Karl Keating's E-Letter of April 22, 2008

[aimee]

Originally Posted by iohannes13

I don't think Carl Keating is looking down on poor people either and apologize if I inferred that. About differences between the social and economic classes, I was inferring that there are different perceptions of dress across the board. And these perceptions have changed much over the decades. What I've been tyring to communicate is that if one is paying attention to how others are dressed during mass, we should be careful of feeling contempt if that person doesn't dress to one's standard of dress. Like I said , the examples he provided aren't offensive like some of the examples other posters gave. And I don't know what Karl Keating and some of the other posters are thinking or feeling at the time when they see someone dressed in clothing that doesn't meet their definition of how people should dress when attending mass. But the tone of the E-letter and some postings seems as if they are passing judgment.

Growing up, my mother instilled in me that I should dress my best for mass. This meant wearing my best clothes. My best shirts were usually my favorite ones and even though I wanted to wear them everyday, I was only allowed to wear them on Sundays or to school functions or weddings. These shirts weren't always dress shirts.

The example of the poor young person wearing a sports jersey vs an older professional person was an attempt to show the difference in the perceptions. When I was in high school and my parents couldn't afford to buy me a sports jersey (they are very expensive), I purchased one after I started working in a part-time job. As you may be able to imagine, I perceived the jersey to be my best shirt. And I would wear it on special occasions like parties and even to mass. How could I go wrong wearing my best shirt to mass? But those individuals that would have seen me from across the isle and made some judgement because I wasn't wearing a dress shirt and tie wouldn't know that my heart was in the right place.

I have a picture of my grandfather from the '50s. He has a shirt and tie and a leather jacket, and very cool to me, a Fedora hat. My father explained to me that when men purchased a shirt and tie, a Fedora was also mandatory when my grandfather was young. But fedoras aren't in style anymore. Right now only baseball hats are the norm. And as much as I dislike them, I've been known to wear one on occassion. I see how people dressed during the 40's and 50's in movies. Classy. And as my grandfather's picture confirms and the stories my father told me, that's pretty much how everyone dressed during those times. Even though I grew up in the baseball hat and t-shirt era, I would love for it to return to that classy epoc.

I like wearing suits and I purchased a fedora. Not many people my age wear Fedoras. But you know what.....I don't pay attention or mind how other people are dressed. I don't give it any thought if I see a person wearing a baseball hat. I'm wearing my fedora why should I worry if that person isn't wearing one either?


Again, what I've been trying to communicate is that we should be careful of having contempt (judging) towards those that don't dress to our standards. Because we don't know the whole story. And I've been mistaken about the parable, it wasn't a rich and poor man, it was the pharasee and a publican, I think. Check out Luke 18:9-14. This is the story I was taught when the issue of watching and critizing what other people wear to mass came up in catechism class.

Part of the E-letter talked about etiquette during mass also and highlighted that people wouldn't pay attention and even talk during mass. Maybe since my focus isn't on paying attention on how others are dressed, I don't quite understand at what point during the mass some individuals with good etiquite can spend time observing how others are dressed. What goes through their mind? What do they feel? Do they dwell on it? Do they sit there like the pharasee saying, "God, at least I'm not like that person, I know how to dress for mass."

You sound like really nice person...

[littletommy]

I believe that it is a good idea as one gentleman hear pointed out to dress up for church as Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, and many fundamentalists do. If Christ truly is present, than perhaps we should dress up in wonderful attire to wecome him. On the other hand, who did Jesus go out to visit with the most? The ones who were least fortunate and considered harlots and tax collectors. They were despised by the Pharisees (The religious zealots of Jesus's time), and yet JESUS WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO REACH OUT TO THEM. This is what he said "The Son of Man is come to seek and save that which was lost." He loves that scantily clad beachcomber as much as he loves that Man or Woman dressed up in their Sunday best. May God have mercy on all of us, and help us to love one another as Jesus loves us...

Tommy

[PJ818]

On the topic of personal comfort: I often wear a sleeveless dress (or one that might be cut lower than is appropriate for Mass) on the way to church and cover it with a cardigan or shawl or jacket when we get out of the car to go inside. Since the church is kept quite cool, it is not uncomfortable, and I can take the covering off when I get back into the car. Summer heat problem solved.

Hmmm. I guess I'm of the mind that it is my heart that Christ is interested in - and regularly renewing my awareness through the Eucharist.

If I wouldn't wear a low-cut dress to church, why would I be wearing one outside of church? Seems a tad incongruent.

As for those of us who wear jeans (clean), think of it this way: It gives others a chance to feel 'better than'/holier-than-thou. And to reflect on that - or not.

[SCALCO]

Here's a 50's pic of my grandfather in the HAT, possibly on his way to Mass.

[surfinpure]

Originally Posted by PJ818

Hmmm. I guess I'm of the mind that it is my heart that Christ is interested in - and regularly renewing my awareness through the Eucharist...

...As for those of us who wear jeans (clean), think of it this way: It gives others a chance to feel 'better than'/holier-than-thou. And to reflect on that - or not.

Well, that's one way to look at it. It isn't the only way. It isn't, for example, how the Old Testament approached it; neither is it the way the Vatican approaches it. And then there's the Catechism.

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

We are dressing for our Savior. He does care whether or not we're respectful.

[iohannes13]

Some people have referenced the Catechism or the Bible to support that people should dress up to attend mass. But in either case, I think they are projecting or interpreting these sources to be referring to their own personal standard of dress for mass. The quotes they provided from the Catechism are very vague and does not provide a list of appropriate attire. They do not show that the Catechism or the Bible states that the garments or styles of dress mentioned in Karl Keating’s (jogging suits, sports jerseys, etc.) E-letter are not appropriate to wear to mass. I think that in a final analysis, people are arguing their own standard. The Catechism and the Bible do not state that the mentioned styles of clothes are disrespectful either. An example is Karl Keating giving his opinion that shorts are not appropriate unless you are a small child. The other items he mentioned, because they do not violate a decency standard as I mentioned before, also fall under his opinion of being inappropriate.

Think about it, under the arguments being given, slacks are appropriate to wear to mass but not jeans. Well, what about wearing Khakis pants to mass? Are they appropriate? These types of pants are supposedly an intermediate between slacks and jeans? The E-letter suggests that jogging pants and shorts are even worse than jeans. In the end, these types of garments are all styles or forms of pants. Who gave these styles the value that is being attributed to them? Why is one of these styles considered higher than the others? In the end they are all just pants. Aren’t they? Look at it from another perspective.

Jesus and the apostles are always drawn wearing long robes. That was the style of clothing in their day. The Pharisees are drawn wearing more elaborate (fancy) robes. Which of the two types of robes had more value? Which of the two types of robes were more appropriate to wear to the temple? Were there different styles of robes for that matter or just different qualities (Jesus‘ robes I‘m assuming were of lesser quality since he was poor)? What about St. John the Baptist? Was he being inappropriate by going to Temple wearing his animal skins or did he make a quick change into a long robe before he entered the Temple?

Back to the pants, I don’t know the history, but I tried to imagine a scenario to answer the question of what happened when these robes went out of style and pants replaced them. Were the people that wore the robes to mass judging those that began to wear pants? Did they believe that there was a decline of etiquette and standards? As I recall, pants were created and introduced to Europeans by Muslims!! Did robe wearers believe that the men wearing pants were being disrespectful to Christ? After all, their possible view was that pants were Muslim garments and apparel. How could anyone possibly wear them to mass!!? Did they believe that the Muslim religion had infiltrated the Catholic Church not with its doctrine, but through the acceptance of pants by the majority of people?

For those that don’t know, priests still use a Roman Cloak when giving mass. The Church has decided to keep an ancient style of garment for their clergy, but only to be worn when they give mass. Along those lines then, why doesn’t the church require men in the pews to wear the robes or clothes that were in style when the priest’s cloaks were in style so that everyone could be dressed in the style from the same time period? Why doesn't the Church set a specific style as the appropriate way to dress to mass? The answer, I believe, is that the Church has been around a long time and is very wise about clothing.

[iohannes13]

Again, the quotes provided from the Catechism are silent about wearing a particular style of clothing (Suit vs. Jeans and t-shirt vs. togas, etc.). I believe that this is the case because, knowing that styles and tastes change with the times, the church does not want to be in the business of being a style police. Second, they probably know that by setting a specific style as the standard, they inadvertently set a burden on the majority of their populace, which is poor. Refer to the earlier post that explains that in one part of the world, Vietnam, people are sharing clothing because of poverty. If the church required them to purchase certain clothes, they wouldn’t be able to. We are greatly blessed in this country in that we do not suffer the poverty that is prevalent in many other countries. I have cousins outside the U.S. that suffer greatly from poverty. They wear what they can. Appropriately, the Church must know that people wear what they own! Third, by setting a specific style of clothing as being the only appropriate to wear to mass, the Church may have realized that they would be giving people an excuse not to attend mass. For whatever reason, if people cannot or will not acquire that standard style of clothing, they will not attend mass. Again, some people would not be able to comply because of their financial status, others because of their convictions. Think about St. Francis of Assisi. He was born rich but rejected his wealth when he became an adult. He lived the rest of his life in poverty and wore a “generic” robe that matched his poverty. In other words, he wore a garment that was the equivalent of a potato sack with a piece of rope serving as a belt. At least that’s how he is always drawn. Were these garments appropriate to wear to mass? That I’m aware of, St. Francis was never rebuked because of how he dressed by his priests or bishops.

Again, styles constantly change. Today’s suits are considered “dress up” clothes, but we may be shifting to a different style of clothing just as when men went from wearing robes to wearing pants. So standards and etiquette may not be declining. Maybe 60 years from now, instead of wearing today’s suits to dress up, the “dress up” clothes will be some form of jogging suit with a white sports jersey underneath. Stranger clothing has been the norm over the ages. Which style of sneakers do you believe will be the “dress up” shoes of the future?

I also read that we should dress up because we are meeting Jesus in the Eucharist. I thought yes but asked if it is necessary? I’ve seen in movies (don’t know how true it is) that commoners borrowed clothing from the castle to wear when given an audience with their king. Most men would wear a suit to meet the Pope, the President, or someone of high rank. Why would we not show Jesus the same consideration? But how did Jesus respond when He was on earth to how people dressed when they came to Him?

Thousands and thousands of common people, beggars, and homeless came to His person for healing, to hear His word, etc. I imagine that these people were no different than their counterparts today. The homeless had bad body odor because they did not have the facilities to wash. The beggars had dirty old and torn clothes because they didn’t have money to purchase more garments. The rest had the “common” clothing which I imagine was a white robe since colored clothing has always been more expensive to produce. Not once did Jesus point to their manner of dress and send them away. Never did he tell a blind homeless man to wash up before he came to Jesus for healing. Never did he tell the beggars and others to wear a certain style of clothing before they met him or that he wouldn’t receive them if they didn‘t comply. He never commented on the clothing worn by the people that came to Him in faith. No, all Jesus required of them (and requires of us) is that we meet him with a repentant heart.

Then it starts to make sense to me, that no matter what style or quality of dress that we wear on the outside, the interior is what Jesus looks at. He looks at our hearts. So I imagine that our soul stands there naked before the throne of Christ. So much for wearing a suit in the hot summer. But does the Holy Spirit provide clothing for our soul? Does the Holy Spirit dress our souls with the white garments mentioned in the Bible when we approach Jesus? I think it’s poetic that the color of the heavenly garments are white like those that I imagine were worn by poor people throughout the ages. If the Holy Spirit dresses us in white garments, what would prompt the Holy Spirit to cloth us? Does He do it only if we approach Jesus by saying “Please forgive me I am a sinner?” or if we give Jesus the accolades that we would give a worldly king?

[Karl Keating]

I just got back from a week out of town and away from a computer (there's something almost luxurious in the latter!) to find this lively discussion. Thanks, everyone, for the input. But let me clarify a few things.

1. All of the homeschooling moms I know around here dress modestly (both at Mass and elsewhere, so far as I can tell), but none of them wears what I termed the gunnysack outfits that I have seen worn in other parts of the country. The local moms dress nicely for Mass; a few even dress snazzily, without being ostentatious or in any way immodest. I see no reason for a woman, of whatever age, to hide the beauty that God has given her, due modesty being assumed. The gunnysack look I just don't care for, partly because of that and partly because there can be a kind of ostentation even in that look.

2. The people I described seeing at Mass attend local parishes. The newness of the cars they get into after Mass pretty well suggests that the jerseys or shorts they wear to church are not the only things in their closets. They may not have Imelda Marcos's wardrobe, but I'm quite sure they could have worn something that shows more respect to our Lord, the priest, and--yes--the other folks at Mass.

3. Some people writing here assume, on seeing someone dressed shabbily at Mass, that the person is poor and can't afford better clothing. You may call me either less charitable or more practical, but--excluding vagrants, shopping cart ladies, and the like--experience tells me that almost every shabbily-dressed person is dressed that way not because he is poor but because he is a slob.

4. I'm glad to see that no one has tried to justify chewing gum at Mass. (But: For those who think wearing [modest] shorts and [modest] t-shirts to Mass is okay, on what grounds would you oppose gum chewing, presuming the chewer doesn't go to Communion? If gum chewing is opposed because it is indecorous at Mass, can't the same be said of shorts and t-shirts?)

[Crumpy]

[quote=Karl Keating;3618405]

(Karl says, in part

3. Some people writing here assume, on seeing someone dressed shabbily at Mass, that the person is poor and can't afford better clothing....experience tells me that almost every shabbily-dressed person is dressed that way not because he is poor but because he is a slob.

(gasp)

[surfinpure]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

The gunnysack look I just don't care for, partly because of that and partly because there can be a kind of ostentation even in that look.

This is exactly the point I was making with the Colleen Hammond quote. When something is extreme, either in modesty or immodesty, it draws lots of attention. If moderation is at point zero on the scale, and a mini-skirt is at 15, then these "jumpers" are at -15. Their distance from the point of moderation makes them immodest.

[pnewton]

[quote=Crumpy;3619829]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

(Karl says, in part

3. Some people writing here assume, on seeing someone dressed shabbily at Mass, that the person is poor and can't afford better clothing....experience tells me that almost every shabbily-dressed person is dressed that way not because he is poor but because he is a slob.

(gasp)

THat has been my experience too, and I live in a poor parish. Yet those that are poorest seem to make the greatest effort to at least look their best.

[CapaxDei]

Originally Posted by SCALCO

Some might consider their best shirt to be a sports jersey, for example. I have to think about that.

Indeed.

"Best" in what way? As in, his favorite shirt? How would that be relevant?

Anyone who can afford a sports jersey can afford a decent dress shirt. If he only has enough money for one or the other, then he needs to re-think his priorities.

[CapaxDei]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

3. Some people writing here assume, on seeing someone dressed shabbily at Mass, that the person is poor and can't afford better clothing. You may call me either less charitable or more practical, but--excluding vagrants, shopping cart ladies, and the like--experience tells me that almost every shabbily-dressed person is dressed that way not because he is poor but because he is a slob.

Alas, I concur.

[iohannes13]

[quote=Karl Keating;3618405]
3. Some people writing here assume, on seeing someone dressed shabbily at Mass, that the person is poor and can't afford better clothing. You may call me either less charitable or more practical, but--excluding vagrants, shopping cart ladies, and the like--experience tells me that almost every shabbily-dressed person is dressed that way not because he is poor but because he is a slob.
QUOTE]

Gasp. People that wear sports jerseys, t-shirts and jeans, to mass are not just dressed shabbily but are also slobs? What about people that wear flannel shirts to mass? Or people that wear khakis? Are these pants ok? What about turtleneck shirts in the winter time? Are they appropriate? What about polo shirts? Are green polo shirts ok? What about red polo shirts? What about western style suit jackets and cowboy boots? Are these two items uncouth and not appropriate for mass? More importantly, who decides whether or not these clothes are appropriate for mass? The Magesterium? The Pope? The Council of American Bishops? The Knights of Columbus? You?

I’ve explored several questions regarding wearing proper attire to mass in my posts. I’ve concluded that the price of the clothing is not at issue. A sports jersey can be more expensive than a suit jacket. The quality of the clothing isn’t in question either, the material of a sports jersey can equal or exceed the quality of a dress shirt or a suit jacket of equivalent price. So the only thing that is left to argue about is the style or form of the clothing. I explored this question too and came to the conclusion that the style of clothing, while not being scandalous or indecent, doesn’t matter either. I even talked about how styles change over the ages. Nobody has shown that a t-shirt is scandalous or indecent. The only argument is that they are “uncivilized” and don’t belong in mass.

In exploring these questions, I realized that the Church has not set a standard style of dress and I explored different possibilities as to why She hasn‘t. Despite the arguments that t-shirts and jeans are offensive to God , the priest, and other parishioners, it hasn’t been shown that the Catholic Church believes this. Isn’t the Catechism silent about the use of t-shirts when attending mass? That I’m aware of, no official doctrine or regulation has been issued by the Church mandating that only dress shirts are appropriate to wear during mass. If the Church doesn’t require it, why do you?


But maybe I’ve been mistaken all along. Maybe the discussion was really about how one should dress for the occasion? It’s the occasion that warrants everyone to dress up? Is this what is being discussed in the E-letter? Do you mean that sports jerseys belong in the ball park and suits in church? Is that right? Does this mean that suits shouldn’t be worn at ball games and that the jerseys are the most appropriate to where at the ball park? Maybe. Funny thing is that I’ve seen video of Babe Ruth, and far as I could tell, everyone in the stands were wearing suits and a fedora hats. What’s wrong with that picture? Like I explained in another post, that was the common style of dress for men in those days. Today, when the culture is more casual and informal in its dress, wouldn’t jerseys find their way into the church? Isn’t that what happened when pants became the norm in dress. Didn’t they end up supplanting the long robes that were in style before them?

Maybe you are explaining that mass is a formal affair and we should all wear our a bow ties and tails? No? It’s not that formal of an affair you say? Then how formal is it? Like the Oscars? A company Christmas party level of formality? A business dinner? A “formal” high school dance? Thanksgiving dinner at an aunts house?

Like I said before, people are arguing their own tastes in styles of dress. Most that argue that we should wear a shirt and tie, will disagree and won’t want to wear a tuxedo to mass! Come on now, why wouldn’t mass be a formal affair at the level where we would all have to wear tuxedos? After all, Jesus is there. Why are you going to dress less formal for Him than you would for an event that is celebrating some other person? Why wouldn't you show Jesus the same respect that you showed the other person? A question for all of you then, are you all "slobs" for wearing something less than a tuxedo to mass?

[surfinpure]

iojannes,

Our culture has a standard for dressing up. It is, simply, the suit and tie. This is the standard for business meetings, job interviews, weddings (unless you are in the wedding party), funerals, and fine restaurants. Tuxedos are typically worn only by participants in a ceremony (except, I imagine, in very wealthy circles and on prom night ). In this case, the participants -- priests and deacons -- wear something even more formal: vestments. So you are correct in one sense. Our clergy do wear the most formal attire currently known to the human race, for the purpose of celebrating the holy sacrifice of the Mass. But the rest of us, the laity, dress to the common standard of formality: the suit and tie.

Puzzlement as to why this should be such an odd concept.