Terry Mattingly reports on when Catholics gets a bit too casual:
Deacon Greg Kandra was well aware that modern Americans were getting more casual and that these laid-back attitudes were filtering into Catholic pews.
Still, was that woman who was approaching the altar to receive Holy Communion really wearing a Hooters shirt?
Yes, she was.
When did Catholics, he thought to himself, start coming to Mass dressed for a Britney Spears concert? Had he missed a memo or something?
“Somewhere along the way, we went from neckties to tank tops, and from fasting to fast food. And it’s getting worse,” noted Kandra, a former CBS News writer with 26 years, two Emmys and two Peabody Awards to his credit. He is now a deacon assigned to Our Lady Queen of Martyrs, a 3,000-member parish in Forest Hills, just north of New York City.
“I recently had to tell a couple that no, they could not have their Chihuahua in a tuxedo as part of their wedding party,” he added, in a Patheos.com commentary. “An auxiliary bishop in Indianapolis recently complained about people who tweet during funerals. Casual Catholics, it seems, have taken ‘casual’ to a new level.”
August 24th, 2011 | 1:51 pm
what was that story about the “fallen” woman who washed Jesus’; feet with her tears and then dried them with her hair? Good thing she didn’t wear a Hooters T shirt.
August 24th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
The fallen woman was repenting. This woman nonchalantly approached the alter wearing a t-shirt of an establishment that does not respect the dignity of women. It shows a casualness towards the sacrament as well, which is his point and problem with what the woman was wearing.
August 24th, 2011 | 5:11 pm
Reading this reminded me of the time I saw women in mini-skirts at my first mass. I loved it. To see these women being received by the priest, blessed by him as he blessed all the “appropriately dressed” women, how he still offered them the bread and showed them love: beautiful.
I wrote about it in a blogpost: http://talitha-qumi.blogspot.com/2011/08/mini-skirt-mass.html
I compared it to the Imams who looked at girls who weren’t “covered” (fully covered compared to the mini-skirts) with eyes full of despise. Full of “How dare you even enter here.”
I would rather find the girl wearing the Hooters shirt come to Mass with it on, than not see her at all.
August 24th, 2011 | 7:09 pm
“I would rather find the girl wearing the Hooters shirt come to Mass with it on, than not see her at all.”
I hear this way too often. Apparently such folks think that the good Lord ought to be really, really grateful that they come at all. After all, it IS all about them, isn’t it?
August 24th, 2011 | 8:15 pm
“I hear this way too often. Apparently such folks think that the good Lord ought to be really, really grateful that they come at all. After all, it IS all about them, isn’t it?”
Oh no, of course not, it’s about you and I and what we find comfortable.
August 24th, 2011 | 8:18 pm
there are suit-wearing folks at mass who are truly holy and then there are suit-wearing folks at mass who couldn’t be further away from christ.
then there are hooters t-shirt wearing ladies at mass who are truly holy and hooters t-shirt wearing ladies at mass who couldn’t be further away from christ.
the problem is we don’t know to which group anyone belongs. our concern should be with our own hearts….
finally, at mass, we’re not meeting the queen of england. we are meeting the king of the universe who was also a poor, homeless carpenter from nazareth.
August 25th, 2011 | 2:29 am
then there are hooters t-shirt wearing ladies at mass who are truly holy
===========
That’s why they wear a t-shirt which symbolically denigrates women and sexuality.
What complete nonsense.
These women are no different than the “Catholics” (cough) who normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity and plop themselves in mass thinking that by waltzing in Church, it will make them “holy,” no matter how deformed their minds are and how antagonistic they are to Catholic precepts, values, and teachings.
On the other hand, I do agree that simply dressing modestly does not make anyone modest inside.
August 25th, 2011 | 9:13 am
“These women are no different than the “Catholics” (cough) who normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity and plop themselves in mass thinking that by waltzing in Church, it will make them “holy,” no matter how deformed their minds are and how antagonistic they are to Catholic precepts, values, and teachings.”
Oh definitely. A woman attending mass in a shirt you don’t approve of is equal to someone who normalizes porn. Incredible sense and justice.
August 25th, 2011 | 9:18 am
“These women are no different than the “Catholics” (cough) who normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity and plop themselves in mass thinking that by waltzing in Church, it will make them “holy,” no matter how deformed their minds are and how antagonistic they are to Catholic precepts, values, and teachings.”
Oh definitely. A woman attending mass in a shirt you don’t approve of is equal to someone who normalizes porn. Incredible sense and justice.
Listen to yourself.
The true difference that matters is the attitude of those trying to be “holy”, and those who already sees themselves as “holy” enough to look at these women in such a demeaning manner.
I, as many, would prefer seeing these girls dress in a more beautiful way suitable for Church. But what upset me the most is having a Deacon express his criticism in this way. I respect Deacon Kandra, but he could have done it more lovingly. The whole “Look at that! What is that!” does not help at all.
August 25th, 2011 | 10:41 am
“I would rather find the girl wearing the Hooters shirt come to Mass with it on, than not see her at all.”
I’d rather she come to church, wearing something else. f there’s a large constituency of people in this culture who own (and can afford) only a type of shirts that sell for a premium price, I wasn’t aware of it. This is a false choice.
August 25th, 2011 | 11:02 am
“I’d rather she come to church, wearing something else. f there’s a large constituency of people in this culture who own (and can afford) only a type of shirts that sell for a premium price, I wasn’t aware of it. This is a false choice.”
I would rather have them dress differently too, but to doubt their intentions and call them “catholic” with the quotation marks ridiculous. One of the reasons I loved Christianity was because of the teaching against being judgmental, so seeing these attitudes is quite alarming.
You have all the right to believe they should have judged their own choices in a better way, so does the Deacon, of course. The only worry is having the culture of ‘Vice Cops’ end up at Church as well.
There are better ways to look at these girls, better ways to make them change their minds (and clothing).
August 25th, 2011 | 11:26 am
One of the reasons I loved Christianity was because of the teaching against being judgmental, so seeing these attitudes is quite alarming.
One ought not love Christianity; one ought to love Christ. If you love Christianity, you’re in for a disappointment.
As for Christ, he also condemned a great deal of behavior, and I’m not talking about the Pharisees. I assume you’ve read the Sermon on the Mount, right? not just the beatitudes, but Matthew 5:27-28 as well?
Hopefully you see the difference between judging people and judging behaviors?
Personally, I’d like to think the deacon could find more constructive ways to express this point. Churches in Italy, and the Vatican, post signs reminding visitors that these are places of public worship, that a certain standard of dress is expected, and that cell phones should be turned off. The signs at the Vatican includes helpful graphics indicating what constitutes appropriate dress. Surely the Deacon could take a hint from the Pope.
August 25th, 2011 | 11:45 am
I see what you mean, and I myself am still learning about it all. Though I sometimes get lost expressing myself due to the great differences between Islam and Christianity, which I stem from.
My behaviour may also be condemned, but it is very hard to separate condemning the behaviour from condemning the person (examples above).
Though revolving around Christ, Christianity is also a ‘culture’ of its own, and all these attitudes fall under it.
August 25th, 2011 | 2:00 pm
Talitha,
Ideas matter. Words matter. That’s part of what Christianity is about. Many of the comparisons you’ve employed fall flat, because they deal with ambiguous forms of dress or actions. There is nothing similarly ambiguous about a “Hooters” shirt.
Perhaps one of the things which should truly worry us about such behavior is that someone, somewhere along the way may not have informed the person that what they were doing was inappropriate–and the reasons why.
So while I agree that the form the correction takes does also matter–we are nowhere given license to despise or scorn–I’d also be concerned if someone didn’t say something. We are clearly told in the Bible we have an obligation to correct each other, in a manner that builds up the Body of Christ.
I’d also point out that Jesus didn’t hesitate to use some rather strong words when it was the only thing that’d get through to people (“You hypocrites…brood of vipers…unwashed tombs…ye of little faith…stiff-necked people…”).
August 25th, 2011 | 2:51 pm
“One of the reasons I loved Christianity was because of the teaching against being judgmental, so seeing these attitudes is quite alarming. ”
But you responded to Bill with,
“Oh no, of course not, it’s about you and I and what we find comfortable.”
You judged his motives as being primarily about being “uncomfortable” with seeing the woman dressed like that. My working assumption throughout this thread, and I believe Deacon Kandra’s as well, is that dressing like that in order to receive a sacrament, given other options, is an indication that something within her soul needs to be addressed *for her own good.* I honestly think you have been the more judgmental one in assuming that the concern here is prompted by looking down at the woman, rather than concern for her.
So I don’t want to nail for you being “judgmental”, but do you see how it can cut both ways?
August 25th, 2011 | 7:21 pm
I agree with Talitha.
The Church IS Christ’s Body and I would hope that His Spirit finds some expression among His followers. “See how they love each other” was a pagan Roman reaction to Christians and their way of living out their faith.
The patience and tolerance with which we approach partial failures and the generosity of spirit with which we approach others are signs of Christ’s life in us.
So too is the generosity of spirit we show in speaking about others among us.
I think those who newly approach Christianity are often struck by our ingratitude and our failure to realize the beauty that is our possession. That failure is even more keenly evident in crass carelessness about how we approach the shortcomings of our neighbors than in how we dress for Mass.
I am glad that even poorly catechized Catholics who have little understanding of the sacrament are there at Mass, no matter how they dress. It gives us a place to start with them.
I think too the comment about our being comfortable is right on target. It was not an attack, but rather a parry to an attack.
We often rationalize our own irritation at the failure of others by coloring ourselves as doughty warriors on God’s behalf.
God’s commandment is Love. Love isn’t a code word for irritation and persnicketiness. Love is Love. Gentle, kind and long suffering as the Apostle tells us.
August 25th, 2011 | 8:37 pm
“I’d also point out that Jesus didn’t hesitate to use some rather strong words when it was the only thing that’d get through to people (“You hypocrites…brood of vipers…unwashed tombs…ye of little faith…stiff-necked people…”).”
Artaban, please, who was this said to?
The pharisees!
Not to the girl who knows she is a sinner, but is still attending Mass.
As for pentamom’s comment that I am being the judgmental one here, if Bill Reichert feels so then I apologize, but my response was to make him see how it sounds. Again I will compare the Islamic attitude of God to Christ, Allah is the one who says “I don’t need YOU, you pray, you pray for yourself, I am high up here and you better work hard if you want to be worthy of my presence.”
Christ is not the one to think: “Coming to Church in a Hooter’s shirt? As if I should be ‘so grateful’ you’re attending at all!”
I admire his devotion, Bill must truly be upset by their clothing, and it has nothing to do with them being women or men. But to see them through the “as if we should ‘bend’ for THEIR convenience”-scope is not the way to look at it.
August 25th, 2011 | 8:51 pm
Symbols do matter. What people wear is symbolic. What people wear to church is symbolic of their attitude toward church itself.
Having said that, how to address the issue is something else again. Acceptance and correction are both important; how to balance them is sometimes difficult.
August 25th, 2011 | 8:56 pm
I apologize for spamming the comments section under this post ;-) … but to those who think “It’s not about THEM”, well, yes, it is. It’s about them as much as it is about us.
http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/whh/paintings/low1.jpg
Or else He wouldn’t be at our doors.
… Again, I, too, wish they dressed in a more beautiful manner.
August 26th, 2011 | 12:22 pm
Talitha,
I am in agreement that the more productive reaction to inappropriate dress or behavior is to take the person aside in private, explain the matter/reasoning, and do so with kindness and patience. As they say, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
But, it is an incontrovertible truth that some people respond to a shout that will not respond to a whisper. Mercy and Justice are dual attributes of God and his Church, and we cannot dispense with Justice, lest we lose souls for Christ.
Finally, I’d point out that the stern comments of Christ weren’t only directed at Pharisees, and why should we dismiss them if they were, as you seem to suggest?
Christ said, “Get behind me Satan!” to Peter at one point in the ministry. He included his Apostles in the comment about being a generation of little faith. He threw the moneychangers out of the Temple–by such a standard, He seems more “intolerant” than the man above who merely voiced his ire.
There is a time and place for all (moral) things, and so too for following Christ’s example of “zeal for my Father’s house.”
August 27th, 2011 | 10:29 am
Continuing with Artaban’s point, He called his own disciples “slow of heart” and “foolish.” Yet those were the people He loved best, the people He had the highest hopes for, and the people who eventually became the most shining examples of what knowing Him can make a person. He also used those phrases of the common people who followed Him. It wasn’t just the Pharisees He spoke definitely negatively toward, though He did reserve particular *types* of reactions for them.
Of course this doesn’t give us a license to throw around harsh, negative comments on the grounds that we’re being like Jesus. Of course care must be taken to address the person in the way that is most edifying and God-honoring in that particular situation, and sometimes that calls for extreme gentleness. But neither does it rule out the idea that a definitively negative reaction to a person’s attitude or behavior can be called for in some situations.
“Christ is not the one to think: “Coming to Church in a Hooter’s shirt? As if I should be ‘so grateful’ you’re attending at all!”
No, of course not. If Bill’s comment were all that was said on the topic, or all that Bill intended to say, I would take issue with it as well. I guess I was rather assuming that he was speaking to a specific point in your comment, not intending to give a comprehensive idea of what our attitude should be to the situation. Like Bill, I do think there’s a bit too much of the attitude that worship is all about getting us there, not about the reasons why we’re there. I won’t venture to judge whether that’s a fair assessment of what you said, though.
But I think the situation is like this: suppose a woman dressed in a trashy way when going out on a date with her fiance though he actually dislikes it, because she didn’t really think ahead about what he might like? Then suppose that it became a matter of common practice for women not to think about what their lovers wanted when relating to them, in a particular area? Should we all rush into their faces and condemn them? Of course not. But is it worth commenting on as a public matter, if it becomes widespread, because we’re grieved about the situation, both for the sake of the lover *and* the sake of the woman who is unconsciously doing something she would not wish to do, if she understood how it both hurt her lover’s feelings and reflected poorly on her attitude toward him? I think it is.
August 27th, 2011 | 3:24 pm
I agree with postings above that state, paraphrased, “come to Church, we don’t care what you wear”. Jesus didn’t have His apostles stopping people on the way to His sites, and turning them away, just because they didn’t have a certain type of clothing on.
if we were to take this writer’s line of reasoning further, we should all attend Church in robes, with rope sandals on our feet, and have our heads covered. Time has moved on from those times; and time has moved on from the times this writer references when people wore ties and hats to Church.
if the Church (and the people holding these notions of “don’t come if you can’t dress correctly”) can’t get beyond these attitudes, please, close you doors.
Sincerely, A Catholic.
August 27th, 2011 | 6:56 pm
if the Church (and the people holding these notions of “don’t come if you can’t dress correctly”) can’t get beyond these attitudes, please, close you doors.
While it is true that it is better to come to church dressed as you can – even if that means wearing your work uniform – it is also true that it is disrespectful to wear trashy garments.
If you really don’t think a sacred rite – or God Himself – is worth dressing appropriately for, why bother coming?
August 28th, 2011 | 5:02 am
Talitha
August 25th, 2011 | 9:18 am
“These women are no different than the “Catholics” (cough) who normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity and plop themselves in mass thinking that by waltzing in Church, it will make them “holy,” no matter how deformed their minds are and how antagonistic they are to Catholic precepts, values, and teachings.”
Oh definitely. A woman attending mass in a shirt you don’t approve of is equal to someone who normalizes porn. Incredible sense and justice.
============
I don’t approve of Hooters because they denigrate women and sexuality and are fundamentally destructive concerning the teachings of the Church, in very similar ways to porn, in fact, most of their messages intersect the messages transmitted in porn. I am not blind to what Hooters represents, nor the messages it conveys nor how disgusting these messages are.
If you approve of denigrating women and sexuality or if you approve of Hooters, it is you who are profoundly lacking a sense of justice.
And if someone wanted to come to mass with their stash of porn and show it all around, would you still claim “we can’t be judgmental” about anything?
The Church may be open to all, but not to be made a total circus, denigrated in the same way as such stupid Hooters apparel women denigrate themselves and others with their little Hooters t-shirts.
As other people have pointed out above, something is profoundly wrong if people go to mass and they haven’t the slightest clue of what Catholicism is about and why Hooters is antagonistic to and destructive concerning life, women, and Catholic teaching.
What good is going to mass if a person doesn’t even know what Catholicism means or stands for? Or even worse, what if they know a bit about Catholicism, but want to insult the Church, and denigrate women and sexuality on purpose by wearing their stupid little t-shirt?
These people are there just repeating words in a completely ignorant way in mass, going through the ritual, but otherwise desecrating the Church completely. And this is why they merit the quotes around “Catholic.”
August 28th, 2011 | 8:54 am
[...] A story at First Thoughts this week about people wearing Hooters t-shirts to mass stirred a debate in the comments section: should or shouldn’t people come to church dressed however they want? There were some strong words on both sides. [...]
August 28th, 2011 | 11:32 am
Does Jesus really care if I wear something less than a shirt and tie?
I’d like to say, if you (or the writer of this article) believes you know what Jesus wants us to wear anywhere, then your hubris is amazing. How can you know what Jesus wants?
The answer is simple: you don’t. You are making a JUDGMENT based on your own feelings. Just so I remember, does the New Testament say you should judge others?
Bernie.
August 28th, 2011 | 8:26 pm
“What good is going to mass if a person doesn’t even know what Catholicism means or stands for? Or even worse, what if they know a bit about Catholicism, but want to insult the Church, and denigrate women and sexuality on purpose by wearing their stupid little t-shirt?”
——-
Oh wow. What a ridiculous question: why did I keep on attending mass when I didn’t even believe in the Trinity back then? You should stop thinking from your own perspective and wear the other’s shoes. Simple: I loved it. Mass was NOT about the people who attended, it was about me and my search for God and meaning.
I knew NOTHING of what I was supposed to/not supposed to wear, and if someone approached me at that early stage to point out they “don’t like how I dressed”, I would think: Is this what is important to people who follow Christ? To point to ‘clothing’ when I still have theological issues I haven’t resolved?
I would have been completely put off; how different are you then from the people at mosque who treated me, the then religious Muslim, badly because I didn’t wear the black cloak.
****
“The Church may be open to all, but not to be made a total circus, denigrated in the same way as such stupid Hooters apparel women denigrate themselves and others with their little Hooters t-shirts.”
————-
Again, your anger is stemmed from ASSUMPTION. You are ASSUMING all women also consider Hooters as you do too, and if one wore it to Church then SURELY advocating such thoughts and disrespecting the Church teachings. When in reality: she just wore it cause it’s a t-shirt in her cupboard!
I wonder if you’d make the same fuss if someone came to Church wearing a Simpsons t-shirt. After all, the show HAS made fun of many aspects of Christianity, no?
August 28th, 2011 | 9:42 pm
How about topless? Any of the “non-judgers” here have a problem with that?
August 28th, 2011 | 9:44 pm
How about a guy in his Speedo going directly from his morning swim to Mass? Shouldn’t Jesus just be happy he’s there?
August 29th, 2011 | 12:36 am
Oh yes since if she dared come in a Hooters Shirt she might as well just come naked.
Logic.
August 29th, 2011 | 8:49 am
Answer?
August 29th, 2011 | 8:51 am
In other words, would you, Talitha, stop a guy at the door and say, “No, you cannot attend Mass in a Speedo”?
If you personally would not do that, would you support someone else doing so?
August 29th, 2011 | 9:54 am
Well I am expecting the logic: “If you will not like it if a topless lady attended Mass in that way, then you have no right to dislike our criticism towards the girl in a Hooters Shirt.”
Which will be ridiculous from the start.
To answer you, though: It would be VERY surprising to find a man enter in nothing but a Speedo, and it would be equally uncomfortable if a lady entered topless.
BUT this would be my same reaction if I saw them anywhere else: a mall, a restaurant, a park… It is simply something that would hurt my eyes! I would not look, a few people might express the inappropriateness, but nothing related to “Zeal for God”, it is something that is generally not used to.
I doubt the same thing would or ever should apply for a girl in a Hooters’ Shirt. It is normal in any other circumstance. Again, and I have repeated this many, many times: It’s always nice to see everyone dress beautifully for Church.
August 29th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Thank you for your response. It has the virtue of consistency. (I was rather hoping for an inconsistency to which I would respond.)
Anyway, here is a different response: The man in this situation would need to be stopped at the door, and counseled. His sense of what is appropriate would be so off that it would indicate a deeper problem.
It seems the issues folks are discussing on this thread simply revolve around the question: At what “level” of clothing does that need for counseling kick in? What is the threshold “inappropriateness” level? (Toplessness, for example, definitely qualifies, whether male or female.)
And, for those who think this discussion is rather superficial, I would say the exact same thing for those who dress beautifully but who are, for example, living in fornication. Before going on in their church life, the issue needs to be addressed pastorally.
August 30th, 2011 | 4:07 am
“The Church may be open to all, but not to be made a total circus, denigrated in the same way as such stupid Hooters apparel women denigrate themselves and others with their little Hooters t-shirts.”
————-
Again, your anger is stemmed from ASSUMPTION. You are ASSUMING all women also consider Hooters as you do too, and if one wore it to Church then SURELY advocating such thoughts and disrespecting the Church teachings. When in reality: she just wore it cause it’s a t-shirt in her cupboard!
============
No, Talitha, you’re the one who is making this assumption. There are women who are not completely ignorant about what Hooters is.
What do you think about Hooters? Do you even know what messages they transmit about women and sexuality? What are they? Can you tell me what messages Hooters sends out that intersect with porn?
“When in reality: she just wore it cause it’s a t-shirt in her cupboard!”
Then she is being completely ignorant and lacking in conscience about what she is wearing. And that is not compatible with Catholicism : self-awareness is just a tad essential for its practice. If a person has some kind of cultural or mental deficit to know what their t-shirt means, surely they are not to be blamed as if it was all an intentional act. But then others should teach them so that they can evolve to something less clueless or irresponsible.
“Oh wow. What a ridiculous question: why did I keep on attending mass when I didn’t even believe in the Trinity back then?”
And now that you believe in the Trinity (whatever that means to you), would you wear a Hooters t-shirt? Would you bring your porn stash to Church? Would you stamp messages on your clothes that denigrate the Church’s teaching?
What makes a person a Catholic? Simply repeating words at mass? Being completely ignorant of what the Church says? Being completely clueless about cultural symbols that denigrate women and sexuality?
=============
I wonder if you’d make the same fuss if someone came to Church wearing a Simpsons t-shirt. After all, the show HAS made fun of many aspects of Christianity, no?
I don’t think that being against attitudes which denigrate women and sexuality can be properly called “making a fuss.” It is people who don’t criticize negative and harmful attitudes towards women who are lacking in conscience and who are wrong in not making your so-called “fuss.”
Given that I have watched very little of the Simpsons, I wouldn’t even have known that was the case. But it is a cartoon character, so already something which transmits a lack of seriousness, satire, a mocking of society in general, especially if the person wearing the t-shirt were a teenager or older. So, just on that basis alone, I would think it would be inappropriate for “Church” clothes.
A dress code conveys many more meanings than you apparently realize.
August 30th, 2011 | 9:48 am
I’m confused a bit .. I thought the discussion centered around the “shirt”; we’re now into discussions around morality. The center around the article above was how one “dressed”, not how one “thought”.
Are you now advocating that we take everyone aside who comes into the Church to discuss what they “thought about the clothes they wear”? Will you turn away the person who has clothes that are made in sweat shops? Where exactly are you drawing the line?
Bottom line is, the people who go to Church, in whatever clothing style they choose, are not there for those like you (who make a judgment about their character based on the clothes) .. they are there to commune with Christ. As I said above, it’s not for you to Judge them; that’s Christ’s area.
Bernie.
August 30th, 2011 | 10:09 am
I like Bernie.
I think really that’s what this is about. Talitha is not saying wearing a Hooters tee shirt is a good idea.
I think it’s what could be called “the censorious spirit” that is at issue.
Begin with love, understanding, and thinking well of people.
August 30th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
“Jesus didn’t have His apostles stopping people on the way to His sites, and turning them away, just because they didn’t have a certain type of clothing on.”
Absolutely, unequivocally correct.
But if Jesus had observed lots of people acting in a way that was, intended or not, associated with clearly immoral principles and practices, do you think that He would not at some point have addressed that in His interactions with them, for their own sake, that they might know Him better and gain more of the benefits of holy living?
Actually, we don’t have to speculate on the answer to that — He did it *all the time.*
August 30th, 2011 | 2:57 pm
And, He did it in a way that didn’t involve “rejecting” them, but encouraging them. So there’s no need for anyone here to assume that having a concern about this involves “rejecting” the people who do it.
If some of the commenters have come off that way, I won’t defend that. But it’s not in the meat of the article nor is it a necessary association with being concerned that people not dress in *blatantly* unseemly ways whether in worship, or anywhere else. It’s just that if they’re in worship, then they’re obviously a proper target of Christian teaching, right?
August 30th, 2011 | 4:01 pm
I dunno, Pentamom. Seems like He did it VERY LITTLE, not all the time.
The people who were concerned with following rules were usually scandalized by Jesus.
His theme seemed mostly to be
Come unto Me, all ye who labor and are greatly burdened and I will give you rest.
Law and Rules have a place of course. But the centerpiece of the Gospel is LOVE.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Dress codes were made for us, not we for dress codes.
August 30th, 2011 | 7:51 pm
And since dress codes are made for us, they teach us things like how to respect one another’s bodies, and so forth.
But we’re not talking about “dress codes.” Dress codes are about kicking people out who don’t measure up, or forcing them to change so that they measure up. This is not about that kind of thing. We’re talking about moral purity and how that is related in someone’s outward behavior. We’re talking about making that known to people so that they can understand that there is a better way to be pure, which will *result in* dressing more appropriately when you approach a holy matter (which should be every day.)
And Jesus did frequently address matters like having four husbands and living with a man who is not.
Or tithing the mint, cumin and dill but not caring for your parents. Is that just some “rule?” Or is caring for your parents a manifestation of walking in the way God wants you to do?
I don’t understand how it’s okay to ream people out for being “concerned about rules and laws” but it’s not okay to point out in any fashion that people can live a more holistic and consistent Christian life by taking thought to simple actions like, but not limited to, dress. And I do mean “taking thought,” not just “following rules.”
August 30th, 2011 | 9:16 pm
All .. I thank you for your point of views. Very interesting and spirited discussion.
My last thought is that if a person in my Parish wanted to take me aside to discuss my wardrobe, it would more than likely be my last time going to that Church. I look for an open, Christian community to worship in. I don’t go to my Parish because these people judge me; I go because there is a spirit inside of love.
If any of you still want to go ahead and judge people based on their perceived moral code due to how they dress .. then I say to you: I love you. May you find your way with God.
Bernie.
September 2nd, 2011 | 5:35 am
Bernie MacArthur
August 30th, 2011 | 9:48 am
I’m confused a bit .. I thought the discussion centered around the “shirt”; we’re now into discussions around morality. The center around the article above was how one “dressed”, not how one “thought”.
==============
Except that how one dresses is a consequence of how one thinks (or fails to think).
And the Hooters t-shirt in question transmits a lot of harmful thoughts and messages.
Being ignorant or in denial about this very basic fact is detrimental to a conscientious attitude towards life or religion.
==============
Bernie: My last thought is that if a person in my Parish wanted to take me aside to discuss my wardrobe, it would more than likely be my last time going to that Church. I look for an open, Christian community to worship in. I don’t go to my Parish because these people judge me; I go because there is a spirit inside of love.
==============
Clapping at everything anyone does, even when it’s wrong, destructive or harmful is not my idea of love. It’s idiocy.
If someone wants people to adulate them no matter what they think and do; that’s not my view of religion. It’s a lame frat club for people without a conscience.
In other words, there are people who would hate for anyone to criticize them if they did something destructive or held them accountable to their responsibilities as a human being.
An unexamined life is not only not worth living, it is profoundly destructive. Even if it is not immediately destructive to the individual who hates to have a conscience, it will always be to others who are the target of their lack of responsibility and ethics.
What I look for in a Church are people who have a conscience and are concerned about developing it. Destructive, unethical people who just want to babble Bible verses to feel better about themselves, with no intent of ever assuming any responsibility for themselves really corrupt the environment of a religious community.
September 2nd, 2011 | 6:11 am
Bernie: Will you turn away the person who has clothes that are made in sweat shops? Where exactly are you drawing the line?
===========
You are distorting the question. There is no suggestion or aim to turn away anyone, on the contrary. It is an issue of conscience regarding the meaning of the clothes worn and the attitude to the Church and to religion. This thread is also about how to address a problem of lack of conscience for someone who attends Church.
If someone comes to church with a t-shirt that shouts loud and clear that it was made in a sweat shop, by exploiting other adults and children in horrible ways, what does this say about how much conscience this individual has towards others and towards his/her Church? What if they are the sweat shop owners who make 6 yr children work 16 hours a week and then advertise the fact on their t-shirts, in mass or outside? What if they are child pornographers and advertise the fact on their t-shirt as they come to Church?
If being completely immoral is your idea of being a Christian, that is not mine.
Perhaps you would be delighted if a white slave owner came to Church with their slaves.
It was not too long ago that many “Christian” white slave owners and clergy did insist on slave attendance at white-controlled churches. But this was not because they wanted to be in communion with their “fellow” black slaves. They were fearful that if slaves were allowed to worship independently they would ultimately plot rebellion against their owners. What a horrible thing indeed!
Imagine if anyone had judged these slave owners and what they thought or did!
Thanks to the fact that the majority of these corrupt white “Christians” preferred to lack conscience, to engage in a very violent and destructive system of exploitation of other people, to refrain from judging, acting, or interfering, the slavery system needlessly condemned millions of people to a life of torture or death.
==========
Bernie: Where exactly are you drawing the line?
What enables us to actually draw lines is our conscience, our knowledge, and our morality.
Why should someone who claims to be a Catholic be allowed to exploit or torture other people as they please?
If you displace the slaves to another country, add a few intermediaries, put them out of sight in little sweat shops, does it make it all OK then? Is this Catholicism or Christianity?
Not in my view.
September 2nd, 2011 | 6:14 am
correction:
What if they are the sweat shop owners who make 6 yr children work 16 hours a **DAY** and then advertise the fact on their t-shirts, in mass or outside?
:-)
September 5th, 2011 | 12:41 pm
[...] bouncing off of Deacon Greg’s summer rant to find this question getting significant attention in other venues. We’re pondering the upcoming changes to the English Translation of the [...]
September 5th, 2011 | 5:32 pm
Some months ago, our Msgr asked a little girl during mass (just before his homily) why she was so dressed up – she looked adorable in a party dress – and she said on the mic in front of a thousand people, “I wanted to look nice for Jesus.” Since then, I’ve seen a difference: people are better dressed.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact