of course, the clothing they were wearing constituted obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin; see below).
But even if this, too, is rejected, there’s still problem #3: What vesture is appropriate for receiving Communion is unambiguously culturally relative. In some cultures–like certain places in Africa–women do not wear tops at all, and the Church does not bar them from Communion on this ground. So one is going to have to judge whether the clothing is considered appropriate according to the local cultural norms, whether one approves of those norms or not (per canon 18’s strict construction).
If the local culture permits 14 year old girls to wear string-tied tops that reveal their shoulders–or strapless wedding dresses that do the same thing–then a minister will not be permitted to deny Holy Communion on that basis.
Now, if the local culture doesn’t allow something–for example, women going completely topless, or men going topless in church, or wearing a Nazi armband, or wearing a shirt that uses the F-word or the S-word or the N-word (things which might be nailable under the obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin requirement)–then the minister (prescinding from problems #1 and #2) refuse Communion, but not if this is what people in the culture are permitted to wear.
Since teenage girls in our culture are commonly permitted to wear string-tied tops that expose their shoulders, it is going to be very difficult to use canon 843–given the three problems here named and the strict construction that must be put on the matter–to deny a girl Communion in our culture on the ground that she is wearing such a shirt.
A minister may not like it–and he may be right to not like it–but it is not easy to find a basis in the law for denying the girl in this case Communion on grounds of strictly constructed improper disposition.
The only other ground I could see is the one in canon 915 regarding obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, but this is not going to work, either. A teenage girl wearing a dress that reveals her shoulders–or her bellybutton–is simply not gravely sinning by the mere fact of doing so. She may be dressing immodestly, but she is not committing a sin that will send her to hell (if done with adequate knowledge and consent) simply because she shows her shoulders (or bellybutton) in public.
Further, if she were obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin then the priest shouldn’t have given her Communion simply because someone put a shawl over her shoulders. He should have told her to go to confession.
I thus find it very difficult to find an adequate basis in the law for what the priest did in restricting the girl’s exercise of her right to receive Holy Communion.
That is not to say that the Holy See would not be within its rights to develop a dress code for receiving Communion. It might be well advised to do so–or at least to require the national bishops’ conferences to develop their own national dress codes, but this far it has not done so, and one cannot bar people from Communion based on what one wishes the law said.
Canon 18 won’t let you.
Interesting answer to the query. At my parish, the pastor has made it crystal clear how he feels about inappropriate dress. Of course, there are still people who show up dressed inappropriately. My pastor is pretty hardcore, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him refuse anyone communion.
Couldn’t he have just pulled her and her parents aside after Mass and explained about, you know, GOD being present in the Eucharist? I think he missed a teaching moment.
Just my 2 cents.
Two things I know for sure. You can’t make a sin public by denying Communion unless is public itself. Second, wearing immoral clothing is a sin objectively. Mortal sin. But subjectively it might not be.
It sounds like a real good time for this priest to have a frank homily on modesty, especially in Church. At Assumption Grotto, the pastor has signs up at every entrance which reminds people that they will be before the Blessed Sacrament and should be properly attired. He goes on to state, for those who are so secularized as to not know what this means, that they should not be wearing things like tank tops, mini-skirts, and other immodest wardrobe. Unless we get outsiders for something like a wedding or funeral, everyone is dressed accordingly.
When was the last time you actually heard a priest speak on modesty and how immodest dress can lead others to sin? At Catholic.com, which is currently down, we were discussing this issue last year. A man entered the conversation and explained that he has a really hard time with lustful thoughts. The TV, magazine racks, billboards and other things are making it that much harder, not to mention immodest dress in the world. When he comes into Church he said that he expects to be free from this kind of exposure. With that, a family walked in and the teen aged daughter was dressed immodestly. Can’t recall if it was the mini-skirt, low-cut top or both. As he walked out, he pulled the father of the family aside and asked him politely if he could get his daughter to dress more modestly when coming to Church. The father was outraged at the audacity of the man. Then, the man told the father, “Look, I have an ongoing battle with lust and I should be free from such immodest exposures here at Church.” The girls father paused, then thanked him for explaining it the way he did. The thought of this man or any other, lusting after his daughter was more than enough and when the family came the following week to Mass, the girl was dressed modestly.
We’ve become immune to what is immodest. How sad, and how God-displeasing. How many men are led into lustful thoughts with provocative dress.
It is the sin that drags most people to Hell.
“Second, wearing immoral clothing is a sin objectively.”
I don’t like spaghetti straps on young girls, particularly in church, but I would hesitate to imply that they constitute “immoral” clothing. As Jimmy pointed out, women do sometimes legitimately bare their shoulders in this society (e.g., wedding dresses, ball gowns, swimsuits). And in some cultures women go topless all the time. So, I would think that spaghetti straps are not intrinsically immoral.
Personally, I think it was particularly poor of the priest to simply ignore the girl and wave her on. Then he compounded the problem by ignoring her mother as well. If the older lady hadn’t given the girl her shawl, it may not have been known why the priest refused the girl Communion.
If the priest felt strongly enough about the inappropriateness of spaghetti straps to do something about it, it would have been better to make an announcement at Mass or insert a letter in the bulletin or send a letter to the parish families outlining the parish’s preferred dress code.
I find it interesting that nobody has pointed out that the priest actually did not deny anyone communion…he only delayed communion until a time when the young lady was more prepared.
(e.g., wedding dresses, ball gowns, swimsuits). And in some cultures women go topless all the time. So, I would think that spaghetti straps are not intrinsically immoral.
Sorry but you are wrong there. It is not right, but its true that its common. Swimsuits are definetely immoral. Sorry, society is relative on these things and few priests would dare speak against it but it is still immoral.
“obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin,”
I thought Jimmy was going to mention denying communion to rainbow sashers on Pentecost, but he didn’t go there. It naturally follows tho, from this canon.
Its called respect for our Lord, did that go out the window somewhere?
I know that almost anything goes on nowdays, with another prayer fest with pagan faiths soon upon us at Assisi, but there actually used to be a time, believe it or not, when men wore suits, woman dressed appropriatly, and we kneeled to receive our Lord on the tongue from a Priest, yes consecrated hands! A man who actually received holy orders, another sacrament that us laypersons do not have, to touch our Lord and distribute
Amazing how far we have come in the name of “progress” and “participation”
So sad
This is the zinger. Clearly his denial was not based on a conviction of obstinate manifest grave sin, or anything like that. It just offends his sensibilities to give communion to a girl he deems to be immodestly dressed.
I know a priest who preaches against immodesty with some frequency and vehemence — and you can see him going apoplectic inside if a woman comes up for communion with bare shoulders — but he would never deny someone communion on such grounds. He takes very seriously his responsibility to administer communion to anyone not prohibited by law from receiving.
At my parish, we have a woman who checks wedding dresses and bridesmaids dresses well in advance of the wedding. If it’s strapless, no dice.
At least, that’s what I have been given to understand. I haven’t had personal experience with that.
I guess my larger point is, if Jesus magically appeared in front of you, would you be comfortable about what you are wearing? If not, that should make you think. Because that’s what happens at Mass every day.
John,
How ironic that you bemoan a lack of respect for Christ in the very same post in which you display — for the umpteenth time — a lack of respect for His Vicar here on earth. Granted, your shot in this post was somewhat more subtle than you oftentimes are, but you got it in there anyway.
False disjunction. She presented herself for communion and he turned her away; that’s denying. Whether he denied it for five minutes or a week is beside the point. Besides, it seems that only the intervention of the woman with the shawl secured the young woman her canonical right to communion during the Mass in question.
This girl would not even be admitted to St. Peter’s–nor would many other people who come to church in the US dressed in shorts, etc. She would be required to put on a shawl, and men in shorts are required to put on long pants. Or they don’t get in the door. Period.
What’s the N word? But, I guess no one can tell me can they?
I’m assuming the figure of Christ on the crucifix at the altar of the Church in question is fully clothed.
Suzanne,
Well, if it’s the word I think Jimmy meant, it’s a not-very-nice term for persons of sub-saharan African descent, and definitely something a person of the Caucasian persuasion would want to say out loud in, say, Detroit (where I live) or Baltimore.
Mary
I think Mary meant “…and definitely NOT something a person of the Caucasian persuasion would want to say out loud…”
Could be wrong, but I don’t think so. 🙂
In all Charity to the priest, we don’t know what sort of instruction had been made to the congregation or the individuals in question, however it seems as he may have no treated the situation well from a pastoral perspective, considering he at least appeared to have violated Canon law.
It is certainly within the pastor’s purview to establish a dresscode which is modest and respectful. It is sad that few have the courage to do so. While such an outfit may be considered by the general public to be acceptable, that does not mean that it is not objectively sinful to wear it.
Hm, it seems to me that the dress code at St. Peter’s, the grandest church in Christendom, cannot be extrapolated to every parish church, any more than the dress code at some exclusive Paris restaurant can be extrapolated to every steak house and family diner. Does every church in Rome insist on the same standard? Or when the Pope presides at Mass at World Youth Day, do you think they turn away boys in shorts or girls in spaghetti straps?
ajesquire,
I’m assuming the figure of Christ on the crucifix at the altar of the Church in question is fully clothed.
Yes — clothed in our sins.
AJ, I don’t think whether the corpus on the crucifix is clothes is relevant. Our Lord was crucified in very little clothing. “When they had crucified him, they divided his clothing among them, casting lots, and they sat and watched him there.” MT 27:35-36
What I think is relevant is that His flock come before His Body and Blood in a reverent and respectful manner, and hopefully without inciting others to sin. I’m sure this girl didn’t think she was being disrespectful, but we’re not talking about walking into a movie theater, going to a formal dance, or going swimming. We’re talking about walking into God’s house to worship and adore Him. Some guidance from the pastor would not go amiss.
SDG,
Bad analogy. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at St Peter’s is the same Heavenly Liturgy as at every parish church. There is no difference.
All of the churches throughout Italy that we visted have the same standard, although it is more strictly enforced at the major basilicas. Women with shorts or bare shoulders are not admitted into the church, much less admitted to communion. Men may not have shorts. The women in our group carried wrap-around skirts they could slip on before entering the church. I saw many other women wearing shawls over their sleeveless tops. I elected to wear zip-off trousers so I could reattach my pants legs before going in.
“I’m assuming the figure of Christ on the crucifix at the altar of the Church in question is fully clothed.”
“Yes — clothed in our sins.”
Nicely put, Brother Cadfael. 🙂
It’s not just St. Peter’s, SDG. I know women who explicitly bring a wraparound skirt when they travel in Europe if they think they might like to enter a church, because they want to do their walking in shorts and they know that’s not considered appropriate dress for a European church. So your comparison doesn’t work, at least not how it’s structured.
Furthermore, it isn’t just the church building. It’s walking into the presence of God, who is there via the Real Presence in the Eucharist. How is that different from St. Peter’s to St. Jimbob’s?
Check out:
Modesty starts with purification of the heart
7/19/2006
A Pastoral Letter by Most Rev. John W. Yanta, Bishop of Amarillo, TX
June 18, 2006
Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ
Can be found at: http://www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=126
But we do recognize differences nevertheless, unless you dress exactly the same for Easter Vigil at your local cathedral as a weekday Mass at your local parish.
If it is stated above, then please pardon my redundancy, but my experience tells me the offense is not so much the thin straps or bare shoulders (which can be immodest) but the unstated cleavage. At fourteen, this could very well be the case.
I see so much cleavage in Masses that it is very frustrating to me. This is a stumbling block to every male. I do all I can to prepare myself for Mass and then there is the temptation right in front of me.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m far from defending spaghetti straps in church. I’m just pointing out that there’s a difference between shorts “not being considered appropriate” and “not being allowed in the door, period.” An enforced dress code at St. Peter’s just doesn’t — and shouldn’t — translate to an identical enforced dress code at every parish church, in Europe or anywhere else. So you see, the comparison does hold after all.
I’m all for whatever we can do to communicate to young women that spaghetti straps in church are inappropriate. It just seems to me that denying a young woman communion is not one of those things.
I’m with SDG on this one. I have no problem with — and would welcome — a dress code, but the time to enforce it is at the door, not at the altar.
Suzanne: nigger.
SDG, how do you dress for Easter Vigil at a cathedral, and how do you dress for a weekday Mass at your parish?
I have a near-uniform that I wear to church: a skirt, preferably A-line, that comes past my knees with hose and dress shoes, and a seasonally-appropriate top that does not
(a) bare my shoulders;
(b) reveal my cleavage – I try not to keep the neckline of my top above the clavicle, but it’s hard to find blouses like that these days, so sometimes it’s V-necked but still modest;
(c) cling to my form (otherwise it defeats the purpose).
So I guess I *do* dress exactly the same at Easter Vigil at the cathedral and a weekday Mass at my local parish. I dress like that at any parish, and at almost any church. I did wear slacks last week when I visited a Baptist church, but that’s unusual (both my visiting it and my wearing slacks).
Is that unusual?
SDG, I think most everyone was in agreement that the priest handled it badly and that he shouldn’t have refused her Communion. Did I miss something?
Kasia,
First, I think it would be unusual to see SDG in a dress of any type. I don’t know him, but I’m guessing that’s not his usual Church attire — for Easter Vigil Mass or daily Mass. 🙂
But what I think you missed was SDG being taken to task for suggesting that people dress nicer on the more important feast days, just like they do when they go out to a nicer restaurant. Which, it seems to me, is appropriate. That’s not to say that the dress for daily Mass should be immodest, but the dress for more important days should be nicer.
sdg’s analogy works, becuase the bar is to admission to the church, regardless of the ceremony that might or might not be taking place. it has nothing to do with Mass.
SDG: re: dress codes in churches in Rome: yes, so far as I know, they do; some enforce it more consistently than others.
Brother, I didn’t (and don’t) know what gender SDG is. 🙂 But my boyfriend wears more or less the same thing to church irrespective of the day: nice pants and a button-down shirt, often with a tie. I suppose for a major feast day like Christmas or Easter he might add a jacket.
My point was not just that dress at Mass should be modest, but that I *do* wear nearly the same thing to Mass no matter what the occasion, which SDG seemed to argue doesn’t happen. I expect to wear something a little nicer to *this* year’s Easter Vigil, since I expect to be received into the Church. Maybe I should dress more nicely on Christmas and Easter, but my point is that the benchmark for what we wear to “everyday” Mass should be higher.
Make any sense?
I won’t defend spaghetti straps, either – whenever I’ve headed from Mass straight to the beach, I’ve made sure to have a blouse over anything like that. But I’d re-point out to Kasia one of Jimmy’s points – that modest or appropriate dress is within context. I don’t dress the same at every Mass. What is modest in a chapel at a beach town in the heat of summer is different from modest at a suburban parish. Anything that I could wear to church (heck, _everything_ in my closet) would be shockingly immodest to late 19th-century sensibilities. But a tank top can be modest in some 21st-century contexts (albeit not likely in a church).
BTW, I saw a few people get away with shorts (nearly knee-length) in Venetian churches, even though they were handing out paper shawls to those more skimpily dressed.
Kasia,
I wholeheartedly agree that the benchmark for every day should be higher. I don’t think SDG was necessarily arguing that nobody dresses the same at all Masses in all venues, but that it is not the usual case. Most people dress nicer for Sunday Mass than they do for daily Mass (I find that the attire for daily Mass is usually, not always, driven by work guidelines more than anything else), and most people dress nicer for Christmas and Easter than they do for a Sunday in Ordinary Time. By the same token, it is natural for most people to dress nicer if they are going to a Cathedral as opposed to the chapel downtown.
Brother Cadfael,
In defense of the other John, I think your consistently patronizing and crabby comments directed at the “John’s” who comment on this blog, might be confusing my posts from days past with the posts of the John you attacked today. Probably half a dozen times I’ve been tempted to level a few shots back at you, but I think I’ll ask first…what is your problem? Is this blog not intended to allow for the free exchange of ideas between adult Catholic followers of Christ? As per your attack today on the other John, and attacks you’ve brought against me on days past, does John not have the right to espouse an opinion, such as to the appropriateness of a Priest making a priestly decision as to the management of the Mass he offers, even if John’s conclusion may be wrong to your way of thinking? Others here are perfectly kind and loving in how they respond to alternative persepctives. Do you think you are going to win John over to your perspective by insulting him, or are you just trying to win?
I don’t see disrespect in John’s post…I see his reasonable concern for our Church in certain circles, bowing to modernism, and his call for civility, decorum, reverence, and respect for the divine presence as the Holy Eucharist is presented and distributed. John can believe whatever he wants, and he doesn’t have to subscribe to your paternalistic, condescending evaluation of his opinion. No one appointed you the headmaster of Jimmy’s blog, and as I have been reminded, there are Da Rulz…I would argue that being nice also means not using passive aggressive, or vague esoteric language to attack, belittle, and silence reasonable points of view…and yes…this is what you are trying to do…I’ve seen you do this, as you say, for the “umpteenth time” to folks that you disagree with…
Oh…and to help you in the future with who you want to attack, where it says “Posted by: ______ “…my name “John” appears unlinked, and the other “John”, the one you attacked today, is linked…(meaning he has a line under his name). A little more civility would go a long way here…
Are you really a brother in an Order?
Peace and discernment,
John (unlinked)
Most of the discussion was about SHOULD the priest in question have done that. The real question was,”Can he do that”?
Jimmy’s analysis of cannon law went far beyond my tiny brain can go but I’d like to point out that analogy between the Father and the father. Not everything I do is well thought out and perfectily clear (like this post) to my children but, having done what I did, I maintain I am the father so stop complaining.
Maybe the priest’s action will create waves in the parish larger than any sermon could have.
So Ed, let me get this straight. If the priest denied her admittance to the church building in the first place, none of this would have happened? Maybe churches should hire guards to deny people entrance.
John (or John),
My post was directed to the underlying inference by John (or John) that Pope John Paul II was somehow engaged in heretical behavior by organizing the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi.
Sorry if I mixed up John with John, but the tenor of his post — “I know that almost anything goes on nowdays, with another prayer fest with pagan faiths soon upon us at Assisi…” — was consistent with that of John (or John) from previous threads who have used that as one of many examples to demonize the Holy Father.
If you take offense at my taking offense to that…sorry.
I fully expect Ed Peters to take me to task for this, but I’ll go forward anyway. 🙂
The discussion of “can he do that” strikes me as being too legalistic. (I’m tempted to say Pharisedic) If not spaghetti straps, then where do you draw the line? If I understand Jimmy’s reasoning, then it would be difficult to justify any refusal of Holy Communion because of improper dress.
My first impression is that the priest showed an unusual amount of common sense and let’s cut him some slack even if it did violate canon law.
I would just like to remind some people of the fact that in the early Church it was quite common to recieve the Holy Eucharist in the hands. So Vatican II didn’t invent it, it’s been around for a LONG time.
Impressively handled, Jimmy.
Ex opere operato. Thank You Lord, Thank You Lord, Thank You Lord.
This priest needs a swift episcopal kick in the pants and a course in both pastoral and sacramental theology.
Brother Cadfael,
Nope…you can take offense to that all you want, Heck, I probably agree with you there, as I do on many of your comments. It’s things like the passive-aggressive, insincere apology in the last line of your last post that are my point about you. I’m a brand new Catholic trying to learn about the faith, and part of that process is trying out ideas among more experienced faithful like I find here, that teach me best about our apologetics, etc. With you as pretty much the sole exception, nearly everyone I’ve interacted with here have been great mentors. I’m just saying…compassion and patience with us new folks, and loving gentleness with those wrong in your view, may move them in your direction if you are actually right about your point.
Again, the other John may be ABSOLUTELY wrong about JPII’s prayer fest thing, but the deep-sigh, disapproving slow shake of the head, tsk tsk thing gets you no where.
And I am curious about your Brother status…if you don’t want to answer, I won’t ask again 🙂
Peace,
John
John (or John),
Here is a sampling of the posts from John (all linked) the past few days about the Vicar of Christ, so that you get some flavor of what I was talking about by “disrespect”:
John, August 28:
“All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ.”
John, August 29:
“This paragraph clearly means that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, a heresy of Vatican II that pope John Paul II has repeated and expanded upon countless times.”
John, August 25:
“If the Pope feels to “uncomfortable” wearing his cassock-then we have the wrong man as Pope.”
John, August 26:
“If you desire reverence, custom, love for the sacred heart, priests and a Pope for that matter that actually dress like a pope, and all that made the church what she is for centuries and oppose pygmy masses as JPII loved to attend so much with bare chested woman -you are a RACIST.”
and
“Compare that to JPII and his need to add those Luminous mysteries? It was just another grandstanding attempt by a Pope who loved attention, canonized thousands and snubbed his nose at tradition, even the great St Dominic every way he could”
Brother Cadfael,
Again…the other John is a pre-Vatican II guy who loves the church, and doesn’t like change. Whether you admit it or not, I suspect if pressed the right way, you’d acknowledge a few conflicts there as well. I don’t agree with John’s positions as you lay them out, and you don’t either, but since you’re into popping into and referencing historical comments, take a look at how many times YOU swoop in, stick folks with your talons, and exfil like a grey ghost.
Let the guy have his position without getting all crabby about it…the Holy Spirit has forgotten more about managing people with “off” ideas than you and I will ever know. Be nice to John, and the HS just might manage things with John to comfort his soul through you, instead of despite you.
John
Just one observation: If the girl wasn’t involved in an offense that was “manifest,” how come the woman knew what the problem was and was able to quickly remedy the problem with the shawl?
Maybe I misread him, Jimmy seems to think “manifest” in the canon means “publicly known,” but it seems to mean “obvious,” that is, something that clearly is a sin.
John,
I really am sorry if I offended you. I don’t know which post in particular you’re talking about, but I’m guessing that I failed to distinguish between you and the linked-John. I have a fairly low tolerance for so-called faithful Catholics disrespecting the Vicar of Christ, and linked-John is over the top in my opinion.
I will take to heart your words about my tone (validly shared by J.R. on another occasion), and I will try to be more careful about distinguishing you from linked-John in the future.
As for my status, I am, as I have said before, a simple layman.
My two cents (which I may get blasted for, but…):
Men like me have to fight lustful thoughts with these girls in Mass, which I shouldn’t have to…and women like my wife, who used to be suicidal and anorexic over such things, shouldn’t have to deal with looking at these girls either. Spaghetti Straps are ok in high school and college campuses. They’re not where I work, which doesn’t even have that strict of a dress code, nor in a lot of other settings which are only even the smallest bit of a professional nature.
Which is worse, a person who has no respect for the Eucharist being denied it once so they’ll learn something, or people who are trying to be close to God being denied that experience every week.
My priest says something about immodest dress quite frequently and he’s not listened to. Actions speak louder than words. I’m for the priest in this case.
A “typical teenage dress with spaghetti straps” is far from immodest. It’s interesting that only a person from no fewer than two generations previous (the “older woman”) had any notion of what the priest was on about.
The priest should have discreetly approached the girl afterward with his fashion advice, rather than publicly embarrassing her. A 14-year-old girl would be highly susceptible to not returning after a scene like that. Mission not accomplished.
Sarah, I’ll agree that social norms of modesty vary over cultures and time. With that said, didn’t Our Lady of Fatima tell the three children something about fashions being introduced that would offend Our Lord?
My point, however, was not the relative modesty or immodesty of my dress; it was that I wear more or less the same thing to daily or Sunday Mass that I wear to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. I just specified my criteria for what I will wear, which seems to have distracted from my real point.
I think that, based on what we know about the situation, the priest could have handled the situation better. But as DJ pointed out, some pastors try to address it and aren’t listened to. We don’t know if there was additional context. I don’t think we even know if this was the church’s regular pastor.
And I don’t think it is surprising that it was “an older woman” who realized what the priest’s issue was. I say bless her heart for stepping into what had to have been an awkward situation all around.
Arlo, I made no comment on what SHOULD have happened, only that SDG’s analogy was sound as far as he intended it.
Brian Day, you point is reasonably made, so I’ve no beef with it. Jimmy’s analysis of the law is sound (as if we didn’t know that). Unlike some legalists, I think there are some areas of life that law does not cover (npi) and this might be one.
Don’t jump at me but Our Lady complained in Fatima about immoral dress when women wore skirts to their ankles and men would never be seen in a shirt, but rather a suit.
Did God’s law change from 1917 to 2006?
It has not since Eternity. Now it is wrong, yet as I said before, lots of GRAVE sins are sometimes not commited ONLY because of COMPLETE IGNORANCE, therefore cannot meet the requirements of mortal sin. But consented ignorance is a sin.
If you don’t want to learn about God then don’t cry when you are judged for it.
You can’t be like the ostrich and stick your head in a hole and expect to be safe.
Some Day,
Did God’s law change from 1917 to 2006?
No, not in the sense that immoral dress would always and everywhere be outlawed. But what is or is not immoral may, in fact, change over time, without God’s law changing.
Sorry Brother,
It may perfect, and it may be ignored but it does not allow for decadence. The Law provides for requistites, the requisites are either applied or not. Simple. Now that is not to defend either the “traditionalistic”view that the dress has to be a tacky jean dress with jean pants under it.
Look at pictures of Spanish festivals where they demonstrate the regional dresses. That is true beauty, where there is reflection of God and not vain and lustful intentions. But whatever, I am not here to change your minds, and I am worried I’ve said to much without a grace to back up the Law, and as St.Paul says , “the Law condemns”.
Some Day,
I expect we are pretty much in agreement as to application, and I wholeheartedly agree that decadence would not be allowed.
Tres bien
I think it is pretty clear that the priest’s actions did not follow the letter of canon law. I also think it is pretty clear that his actions were motivated by a desire to teach appropriate respect for the Eucharist. Might there have been a better way? Certainly. This discussion reminds me of an experience my youngest son had when he was a new altar server. He was the serving the 6:30 AM weekday Mass. When it came time for him to receive Communion he extended his hands but the priest insisted on giving him Communion on his tongue. It seems that his hands were covered with ink from friends writing messages on his hands with markers. This was apparently a fad in the elementary school at the time. After Mass the priest explained that he could not place the Body of Christ in hands that were so defaced. While nothing inappropriate was written on his hands,the priest could not verify this at a glance so opted to give him Communion on the tongue rather than risk placing the Blessed Sacrament on something vile. This was a profound lesson for my child. It certainly increased his reverence for the Sacrament and he has never shown up for Mass with unclean hands again!
Some Day:
“Swimsuits are definetly immoral”?
What should a modest girl wear to swim?
Or, is swimming immoral too?
Brother
By the way this is the John you seem to hate so much and gets under your skin
As you state that I for some reason do not listen to the Vicar of Christ-can I ask you if you obey all 260+ Vicars and have read their encyclicals and teachings or only John Paul II and up as it suits your liberal ways?
Possibly you should take the time along with many others to read Pope Pius XII “Comments on a Christian Moral Code of Life” written in 1957 where he quotes other popes and states “An unworthy and immodest style of dress has come into vogue and not only at the seaside and in vacation camps, but nearly everywhere, even in the streets of the city and village, in private and public places and not infrequently in the very House of God”
You stated that dress for more important days (I guess like Easter and Christmas?) should be dressed better than other days, so then you support Cafeteria Catholicism and you think that there are days in which we should dress better and are more important than others, like Our Lord should not be shown respect all of the time?
So I can only assume since B16 or JPII did not write the above, you yourself dont follow it and dont even know church teaching on this subject but rather pick and chose more important days to dress modestly!!!!
I am not here to throw shots at you as you do to me, but you are very uncharitable and to be a “clergy” it is very very scary that you actually have contact with our youth who are catechised and it is for that reason that I would never let my children be catechised by those like yourself
Try living up to the “Brother” in front of your name
God bless
Shorts and t-shirts. Just like men. And if you want wear a full, one piece swimsuit. I personally would like to own a drysuit. But its not worth is for a pool. And I hate the pool anyways. I go into the ocean and swim. The beach is too immoral and even the “secret places”are invaded by immorality. See no discrimination. Men and women can wear the the same thing for swiming.
So, not all swimsuits are “definetly immoral”?
“It’s interesting that only a person from no fewer than two generations previous (the ‘older woman’) had any notion of what the priest was on about.”
Well, that statement certainly goes further than we know or can know.
I like to think I’m not all that old yet (38), but I can attest that young women dressing immodestly in church is a huge problem and a scandal, an occasion of sin, and a near occasion of sin for many people at Mass. Personally I wonder sometimes if these young women dress in such an immoral fashion at Mass because they think Jesus is going to be sexually aroused — and after all, He is the only reason we go to Mass, so we all should dress to please Him, not ourselves and certainly not to attract sexual attention from the opposite sex.
But that being said, perhaps the priest could have or even should have dealt with the problem without denying Holy Communion.
Wait John.
I believe there are occasions to mae a Mass more elegant than usual. Not that the Holy Mass is less or more on certain days, but that the Liturgical Calandar call to greater remind us of a certain glorious thing. You can’t have a Te Deum at every Mass. So you do it on special occasions. Now you are right the Eucharist deserves a perfect Adoration in every sense. But in this valley of tears we to as much as we can. We give it our all. What does it serve to dress in the best outfit in the world when your soul is the dirtiest one in the world? Not to diminish the need to present oneself in a decent, Catholic way.
Two points: One, What about the law requiring women to have their heads covered in Church, particularly when approaching to receive communion? And don’t say the 1983 Code abrogated this law, an immemorial custom dating to apostolic times. See http://www.lumengentleman.com for further discussion. The fact that this law is never enforced in any novus ordo parish is not an argument against it– rather, it is a sad statement about the state of the Church.
Two, immodest attire is a failure to be properly disposed. If the attire listed above does not strike you as immodest “per se”, that, too, is a sad statement about the state of the Church.
After 37 years in the wilderness, I am glad to belong to a parish where the traditional Mass and sacraments are celebrated, the pews are full, the faithful are energized and devout, and the seminaries are full. But, I am sure that this combination of factors is purely coincindental.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this yet, but…
Padre Pio wouldn’t even hear the confession of a woman whose dress was too revealing. Upon being admonished for this policy, he answered something to the effect of, “You think I don’t WANT to hear their confessions??? HE (God) won’t LET me!”
Swimsuits the way used in the sense used today yes, as there is not much difference in being naked. In the sense of attire to swim no. Like I said before. And swimming is not normally a sin.
Hanging out at the beach maybe.
Huh? I am the only one to think that a dress with spagetti straps that bares the shoulders is not necessarily immodest? Someone mentioned about accentuating the cleavage, but that is not true of all dresses of that type (it also depends on the girl’s body type, different girls had greatly varying differences in the amount to hide, so to speak.) If that was the problem, it should be stated outright, not used to create a blanket legalism.
See, this is what frustrates me on a lot of these, well, secondary issues I guess you’d call them. So many people tend to one extreme or the other. You’ll either get people like a lot of those commenting here, who think, “gasp! Nude shoulders! Nude ankles!” who seem to expect women to wear almost a burqa. Or you get those people who think that anything is acceptable, like say a barely covering boobtube and barely covering miniskirt.
From what some people describe of what they think “incites lust” I think that tells us more about them than the girl’s fashion sense.
I can recognise that sometimes a girl really is immodestly dressed, and other times, the problem is not her dress, but rather only myself if there is any inciting of lust going on. The trouble is of course, where other people draw that line may be very different from me. Because of this, I am weary of self-proclaimed experts on what is and isn’t acceptable to wear to mass. It’s just not as simple and clear cut as they think.
And sometimes of course, some girls are rather naive, not realising that their clothing is a lot more immodest than what they think, and need to be actually told.(That is, they are not willingly dressing immodestly, they just have no idea about the effect it has on men. As opposed to other girls who are aware, and deliberately dress that way.)
In any case, no matter how much you might want to applaud the priest taking a stand on immodest dress, the fact is that he was doing something HE IS NOT CANONICALLY ALLOWED TO DO, the same as any of the other liturgical abuses so many commenters like to whinge about. What he should have done would be to have a word to her after mass (being as polite as possible, as the girl likely has no idea what the fuss is about.)
Perhaps we need some kind of website, where there are pictures of women in different clothing and people can rate how modest or immodest they are. it could be called: AM I MODEST OR NOT?
Since neither the Bible, the Magisterium or the early Fathers establishes once and for all what fashions God approves of and how much skin is allowed to show, the obvious solution would be to wear whatever Some Day says is okay. If he says bathing suits are definitely immoral, what further need have we of witnesses?
I don’t know if sarcasm is what you aimed there.
But swimsuits as in bikini and similar things are immoral. That is why don’t hang around the beach, but rather go swimming out deep.
It is so sad that so many women have so much trouble understanding modest dress and behavior today. If you really don’t know what a good example is, ask yourself this: Would Mary wear this???
To paraphrase Mr. Justice Stewart, “I might not be able to define im/modest, but I know it when I see it.”
Georgette, that is a silly way to go about dressing. Would Mary have worn capri’s? Would she have worn jeans? Who’s to say what she would wear if she lived in the 20th century? I dress modestly by my standards, but I know people who think a woman wearing any type of pants is cross dressing.
I’m sure it’s tempting to throw in the towel and dress like a 90 year-old-woman, but it seems to me that the younger generation (at least in my parish) is even more modest than their mothers were. They take the time to dress modestly and in an attactive way. I just wanted to put something positive on this thread, so there!
I am frankly SICK of hearing men whine about young women’s dress causing them lustful thoughts at Mass. My personal opinion is–keep your eyes on Jesus or on the floor. I am not going to defend what the young women wear, but I must wonder about men who feel that noone can ask them to control themselves–PLEASE! Deep breaths guys, you see this all the time in our culture. I’m not saying that you should see this at Holy Mass, but for the Lord’s sake get a grip!
Why should we have to avert our eyes from people in mass? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for custody of the eyes, but to make people have to worry about such things in mass is inexcusible. Some of the things women wear to Mass these days can serve no purpose but to distract men. It is our own fault if we sin, but the more we have to worry about averting that kind of sin the less we can focus on the mysteries at hand.
Plus, for me the greater temptation, and the one I am often quite unsuccessful at defeating, is to think poorly of such women and girls, to judge their personal moral status even. This temptation also they should not be subjecting both men and women to.
Surely denying communion to such women is excessive though in light of the fact that there is no law against it. I would not oppose such dress guidlines though, if they were introduced.
Let’s put six packs in front of all the alcoholics at mass and then tell them to pay attention to Jesus or the floor but not the beer in front of them.
Let’s put cocaine in front of all the drug addicts at mass and then tell them to pay attention to Jesus or the floor but not the drugs in front of them.
Let’s put donuts in front of all the gluttons at mass and then tell them to pay attention to Jesus or the floor but not the food in front of them.
Let’s put pornography in front of all the sexual addicts at mass and then tell them to pay attention to Jesus or the floor but not the pornography in front of them.
Let’s put schedules and deadlines in front of all the people obsessed with business at mass and then tell them to pay attention to Jesus or the floor but not the work in front of them.
Shall I go on? Yes, I sure am SICK of hearing people whine about the mass being such a place of temptation to sin. It’s such a TERRIBLE thing that people are struggling to be holy and BEGGING their brothers and sisters to help them on their journey. In particular, I HATE that men are trying to cooperate with God in healing their broken reactions to the opposite sex; I HATE that men actually WANT to respect women. What a ridiculous notion that someone should ask for help doing that.
marymargaret: Without regard to whether the priest was right or not, your attitude has to be one of the most uncharitable attitudes I’ve ever encountered on this board. You should be congratulated.
“Arlo, I made no comment on what SHOULD have happened, only that SDG’s analogy was sound as far as he intended it.”
Ed, I never said you did. I was suggesting something I think should happen. The Swiss guards keeping watch works well at the Vatican. Therefore, I think it should be done everywhere. It will prevent unfortunate and canonically illegal situations like the one in the post from happening.
Or maybe just a big sign with a brief explanation why it is necessary to dress modestly.
We could have Swiss Guards everywhere!
Dude, I always wanted to be a Swiss Guard.
I like the Swiss Guards idea, Arlo. Those pikes they carry should get people’s attention. As Al Capone said: “You get farther with a kind word and a gun than you do with just a kind word.”
“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 materials are improper.”
The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
Crash course in modesty:
http://www.catholicmodesty.com
I only have time for one post, and so cannot say anything too inflammatory in this lively discussion, but I recently began reading up on this and find the literature convincing. There are standards for modesty that have been handed down, they have just been ignored. I also think there’s lots of support for wearing the veil during Mass (and maybe other times, too).
Ya’ll oughtta check out the info and give it an open mind. Too many of us have been conditioned by secular society to think that going around half-naked is OK.
My take on the subject is top post in the linked blog…
Dear Marymargaret:
I don’t think you wanted to be hurtful toward men (and perhaps some women) who struggle in this area, but your remarks show you don’t comprehend how difficult these temptations can be for men, and for some men more than others. Even my wife doesn’t fully appreciate how difficult dealing with lustful thoughts can be for men, but it’s enough to send me to confession once a week.
I try not to be angry at the women I see around me, especially in the summertime, but it’s very frustrating and difficult trying to control the eyes and the mind when you’re subjected to the way many are dressed. Within days I start to weaken, and before long, I’m into serious sin, or it’s imminent.
The analogy about putting drugs or alcohol in front of an addict was appropriate and exactly what I was thinking. It’s a terrible temptation, and to be subjected to it at Mass is heart-breaking.
If you really don’t know what a good example is, ask yourself this: Would Mary wear this???
Yes, but the problem with that approach is that the men will start asking themselves Would Jesus Wear This, only to realize that Jesus didn’t wear pants.
John,
I don’t hate you. I don’t have much respect for those Catholics who seem to do nothing other than take shots at the Vicar of Christ which the Holy Spirit saw fit to provide them. Who think that for some reason, they know more about what the earlier Vicars of Christ taught than the current Vicar of Christ. And who seem to think that “charity” consists of being silent when others unfairly attack the Holy Father.
As for the rhetoric, I (wrongly, I guess) figured that you wouldn’t mind it since you seem to have no problem throwing it at the Holy Father. I will tone it down so as to be less offensive to you in the future.
marymargaret,
I have to agree with Jared. I thought I was supposed to be the uncharitable one on this board, and even I thought your comments were uncharitable. Not to mention naive, as if “getting a grip” is all thousands of men who struggle with lustful thoughts need to do.
“We could have Swiss Guards everywhere!
Dude, I always wanted to be a Swiss Guard.”
We’d have to name it something else, though. Maybe something like The Militia of Mary. And if we want to be taken seriously, those striped uniforms would have to go. We need camo fatigues and berets.
Arlo: The Militia Immaculata already exists. St. Maximilian Kolbe founded it.
Hmm. I’m not big on the camo, though. It’d have to be black. Or something else.
I’m still trying to figure out what, exactly, Some Day thinks we women ought to wear in the pool… Modesty and vanity (ha ha! stretch marks!) both prevent me from wearing a bikini, or anything too low/high cut.
But if any post-1920’s bathing suit, by some people’s definition, is immodest for women, then who’s going to splash around in the pool with my little ones who are too young to swim???
Monica,
If you’d spend a little time getting to know Mary you wouldn’t have to ask me that question.
Margaret, I can’t speak for what Some Day thinks. I think s/he mentioned that a full-coverage one-piece swimsuit was a reasonably modest garment.
Having said that, and before anyone blasts me for this, I AM NOT ADVOCATING IT! This is just for perspective. I visited my mother’s gym a few years ago. It’s in Dearborn, MI, which has one of the highest Muslim populations in the country. This gym has separate male and female exercise nights, so there were *no* men around, only women. There were women there swimming fully-clothed, not in burkas per se (those are a specific garment), but in the ankle-length robes that Muslim women often wear. Same-sex swimming, and they were that concerned with modesty.
Now, I have a lot of gripes with Islam, and I’m not promoting this as a standard we should adopt. What I am saying is that there is a WORLD of difference between even our most modest one-piece swimsuits and what a lot of the world would choose to wear when swimming. I also have friends who wear shorts or capris and a tee or tank while swimming, for modesty reasons. Personally I wear a one-piece swimsuit. A good book on the subject of modesty, btw, though not a Catholic book, is A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit.
I agree that Mary Margaret’s post was uncharitable. I think I know where she was coming from though. I think the reason we as Western women tend to resist accepting the “tempting men” argument as a reason to dress modestly is that we automatically think of the ‘morality police’ in Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. You know – anything from walking around au naturel (definitely immodest) down to being too pretty or not averting your eyes fast or far enough can get you thrown into jail or stoned. Why? Because “modesty” or “immodesty”, as Ed observed, is hard to define, and individual interpretations are given wide latitude. I think we also tend to think of the ‘blame the victim’ rape defense (“Hey, she was asking for it! Did you see what she was wearing?”).
With that said, though, I think it is important (and in this culture courageous) to choose to dress modestly. And making a reasonable effort to conceal, or even simply to not accentuate, one’s sex appeal so that one’s brothers in Christ are better able to worship the Lord purely at Mass – how is that a bad thing?
I have had frank talks with several men about sexual temptation that arises from immodest dress. I have to say I was shocked. This isn’t a question of “getting a grip” – being tempted isn’t something that most men are willfully doing. The drug/alcohol analogies were apt.
I love this discussion, nothing like what we wear to church to get Catholics riled up. Anyway, it is pretty clear that the priest was in the wrong, however, what is the remedy? It appears the only thing the parishoner can do is suffer the wrong patiently. It would not seem fitting for the girl to argue her rights under canon law in the communion line.
I think so too, James. The immediate remedy is to suffer the wrong patiently; the broader remedy is for the appropriate person to discuss with the priest that he was wrong.
In “Love and Responsibility” (the to be Pope John Paul II) basically wrote some great reasonable things about modesty. I suggest to all to look em up. From the top of my head some things were: There is an objective standard -of –if the “accentuation sexual values of the body” “displace” the value of the person and make them more prone to be an object of use.
But he said that some accentuation of the sexual values of the body are not necessarily incompatable with modesty. That they are part of the material for love.
He noted strongly I think that modesty is something that has a real relativeness to it (by nature)–that what is immodest in one time or place is not in another. For instance he noted that a swimsuit at a swimming place was not immodest (of course he I think would not say of all styles!) but worn in the street it would be.
So while there is a clear objective principle the application is as he pointed out is difficult.
“Yes, but the problem with that approach is that the men will start asking themselves Would Jesus Wear This, only to realize that Jesus didn’t wear pants.”
True, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that He wouldn’t wear a Speedo either.
I don’t get this: I was chastised (once publicly, once privately) in PUBLIC SCHOOLS in the U.S. in the last 20 years for wearing what my parents considered reasonably modest sundresses. Why is the Lord’s House, where Christ is present, held to a lower standard than a suburban high school? Can anyone explain that to me?
regarding a tee while swimming – Am I the only one who remembers the wet tee shirt contests from the 70’s? To me a wet tee shirt is anything but modest. Board shorts, however, are great over a swimsuit since they are intended to get wet, are made from quick dry fabric, and don’t cling so much when wet. Nor do they draw attention to the wearer by being something not typically worn while swimming.
Some Day said: “Don’t jump at me but Our Lady complained in Fatima about immoral dress when women wore skirts to their ankles and men would never be seen in a shirt, but rather a suit.”
I have been out of the loop on this dicussion for a while, but I do want to clarify. What Our Lady actually said to Bl. Jacinta was that “certain fashions will be introduced which will greatly offend the Lord.”
Note that the “will be” indicates a future tense. Which means that the way that people were dressing in 1917 (or at least until 1920 when little Jacinta died) were not the problem. But remember that the Flappers, while pretty tame by our standards today, were shocking in their own day and age. Which just goes to show, mankind is a very subjective animal. God is eternal. Different set of standards. Guess whose standards I think we should be looking at?
You know, we go to Mass to worship God, not for a fashion show. (I know I sound the the Fresh Prince here, but oh well.) Just as a little aside, some years ago I made the decision to stop wearing lipstick at Mass. Why? Because at the proclamation of the Gospel, I was always skipping the lips portion of the blessing because I didn’t want to get lipstick on my clothes. I eventually (yeah, I know) realized that it was more important to participate fully in the Mass than to have “luscious lips.”
Mary
Another thought from Pope John Paul II (prior to being Pope)
http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/IV,6,4-12-1999/cc/Crosby.htm
Thanks for linking that, Kevin!
“…sexual shame has the tendency to conceal sexual values ‘but to conceal them only to a certain extent, so that in combination with the value of the person they can still be a point of origin for love.'”
Put the burkas back on the rack, ladies, but don’t reach for the string-tied tops yet. 😉
I don’t think anyone (except maybe Someday) would think that Kasia’s “uniform” is immodest by today’s standards, but she does show ankle and elbow; these were considered very racy “back then”.
On the other hand, isn’t it about time for the annual Reed Dance, where the virgins dance topless in the streets to celebrate their purity? (It’s okay, they carry machetes in order to maintain said status.)
Of course, anything sleeveless should cover most of the shoulder, especially at Mass, but it’s really the mother and father who are to blame for the girl’s failure to dress modestly. The priest should have spoken to them after Mass, about either dressing modestly (or carrying something to protect herself when a man gets the wrong idea-machetes don’t fit inside today’s purses, though). That would probably get the idea across nicely.
“I am frankly SICK of hearing men whine about young women’s dress causing them lustful thoughts at Mass. My personal opinion is–keep your eyes on Jesus or on the floor. I am not going to defend what the young women wear, but I must wonder about men who feel that noone can ask them to control themselves–PLEASE! Deep breaths guys, you see this all the time in our culture. I’m not saying that you should see this at Holy Mass, but for the Lord’s sake get a grip!”
It is very difficult for some women to understand the particular ways that concupiscence tends to manifest itself among men as opposed to the way it tends to manifest itself among women. Of course it would be best if all men could “get a grip,” but we live in a fallen world and we are all wounded by original sin, and it is uncharitable to carelessly or deliberately cast stumblingblocks in the paths of the weak and wounded. It is even more egregious an offense to grouse and gripe about the fact that the weak and wounded just won’t shut up and keep complaining about the stumblingblocks being cast in their paths.
If I’m not mistaken, Some Day may speak English as a second language, and may be fairly young, to boot.
Judging from the bulk of his posts, I think his heart is in the right place. Give him a break.
(Apologies if the “him” is a “her”).
I do believe modesty in dress is an overlooked virtue – virtually ignored.
When my family went to a water park as part of a vacation a few years ago it was virtually impossible for me to open my eyes without it becoming a near occasion of sin. It was a tremendous struggle.
All you teen girls – God bless you – I know you have these cute little bodies, and all, but nobody at mass needs to know your exact measurements, or the color of your lingerie. When you bow before receiving communion, this should not cause scandal to those in line behind you.
I am priviledged to know some young ladies who dress very modestly for mass (and at all times) and they are well liked and beautiful because of their radiant smiles. By playing down the figure, attention is directed to the face, where some real human interaction can take place.
“The eyes are the windows to the soul” – not the boobs.
Sorry, that’s “windows OF the soul…”
Jordan Potter is right of course. The sexuality of men is much more visual than that of women, I have heard many times. It follows logically that women do not understand the temptation they pose to men when they dress a certain way and thus have no tolerance for when men say they are tempted. “Get a grip” they say, as if this sentement from them nullified the temptation.
Read “Love and Responsibility”
Read “Love and Responsibility”
Read “Love and Responsibility”
Re: Swiss guards
We already have the Knights of Columbus (I am joining). Give real Knight status to them and swords not just to the color corps, other weapons too. There should be enough already, and I’m sure membership would increase dramatically if everyone got a free sword and were told to defend Catholic orthodoxy and orthopraxis with it.
Rearm the Knights of Malta too and the other formerly militant Orders. Maybe refound the Knights Templar too. Plus make use of the legions of Opus Dei monks.
Just joking of course!
Oh, my little fashion innocents….
Truly, the Manolo should educate the masses on 1920’s fashion. Pictures we generally see of flappers today are not pictures of the extreme, fashion-forward flappers. This is because the extreme flappers would be arrested for public indecency even today, and they make microminiskirt wearers look conservative.
No, I’m not kidding.
Furthermore, in the later twenties, evening dress became longer and more flowing, but also extreeeeeemely clingy and form-fitting. Have you ever seen some of the more extreme Hollywood films from before the Code? Holy crud! Again, you’d shock people _today_ with a good number of those outfits.
People forget that sometimes stuff was shocking because it was shocking.
P.S. It’s the ushers’ job to “guard the doors”. That’s what they’re there for, even if we’ve forgotten.
You guys are right. I meant to mention it earlier, but, no, most women don’t understand. I remember having to explain this to my wife at one point, before we were married. Initially, she actually was quite disturbed. “THAT’S what goes through your mind???” she asked.
I had to remind her that that’s what goes through the minds of men who actually care about resisting the temptation that these thoughts bring forth. Then, there are those guys who DON’T care about resisting, the kind of guys who file their visual memories of women in their heads for “later.”
Sorry if that’s too suggestive, but A)I tried to tone it down and “code” it as best as possible and B)I believe it to be actually a tame representation of the facts of the matter.
Confronted with those two facts, it’s possible that marymargaret and her ilk might think twice about their attitudes.
Put the burkas back on the rack, ladies, but don’t reach for the string-tied tops yet. 😉
Don’t you mean “…don’t reach for the string-tied tops ever.” ?
The supposed occasion of sin presented by a 14-year-old girl innocently wearing a perfectly commonplace, “typical” dress for her culture is no concern of the girl. At all.
If the church has a specific, published dress code that she has violated, then she should be privately admonished to observe it out of a sense of decorum, respect, and discipline. But, as described, modesty hardly enters into it, and the occasion of sin not at all.
Getting a grip is rarely a bad idea in general. And when it comes to lusting after 14-year-old girls, well charitably, get a grip already.
Sixten: Do you have any male friends who can be completely honest with you about what such an image might conjure in their heads? I’d suggest you ask them.
Some Day is not alone in this. Since I’ve been reading about modesty, what is to be done about swimming, especially with your kids? I really don’t want to put my old swimsuit back on. And poolside or beachside wear is one of the places where immodest people REALLY feel they can push the envelope. Nude beaches, anyone?
These are cute!
http://www.modest-swimwear.net/
Sporty:
http://www.wholesomewear.com/page-4.html
For boys, too:
http://www.swimmodest.com/
“It is not only acceptable, but it is highly encouraged by the world system to dress in the equivalent of your underwear, and walk, swim, sit, and to “lay out” in front of anyone who cares to look on. We purposely strip our bodies, literally, and expose our flesh to public view, to friends and strangers alike. And we have faithfully passed that heritage on to our children and taught them that it is okay to be immodestly dressed——as long as it’s by a pool or in a lake or at the beach. And, of course, all of it has been in the name of “relaxation” and “healthy exercise.”
–http://www.wendysmodestdress.com/id23.htm
This quote is from the site of a Bible-believing gal, and may strike some as fundamentalist, but why should we as Catholics be so eager to flaunt our conformity with the world?
Whenever I’m tempted with impure thoughts, I try to think of Our Lady, who is the purest person who ever lived. It’s impossible to have impure thoughts about her, and I find it is very helpful in driving the temptations away.
Theology of the Body anyone?
Faith and Reason go great with each other….
Jimmy chime in anytime
Maureen, I would be the “fashion innocent” you speak of. Wow! I don’t not know that! Very interesting…do you have any books or websites which I could check out? I was quite surprised to read that. I knew the flappers were risque, but…
Jared, you said (very politely) what my former fiance told me. I was really shocked. We women have no clue how men’s thoughts run in this regard. I tended to think that, because when I look at a man “lustfully” my thoughts run along the lines of, “Nice muscles, cute tush,” that men think the same way. Believe me, once he shared the info with me (more bluntly than you did), I got serious about the way I dressed and presented myself.
Someday and CaeliDS, I tend to agree with you about swimwear, although my feeling is that it is more a matter of personal preference. As a former competitive swimmer, I recognize the need for streamlined gear when racing. It kind of depends on why you’re there. If you are tanning, then you pick a suit differently than if you are swimming laps. Now that I’m a little older, “swimming” is more about frolicking in the water for short periods of time to cool off. I’ve been wishing Wholesome Wear would lower their prices for a couple of years now, because I won’t spend that much $$ on a swimsuit. I got a very modest swimsuit for the summer (on sale at Penney’s), and never even put it on. Perhaps I am more prudish about my body than most people, but I feel invaded when I wear a swimsuit. I am a really private person in general, so that’s probably just me, but there you go.
Grin.
Jimmy is wrong on several points.
First.
“What vesture is appropriate for receiving Communion is unambiguously culturally relative.”
This is true up to a point.
But that does not mean it is completely relative. Some things just don’t change no matter what culture you grew up in, or what culture you live in. For instance in some southern states in America, it was the culture that people of African descent were forced to live seperately from people of European descent. They called this “segregation”. This was the common practice. White people did these things just because it was always done, it was the “culture”. It didn’t make it right. It only showed that the gospel message had not penetrated and informed that particular facet of that culture.
Then we come to:
“In some cultures–like certain places in Africa–women do not wear tops at all and the Church does not bar them from Communion on this ground.”
Again some things don’t change from place to place. Men are still men, and women are still women. When a man looks at a woman’s breasts, he gets aroused. He may not by overtly physically aroused, but he aroused nonetheless. A man can grow up looking at breasts every day, but he will still get aroused: try smelling bacon frying and not think about food. Women want to be admired for their looks. They can not wear a stitch of clothing their entire lives, but they still want to be admired for their looks. That’s just the way it is, and no amount of rationalization can change our human nature.
If certain members of the hierarchy have allowed women who were half naked to receive the Eucharist, or read the Epistles, it only shows a failure of the Church in these areas. Failure to do so one location, is no excuse for failure in another location.
When the Church uses the Gospel to inform and raise the level of understanding of these matters in a group of people, it raises and informs the culture.
Second.
Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Seen together with the others, Can 843 indicates that sacred ministers (priests) CAN deny a sacrament to someone who is not properly disposed. It doesn’t say he should, just that he can. Therefore if a priest is somehow aware that a person is in the state of mortal sin, he CAN deny the Eucharist. Whether he does or not is a judgment call up to him.
Having said all that, does wearing a spaghetti-strap top to Mass constitute mortal sin? Probably not, and the priest probably should have addressed the matter some other way.
Sixten, your flippant remarks of other people’s temptations are uncharitable.
That should have been “regarding”, not “of”.
Well, Landrew, your long post did not carry, not remotely, your dogmatic opening assertion that “Jimmy is wrong on several points.” You need to work on rhetorical skills a bit. And I know blog comboxes are the worst place to try to learn.
I think the priest’s behavior was sinful. (Yep, you read that right: sinful.) By refusing the girl Holy Communion, he signalled to everybody in the church that he thought her to be in a state of mortal sin. He might as well have announced that she was pregnant without benefit of clergy or somesuch. (I am discounting the fact that he administered the sacrament to her later, since I think we all surmise that he would not have done so if somebody hadn’t draped a shawl over her, like throwing a rug over a tawdry couch.)
Sure, that’s not what he intended to do; and there is indeed a canonical basis for denying the Sacrament if he believes somebody to not be properly disposed.
But what does the average Joe/Jane in the pew think when he sees a priest refuse to give Holy Communion to somebody? Either that the priest knows the person is not Catholic OR that the priest knows the person is in a state of mortal sin. And, if everybody knows the person is Catholic, they assume the other possibility. And that is scandalous.
Jared, “Sixten” is a male name. I know very well what thoughts men can entertain.
bill912, I don’t see any lack of charity. I am making no judgments here. (See above.) Sexual temptations are a necessary fact of life. They have to be internally dealt with by the persons experiencing them, not externally “nullified,” as if such a thing were possible.
I did not introduce the phrase “get a grip” into the discussion, but it’s perfectly idiomatic English for the admirable exercise of grappling with a situation and gaining whatever measure of composure and self-control one is capable of. That’s a good thing, which is to be encouraged. And ultimately, it’s the only thing in the specific context of the spectacle of a girl’s shoulders in a culture where this is seen hundreds of times a day.
Again, publish a dress code, and enforce it (in a proper way) to instill a sense of decorum, respect, and discipline for that time and place. But I just don’t see any issue of objective indecency in what has been described. There is a line somewhere between modesty and prudishness. One is good. The other is bad. Comparing bare shoulders to cocaine is a wee bit over the top.
But what does the average Joe/Jane in the pew think when he sees a priest refuse to give Holy Communion to somebody? Either that the priest knows the person is not Catholic OR that the priest knows the person is in a state of mortal sin. And, if everybody knows the person is Catholic, they assume the other possibility. And that is scandalous.
ELC,
You are assuming facts not in evidence. On what basis do you know that the average Joe/Jane thinks that there are only the two possibilities you mentioned?
Obviously the older woman in the story knew that there was a third possibility.
One really bad place to see bear shoulders…..
…….when camping
Mr. Peters:
What is your opinion? Is a priest forbidden by Canon Law to deny the Eucharist to someone whom the priest knows is in mortal sin?
I have read that when Our Lady said at Fatima that “certain fashions will be introduced which will greatly offend the Lord,” she used a word that would be better translated as “lifestyles” than as “fashions” in the sense it is being used here, to refer to styles of dress. Does anyone have definite knowledge about this linguistic point?
As you put the question, Landrew, the answer must be yes. Jimmy correctly explained why. ok?
It is clear, canon Law does not address this issue, but if a priest was to look at his years in the seminary, he is to learn (hopefully they still teach this I dont know for sure) that they are indeed the sacred guardian of our Lord Jesus Christ. If they truly believe that transubstantiation takes place, and if they dont then the intention of the sacrament is destroyed and without the holy sacrafice of the mass you have no mass (I wonder how many priests really and truly believe that transubstantiation does take place with liturgical abuse runing wild).
That being said, if they see a woman who is dressed inappropriate, and by Catholic definition that is two fingers below the neck bone and a dress or skirt 8″ below the knees, then quite possibly this woman is indeed dressed inappropriate and should not be administered the body of our Lord
As far as her causing men to sin,if one was to look at the 6th commandment and review their examination of conscience before they enter their confessional, leading others into sin is a mortal sin. If a woman is dressing in an attention gathering way, she is a sinner because she is causing others to sin because of HER and only her behavior. Cause and Effect
It is quite amazing how confused many Catholics are today with the mixed signals given off by clergy and with rules that differ from church to church and parish to parish. Let us pray again as in the Creed for
ONE, HOLY, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
Sixten, I like you see girl’s shoulders every day in the summer and don’t think it is a big deal in itself, but such shirts often reveal more than just shoulders, and in any case if many men find it distracting then that is reason enough to not wear such things.
Yes, it is the primary responsibility of us males to control our eyes and minds, but it would be extremely uncharitible for women, knowing what they are doing to us, to subject us to such temptations. Particularly in the case of Church, even if all men and teenaged boys were in control of themselves, immodest dress would still constitute a distraction by forcing men to even think about this issue, as well as presenting the temptation to judge.
I do think of C.S. Lewis’s The Horse and His Boy He contrasted the comphortible, light clothing of Narnia, which I think included shorts and short-sleaved shirts, to the oppressive clothing of Calormen (spelling?). It is one thing to dress modestly, but it is also good to have a society where we don’t have to cover ourselves in layers and layers of clothing all the time out of prudishness. We need a balance.
John,
by Catholic definition that is two fingers below the neck bone and a dress or skirt 8″ below the knees
Can you tell us where we can find that definition?
Brother Cadfael, I don’t know where John saw that, but I believe that’s part of what I have heard described as “Marylike standards of modesty”. I do not know if it is formal Church teaching.
I do know that the “Marylike” standard also includes covering the arms past the elbows, but that because of “impossible market conditions” quarter-length sleeves are deemed acceptable.
Regarding the subjectivity or objectivity of modesty, it is clear that there is at least some objective minimum standard of modesty, post-Fall.
From some reading on the subject, it would seem that the garments God gave Adam and Eve were loin-cloths of some sort, covering the reproductive and eliminative organs but nothing else. While one could argue that they were husband and wife and thus did not need the kind of modesty that later generations would, I suspect rather that this is indeed the minimum standard.
The rest is cultural. What is perfectly modest today, not likely to arouse any sexual feelings in any normal person, would have been unthinkibly immodest in some historical eras. Even if “lower” standards came about through generations of immodesty (just like if higher standards came through generations of excessive prudishness) the standards are now what they are, and people should dress accordingly.
In some warmer areas women do not wear tops. It is clear enough that the breasts are not sexual organs, but secondary sexual characteristics. It has been argued on this blog (in the combox, not by Jimmy) that they are no more sexual than male breasts. One might argue that male breasts are also indecent to expose of course.
The question for me is, are breasts intrinsically tempting to a man or is it only the fact that they are usually hidden in our society that makes them so. Based on Genesis I would guess the latter. Then again how a woman looks from the waist up has a lot to do with how attractive she is overall, so maybe the bacon analogy is valid after all. I’m not sure, and I’m not sure anyone who has grown up in our society is qualified to say what men in other cultures find tempting (just like people of one gender should not attempt to base their judgments of what is tempting to the opposite sex on their own experiences). Therefore I will leave it up to the bishops in the actual areas, and suggest others do so too.
I don’t think I need explain how Pius XII’s standards of modesty applied to the West of his time. Anyone who can not see this is beyond listening to reason from the likes of me.
I hope this post isn’t itself immodest. It may be that it is impossible to judge how even people of your own sex in your own culture will respond to something. Everyone is different.
I agree, J.R. (I LOVE the Chronicles of Narnia!) I remember that scene well. You spelled “Calormen” correctly (although you misspelled “sleeves”)… 🙂
It goes back to something I mentioned earlier: we as Western women tend to resist the “tempting men” argument because of extremists in Iran and Afghanistan. However, taking reasonable steps to help one’s brothers stay out of sin (whether of lusting or judging) – what’s so wrong with that?
Ladies, leave the burkas AND the string tops on the rack! 🙂
Oops – that was in reference to JR’s first of two posts (referencing C.S. Lewis), not his second one.
Kasia,
Thank you. I am not questioning the wisdom of either his or your proposals, but I am still curious who, for example, has deemed quarter-length sleeves acceptable?
And I would like to know if John’s definition –“two fingers below the neck bone and a dress or skirt 8″ below the knees” — is from some Church authority or from somewhere else.
I spell everything wrong. I think I generally only put a (sp?) or (spelling?) after words that are names of people or places or books someone has written or something like that, which I do not want to leave possibly misspelled without drawing attention to the fact that I’m not sure if it is right.
“Brother Cadfael, I don’t know where John saw that, but I believe that’s part of what I have heard described as ‘Marylike standards of modesty’. I do not know if it is formal Church teaching.”
But John said it was “by Catholic definition”, which implies that he claims to know that it is formal Church teaching. The question of where this formal Church teaching can be found is not only a legitimate question, but an important one.
Brother Cadfael,
From CaeliDS way up above:
“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 materials are improper.”
The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
Crash course in modesty:
http://www.catholicmodesty.com
I accidently said it came from Pius XII himself, but there you are. I’m pretty sure this is what John is refering to.
I ran a google search on “Marylike standards of modesty” and the first hit that came up was a 1999 proclamation of “Pope Pius XIII.” The third hit was from an SSPX website, but both appear to quote from Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII.
But here is a Marylike Modesty Handbook from 1944. I have only reviewed it quickly, but it appears to have the definitions above and is genuinely quite interesting and good.
“Sexual temptations are a necessary fact of life. They have to be internally dealt with by the persons experiencing them, not externally “nullified,”
A little of BOTH, please?
To just say “deal with it” is overly simplistic. If it were that easy, we would not need the confessional.
it would be way cool if there was a 6.30am daily Mass within a hour drive of me… I would attend.
The men speaking about the bare shoulders and other violations that cause you to have impure thoughts: how many of you have a problem because the women are showing their hair?
In some Muslim countries, men really do find that when a woman’s veil slips and they can see the hair, it’s an occasion of sin, because they are used to its being covered up.
Victorian men would eye a “well-turned ankle.”
In an extreme case — a man and a woman, friends, belonged to the Society for Creative Anachronism. He was perfectly used to seeing her in shorts. But one day, at an event, he happened to see her adjusting her garter, and he could — oooo baby — see her calf.
Young women who are astounded that you find their shoulders an occasion of sin may not merely be ignorant of an objective fact about men. They may be used to men who are not, in fact, any more turned on by their shoulders than by their shamelessly naked hair, or by their ankles.
The Modesty Standards
On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by mandate of Pope Pius XI issued emphatic instructions on modesty of dress to all bishops “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”
This standard has never been revoked, unless it is somewhere in the 16 council documents of Vatican II, but like communion in the hand which never was allowed by any Pope, made its way into the Catholic church with no rebuke from the present day Popes
And JR I Thank you, I was starting to feel like I was the only one who knew of Pope Pius XII and his teachings. As someone pointed out earlier, Pope JPII also addressed this issue, and I read from the link referenced. But what concerned me is pictures I have seen of the late pontiff attending, well lets say break dancers and other liturgical abuses at mass. One can not imagine Pope Pius XI or XII with break dancers at a Papal mass, that is for.
Pope Pius XI also stated in the same “Parents conscious of their grave obligations towards the education, especially religious and moral of their offspring, should see to it that their daughters are solidly instructed from their earliest childhood in Christian doctrine: and they themselves should assidously inculculate in souls, by word and example love for the virtues of modesty and chastity, and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members reared within the walls of the home should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty-Pope Pius XI Comments on a Christian Moral Code of Life-1957
There are at least two occasions of sin involved in men and women wearing immodest or inappropriate clothing to Mass: one, it can and very often does incite lust, and two, it can and usually does distract others from the liturgy. It’s a bad thing to be led away to inappropriate thoughts during Mass, whether those thoughts are sexual or judgmental.
Of course, it’s true that there are men who will never be “turned on” regardless of what a woman wears (or doesn’t wear). Some of those men are saints. Some of those men are homosexuals. Most men are neither. Dragging out the tired old “Victorians used to get aroused from women’s ankles” canard doesn’t change the fact that men and women need to dress as if they actually care that they are going to meet Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament. As for women’s dress, miniskirts, short shorts, ultratight cleavage-revealing shirts and blouses, and hip-hugger rear-cleavage-revealing pants might be acceptable for street-walkers, but not for Communicants, no matter what culture you’re talking about. Just because our sick culture says it doesn’t matter if women wear clothing designed to draw men’s attention to their reproductive apparatus doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.
Dragging out the tired old “Victorians used to get aroused from women’s ankles” canard doesn’t change the fact that men and women need to dress as if they actually care that they are going to meet Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Calling it tired and old doesn’t change the fact that if your standards are “could incite lust” and “could distract” you are honor-bound to call for women to wear burkhas to church, because there may be people attending who come from the Middle East and find anything less immmodest — both inciting lust and distracting.
As for women’s dress, miniskirts, short shorts, ultratight cleavage-revealing shirts and blouses, and hip-hugger rear-cleavage-revealing pants might be acceptable for street-walkers, but not for Communicants, no matter what culture you’re talking about.
And the relevance to a young woman’s bare shoulders, Jordan?
Jesus said “if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.”
men and women need to dress as if they actually care that they are going to meet Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament
We’re all naked before the Lord.
*Gasp! Spaghetti straps.. and I’ll bet her ankles were showing, the little minx. *sigh.. I’m all for dressing modestly, and not only at Mass, but the priest should’ve simply given her Communion rather than risk the height of her embarrassment which may drive her away from the Church for the next 20 years, the thoughtless futz. Maybe he committed a mortal sin; it’s not his job to judge anyone by appearances. How sad. He must’ve had it in his head to do this way before she came to him. Premeditated futzdom. A poor example.
I went to mass at U of Illinois many years ago and the young woman giving communion was wearing shorts and very attractive. It is not necessarily sinful, but it is not conducive to praying.
The mass in recent Chicago Sun Times was called the “ass mass” at St. Vincent DePaul in Lincoln Park because so many young people met there to hook up because they were tired of bars and it was attractive 20 and 30 something young people.
To me “ass mass” is disrespectful, and attractive girls dressing provactively is an occassion of sin and produces lustful thoughts. Modest dress, and there is modest dress short of a burqa does not seem like an outrageous or Victoria request. I actually like, perhaps sentimental as it reminds me of my Grandma, the head covering, long dresses (ankles are not the biggest problem) and not having super tight fitting clothes or mini skirts just seem to make common sense at least for “our culture”.
I think one of our gifts in the Catholic Church is that we have the fullness of truth, and we don’t have to go to extremes to attempt to fulfill God’s will regarding modesty–like the Muslims and the Puritans. They don’t have the fullness of the truth…so they take their understanding of a good virtue too far and in effect obscure the woman’s personhood.
Or as in the case of Puritan days, completely suppress all expression of beauty, decoration, or joy (as in May Day celebrations, Christmas, and the like).
We are fallen creatures and subject to concupiscence, it doesn’t matter how skimpy the styles get, there is still a line there that you should not cross. I think the Catholic standards quoted above are reasonable for our age, because they don’t require you to dress like a prairie woman, but you still are covering where it counts.
John,
You stated the following:
You stated that dress for more important days (I guess like Easter and Christmas?) should be dressed better than other days, so then you support Cafeteria Catholicism and you think that there are days in which we should dress better and are more important than others, like Our Lord should not be shown respect all of the time?
So I can only assume since B16 or JPII did not write the above, you yourself dont follow it and dont even know church teaching on this subject but rather pick and chose more important days to dress modestly!!!!
Consider what one Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales had to say:
“As to the material and style of our clothing, decency should be considered in reference to the various circumstances of time, age, rank, company, and occasion. Ordinarily, people are better dressed on holidays and this is in proportion to the solemnity of the feast that is celebrated.”
Sixten: Sorry, dude. I thought you were female from the way you wrote. As a male, I’d tend to think you’d understand the point some of us were trying to make.
Maybe you don’t experience the same problems myself and others have expressed. If not, good for you. I mean that. If that’s the case, you should count your blessings.
The fact remains, however, that, for whatever the reason, MOST males in our society do have problems when it comes to this stuff. That, as others have mentioned, brings forth two problems: A-the lust issue and B-the distraction from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass issue.
Now, I’m not certain how far I’d like to push the standard back when it comes to day-to-day/swimming/everywhere but church attire. After all, I used to coach gymnastics and I see some grey area there (judges and coaches need to be able to see things like straight knees, body line, open shoulders, etc. to give an accurate assessment of acrobatic prowess).
But, I do know one thing for certain: when it comes to Mass, distractions like the ones we’re discussing should be curtailed as far as reasonably possible. And I can’t really see where guidelines like the ones set forth by Pius XI or St. Peter’s in Rome (which, by the way, barred my protestant brother from entering due to his shorts) are simply NOT unreasonable.
So, in brief, society has pushed the modesty line way too far into the sl** zone and, while it needs to be pushed back, I couldn’t tell you how far.
Mass attire, however, is an even more serious matter, and that I could tell you how far to push back. But I don’t have to; Pius XI already did that.
Sorry, dude. I thought you were female from the way you wrote.
Right. On account of how I write like a girl, don’t think like a male, and am not like MOST men.
OK, chief. Loud and clear.
_Calling it tired and old doesn’t change the fact that if your standards are “could incite lust” and “could distract”_
No, it’s not “could,” it’s “does.” It’s unarguable that inappropriate dress at Mass incites lust and distracts.
“you are honor-bound to call for women to wear burkhas to church, because there may be people attending who come from the Middle East and find anything less immodest — both inciting lust and distracting.”
Sorry, your “then” statement does not necessarily follow from your “if” statement. Outrageous or offensive conduct does not logically call for excessive and outrageous remedies.
Besides, are there really any Catholics from the Middle East who believe all women must wear burkhas? Only the stricter, more ultratraditional types of Muslims require burkhas on women, and those types of Muslims would never go to a Mass if their life depended on it (unless they were going there to commit an act of sacrilege or terror).
“And the relevance to a young woman’s bare shoulders, Jordan?”
You should know that my comments were not intended to address the original issue in Jimmy’s post, but were made in the context of the ensuing discussion of standards of modesty and appropriate dress at Mass. In that context my comments were relevant.
From poster CSR
“*Gasp! Spaghetti straps.. and I’ll bet her ankles were showing, the little minx. *sigh.. I’m all for dressing modestly, and not only at Mass, but the priest should’ve simply given her Communion rather than risk the height of her embarrassment which may drive her away from the Church for the next 20 years, the thoughtless futz. ”
Is that all we care about, driving people away, come all come many? Catholicism is and always has been based on scrifice as the martyrs of yesteryear refused to denounce one iota of what our Lord taught for “ecumenism or compromise” with any other faith and would rather be put to death which they gladly accepted.
With all of the relaxed rules , changing of the mass, canon law in 1983 by JPII, Catechism, new translation of the bible 4x since the end of the council to make it “less offensive” etc etc-where is the onslaught of seminarians, sisters and laity joining the church? It has done just the opposite my friends
The church used to be the envy of the world because of her grand Art, her unwavering moral standards, her never bending teachings, her Popes who would actually go to war and risk death and the Church Militant, which we are all called to be upon our receipt of confirmation
So if this woman would leave the church because of this, then she never really belonged in the first place, but quite possibly this great priest may actually have helped her save her soul and brought a wrong to her attention
John,
Isn’t there some RadTrad blog you could be following somewhere? Dude, you’re in a parallel universe, except for you it’s 1940. “Two fingers below the neck”?! Give me a break. Standards have changed, and this is not Tehran.
Modesty is, by definition, a virtue; a practical judgement of the mean. That means “two fingers” might be appropriate in some circumstances (your husband’s funeral, Papal audience).
I’m all for modestly, but get real. Have you got some secret yearing for an Islamofascist lifestyle?
“We’re all naked before the Lord.”
I don’t recommend you apply that principle literally. Even if the priest let’s you approach the Sacrament in your altogether, most communities have public indecency statutes.
As for plucking out the offending eye, that entails avoiding if necessary even the near occasion of sin. By that logic, your solution to the problem of inappropriate clothing at Mass would be for those who are offended by inappropriate clothing to just stay home. Or perhaps literally pluck out their eyes — problem solved! Those who wish to dress offensively are happy, and those who would be offended by it would never be offended by it again.
Mark,
I havn’t been supporting the two fingers etc. rule but if it is appropriate for a Papal audience then it is much more appropriate for the mass. Whatever our standards of modesty, it seems clear enough they should be highest for the mass.
“Sexual temptations are a necessary fact of life. They have to be internally dealt with by the persons experiencing them, not externally ‘nullified,'”
That’s really more a modern neo-docetist sort of approach, severing the interior life from the exterior life. The Catholic approach addresses both halves of life, and is solicitous both to the need for the individual to combat temptation internally and for our fellow man and the community to take measures against manifestations of sin and occasions or near occasions of sin. Do not give scandal if you can help it, and try not to take scandal if you can help it. That’s Christian charity.
“you are honor-bound to call for women to wear burkhas to church”
What rot! So ANY attempt to establish – or even talk about – a standard of dress means we have to adopt burqas? That’s one of the dumbest slippery slope arguments I have ever heard.
Standards of dress are subjective, therefore we can’t establish any standards of dress?
I understand that there are grey areas about what constitutes “rape”. Does that mean, because there may be disagreement on the definition, that we should just abandon the legal category of rape?
This is the old “who DECIDES what is moral?” canard. On culturally conditioned questions like this, we ALL decide, together. Yes, whatever we decide will be imperfect, and will change over time and need re-thinking, but that doesn’t mean that we just shrug our shoulders (bare or not) and give up on the idea.
The fact that there is a subjective component to morality doesn’t mean that society can’t establish moral boundaries to personal behavior. This includes the society of the Church.
For the record, I don’t believe the girl should have been turned away from communion.
“This is the old “who DECIDES what is moral?” canard.”
Actually, not so much a canard as a sophism.
Great post, and pretty good commentary afterwards. These things devolve, but I still appreciate the discussion. – PH
FWIW, it’s worth reading about poor old Fr. Kunkel and his Marylike Crusade, which ended with his death in 1969. Although he had the official approval of the Holy See, and some very enthusiastic supporters, no one could be found to take up the cause. Hmmm…wonder why?
“There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved, no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be.” (Pope Pius XII, Nov. 8, 1957)
“The standards of 1930 have not been changed. If there are any future adaptations allowable because of peculiar circumstances, this is not a question to be decided by individual Catholics, but by the authority that issued the standards – the Pope or the sacred Council.”
http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html
Makes ya think.
Mark
“Rad Trad”????
So what you are saying is that something that was Catholic for centuries, or at least only 40 years ago has now deemed to belong into the “Rad trad” community? Is that how far the church and Catholics in general moral conduct and permissivness have fallen? I know that millions have little respect for the eucharistic, the basic concept that separates us from the Protestants and with the likes of Cardinal Kasper offering “Eucharistic Hospitality” sessions-but is what was Catholic only some 40 or so years ago now deemed “Rad”?? If so then we are all in trouble and need to look and pray for restoration
John,
Take heart. “Rad” is just short for “radical” which just means “from the root.” 🙂
But nobody here — or at the Vatican — is trying to do away with 2000 years of Church history.
Truth and love can be separated, and with humanity in its fallen state that is all too often the case. When this happens the truth or the love become warped abominations all the worse for closely resembling something good.
I’m not saying this applies to anyone here, except myself at times. I could not know. It is just a principle which some might benefit from considering. It is especially relevant when meditating on the idea of the “radtrad.”
I borrowed the notion of RadTrad from Michelle Arnold’s post “Overcoming Temptations To RadTradism”. She defines RadTrads as those who become so disillusioned with genuine problems in the Church, such as liturgical abuses, that they begin to disparage or reject legitimate Church authority.
Personally, I think the problem of RadTradism goes deeper. I see an ill-formed virtue of hope which leads to a fortress mentality, an inordinate nostalgia for pre-modern society and an unwise desire for a Mad Daddy resolution to the Church’s problems. When is Pope Benedict going to break out the “anathema sit”?
First of all, the Second Vatican Council did not cause modernism – and the sexual revolution – and girls in spagetti-strap tops. Secondly, you cannot legislate Christian virtue. Virtue is an internal principle (hexis) of acting according to right reason. We cannot turn the Church into a police state (let the SSPXers take that approach), we have to take the more difficult route of evangelization, catechesis and renewal.
I think when one resorts to the use of name calling whether it is “Rad trad” or “schismatic” or “neo con” it is a last resort for those that seem to adhere to and have latched onto the continued evolution of the church away from the roots she was founded upon, and can not participate in a sound debate using references from the teachings of the past 2000 years and needs to resort to name calling
“Rad trad” then I shall take as a compliment if that means that I believe in all of the past church teachings. If these teachings have changed, whether done by acceptable means or not, is not for me to judge, but only God shall when those are called from this earth, including clergy from the Pope on down as they are human beings with the stain of original sin upon them as the rest of us
Let us never forget that
John,
If these teachings have changed, whether done by acceptable means or not, is not for me to judge,…
I am not sure I understand. One reading of your post would be that you will only listen to past teachings and not ones that you deem to have changed — whether by acceptable means or not. But I don’t want to ascribe that meaning to it unless that is what you intended. If they have been changed by acceptable means, would you
agree that they deserve religious assent?
(I ask this not to cast stones or call names or suggest your position is illegitimate, but in a genuine attempt to understand where you’re coming from here.)
…but only God shall when those are called from this earth, including clergy from the Pope on down as they are human beings with the stain of original sin upon them as the rest of us
But you do agree, don’t you, that the Pope is (i) chosen by Christ, and (ii) protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error as definitive truth?
It seems strage to me to hear any Catholic saying the word “schismatic” is just name-calling. This can not be John’s position when it comes to liberal or Eastern schismatics. Why make an exception when the schismatics are closer to your own beliefs. Schism is a pretty cut and dry thing.
I might prefer the term “unhealthy traditionalim” to “radical traditionalism” because the former term is less subjective.
There is nothing wrong with having traditional beliefs. In fact I am of the opinion that the terms “traditional Christian” “traditional Catholic” and “orthodox Catholic” are necessarily synonymous.
If anyone wants my opinion (which is doubtful but I’ll give it anyway) I think there are two ways of being unhealthily traditionalsist.
First, you can develop beliefs that are contrary to those of the Catholic Church, and refusing to submit to authority reject some Church teaching(s) and as much Church authority as necessary to justify this. In this way the traditionalist is different from the liberal dissenter only in what teachings (perhaps ones from a certain time period) he chooses to reject.
The other way to be an unhealthy traditionalst, which may go hand in hand with the first one, is to loose track of the purpose of the Church, religion, spirituality, prayer, etc. If the goal and focus is no longer love and union with God, something has gone terribly wrong.
John,
I don’t hate you. I don’t have much respect for those Catholics who seem to do nothing other than take shots at the Vicar of Christ which the Holy Spirit saw fit to provide them. Who think that for some reason, they know more about what the earlier Vicars of Christ taught than the current Vicar of Christ. And who seem to think that “charity” consists of being silent when others unfairly attack the Holy Father.
As for the rhetoric, I (wrongly, I guess) figured that you wouldn’t mind it since you seem to have no problem throwing it at the Holy Father. I will tone it down so as to be less offensive to you in the future.
I’m late chiming in my two cents on this post. My previous posts in the Mary thread should make it clear that I am not Catholic and I disagree with several points of Catholic dogma. That said, I don’t see how a person could call himself Catholic if he takes such exception (as John seems to) with the teachings of the Pope. Brother Cadfael is perfectly in the right to defend the Pope and the teachings of the Church from John’s unfair attacks.
But you do agree, don’t you, that the Pope is (i) chosen by Christ, and (ii) protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error as definitive truth?
For this, I would respond: (i) All ministers are called by Christ. It is therefore fitting and proper that He select a minister whose teaching is heard around the world and is the visible head of one of the largests Christian churches. All earthly authority is ordained and established by God (Rom 13:1 – a favorite passage since, however small my role, I am an authority figure at work). If God takes that much interest in secular authority, how much more invested must He be in His church authority? (ii) I disagree with Papal Infallibility. However, I do believe strongly that a person with as much practical ministry experience, seminary education, free access to learned individuals (the Cardinals), and what I imagine is an immense library at the Vatican is far less likely to make a mistake in teaching morals. Therefore, his teaching is not infallible in my view, but extremely trustworthy.
If I, a former Catholic who doesn’t believe in Papal Infallibility, is willing to trust that the Pope is making the right decisions to run the Church, why can’t John make the same leap of faith? This is, after all, an authority, and all authorities are established by God.
One final point. My problem lies with the doctrines that Rome teaches. John likes to attack the people who teach them, and that is wrong. I would never stoop to attack JP2 or B16 personally.
_Calling it tired and old doesn’t change the fact that if your standards are “could incite lust” and “could distract”_
No, it’s not “could,” it’s “does.” It’s unarguable that inappropriate dress at Mass incites lust and distracts.
|
“you are honor-bound to call for women to wear burkhas to church, because there may be people attending who come from the Middle East and find anything less immodest — both inciting lust and distracting.”
Sorry, your “then” statement does not necessarily follow from your “if” statement. Outrageous or offensive conduct does not logically call for excessive and outrageous remedies.
In other words — other men just have to deal with the fact that women in church are wearing clothing that distracts them and incites lust for them. And for them to say that is to call for excessive and outrageous remedies.
Once you have conceded that, you have conceded that the fault is not always the dress.
Besides, are there really any Catholics from the Middle East who believe all women must wear burkhas?
Do you think you could change your belief about what clothing is immodest and therefore no longer be incited to lust or distracted by women at church?
Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, “but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word”. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith.
The Papal Oath was taken by the pope upon their elevation to the Chair of St. Peter since Pope Saint Agatho on June 27, 678. Many believe it was even taken by several predecessors of St. Agatho. At least 185 Supreme Pontiffs took this solemn oath over the past 1300 years. In this oath, the Vicar of Christ vows to never contradict the Deposit of Faith, or change/innovate anything that has been handed down to him. This sacred oath was taken religiously up until October 1978.
Thus meaning that John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul I all took this oath. The oath states that should the pope break the oath, they would excommunicate themselves from the Church, and therefore, cease being pope. John Paul II is the first since the 7th century or before to not take it.
The Oath is as follows:
“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone — be it Ourselves or be it another — who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”
One must make their own decisions as to whether one is being a “rad trad” or being faithful to the church and her teachings past and present.
“you are honor-bound to call for women to wear burkhas to church”
What rot! So ANY attempt to establish – or even talk about – a standard of dress means we have to adopt burqas? That’s one of the dumbest slippery slope arguments I have ever heard.
If the rule propounded is that when a man is distracted by a woman’s clothing, or incited to lust, the woman is immodestly dressed — that’s not a slippery slope argument. It is a fact that some men, accustomed to women wearing more clothing than even the most modest American women, are incited to lust by seeing a woman’s hair, or even her face.
If you concede that their demanding burkhas in American churches is unreasonable — you have conceded that a man’s demand, even if he is incited to lust, can be unreasonable. If such demands can be unreasonable, the argument advanced on this thread by some men, that something that incites them to lust and therefore women must be wrong to wear it, is not entitled to the irrebutable presumption of being correct.
John,
Assuming the legitimacy of what you say about the papal oath — it is disputed as discussed here — is it your claim that Pope John Paul II lacked any authority because he did not take such an oath?
Dude, you’re in a parallel universe, except for you it’s 1940. “Two fingers below the neck”?! Give me a break. Standards have changed, and this is not Tehran.
…
I’m all for modestly, but get real. Have you got some secret yearing for an Islamofascist lifestyle?
Two questions.
1) Is Modernism still considered a heresy?
2) Is modesty of dress now narrowly an Islamofascist* phenomena?
* Note that the term Islamofascist had its origins in the howling political classes and seems to have more propaganda than informational value.
Michael,
Two questions.
1) Is Modernism still considered a heresy?
Yes.
2) Is modesty of dress now narrowly an Islamofascist* phenomena?
No.
1) What did the priest do regarding the men/boys who appeared before him while wearing shorts?
2) Do you guys know how lustful bare guy-legs make us women?? Gawd, how distracting. I’m going to keep a sofa throw handy, just in case.
3) I’m putting radical masculinists on notice.
But seriously, yes, John — we do care if a Catholic gets driven away. Spaghetti straps on a 14-yr. old.. Now, really — did anyone here bitch out Madonna for her stage crucifixion scene, I wonder?
So John, what I’m hearing is that it’s not just the sight of young women you find to be an occasion of sin but even the Pope sends you over the edge. The last couple weren’t really Catholic enough for you. Well, I hate to disappoint you but I’m not sure you’re going to take much solace in the most recent one either. He seems to think the Assisi gathering was a nice idea (what’s a fella to do?):
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605026.htm
Pope: Interreligious prayer meetings are needed even more today
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
ASSISI, Italy (CNS) — On the 20th anniversary of the first interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi, Pope Benedict XVI said the initiative had been a “prophetic” way for various faiths to witness against conflict and war.
The pope said such gatherings were needed even more today, when younger generations of all faiths must learn that prayer “does not divide, but unites” and that religion must never be used as an excuse for violence.
The pope made his comments in a message Sept. 4 to the 20th Interreligious Prayer Meeting for Peace in Assisi, Italy. Sponsored by the Sant’Egidio Community, the two-day encounter brought together more than 150 representatives of various world religions.
The pope’s message offered a strong endorsement of the interfaith meetings that began in Assisi in 1986, surprising some observers. Vittorio Messori, a well-known Italian Catholic writer, had reported that as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope had strong doubts about the 1986 meeting and felt it emphasized spectacle over faith.
But in his message, Pope Benedict said Pope John Paul II had correctly perceived the value of having leaders of different faiths gather to send a message that true religion builds bridges and has nothing to do with violence.
“His invitation for a choral witness to peace served to clarify, without any possibility of misunderstanding, that religion can only be a source of peace,” he said.
The 1986 meeting and those that followed have also highlighted the importance of prayer in changing human hearts and helping to clear the often difficult path to peace, the pope said.
“We need this ‘education to peace’ more than ever, especially looking at the new generations,” the pope said.
“Many young people in areas of the world marked by conflict are educated in sentiments of hatred and vengeance, in ideological contexts that cultivate the seeds of ancient animosities and prepare hearts for future violence,” he said.
The pope addressed bluntly the accusation, aired in some conservative church circles, that the Assisi meeting represented an injudicious blending of different faith elements and prayer expressions.
He noted that 20 years ago Pope John Paul emphasized that the religious leaders had not come together to seek a religious consensus or “negotiate” their faith convictions. Pope Benedict said the policy chosen in 1986, which continues today, is for the various religions to pray in their own distinct way even as they gather to witness in the same place. In this way, confusion is avoided, he said.
“The convergence of diverse representatives should not give the impression of a concession to that relativism which negates the very meaning of truth and the possibility of taking it in,” he said.
The pope also offered a historical perspective on the 20 years that have followed the first interreligious prayer meeting. He said the fall of European communism and the promise of a more cooperative globalized economy generated hope for a new era of peace.
“Unfortunately, this dream of peace did not come true. On the contrary, the third millennium opened with scenarios of terrorism and violence that show no sign of dissolving,” he said.
He said the fact that many conflicts today occur along regional geopolitical fault lines may give the impression that religious differences themselves constitute elements of instability or a threat to peace.
That only gives added relevance to the interreligious prayer meetings for peace, he said.
END
I can only guess, but I think Mary knows she is being unreasonable and uncharitable in her attack against modesty. Mary, what is wrong with people dressing in a way less likely to be an occasion of sin to others? Your arguements seem to be “you men are sinning so that’s not our fault. Don’t oppress us with your clothing requirements because you can’t control yourselves.” If this is so please reconsider your position from a Christian perspective.
John do you accept and submit yourself to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, giving consent to all the Magisterium proposes for our belief? If so, what is the purpose of your citing this supposed oath, and if not why do you call yourself a Catholic? Please do not read more into these words than their plain meaning, I actually want to know the answers to know where you stand.
Mary: Why do people attend Mass? Is it to draw attention to themselves? If not, then what does it matter if someone requests that people dress modestly?
Speaking for myself, I don’t struggle with this as much as I once did, but that doesn’t say much. However, when the 30-something-year-old guitarist at my CONFIRMATION (whom I knew from my martial arts class) mentioned how “hot” the 16-, 17-, and 18-year-old female confirmants looked and how he almost forgot what song was next, there’s a PROBLEM. All I’m asking for is a reasonable standard. Why is that so offensive? Seriously, I want to know.
I believe that if you could see the world through the eyes of a man who struggles with this issue, you’d hold a very different opion. And yeah, Stoodley’s assessment that you should reconsider based on a Christian perspective is apt. Your attitude seems quite unChristian. We’re SUPPOSED to try to help one another make it to Heaven. If something simple like a different shirt can help my neighbor along the way, what is the big deal?
No one’s saying you need to go out of your way in this. None of us are advocating burquas. So, how are we being unreasonable?
CSR: My wife has just confirmed (again) that women are not wired the same in this respect. The effect of a bare-legged man, she tells me, is not even close to what I’ve described to her from a man’s perspective of the effect of a similarly-dressed woman. It’s simply not the same (no matter what the followers of the modern religious belief that “men and women–oops wymyn–are really the exact same” might tell you).
That said, yeah, I’d be all for a dress code with regard to men as well, but for slightly different reasons. And, as I said, my protestant brother was disallowed from St. Peter’s due to his shorts, so there’s a history of that as well.
One final thought and then I think I’m done with this combox. Today’s society is filled with a vast and teeming swarm of “men” whose main interest is how they’re going to “get off.” Many of these even call themselves Catholics. This Hugh Heffner Generation has not only succeeded in destroying themselves, they’ve enslaved an entire generation of women and girls to all forms of sexual issues, self-esteem issues, objectification issues … the list goes on and on. Compare that image to what we have here. Here, we have men who struggle for purity, for true appreciation of the dignity of women and not just how she can help in their quest for gratification … in short, men who want to be Godly, chivalrous. We don’t want to objectify women. We don’t want to be selfish. We don’t want to disrespect the women around us (or, frankly, our own selves). Here, we have men who are ACTUALLY TRYING.
And you say that you can’t be bothered to help? That something like the choice of a different shirt or skirt or pants or whatever is too much to ask when one is attending Mass … when one is to be present at Calvary? I pray that you’ll reconsider.
JR
I do submit to the church and her teachings past and present, something that many here and elsewhere do not as they think that the church started with Pope JPII
Are there questions to be answered at some point in my and many others opinion as far as the direction of the church today with respect to ecumenism and her reforms these past 40 years as to whether or not they are truly lets say in the best interest of the sheep she is in charge of protecting and bringing to salvation-the answer is of course Yes.
I do love the late pontiff, but his mixed messages on everything and his continued fascination with everything modern concerned me and has caused confusion in the young minds of all Catholics
A simple example is his statements that we all worship the same God as he said many times in his talks to other faiths, something that was discounted and already taught infalibly at the council of Florence, and that one must be a Catholic to be saved. If our youth think that even those that reject Our Lord and all of the teachings of the church can be saved, then why should they adhere to any of the teachings of the church if even those that worship Mohammend and Buddah, as JPII stated, can be saved?
Like a parent, the Pope must present a clear concise message, and the present days popes have failed at this in their effort to try to live in the “Spirit of Vatican II”
And may I add as a general statement, that I do find it amusing how when entering into these kinds of discussions, those that are solidly behind these liberal reforms, like the good Brother and JR , while they claim total allegiance to whatever Pope happens to be sitting in the chair of Peter at this time, they poke and prod to see if they can trip you into professing that you dont believe in the Pope or whatever happens to be the topic of the day and try to label you and discount your argument. The Vatican II council took many powers away from the Pope and placed it into the hands of the Bishops, basically making him a figurehead. Pope B16 had wanted to put forth a universal indult, but because of the Cardinals refusal to accept this, he as Pope actually backed down. The same for reconcilliation with SSPX, as these Cardinals would not compromise at all and admit, as the Pope has stated, that a “reform of the reform” is needed badly.
These barbs that are thrown at “traditionalists” are done out of desparation, as it is very hard to defend the liberal reforms of the church today which has produced not an abundance of clergy and devout Catholics filling the pews, but instead has produced bankrupt dioceses due to unchecked and covered up pedophila to liturgical abuse, to Bishops being accused of stealing over $1M dollars, on and on, and something as simple as a moral dress code that was clearly defined by a sitting Pope in Pius XI and XII, becomes an issue because no one wants to be the moral guardian of the flock they were sworn to protect.
And because the arguments presented by those that know and understand ALL of the past teachings of the church having actually taken the time to read much of it and not from Pope JPII on, clear defections are obvious as many theologians have pointed out and it causes concern and confusion and if bringing this up in an open discussion does not fit into the formal definition of modernism and was not put forth by JPII it is discounted as “Radical Traditionalism”
The good brother posed the question to me about JPII not taking the papal oath and if I thought he was a “real pope”-well the question I have is why would he NOT take it? Would we not expect the President of the United States to not place his hand on the bible come every 4 years in January and take his oath?
Think about it
John,
You have not answered my question, which is pretty straightforward, no traps.
Assuming the legitimacy of what you say about the papal oath — which is disputed — is it your claim that Pope John Paul II lacked any authority because he did not take such an oath?
I did not ask if you believed he was a “real pope” or not (although you have not answered that question, either).
John, what is your source for the “papal oath” information. Seems your basing your opinion of the last three Popes on some shaky grounds. Remember GIGO, “garbage in, garbage out”…
Brother
Of course he did not lack authority as Pope, he is and was the pope. I believe he was a very bad Pope, but he was the Pope
As far as the origin of the oath no one knows its origin for sure, but it is clear that due to some unsavory Popes in the 6th and 7th century, it became mandatory for 1300 years to take the oath, and as it states in it’s last paragraph
“Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone — be it Ourselves or be it another — who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”
One does not need to be a degreed theologian with his advent of Assisi and innovations for masses of any kind, that he obviously would not follow the past teachings.
Scripture teaches us the following:
Gospel according to St John Chapter 15
17 These things I command you, that you love one another.
18 If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.
19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me.
22 If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
23 He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.
Epistle of St. James Chapter 4
4 Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God.
5 Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you?
6 But he giveth greater grace. Wherefore he saith: God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Now lets take a look at what these leaders, many of pagan religions no less as well as Catholic hater Mr Foxman had to say about JPII at his death. The question beckons-why was he loved so much by them??
The pope “revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman said the pope “normalized” relations with Jews and cited John Paul II’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
“He was a man of God in every sense and a true friend whose visionary leadership will be sorely missed,” Foxman said.
“Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100 years,” said the Rev. Billy Graham. “His extraordinary gifts, his strong Catholic faith, and his experience of human tyranny and suffering in his native Poland all shaped him, and yet he was respected by men and women from every conceivable background across the world.”
“I think evangelicals also recognize that in the passing of John Paul II we may never see his likes again, and there’s a real sense of loss in that even as we continue to be greatly concerned about the institution of the papacy, we have great admiration for the man,” said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“The pope was a man of true peace and justice,” said Pawan Deshpande, a member of the Hindu American Foundation Executive Council. “His strong commitment to human rights, democracy and interreligious dialogue will not be forgotten.”
The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said the pope “modeled unselfish compassion.”
He said the pope served as an example of how people of various faiths — or no faith — “can live and work together while enhancing the quality of life for all people.”
The pope “provided inspiration and leadership, not only to Roman Catholics but also to the greater Christian world and beyond with his uncompromising stances in favor of life and against the culture of death,” said the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.
“His voice and moral authority gave inspiration and hope to millions well beyond the Roman Catholic Church,” said the Rev. Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, in seeming to sum up the feelings of many ministers.
John,
You stated: A simple example is his statements that we all worship the same God as he said many times in his talks to other faiths, something that was discounted and already taught infalibly at the council of Florence, and that one must be a Catholic to be saved. If our youth think that even those that reject Our Lord and all of the teachings of the church can be saved, then why should they adhere to any of the teachings of the church if even those that worship Mohammend and Buddah, as JPII stated, can be saved?
Would it surprise you to learn that Pope John Paul II taught that “belonging to the Church” is “an essential condition for salvation“?
Or that he expressly affirmed and re-affirmed, on more than one occasion, the teaching of the Council of Florence that your refer to?
Or that he and Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) taught that it must be “firmly believed” “above all else” that the Church is necessary for salvation, something they referred to as the “universal salvific mediation of the Church”?
Or that they taught further, “it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions…”?
Or that they taught the following? “God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.
You seem to be arguing, but please correct me if I am wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time), that all of the above is somehow inconsistent with the teaching that Muslims and Jews believe in the same God that Christians do. Is that correct? If so, could you explain how they are inconsistent. For example, I presume based on the above, that you would hold that a Protestant who rejects the Catholic Church is not saved. Does that mean that they don’t worship the same God that we do? I don’t think it does, and therefore, I don’t think the statement that someone worships the same God as us is at all inconsistent with the notion that outside the Church there is no salvation.
John,
As far as the origin of the oath no one knows its origin for sure, but it is clear that due to some unsavory Popes in the 6th and 7th century, it became mandatory for 1300 years to take the oath…
I know it is “clear” for you, but could you provide some evidence that this oath was mandatory for 1300 years?
John,
As far as the origin of the oath no one knows its origin for sure, but it is clear that due to some unsavory Popes in the 6th and 7th century, it became mandatory for 1300 years to take the oath…
I know it is “clear” for you, but could you provide some evidence that this oath was mandatory for 1300 years?
Sorry. Italics off.
Now they’re off.
Brother
You state that John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) taught that it must be “firmly believed” “above all else” that the Church is necessary for salvation, something they referred to as the “universal salvific mediation of the Church and that they taught further, “it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions…”?
Then why would he as Pope:
On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mass of people undulating to the rhythm of tomtoms, accompanied by accordians and guitars.
In February 1982, he presided over a “dance” Mass in Libreville.
On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mass in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
In September 1984, he presided over a Mass in Canada at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood.
In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: “We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God.”
In August 1985, he presided over “dance” Masses in Cameroon and Garoua.
On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a “Sacred Forest” consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
In 1986, he presided over a Mass in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the “Tilac,” the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.
On October 27, 1986, he participated in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Assisi, Italy, during which an image of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He again brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders in Assisi on January 9-10, 1993, to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians, and on January 24, 2002, for yet another “ecumenical prayer meeting” for “peace” with the Mohammedan terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of “Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions.” (Associated Press)
On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the altar during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
In 1995, he approved the building of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome.
On April 6, 1997, he recited the Credo without the Filioque on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Constantinople I Council and on ecumenical occasions. (Eastern Catholic Life)
In 1998, he gave communion, at a private Mass in the Vatican, to the late Rev. Sheila Brown, who had only shortly before been ordained an Anglican priestess and who, at that Mass, wore her “Roman” collar.
On November 23, 1998, he shared the altar of St. Peter’s with bare-chested, bare-footed tribesmen from Oceania holding spears, “searching for new impulses.” (Associated Press)
In 1999, he gave communion to several Lutheran bishops who were his guests during a mass in the pope’s private chapel in the Vatican. (London Tablet)
On June 1, 1999, he end of an audience, he bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Koran, presented to him by a delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqui television. (June 1, 1999, Catholic News Service)
On January 18, 2000, he allowed Rev. George Carey, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Athanasius to participate in their official capacities at the opening of the Holy Door.
So saying one thing and doing another destroys all credibility one has as a leader, and it is obvious why other faiths loved him so, the modern world, because he would stop at nothing for unity including stating that we and the Moslems worship the same God, which is false, as scripture states:
Whosoever does not continue in the doctrine of Christ does not have God”. – II St. Jn 1:9
The teaching and the beliefs of Catholicism and Mohammedanism are different and contrary. Their concept of, and their approach to God, diverge and conflict. Catholics indeed accept as dogmatic truth the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moslems vehemently and vociferously deny the Blessed Trinity ,the Incarnation , the Crucifixion of our Divine Lord and the Divinity of Christ. The Mohammedans have such a carnal notion of heaven that St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to declare “The Mohammedan Paradise, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
The Catholic and Christian God is ‘The Trinity,’ and our Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of that Trinity, is the Creator and One true and merciful God. Despite monotheistic appearances, we do not have the same God; we do not have the same mediator.
So how can the Pope a vicar of Christ and the Documents of Vatican II tell us that we should hold “Moslems in High Esteem” and for JPII to say to them “we all worship the same God” When scripture clearly states otherwise
“…he preached at a Lutheran church in Rome.”
“…he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.”
Jesus ate and drank with sinners and met with pagan Romans and Greeks. He even performed a miracle to heal the servant of a pagan Roman centurion.
“…he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue in Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.”
He is coming again.
“…he recited the Credo without the Filioque…”
As did all popes before that phrase was added to the Nicene Creed
John,
You provide too many examples to go into at length. Some, like merely engaging in dialoge with Voodoo practicioners, I do not see what you have a problem with. Some regard issues like modesty and liturgical dance, which I think should be left to the bishops accross the world not American laypeople with our cultural prejudices. Some I think you misrepresent, for instance the Pope’s attending of a synogogue service does not mean he personally prayed for the coming of the Messiah.
Others are indeed causes of concern, like the Hindu thing (though Shiva to clarify is not a goddess but the male god of destruction, or more broadly of creation, preservation, destruction, hiding of sins, and blessing) or the putting a Buddhist statue on top of the tabernacle. I would like to know more about these things before outrightly condemning them though. For instance, did JPII know what the Hindus were doing to him? Not that this would absolve him of all guilt since he apparently did go to a Hindu temple and allow them to perform some ritual with him. Since I have never heard of the Buddhist statue on the tabernacle thing I would like to know if it really happened, if the tabernacle was empty, and if the Pope gave any consent to this or even knew about it or if the Buddhists while meeting by themselves did it on their own initiative. If this last part is the case I don’t see how you can blame JPII for it.
Popes are not perfect. They are sinners like the rest of us. They have weaknesses that often become obvious in the role they must play. I believe JPII was sometimes too cozy with non-Catholics. You apparently go even farther in this. It is important to remember though that we must ascribe the best possible intentions to any actions of anyone, and contitue to respect and honor the Holy Father, submiting ourselves to his authority and accepting all Magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
It is true that Magisterial teaching from the past, even the distant past, is still Magisterial and especially the infallible teachings are of course always infallible. However, it is also true that the current Pope and your local bishop are placed above you as your pastors, to whom you owe a loyalty and obedience which does not apply to past generations. We may not always agree with the actions of these people, but they are our bishops and we are the faithful laity. It is our place to freely follow and obay. This does not just mean grudgingly accepting that these people have a theoretical authority and their teachings are legitimate, but it requires an actual spirit of obedience and loyalty.
Often I go back to the model of a monastery and the monks. You may not always agree with what the Abbot does, with his personal choices or even some of his official decisions and orders to you. But he remains the Abbot, the father, and you obay him and love him, knowing for certain that it is the will of God for you to do so. What could be more freeing? Now you can grow in love for God.
I hope you can see the beauty in this, despite my inadequat writing.
What’s the matter John, you can’t find a respectable source for your “papal oath” nonsense? You really should stop perusing those SSPX websites, they’re heretical …
I can only guess, but I think Mary knows she is being unreasonable and uncharitable in her attack against modesty.
Do you realize you are being unreasonable, uncharitable, and unjust?
The people advancing arguments in this forum, and their arguments, are not the virtue of modesty. To point out the holes in the arguments is not to attack modesty.
Mary, what is wrong with people dressing in a way less likely to be an occasion of sin to others?
snort
If the people arguing against spaghetti straps in this topic just wanted to dress in a way less likely to be an occasion of sin to others, they would go away and do it. There would be no argument.
What this discussion is about is telling other people how to dress. And it is specifically about men telling women to dress. As witness:
The effect of a bare-legged man, she tells me, is not even close to what I’ve described to her from a man’s perspective of the effect of a similarly-dressed woman. It’s simply not the same (no matter what the followers of the modern religious belief that “men and women–oops wymyn–are really the exact same” might tell you).
So we are discussing a situation where “They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.” (Not to mention that if you cite “women aren’t as affect by men as men by women,” and dress accordingly, and think that women are sinning if they dress immodestly, you are being an occasion of sin by setting an example of dress. And even if your wife is typically, what about atypical women?)
All I’m asking for is a reasonable standard. Why is that so offensive? Seriously, I want to know
What is so offensive about declaring in advance that your position is the reasonable one, and therefore anyone who differs is unreasonable?
Especially when you are declaring a standard that you do not apply to yourself?
And you say that you can’t be bothered to help? That something like the choice of a different shirt or skirt or pants or whatever is too much to ask when one is attending Mass … when one is to be present at Calvary? I pray that you’ll reconsider
Does a burkha fall under whatever? If so, why not? If a man tells you that he needs all the women at Mass to be burkhas, what would you say to him?
I pray that you reconsider.
BTW — burkhas are going to keep coming up until there is an argument that says they are, indeed, unreasonable.
Several people have called burkhas unreasonable — but then, someone else could call covered shoulders unreasonable. You can call a thing something but that’s an argument that it is the something.
And a second BTW — I never wear outfits with bare shoulders, or shorts, to church.
So, you are not telling me to change my clothing. You are telling me to criticize other women’s clothing.
Mark
The Papal Oath or the lack thereof has been a discussion on many blogs and one does not need to visit a SSPX website to obtain it, but one would not expect to find JPII’s and B16 actually as well lack of taking this oath on any so called non-traditional website, because they really are not interested in being guardians of the faith. Oh every so often they throw out a tid bit about using Latin again as they do on EWTN to confuse the conservative fringe of the church, but our Lord always taught beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing
As I have posted facts to back up my assertions with sound church doctrine, and have and never have resorted to name calling as you have Mark (sort of like that man Mark Shea on his blog who always resorts to name calling) as such is a mortal sin and calumny, I shall see if anyone can convince me that the above actions by the late Pontiff are indeed in line with Catholic teachings and tradition, or even yet the first commandment for that matter with respect to Hindu and Buddhist worship and pagan idols on the sacred altar where the holy sacrifice of the mass takes place
John,
In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the “Tilac,” the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
J.R.,
Others are indeed causes of concern, like the Hindu thing (though Shiva to clarify is not a goddess but the male god of destruction, or more broadly of creation, preservation, destruction, hiding of sins, and blessing) or the putting a Buddhist statue on top of the tabernacle. I would like to know more about these things before outrightly condemning them though.
It appeas that one James Akin has addressed here this fabrication. Pope John Paul II was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant from a married Catholic woman, not a Hindu priestess.
JR
May I add that I have great respect for the current Pontiff and I only wish he had been elected 5 or 10 years ago when he was a bit younger as he would have the time on earth and the energy to implement his reform of the reform that he has discussed as badly needed. He is a man to be respected
Mary: You are clearly unwilling to even consider my points. You have been quite disrespectful (and I quote … “snort” … when I mentioned the very Judeo-Christian concept of being my brother’s keeper) and you show a deep lack of compassion. And you have laid out no logical defense of your opinion save the volatile and extreme comparison to fascist Mohammedan dictatorships.
I never called into question your particular style of dress, merely the logical result of the style of dress allowed to be “reasonable” under your line of thought.
If I started to answer your points, I would be disrespecting Mr. Akins “Da Rulz” by repeating myself, so I, istead, bow out, knowing that I have obviously touched a nerve (for which I do not understand the underlying cause). I hope that you can forgive me for my part in stirring up whatever anger I have brought to the surface. I do not, however, apologize for calling for a higher standard of modesty.
“No shoes, no shirt, no service.”
Sorry, I had heard the about the “Hindu ritual” several times before so I had assumed there was something too it, but it looks like there is not. This shows how unwise it is to judge others, especially on hearsay, and especially when the person in question is the Vicar of Christ.
John,
As I have posted facts to back up my assertions…
Facts don’t back up assertions, evidence backs up assertions. Facts may simply be asserted, which is all that you have done.
Your confidence that you have so correctly interpreted all Church teaching before 1962, and that Pope John Paul II has so severely misinterpreted it, is misplaced. It is the type of misplaced confidence caused by pride spoken of by St. Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis which “leads them to hold themselves up as the rule for all,” and “which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience,” and “which begets their absolute want of respect for authority.”
Must we choose between your interpretation of pre-1962 Church teaching, and Pope John Paul II’s interpretation of pre-1962 Church teaching?
John,
You state that “non-traditional” websites are “not interested in being guardians of the faith. ”
Which websites would you consider as being proper guardians of the faith? Just curious what standards such a site would have to meet…And what criteria do you use to characterize someone or some entity as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”?
“Facts” may be true or false. Some of John’s facts are false, while others are presented in a way to ellicit the worst possible judgment on the actions.
Mary, my thoughts echo Jared’s almost exactly. I will ask this though, since I am rather mystified by your position: do you, in the abstract, agree that modesty is a virtue? How would you define it, and what is its purpose?
Mary,
What this discussion is about is telling other people how to dress.
What’s wrong with that? Some people do need to be told how to dress. Witness laws against indecency, dress codes at work, dress codes at school, etc. All of this would be unnecessary if we as a society could not tell other people how to dress.
And, no, to answer your next question, burkhas are not the logical result once you start having, and enforcing, dress codes.
Dorothy Parker said, “Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.” Maybe the dress code should include glasses. Now spaghetti straps and glasses. Hmmn…
JR
Your statements such as the “cow dung ritual” and you looked into it and there was nothing to it, to paraphrase can only make me chuckle. What part of the cow dung on the Popes forehead do you find as something to not take serious, or kissing the Koran, and so on. If this was the court of law and with 18 or so facts as reported by no less than the Associated Press and so on of non Catholic actions in the name of ecumenism by this pope “Santo Subito” no less -he would have been convicted and the key thrown away
And to say that the way it was presented is a further laugh, sort of like that Vatican II was all fine and dandy but was just “implemented wrong”
I am glad you have looked into this and your accounts are better than the Associated Press and that the cow dung on the Vicar of Cjrist by a Pagan was all fine and dandy. I wonder if Pope Pius X would allow cow dung on his forehead or kiss a koran
who would have thought spaghetti straps could spawn such a tsnuami of combox exchanges.
John,
So, Indian Catholics are pagan? Nice.
Joe says:
“who would have thought spaghetti straps could spawn such a tsnuami of combox exchanges.”
Doesn’t surprise me at all.
“and with 18 or so facts as reported by no less than the Associated Press”
Since when is the Associated Press the most accurate source of news about things of a religious nature? Have I missed something?
I’m kind of late to this thread, but here’s my two cents: I’m a woman and I have to tell other women what to dress ALL THE TIME. I teach in a public high school where girls try to wear necklines so lowcut that you can see down past their bras as you pass, jeans cut so low that their pelvic bones are showing below their not-long-enough shirts, and clothes tight enough that I can sometimes read their tattoos through the fabric.
Before that, I was at a Catholic school in which the principal (a woman) went toe-to-toe with parents of girls who were turned away from Homecoming for wearing clothes so tight you could see nipples, thongs, piercings, etc. through the outer clothes. The general complaint was “I paid good money for her clothes!” Ironically, the fashionable BOYS at the dance were overdressed in brightly-coloured suits and matching hats, very classy.
And before that, I worked at an international company where the mostly female managers had to take young women aside and explain that, despite what showed up as “workclothes” in GLAMOUR or Cosmopolitan, spandex minidresses, fishnet stockings, and black bras under white suits was NOT work-appropriate.
Men get told off if they approach their female colleagues about their dressing. Or they get accused of harrassment. Or the ever-popular “Why are you looking!?!?” (When Gloria Steinam started wearing miniskirts the second time they were fashionable, she said if men looked “it was their problem” – kind of similar.)
Women who have the dubious honour of bringing up the subject get “You’re just jealous” (Of what – your skankitude?), “You don’t know what’s fashionable” (That’s fashionable for the “working girls” on Woodward, maybe…), and “Why are you looking – are you a lesbian?!?!
My sister-in-law saw a long time ago that some mothers thought “clubwear” on kids and makeup on pre-adolescent girls was just “cute”. She’s made sure that my nieces and nephews know that some things aren’t appropriate for church, school, or anywhere else but the pool (in their own yard). She even learned to sew so that my middle niece would have something decent (literally) to wear to
school dances.
What I find highly ironic is that so many fashion magazines and predominantly male designers push the idea of showing off the body as a way of “feminine empowerment” but it really is setting us up to be objects to be viewed. Boys and girls are sexualized at younger ages, which gets them used to the idea that girls are supposed to look good so boys will admire them. It’s getting to the point that even Christian parents are developing big blind spots to things like their sons wearing vulgar T-shirts to church and their daughters baring their midriffs at weddings Masses.
And, no, to answer your next question, burkhas are not the logical result once you start having, and enforcing, dress codes.
According to the dress codes proposed here, burkhas are not the result, they are already required, because if the code is — as has been proposed here — “could incite lust,” only burkhas could possibly fit it.
Care to propose another standard? With the due humility that such a standard must contain, being that you are making burdens for other people’s shoulders?
I forgot if I mentioned this, but even when something is wrong and is in need of correction, it may not neccesarily be the best to do it at the momment. St.Paul says that the law condemns.
This means if one comes into knowledge of the Law a and break it, you sin and are held accountable.
These days most people are ignorant of the Law, so they might not be commiting a sin. Now if one is to correct them, they must be sure and see a grace can help the person follow the Law. For example, the Indians were running naked and eating other humans. The Church did not go in there and told them you’re going to Hell. No, they slowly introduced the Catholic Doctrine and Morality. That is why sometimes I can’t just go plant a problem of conscience on a person if I know its not going to do them any good at the momment. We need to courtious and have in mind God and do teach someone for love of God and zeal for His Law rather than just to prove we are right.
Our Lady help us all.
John said, “The Papal Oath or the lack thereof has been a discussion on many blogs and one does not need to visit a SSPX website to obtain it”
John, you’re using “many blogs” as your reference point to slander Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI? I’m sorry buddy but that doesn’t cut it. You have no credibility left in this discussion and you are simply wasting whitespace on the page. Put away the SSPX comic books Pal; as I said, garbage in garbage out…
According to the dress codes proposed here, burkhas are not the result, they are already required, because if the code is — as has been proposed here — “could incite lust,” only burkhas could possibly fit it.
Not in our culture. Jeans and a T-shirt that fits don’t incite lust– someone COULD still get off on it, but they don’t incite lust. Incite, from dictionary.com: to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action.
If seeing more than someone’s eyes– say, their arms below the elbow, face, and from the knees-down– incites lust in a guy, there’s a pretty big problem…. (Yes, I think that cultures who use the burkha have a pretty big problem. Judging from the public speaking that claims any woman not in a burkha is inviting rape, I’d say it’s a perverted sexuality.)
Personally I find a woman in a burkha to be very intriguing …
Just me, When I see a woman in a tight shirt with, ahem, it all showing and tight jeans with it all hanging out….well I guess I’m just another pervert. She wasn’t iviting me to look, now was she?
WWJMW? (WHat would Jesus’s mom wear?)
WWJMW? (WHat would Jesus’s mom wear?)
Whatever God willed her to wear. She didn’t worry about it.
JM, if you expect me to wear itchy robes without decent underwear and no comfortable bra, you can go commit a physical impossiblity with yourself.
Geez, I get sick for a week and this is what happens. People…how many of you commenting have or have had fourteen year old daughters or were once fourteen years old daughters yourselves? The fact that the fourteen year old girl was in church, participating in Mass, had a desire to receive the Sacrament and perhaps was wearing the nicest dress she owned should have counted for something. For all we know, that dress was the most modest thing that her parents bought her (AFTER ALL, SHE IS FOURTEEN AND DOES NOT HAVE A JOB OR COULD DRIVE TO THE MALL.) There all kinds of facts that we do not know. Many of you are all presuming that this girl is fourteen year old slut out whoring with every boy, girl or thing she meets. If the dress was truly immodest, then the girl should not have been publically humiliated. The priest should have discussed the matter with her parents in private after Mass. If she continued to come to church thereafter dressed the same way, then perhaps some of the conditions that Mr. Akins discussed might come into play.
Paul, I agree, it seems wrong to publicly humiliate the child. If John Kerry can receive communion at the Archbishop’s inauguation Mass then why shouldn’t she be given the benefit of the doubt. The only conditions should be “notorioius public sinner and grave public scandal”. Neither condition seems to apply here.
I saw a thread on another blog recently where the homilist was being congratulated for giving a tough sermon on the high risk lifestyle and the poster said “these two gay guys got up and left” and the priest shouted, “sit down, this may save your life”. I had to ask, “were they wearing t-shirts that said “I am gay?”.
JR
I am starting to question your competence to even discuss Catholic doctrine with a statement such as
“John,
So, Indian Catholics are pagan? Nice”
Obviously, if they are CATHOLIC they are worshipping as Catholics. The sign of shiva received by Santo Subito was at a HINDU WORSHIP CEREMONY-PAGAN!!!
And Mr Anonomous, whether something comes from a SSPX website (I guess you never heard of the Papal Oath and one would not expect the Popes and Vatican II blogs to bring up the fact that JPI, JPII and B16 all refused to take it, so one may only find this information on such blogs as fisheaters and others of that ilk
And I have yet to see you refute any of my statements with facts. Vatican II was a clear defection and redefined already existing Catholic doctine and as even liberal Catholic Theoligians have stated in actually contadicted the basics of Vatican I and is therefore pastoral as even Paul VI has stated
Modern man, religious liberty, etc etc-those words are repeated over and over in those 16 documents, it is like reading the declaration of Independence which by the way was written by Masons-maybe there is a correlation here????
John,
And I have yet to see you refute any of my statements with facts.
Only because you’re not looking.
Mary,
Burkhas are not an acceptable solution to the question of modesty because the problem has been improperly phrased. The root question, rather than “What must I wear to prevent men from lusting after me?” is instead “What must I wear to protect my human dignity?”
While the female body is a natural good, there unquestionably exists clothing which attempts to reduce that body from its God-given nobility to base sensuality. This happens when clothing emphasizes sexuality instead of sex. On the other hand, clothing such as the burkha attempts to remove the female body from the human experience. This clothing, instead of degrading the nobility of the body, explicitly denies it. At its core, modesty is truth: we must not in our clothing deny the dignity intrinsic to the human body nor abuse it.
On the one extreme then, we have the completely nude; on the other we have the burkha. Proper modesty must moderate between these two extremes, always springing out of a correct understanding of human dignity. In the search for this proper moderation, one must always ask the question, “At what point does clothing begin being an invitation to sexuality?”
It is unfortunate that the search for an answer to this question is so clouded by our culture. In every arena of modern human life we are confronted with sexuality-driven marketing. It is an internally flawed logic that points to such a culture – a culture that exploits the body and human sexuality – as the standard upon which to judge modesty. Our culture sells anything and everything with an appeal to base sensuality: women should in no way consent to selling themselves by emulating this tragic marketing strategy.
The search then, though clouded, is not hopeless. It can be aided by examining the twofold consequences of immodesty: in others, lust; in ourselves, pride. These are not the foundation of modesty but are important nonetheless. For pride, one must candidly examine the motivations for wearing certain clothing given a correct understanding of both human dignity and the general response of others to such clothing. For lust, all I can say is that if otherwise virtuous men are compelled to turn their eyes away from you to preserve their purity and chastity, then something is probably wrong.
Respectfully,
Joshua
Of course, the above is my understanding of the theology of the body, which may require tweaking or outright correction. I am not a theologian.
I am not sure if this has been addresses, and forgive me if it has, but I have to take issue with John (underlined) suggesting that Pope John Paul II presided over break dancers during mass.
“But what concerned me is pictures I have seen of the late pontiff attending, well lets say break dancers and other liturgical abuses at mass.”
The break dancers were NOT at mass. In none of the reports I have read of the Polish break dancing team performing for the pope has there been any indication that this took place at a mass, or even in a church. In the only photos I have seen, such as the following:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/images/2004/01/29/29_1_2004_pope.jpg
the break-dancing is clearly happening in some sort of a gallery at the Vatican.
I suggest you retract at least the break-dancing part of your statement John (underlined) as such an accusation boarders on scandalous.
Here is a video:
http://www.vimeo.com/clip:616
Oh, wait you are right! At the end, he throws the hosts at them like frisbees and they catch them in their mouths, as he kisses a Koran, blesses bare-breasted Africans (women AND men!!) and oversees a Masonic ceremony all at the same time!
Pauls: No one has assumed anything about the particular girl. In fact, I’ve deliberately steered away from discussing this particular girl at all.
The assumption that I’ve been working from (which has pretty much been confirmed by those who seem to want women to go to church naked*** –see DISCLAIMER) is that most women who dress in what might be termed as a provocative manner (and those who see nothing wrong with this) simply do not understand what goes through the average man’s mind upon seeing this. This is a non-culpable ignorance, the way I see it, until one is informed otherwise. Nevertheless, the damage is still done.
***DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they’re not advocating public nudity. HOWEVER, if I’m going to be accused of going to one extreme (burkas) then I can illustrate the absurdity of said accusation by making an equally extreme opposing accusation (nudity).
“if I’m going to be accused of going to one extreme (burkas) then I can illustrate the absurdity of said accusation by making an equally extreme opposing accusation (nudity).”
Thanks, Jared. Well said.
Amazing how something as basic is not defined, or at least it was defined by Pope Pius XI and XII but has obviously not satisfied the masses here on what one is to wear to church to revere God
With a modern mass and a modern church, I guess one has to have a modern dress code. As John XXIII stated at the opening of the Second Vatican Council:
“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.
We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.”
Relious Liberty, Modernm world, etc etc I guess that the prophets of doom are indeed prophets as one can not even agree on what is acceptable to wear to mass
Let’s see, a girl wears a spaghetti strap top to mass and that means the post-conciliar Church is in apostacy.
Can’t you see the logic?
Whoever posted the Wikipedia link about the “Papal Oath” did us a service on that topic. Despite lacking citations, the article delivers the intellectual equivalent of a round-house kick (it’s like a break-dance move, John) to the whole Papal Oath bouhaha. I love this bit about how even the language of the oath (quoted by John (underlined) above) makes it almsot entirely nonsensical:
———
A comparison with the quoted Latin source shows that these sites give a seriously mistranslated text. Much of the text on the websites is an invention, with no basis in the Latin document, including the paragraphs “I swear … defined and declared” and “Accordingly, without exclusion … blasphemous venture” and the phrase “I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I”.
Unlike the original Latin text, the text on the traditionalist Catholic websites is presented as addressed to Jesus Christ. “Thou”, “Thee” and “Thy” are given upper-case initials, and there is reference to “Thy Divine Tribunal”. It is therefore addressed to one of the Persons of the Trinity. “Through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support” shows that the person addressed (“Thy”) is not God the Father, who is mentioned in the third grammatical person.
According to Catholic Faith, Saint Peter and the College of the Apostles have successors, but no one, not even among the Apostles, is a successor of Jesus Christ, who continues for ever. Yet the alleged oath speaks of “Christ and His Successors”, and it presents the Pope as claiming to replace Christ: “I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take”.
Though the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the fullness of God’s revelation, and no more public revelation is to be expected since the death of the Apostles, the text attributes to the supposed successors of Christ a power of revelation apparently on a par (or almost) with Christ’s: “I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors.”
The attribution to a Pope of the seventh century (a time when “Vicar of Peter” was the usual description of the Pope, rather even than “Vicar of Christ”) of the then quite unheard-of title of “Vicar of God” (“through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess”) is a further warning against taking the text to be genuine.
The text of the alleged oath even makes the Pope not just an upholder or transmitter of Tradition, but a successor (!) of Tradition: “as her (i.e. of “the received Tradition”) truly faithful student and successor”.
——-
Seriously, it’s tragically laughable…the way many so-called traditionalists cite the same disproven “facts” and more often “factoids” over and over again, no matter how many times they are shown to be either false or mis-representative. It is sad to think that some Catholics wallow in the same gossip-ridden, knee-jerk cesspools that the likes of Jack Chick and his ilk love to swim in. The next thing, we’ll be hearing about how the papal tiera was changed by JPII to feature the numbers 666, when the Latin text is reversed and converted to numbers…in base 13, of course.
Sorry if I seem to have a flippant attitude, but when you’ve been arguing with a brick wall, all you can do in the end is laugh, not least at yourself for bothering to try. That JPI or JPII or BXVI have somehow contributed to the culture of immodesty (which certainly exists, but in much more complex and damaging ways than spaghetti strap tops) and are likely heretics to boot is nothing short of a joke (though perhaps cruel and scandalous) for right-thinking, reasonable individuals. This discussion (on modesty) is an important one to have, but I just can’t help but feel like many discussions that I have been having recently with fellow Catholics are derailed by people saying “Well, anyway, it’s not like JPII is legitamate, anyway and besides, Vatican II clearly reversed everything the Church ever taught…” no matter what the topic.
So you cant see the conntection between modernism, new mass, catechism, canon law, new translation of the bible 4x since V2 to make it “less offensive”, new customs, and a priesthood and laity that basically believe that anything goes?
When the youth of our church dont even know the basics in the form of what to wear to mass , then this goes to illustate either they have no respect anymore for the eucharist, the mass, the clery because they see abuse, talking, cellphones, handshaking and waiving across aisles, and others going to mass in shorts and flip flops-then this is the fruit of the rotten tree
If you think that all is good in candyland-then keep dreaming
My two cents on modesty per se is that it is mostly a personal virtue. Of course, it has a public, communal element to it, but it is ridiculous to claim that someone is commiting a sin of immodesty because they do not dress according to your own sense of decency. I may be attracted to, intrigued and even entertain lustful thoughts at the sight of a woman who is dressed in what most people would take to be modest clothing. But if I were to quote some Chrysostom to her “You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment. … When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent?” just because I am having a problem dealing with the way she looks, then I am likely to have quite a larger problem than even I am blaming her for.
Modesty, like all virtues, is relative. Not to God, but from each human, flawed perspective. Would that we were perfect enough to judge virtue and vice with simply a look at a person, but we are not and can not, and so we must rely on prudence and tradition and such things to guide us along. Even the “official” statements of the Popes and Saints (and I am unsure of how binding they are, not being a canon lawyer or theologian) seem to suggest that the women who are immodest are doing so out of a desire to please or a desire to look fashionable, etc, not neccessarily out of a desire to sexually attract men. The latter would clearly be sinful, but is it really these cases that Catholic women (and men, to an apparently lesser extent) need to be particularly wary of?
It would seem not.
The other examples of immodest dress seem not to be specifically discussing clothing which shows too much skin, but rather clothing which is overly flashy or luxurious or really anything that would draw undue attention to the person (not neccessarily to his or her secondary sexual characteristics, although I would imagine codpieces and bustles would be included). Any clothing, it would seem, that diverges from the Christian call of “meekness,” also falls into the immodest category, and I would also mention that an intellectual and behavioral meekness also is a part of the virtue of modesty.
One may even get truly “Scholastic” and begin to debate when and how a person can truly BE immodest. Certainly, a naked baby, frolicing in the sprinkler is not being immodest (though tragically, the sight may cause some people lustful thoughts), but what about a young woman who has no significant breasts to speak of? Can she be topless in mixed company (though perhaps not in church)? If we assume that such things as spaghetti straps must be immodest, then we begin to fall into just such a religion that no longer celebrates the freedom we have to be loved by God, but the rules that make us “clean” enough for God to be able to love us.
Anyhow, certainly, sexual temptation and imagination is something to be wary of, esspecially in church, where meek and modest dress and behavior is paramount. However, it should be something that the brothers and sisters in Christ work to ammeliorate together, through prayer and charitable education/catecesis, rather than knee-jerk punishment (such as refusing Communion) and accusations, aloud or otherwise. It is unlikely that thoughts of “oh, look at that immodest little hussy” are in themselves modest (though I admit to having them myself, for I am no paragon of meekness…as you can plainly read).
Tim and Stephen
It is quite sad that you seem to laugh off everything that has to do with the papal oath. I have heard the good Brothe quite St Pope Pius X, but does anyone know what ever happend to his requirement for the clergy to take the “Oath against Modernism”? Or his encyclical on the same subject?
You try very hard to make those who are “Traditional” seem wierd-which is basically saying that what the church is teaching and professing is so far removed from what it taught only 40 years ago-and sadly on this you are correct! Thank you for proving exactly what those as myself have been saying all along-if it still was the same church with the same teachings-why would there be such as “Traditionalists”?
It is unfair to those who might take this discussion seriously (especially young women who might not know any better) to leave the impression that the average man is somehow fazed by an exposed shoulder. People should speak for themselves and not project their personal predilections on others.
Just correcting a misimpression that some might take from some of the more hysterical comments here.
A few points:
1. I know that there are troubles in the Church, as there always have. For me, there has never been a “Candyland” church. Rather, the Church herself is a symbol of contradiction, which means that she is healthy.
2. However, I think that the papacy has become a unwarrented scape-goat for some who call themselves “Traditionalists,” just as it was for so called “Reformers.” This is why I put the word in quotes, because there is a narrow meaning and a broad meaning. The narrow meaning of Traditionalist (in quotes) refers people who accept only those things done between the late 1800s and the 1940s or 50s as relevant to the Church, or more generally, those things that conform to their personal understanding of what the Church should be or be doing. Any other document or teaching, or oath (and what sort of weight does the establishment of such an oath actually have? Does anyone know the law on this?) is seen as irrelevant or isn’t really examined. The broad meaning of Traditionalist means those who believe that the tradition as magisterium of the Catholic Church is the truth of Christ as passed on through and by His Apostles.
3. I try to be a Traditionalist in this latter sense.
4. I think it is a head in the ecclesiastical sand technique to point the finger at the popes of and after the Second Vatican Council in response to every abuse and/or personal vice since. There were abuses and sins and misunderstandings and immodesty before Vatican II and after it, and there will be the same until He comes in Glory. There is something mighty frightening about the sentiment that says “Oh there is a problem! Immodesty, abuse of indulgences, fly in the soup, etc! The pope must no longer be legitamate! Long live us, the rightful Christians!”
5. Should we try to fix things and do our best? Yes. Is the Holy Spirit really in more control of things than we will ever be? Yes.
Anyhow, I can’t believe I keep getting pulled back in to this discussion, but I have now said my piece about “Traditionalism” and, if I respond at all, will only respond to comments here regarding modesty…until Mr. Akin directly addresses Traditionalism, etc.
The 11th commandment is: Thou shalt not shakes hands in church, nor shall you wave to the person accross the aisle.
One just needs to look back to the church before the “Reform” when the:
Catechism and teachings were uniform
People knew what to wear to Mass
People had respect for the blessed sacrament and believed in the real presence(does anyone kneel or even genuflect anymore including the priest when they pass the tabernacle?
The Mass was UNIFORM from church to church without liturgical abuse
The Bible was not retranslated 4x by a bunch of liberal theolgians (sounds like Luther but is actually what is being read today in your New Americal Bible and one read from the Dheouy Rheims
One did not invent a new code of canon law to make annulments more easy to achieve and to add loophole to share the body of our Lord with non-Catholics
Where when a council was held-it was clear-let him be anethema if one deviated from what was being pronounced instead of wishy washy confusing language that can be interpreted in any which way-And has
Blogs like this and so many others would not exist if teachings were clear and uniform, and teachings that some dont like like contraception and now I see female ordination slowly slipping in (has B16 said anything about what has taken place up in Minnesota yet??) basically ignored with the hope that if the church changed rule and teaching after teaching once, she will again
A simple example is meat on Friday, which my family and I abstain from year round, and was the practice of the church before Paul VI. My Aunt who
followed this practice up to Vatican II and Paul VI now does not even abstain during Lent. When I asked her, she said that if she was told by the Priests growing up that she was committing a mortal sin if she ate meat on Fridays, and then the Pope overnight in a little blurb in the church bulletin now said it was OK-she figures why not just eat it year round as how could it be a sin for centuries and then overnight it is not? The same with abstaining from food and drink before mass, which was 3 hours and is now 1 hour which is basically the length of the mass so is really a joke.
If you dont think that this has caused great harm and the loss of souls possibly to Hell, then the Modernists and secularists finally achieved what they hoped for
One more point on this thread: early on Brother Cadfael was taken to task for for criticizing another poster (who shall go nameless because he seems incapable of mounting any real argument) for attacks and slanders against recent Popes. I think the subsequent discussion shows that he was not being harsh but actually prescient about the tactics of that poster. I consider this another thread hijacked by the lunatic fringe.
Brother, your posts are a model of reason, wit, and information. Second to JA, you make these threads a joy to participate in and read. As for our our underequipped poster, you have been remarkable restrained and charitable.
John, am I reading you wrong, or do you not trust Christ when he says that “you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it?” You seem to think that Chuch doctrine has changed.
Do you think that you are wiser and more knowledgeable about the state of the Church than the man the Holy Spirit has chosen to lead it?
If seeing more than someone’s eyes– say, their arms below the elbow, face, and from the knees-down– incites lust in a guy, there’s a pretty big problem..
And if seeing a woman’s bare shoulders incites lust in a guy, there’s a pretty big problem, too.
***DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they’re not advocating public nudity. HOWEVER, if I’m going to be accused of going to one extreme (burkas) then I can illustrate the absurdity of said accusation by making an equally extreme opposing accusation (nudity).
Actually, Jared, considering what things that have been said about a situation involving bare shoulders — equating them to “miniskirts, short shorts, ultratight cleavage-revealing shirts and blouses, and hip-hugger rear-cleavage-revealing pants” — I can easily see why you would make it. It’s exactly that sort of thinking which leads me to point out that you have given no reason to refute burkhas as necessary.
Some assertions have been made that people only want a reasonable standard. That means that we have to draw a line somewhere, and distinguish between clothing. Yet those advocating more clothing as necessary have cheerfully smeared together all sorts of clothing as necessarily being the same thing, and done so so freely that they do not, in fact, have a reasonable standard against burkhas.
Those who admit that burkhas are unreasonable are not even prepared to entertain the notion that bare shoulders might be reasonable, and not identical to other clothing, which may or may not be reasonable itself.
Distinguish, people. Distinguish one kind of clothing from the next. Then we can discuss what sort of clothing “incites lust” in Sailorette‘s very reasonable definition of the term, and whether bare shoulders qualify.
John,
Blogs like this and so many others would not exist if teachings were clear and uniform, and teachings that some dont like like contraception and now I see female ordination slowly slipping in (has B16 said anything about what has taken place up in Minnesota yet??) basically ignored with the hope that if the church changed rule and teaching after teaching once, she will again
That is a tired, false, liberal idea. The Church has not reversed a single infallible teaching (they are per se irreformable), and it will not do so.
Blogs (and/or other tools with similar purpose) will always be necessary because there will always be people who think they know more than the Magisterium. Your club is not in the least bit exclusive — it has existed as long as the Church. And for 2000 years, the Magisterium has held firm against your ilk, shouldering all responsibility for teaching authentic Catholic Tradition. That will not change either until the end of time.
(And Mark — Thank you.)
John,
I said, So, Indian Catholics are pagans? nice.
I repeat it. I assumed you would percieve the meaning, wrongly I guess. I trust Jimmy that this was a Catholic woman and the annointing was a standard Indian greeting performed by Indian Christians. It may have had a pagan origin (Jimmy hinted at this), but so did Christmas trees, wreaths including Advent wreaths, Christmas hams, the date of Christmas, easter eggs and the easter bunny and arguably the word Easter itself.
To use a different analogy, the original meaning the handshake (to be sure the other has no weapon in his hand) has been virtually forgoton and it is certainly not the reason why it is done today.
To claim that an Indian Catholic is a pagan for performing this ritual greating or that it was disrespecful to the Pope because we in the West has developed a dislike of dung not shared by many other cultures is stupid cultural prejudice.
Mary, what is your objection to Fr. Kunkel’s Marylike Crusade standards, as laid out in the booklet linked above?
Unlinked John chiming here…seems like what linked John is saying in his posts is not so much that the teachings and traditions of the church are changed, but rather that they are not enforced, adhered to, or given appropriate relevance, or stated another way, that the teaching (whatever it is) may be treated as though it occupies an antiquated position. Again…as a new person to the Church it seems like older traditions that were the staples of Catholicism for my Catholic friends as I was growing up (no meat Fridays, modest dress at mass) which if not adhered to could have gotten you into a heap of trouble back in the day, now do not seem to bear the same relevance. Isn’t it possible to really (I mean really) love the Pope, yet miss the stringentness one grew up with that may have been replaced by a new moral relativism brought on by the individual attributes of a more progressive Pontiff? Sounds to me like this argument is between two reasonable schools of thought…one who says love the Pope no matter what…the other says love the Pope but love the Church first, no matter what…I wonder how Jesus would address this conundrum? He made you both…he loves you both…
Peace,
John
Mary,
I agree inciting lust should be the standard. However, how are you to judge what incites lust in men in our culture? It seems clear to you that bare shoulders should not, but is this the case? I can only speak for myself, and it does not incite lust in me like a short skirt does, but there is, well, something. More like attraction than actual lust maybe. There is something different anyway, than even with very short sleaves. It’s not so much the shoulders themselves as the whole young woman. It is weaker but much more awkward and guilt-inducing when it is a young teenager (I’m 21). I don’t know how this compares with other men, but if they say it incites lust then maybe they are even more sensitive, or maybe they have a broader mental definition of lust.
Anyway, maybe you didn’t need to read that, but the point is that this is really an issue that women should listen to men with charity about. I would not think of this as men trying to oppress women. It is more that women should have compassion on us male wretches and shelter us from their beauty which is too bright for us.
Unlinked John,
I wonder how Jesus would address this conundrum?
False conundrum. The Pope is the visible source and foundation of the unity of the Church. Kinda like saying I really love the head, but the body first, no matter what.
Sounds to me like this argument is between two reasonable schools of thought.
Since when did calling the Pope a heretic become a “reasonable school of thought”?
Unlinked John,
It is still a mortal sin to refuse to obstain from meat on Fridays unless you substitute something else for it.
I myself am a very traditional Catholic. I wish very much that the current mass closely resembled that of the the 1962 missal. I stringently try to follow all rules of the Church that I know of, and to educate myself about them so that there are none I break unknowingly.
Certainly love for the Church must precede love for the person of the Pope. Popes make mistakes, and I am quite afraid that we may be in for some terrible Popes after B16. My love for B16 and to a lesser degree for JPII is because I think they really are/were great Popes (though imperfect like everyone, making some mistakes).
The thing is there are these people in our Church who don’t grasp the positive side of Christianity. Some will openly mock the idea of Christian love, others just more or less ignore it or explain it away. They are quick to see the worst in the actions of the Popes or wonderful, faithful organizations like Catholic Answers or EWTN. They frequently reduce the authority of the Magisterium to a skeleton of infallible statemets, or to only what they like. As you have seen, they will sometimes give great weight to fairly informal statements, even from just the curia, from the past that they like while rejecting much more formal teaching from more recent times. They love the externals and strength of the Church of the past, and more or less ignore the purpose an mission of all of that. They wash the outside of the tomb, but what is inside? This spirit very frequently bears bad fruit like schism, sedevacantism, unabashed hatred for others, anti-Semitism, lack of cultural sensitivity, belief in pseudo-science and pseudo-history, fanaticism regarding private revelation, and cult-like behavor.
I do not claim that I have a perfect grasp on Catholic doctrine or on the meaning behind it all. I find myself falling into the same trap again and again, focusing on the externals (which are important) and forgetting the purpose. Feeling impatience and even some hate for the enimies of the Church, especially those within the Church. I pray that God will pardon me for these faults, I do not deny that they are faults like some seem to.
It is important to rememeber that just about everyone will have slightly different ideas, and that we can not really know the internal dispositions of anyone but ourselves. Still, it is a good idea as you enter the Church to beware of this evil “radtrad” spirit that is often detectible, though its fruits or even occasionally as a palpably demonic presence around some places or people.
But never fear, Love will triumph!
Brother C,
I’m with you on the notion that you don’t call the Pope a heretic without exceptionally sound cause and facts (reference a few anti-popes in history)…but don’t you think Linked John might be reacting to a progressive Pope in a more exuberant tone than one might reasonably expect, yet what he really means to convey is his frustration or concern, or lack of comfort with change in the Church?
When I say “no” to my kids, I occasionally get a response like “you’re an aweful dad”, etc….five minutes later we’re back in love with each other…
I suspect this is why Jesus admonishes us to love our enemy even though that enemy may curse us (“us” meaning anything you love as much as yourself, like our beloved Pope).
In my “conundrum,” I ask you to differentiate two related yet distinct entities…your example does not follow the same principle…
J.R. – I think you’re right on the mark…
Peace,
UJohn
It may have had a pagan origin (Jimmy hinted at this), but so did Christmas trees… To use a different analogy, the original meaning the handshake (to be sure the other has no weapon in his hand) has been virtually forgoton and it is certainly not the reason why it is done today.
Aarti is as much a handshake as “Peace be with you” is a hippy saying. Aarti remains a traditional and customary religious practice of the Hindu people, the vast majority of India’s population. The “original meaning” of aarti is no more lost or forgotten than the meaning of a crucifix or hannukah candle. Rather than ignore the primary meaning of aarti in terms of religious worship, it would be better to realize how that primary meaning makes sense in terms of greeting the Pope. Just because something has a so-called Hindu origin does not mean its religious meaning cannot apply just as well in Christian devotion.
JR said, “It is still a mortal sin to refuse to obstain from meat on Fridays unless you substitute something else for it.”
JR, Failing to abstain from meat on Fridays is not a mortal sin. It is a discipline of the Church and not a part of the moral law as revealed in the 10 commandments. One of the conditions of mortal sin is “grave matter” and failure to obstain does not cut it.
One of the harshest and most misinformed critics of Catholicism (himself a cradle Catholic) is George Carlin and part of his routine perpetuates the myth that there could be hell to pay “for a cheeseburger”. It’s not grounded in faith or reason.
I think spaghetti-straps in Church falls into this same category or “non-grave” matter.
UJohn,
I don’t know Linked John’s motivations, and I don’t know where his heart is. I don’t mean to judge him and I would hope that nothing I have written would be so construed. All I can do is judge and react to and criticize the filth he spews at the Holy Father. Is that filth simply “a more exuberant tone than one might reasonably expect,” as you ask? No, in my opinion. Just as there are objective standards of decency and modesty when it comes to dress (even if we can’t absolutely agree on what they are), there are objective standards of respect and decency when it comes to the Holy Father. Even if we can’t agree exactly on what religious submission is and what the obedience of faith demands, I think any objective analysis will tell you that it is not what UJohn posts in these comboxes.
You may say that my conversations with UJohn reflect a lack of charity on my part. In my defense, again, I do not believe that it is charitable to allow someone to persist in slandering the Holy Father unchecked.
In my “conundrum,” I ask you to differentiate two related yet distinct entities…your example does not follow the same principle…
Perhaps I do not understand. The Pope cannot exist separate and apart from the Church, he exists within it and is a necessary part of it. If by distinct you mean two entities that can exist apart from each other, I don’t think you have asked me to do what you think you have. If by distinct you mean that the Church and the Pope are separately identifiable (even if one is an inseparable part of the other), I would argue my head and my body are similarly distinct. So again, maybe I’m just not understanding your point.
“You may say that my conversations with UJohn reflect a lack of charity on my part. In my defense, again, I do not believe that it is charitable to allow someone to persist in slandering the Holy Father unchecked.”
Bro. C, I appreciate your defense of the Holy Father in these instances with John; you certainly do it with more charity than I could. I think many ignore his comments in the same way one would a troll – I’ve seen him post on several websites with the same type of comments and the same tone, and others respond with the same degree of success as you have had. I kept you both in my prayers at Mass last week. (Modestly dressed by my standards, though probably not by John’s! note: a simple polo shirt is not modest by his standards.)
Sean
The gates of hell will not prevail-yes that is true, but as our Lord stated in scripture there will by very few that will actually be saved and left of the faith (I am paraphrasing here somewhat but it is in scripture) and even if there is ONE soul left within the church who is adhering to past teachings and the church (SSPX is is a quasi state of communion and FSSP are in communion) then the gates of Hell would not have prevailed.
As far as the statement that not one infallible teaching has been altered that is hogwash and there are books after books which prove otherwise.
Brother Cadfael,
I think the point is that Popes are sinners like the rest of us and may be good or bad. We are required to love them like everyone else and to respect and acknowledge his authority, but particular love for the man can not be demanded. The Church is to be loved as the perfect bride of Christ. The Pope does not merit that kind of love.
Mark,
You are mistaken. The Church has the power to bind and to loose, including to bind us to certain actions. The obligation to attend Sunday mass is one example. The requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent, and also all other times of the year unless you subtitute something else for it. You can find a multitude of confirmations of this on the internet, including here:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/04/meat_on_lenten_.html
A key part of which is:The relevant law is found in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:
The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].
Jimmy’s conclusion based and this and other texts is:
Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.
I don’t know what Commandment the obedience to the Church falls under, but it is certainly required under pain of grave sin.
John,
What exactly is a “quasi state of communion”? You are either in communion with the Catholic Church or not.
The Church has changed infallible teachings now too huh? Hmmmmmm. Sorry, I’m not the one who said it. You are proving yourself less authentically traditional with each attack on Catholic teaching and the necessity of true, full communion with the actual Catholic Church.
May I make one more comment
After watching some of the documentaries this past weekend on 9/11 and the path to it, and how those versed in law enforcement, and very few of them indeed had the vision to actually see we were at war and that we were in danger while all of their associates, bosses and politicians refused to acknowledge and called them all kinds of names (Radical comes to mind) like they were the crazy ones, even with attacks taking place (sort of like the church today) until the big one came in 9/11 and they were proven prophetic
Call me a schismatic, a troll (whatever that means), Radical, whatever. What I am is a devout Catholic having discussions here with many who probably were never catechised and their only exposure to the church has been during the JPII era and are taught improperly that if you disagree with the Pope and his actions you are some sort of crazy.
My family an I were just like you until I sat through one to many lovefest masses with guitars strummin and a priest telling our young children that if he prayed over a bagel right now it would become God. I was 35 years old and decided it was time to find something different, and my inlaws introduced us to Traditional Chapels, both indult as well as those that are independent. After one mass and to see the difference, I could never step back. I only pray that all here will know that I love the church, as you all do as well or you would not be spending your time on a Catholic blog, but that she is not the same church that she was once, and is sliding down that slope with no leadership at all to becoming a bastion of modern thought and modern sin as well
God bless you all and it is you who need the prayers
JR
You are like a lawyer that looks for one word and then tries to discredit everything else, as you really have no argument
The church has stated that those that attend masses at SSPX are fulfilling their sunday mass obligations, and as you know have been negotiating with Rome for some time-hence the word “Quasi” Capice???????????????????????? Understand??????????????????????????????????
John,
God bless you all and it is you who need the prayers
So, you don’t need the prayers? No problem, I’ll take them.
John,
I’m not taking one word to try to discredit all your stuff. Almost every post of yours is packed with objectionable material from an authentically traditional Catholic perspective. Quasi communion, independant chapels, pagan-priestess Catholics, changed infallible teachings, false dichotomies between the worst liberal abuses and your radtradism, fabricated oaths that Popes never took, accusations of ignorance of history just because we disagree with you, comparing the current Church leadership to Islamic terrorists, the Church today is not the same Church as she once was etc. etc. etc.
I can understand though how you got this way, as I can understand how a previously orthodox Catholic friend of mine turned very liberal after contact with your general ilk. The fact that liberals are bad doesn’t mean we need to be as “conservative” as possible, or vise versa. We should not let our bad experiences with certain unfaithful elements in the Church prevent us from giving our obedience to the Magisterium.
I think we should let John (the linked one) and dvsmith debate each other in a combox…
The duty of the Catholic, is not to reform the Church by renewal, but to reform himself by submitting to the perennial norm of faith: Sacred Tradition. What has gripped the Church from the reign of Pope John XXIII must be seen for what it is, entirely foreign to the authentic nature of the True and Historic Church: a pernicious, festering, infection, which like AIDS, reduces the body to a defenseless, beplagued cadaver, by destroying all its defenses.
The defenses of the Church are the traditions, customs, discipline, theology, doctrine, piety, art, spirituality which She has receive from Christ through the Apostles, decorated and applied by our forefathers. These are the vessels and handiwork of Sacred Tradition, and to attack them in the name of a modernistic/Protestant iconoclasm, is to destroy the remembrance and propagation of the only True Faith, outside of which and apart from which there is no salvation ( Pope Nicholas IV, Supra Montem, Aug. 17, 1289)
The only authentic norm of renewal is not Aggiornomentoism, but rather penance and faith. And this should have been clear enough to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, admonished as we all are by the Apostle Paul: Do not conform yourselves to this present age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.
JR,
I may well have been mistaken about “mortal sin” and the Lenten Fast, and had never heard of the “grave matter” clause in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini.
Frankly, I’m surprised, although the real sin here is in disobedience to a Church precept (like the Sunday obligation). Moreover, I’m confused because I came across another post by JA which seems to contradict this, based upon the 1966 National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Complementary Norms on Penance and Abstinence” which states:
…we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday …
Did you catch that? “…even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin…”
Here’s a link: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411qq.asp
And another:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/07/since_tomorrow_.html
…we especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday, even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday …
“Did you catch that? ‘…even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin…'”
Don’t forget the rest of the sentence: “as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday …”
What is terminated is the abstinence from meat as the sole prescribed means of Friday penance. But the obligation to perform a Friday penance was not terminated.
Jordan,
Jimmy’s conclusion in the post I cited (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/07/since_tomorrow_.html) is that the Bishop’s did not replace the old obligation with a new mandate but rather switched to a language of exhortation by recommending abstenence: “So abstinence continued to be a recommended practice for the observance of Friday, but not a legally binding one.”
Here’s Jimmy’s analysis (extended):
“The big legal change comes in norm #3, where the bishops state that “we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence as binding under pain of sin, as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday.” So the obligation to abstain from meat is terminated. The question becomes: What obligation, if any, have the bishops put in its place?
The clause “as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday” is consistent with the idea that they did establish another obligation or a mandate to do penance in some form on Friday, but it also is consistent with the idea that they did not establish a new obligation. If the latter is the case then the remark is simply noting that previously abstinence had been the only prescribed way of observing Friday. Other acts of penance could be performed on Friday, but they had to be in addition to abstinece.
To find out what other obligation there may be, one must look at the surrounding text of the norms. When one does this, one discovers several things.
The first, per norm #3, is that the bishops “especially commend to our people for the future observance of Friday . . . we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat.” This is an exhortation and as such does not establish a legal obligation. So abstinence continued to be a recommended practice for the observance of Friday, but not a legally binding one.
The next thing, per norm #1, is that Friday continues to be a day of penance. The norm clarifies the sense in which this is to be understood by explaining that it is “a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified.” This qualification strongly suggests that, though Friday is a day of penance, it is not one on which all of the faithful are legally bound or bound under pain of sin to do penance. Instead, “those who seek perfection” will do penance on the day. If the bishops intended all to be bound to do penance on Friday, they would not have used such restrictive language.
This interpretation is confirmed by norm #2, which states that “Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday by freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ.” Again, the language of exhortation is used (“we urge”) rather than the language of mandate. Thus no obligation is created. If the bishops intended to create an obligation then they would have used other language, such as “all are required to prepare for that weekly Easter.”
The norms–the part of the document that would create a legal obligation if there was one–thus fails to do so. As a result, there is no obligation in the United States to practice penance on Friday, but Friday remains a day of penance which the bishops have urged all to do penance and, in particular, recommended the continued practice of abstience.”
Burkas are a very well, extreme example. Not to mention the horrible mentality behind it, in which women and children are lower than their camels.
But what about the traditional dresses of Europe and Latin America? And don’t think this a shot at women, because I think we men also dress sloppy.
We all dress to bring out the lowest of us and shoot down the highest. I wish society still wore suits and jackets out and not the quasi-dictatorship of jeans and t-shirt. But whatever, that probably won’t happen for a while.
But on the current use of clothes, I think any clothes that overly shows the shape of the body is not the best thing to wear, especially at Church. I’m an athlete as well, but I’m not going to go to Church with my arms bare or in an UnderArmour because that is almost like being naked because the shape of the body is extremely noticable. The same with those tight clothes girls wear today. Now I’m not saying not to femenine, which is another error if you don’t wear things that distinguish you from the other sex, but to dress modestly, especially to Church.
Wear a longer skirt and a nice top. I myself go the Mass in a longsleeve and pants, even if my parents don’t. We have got to realize the importance of the Mass. And even when we leave church, that no matter where we are, when we sin, we sin IN GOD, because everything is in Him. Impurity is a tough one, and an easy one to fall in, so much that Our Lady in Fatima said that sins against purity cause most of the souls to go to Hell. Pray for us younger ones that still got to battle this more than older ones, but also for the older ones who are living in extramarital relations.
“The norms–the part of the document that would create a legal obligation if there was one–thus fails to do so. As a result, there is no obligation in the United States to practice penance on Friday, but Friday remains a day of penance which the bishops have urged all to do penance and, in particular, recommended the continued practice of abstience.”
Universal law trumps particular law, and universal law requires Friday penance. The U.S. bishops can use the language of exhortation to encourage Catholics to obey that universal law, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a law of the Church.
Unless I’ve been misinformed about Friday penance being universal law, that is. Perhaps Rome has given U.S. Catholics an indult?
Cant even figure if eating meat on Friday is really a sin or not-confusion confusion confusion
More mumbo jumbo liberal jumbled language that really makes no sense and tells no one anything. Sort of like spaghetti straps and Mass-compare that to the clear concise direction of Pope Pius XI and XII which I have already cited. This is exactly what the Modernists wanted, a confused laity
So I guess the conclusion is that the Novus Ordo has done away with Friday abstinence but has insituted a Friday penance of some sort-In my 35 years of attending catechism and mass at “Non Traditional” schools and church I never heard a priest or layperson tell me ONCE that I had to do so. Compare that to the Baltimore Catechism of 1917 and pre Vatican II teachings and councils for that matter. No ambiguities. Soon the light will come on as it did for me for many, as those that are demanding traditional masses and teachings are growing
It appears from these two canons that Jimmy quoted:
Can. 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or some other food according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.
:that the U.S. bishops have not abolished the law requiring Friday penance, since Canon 1253 gives them permission to substitute other forms of penance, etc., but says nothing about them having the authority to give the green light to not treat Friday as a day of penance. The U.S. bishops even say Friday remains a day of penance, which makes sense only if it is a day of “penance,” not just a day of “being mindful” of the need for penance. I’m afraid Jimmy has not established that the U.S. bishops intended to abolish Friday penance, let alone that they have the authority to do so.
I am so confused?????????????????????????? Eat meat or not to eat Meat-Ask our Bishop or not to ask our Bishop? What have we become as a church?
John,
The question is simply whether failure to abstain rises to the level of mortal sin. As an orthodox Catholic it is always my desire to “sentir ecclesiae” think and feel with the Church; so I am striving to understand this teaching to which I already offer my wholehearted assent. It is a very simple and straighforward position “Credo in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam”.
You, on the other hand, “sentir protestantiae”, think and feel against the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which was founded by Christ; and so you are only seeking to divide, distort, and disparage. You have become the very thing you dispise, a Protestant; ironic, isn’t it?
Sorry for mangling the Latin. The correct phrase, I believe is “sentir cum Ecclesia” in which case, for you John, it would be “sentir contra Ecclesia” …
However, how are you to judge what incites lust in men in our culture? It seems clear to you that bare shoulders should not, but is this the case?
I have no doubt there are men for whom it is, just as there are men who find a woman’s bare face, or uncovered hair incites lust.
Anyway, maybe you didn’t need to read that, but the point is that this is really an issue that women should listen to men with charity about.
I would listen to charity to men who find a bare face incites lust. But, as some people have pointed out — in rather uncharitiable language — that would not bind me to consider their request reasonable.
Which means that, in principle, that a man’s view of the matter is not entitled to be automatically considered a reasonable standard.
“God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out SO THAT YOU CAN STAND UP UNDER IT.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)
Anonymous:
“Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” –(2 Timothy 2:22)
“Lead us not into temptation.” –the Our Father
From your own quote, perhaps you should’ve capitalized this part: “He will also provide A WAY OUT….”
Mass is not supposed to be a place from which we need to flee or be led not into or provided a way out from.
Mass is not supposed to be a place from which we need to flee or be led not into or provided a way out from.
Keeps you from being devoted, does it? Like Paul says to the married folk, “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Cor 7:5)
“Which means that, in principle, that a man’s view of the matter is not entitled to be automatically considered a reasonable standard.”
Mary, we are not talking about the view of “a man”, but of many. Further, I would bet that a lot of Catholic women would find it inappropriate, as well. It’s not all about lust, it’s also about vanity, lax attitudes toward the sacred, etc…
‘Mary, we are not talking about the view of “a man”, but of many.’
The same lowest-common-denominator standard would look askance at a typical Catholic school uniform, which, alas, for many men …
So, again, all standards are subjective, therefore standards can never be established?
Or does the lack of concern stem from the fact that this is perceived as being a male problem, and therefore okay to ignore? Their just MEN, after all…
As I pointed out, though, I expect a good number of women would find bare shoulders to be inappropriate for mass, too, so dismissing this as a “man thing” doesn’t work.
Tim J: Excellent point about it seeming to some to be only a “man problem” so it’s okay not to address. (Just like the way it’s okay to discriminate against the majority in any given society, because, well, “they’re the majority.” But actually, there–slightly–are fewer men than women so….) Of course, then you have the fact that, not only do women disapprove of such dress, they also tend to be devalued and objectified in the process.
Was the girl objectified before or after her clothing was noticed? Some might say she had been objectified before her clothing became an issue, that the clothing issue is only used as an excuse to explain away the objectification. Someone else might insist otherwise.
Mark: As mentioned before, I’m speaking of women in general and not necessarily this particular girl.
As to the question, I could see it working both ways–women become objectified by men and therefore feel pressured by the fashion industry, peers, society to dress provocatively. Alternatively, it definitely does work the other way–a particular woman dresses provocatively and starts to be seen as less who she is in her totality, but more as just a body.
It’s really sad because you have an entire generation or more who think they need to look and dress like J-Lo to have any importance.
From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
291. What is required to receive Holy Communion?
1385-1389
1415
To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion. Also important for those receiving Holy Communion are a spirit of recollection and prayer, observance of the fast prescribed by the Church, and an appropriate disposition of the body (gestures and dress) as a sign of respect for Christ.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh poor daddy and mummy got soooooo up set cuz little teen daughter came to Mass deemed to be dressed improperly by the priest for being in the presents of the Creator of the Universe. Bout time priests got off their novus ordo asses and explained “JUST WHY” it is very important to dress and behave in a manner appropriate for being in the presence of G-D.Then again when Daddy & Mummy come to Mass in tee shirts jeans flip flops and the priest is dressed like Barney the clown or lucifer at a halloween Mass or roger mahoney with his beave of liturgical priestess dancers aka nuns or Tod brown pullin up a women off her knees because she dared to kneel in the presence of her God, what the hell do u expect, dahhhhhhhhh it’s been goin on for forty years since annabale bugnini and paul 6th decided to re-invent the Roman catholic church of the Latin rite.
Sorry, meant Annadale bugnini, paul 6th and their freemason & pax christi priestly advisors re-invented the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite
This is not OUR John (above), but one even MORE unpleasant.
Like John/JTNova on steroids.