Moms and Maids

What to do? (FMIL clothing issues)

2»

Answers

  • banana468 said:
    banana468 said:
    If you're only doing this because the church "has rules", then get a copy of the church rules and give them to her and her husband. 

    I'm calling BS on that though. I find it very hard to believe that church rules would be so strict that they would bar the Mother of the Groom from attending her son's wedding because her blouse isn't "nice enough". 
    According to the @nmvaladanzouj the church is so conservative that women are required to wear some kind of veil/head covering. 

    That said OP, you can tell your FMIL what the church requirements are and she can dress to those requirements.

    I have to say though, in so much of your posts they seem.....drama-ridden.  Why are you having a formal wedding if the MOG is going to be uncomfortable?  
    But covering your head is different than literally giving FMIL outfit choices "because pretty formal dress code".

    In any weddings I've been to at a church or temple so conservative that head covering is required, the venue always has extra in the lobby for non-member guests. They know every guest won't be familiar with their requirements or they'll forget. 
    Totally agree.    My only comment was that according to the OP her church is so conservative that it does have that head covering requirement (and yet they don't provide them for guests which is REALLY odd IMO).  You're absolutely correct that you can meet the requirements of the church and not be dressed appropriately for a black tie wedding.
    Yea, I'm really doubting OP's story. First it was "my FMIL wears capris and house slippers...ugh!" then it was "well the wedding is 'pretty formal' and she is frumpy" then it was "we're giving her outfit choices because she can't dress herself" then it was "well actually the wedding is black tie" then it was "well it's more the church's conservative requirements than ours" then it was "well they don't offer head scarves to guests so FMIL will be asked to leave." Um ok? So what is this? A frumpy FMIL concern? A black tie concern? A religious concern? Pick one!

    If this is really all about the church requiring head coverings, the church or the couple needs to provide them *for MANY guests - not just FMIL* or lots of their guests will be booted. But then it's not just about FMIL, is it?

    Cutting through the bullshit here, this sounds like OP is having a formal (calling BS on it actually being black tie) wedding and wants her FMIL to "step it up". At the maximum, OP can give FMIL the church's written requirements (in their words, not OP's).  Once she does that, she needs to focus her energy elsewhere and stop trying to micromanage her FMIL's clothing.
    Agreed. If the church doesn't provide head coverings, then the couple should. 
    I'm surprised they either don't have or require couples to provide their own. Every single Jewish wedding I've been to has a bucket of yarmulkes and lace kippahs if they require men and married women to follow the rules. And I don't know how hard and fast the rule is if OP herself doesn't have to follow it. She just seems like the kind of person who can't keep her nose out of other people's business. It's very immature and not a good look, head covering or not.
    STARMOON44eileenrobCMGragain
  • banana468 said:
    banana468 said:
    If you're only doing this because the church "has rules", then get a copy of the church rules and give them to her and her husband. 

    I'm calling BS on that though. I find it very hard to believe that church rules would be so strict that they would bar the Mother of the Groom from attending her son's wedding because her blouse isn't "nice enough". 
    According to the @nmvaladanzouj the church is so conservative that women are required to wear some kind of veil/head covering. 

    That said OP, you can tell your FMIL what the church requirements are and she can dress to those requirements.

    I have to say though, in so much of your posts they seem.....drama-ridden.  Why are you having a formal wedding if the MOG is going to be uncomfortable?  
    But covering your head is different than literally giving FMIL outfit choices "because pretty formal dress code".

    In any weddings I've been to at a church or temple so conservative that head covering is required, the venue always has extra in the lobby for non-member guests. They know every guest won't be familiar with their requirements or they'll forget. 
    Totally agree.    My only comment was that according to the OP her church is so conservative that it does have that head covering requirement (and yet they don't provide them for guests which is REALLY odd IMO).  You're absolutely correct that you can meet the requirements of the church and not be dressed appropriately for a black tie wedding.
    Yea, I'm really doubting OP's story. First it was "my FMIL wears capris and house slippers...ugh!" then it was "well the wedding is 'pretty formal' and she is frumpy" then it was "we're giving her outfit choices because she can't dress herself" then it was "well actually the wedding is black tie" then it was "well it's more the church's conservative requirements than ours" then it was "well they don't offer head scarves to guests so FMIL will be asked to leave." Um ok? So what is this? A frumpy FMIL concern? A black tie concern? A religious concern? Pick one!

    If this is really all about the church requiring head coverings, the church or the couple needs to provide them *for MANY guests - not just FMIL* or lots of their guests will be booted. But then it's not just about FMIL, is it?

    Cutting through the bullshit here, this sounds like OP is having a formal (calling BS on it actually being black tie) wedding and wants her FMIL to "step it up". At the maximum, OP can give FMIL the church's written requirements (in their words, not OP's).  Once she does that, she needs to focus her energy elsewhere and stop trying to micromanage her FMIL's clothing.
    Agreed. If the church doesn't provide head coverings, then the couple should. 
    I'm surprised they either don't have or require couples to provide their own. Every single Jewish wedding I've been to has a bucket of yarmulkes and lace kippahs if they require men and married women to follow the rules. And I don't know how hard and fast the rule is if OP herself doesn't have to follow it. She just seems like the kind of person who can't keep her nose out of other people's business. It's very immature and not a good look, head covering or not.
    According to her priest she does have to wear a head covering for her Nuptial Mass too.  She just wasn't sure - and yet she made certain to already disseminate the clothing requirements at her church to other guests....
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    member
    What's the point of wearing a head covering that's just a tiny piece of cloth? Or something that's see through like lace. If it's about modesty, I just don't get it. A tissue or a small cap is not doing anything to preserve modesty. 

    JediElizabeth
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston
    10000 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    member
    What's the point of wearing a head covering that's just a tiny piece of cloth? Or something that's see through like lace. If it's about modesty, I just don't get it. A tissue or a small cap is not doing anything to preserve modesty. 
    It's required by religious law to protect the appearance of modesty, regardless of whether it protects actual modesty.
    charlotte989875InLoveInQueens
  • What's the point of wearing a head covering that's just a tiny piece of cloth? Or something that's see through like lace. If it's about modesty, I just don't get it. A tissue or a small cap is not doing anything to preserve modesty. 
    Asking the rationale of church rules is a fool's errand. 
    ahoyweddingMyNameIsNotjustsie
  • MairePoppyMairePoppy Connecticut
    Moderator Seventh Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    mod
    edited September 29
    Not sure, but I think covered heads in the Catholic church stemmed from tradition, rather than religious reasoning. Modest women covered their hair. It was a sign of respect. For men it was the exact opposite. Most men wore fedoras or driving caps when they went anywhere. Leaving them on in church or any building was a sign of disrespect because of cultural, not religious reasoning. 

    To me there is nothing modest, as in humble/unpretentious, about wearing formal wear or a $1000 (s) wedding dress with a mantilla or veil. It seems just the opposite to me. But that's just my opinion.
                
    southernbelle0915
  • Yikes okay. Your FMIL is an adult. Unless your wedding is TRULY black tie (in all aspects), you can't dictate what she wears. If your church or your reception venue has a dress code, you can definitely let her know those guidelines and if she doesn't to follow them she can deal with the consequences. If the church's guidelines are "more conservative" and she isn't familiar with what's standard there, you could show her a few photos of outfits that someone would typically wear to a service. DO NOT actually buy her clothes. 
    SP29
  • flantasticflantastic The Midwest
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    member
    edited September 29
    Not sure, but I think covered heads in the Catholic church stemmed from tradition, rather than religious reasoning. Modest women covered their hair. It was a sign of respect. For men it was the exact opposite. Most men wore fedoras or driving caps when they went anywhere. Leaving them on in church or any building was a sign of disrespect because of cultural, not religious reasoning. 

    To me there is nothing modest, as in humble/unpretentious, about wearing formal wear or a $1000 (s) wedding dress with a mantilla or veil. It seems just the opposite to me. But that's just my opinion.
    Basically, it's that women's hair used to be thought of as a great beauty, and so the idea was to cover it so everyone could focus on the Mass. Obviously, a tiny veil doesn't really serve that purpose, but neither are people being distracted by hair.

    I totally agree with the bolded. Either it's about people looking at you or it's not.

    ETA a secondary purpose is that traditionally vessels of life were veiled (as sacred things, not too-hot-to-handle-for-the-menfolk things). So women, i.e. those able to bear children, could be veiled. In that case a tiny veil is still serving that symbolic purpose.

    Anniversary

    MairePoppySP29
  • MairePoppyMairePoppy Connecticut
    Moderator Seventh Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    mod
    Not sure, but I think covered heads in the Catholic church stemmed from tradition, rather than religious reasoning. Modest women covered their hair. It was a sign of respect. For men it was the exact opposite. Most men wore fedoras or driving caps when they went anywhere. Leaving them on in church or any building was a sign of disrespect because of cultural, not religious reasoning. 

    To me there is nothing modest, as in humble/unpretentious, about wearing formal wear or a $1000 (s) wedding dress with a mantilla or veil. It seems just the opposite to me. But that's just my opinion.
    Basically, it's that women's hair used to be thought of as a great beauty, and so the idea was to cover it so everyone could focus on the Mass. Obviously, a tiny veil doesn't really serve that purpose, but neither are people being distracted by hair.
     
    I totally agree with the bolded. Either it's about people looking at you or it's not.

    ETA a secondary purpose is that traditionally vessels of life were veiled (as sacred things, not too-hot-to-handle-for-the-menfolk things). So women, i.e. those able to bear children, could be veiled. In that case a tiny veil is still serving that symbolic purpose.
    Thank you.

    Of course, when I was a very, very young girl, I wore a mantilla or Easter hat because that's what we were brought up to do. There was no thought process involved, other than someone would wag a finger at us if we didn't. 

    Now, these days, I could understand how my crowning glory might distract others from their worship. 



    Seriously, I would have no problem with wearing a head covering if the house of worship required.  

                
    SP29short+sassyOliveOilsMomsparklepants41
  • CMGragainCMGragain
    10000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 25 Answers
    member
    edited September 30
    Blame it on Saint Paul, who was a product of his own culture and time.

    1 Corinthians, 11:2 

    2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

    7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

    13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
    MobKaz
  • ILoveBeachMusicILoveBeachMusic Indiana
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary 5 Answers
    member
    CMGragain said:
    Blame it on Saint Paul, who was a product of his own culture and time.

    1 Corinthians, 11:2 

    2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

    7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

    13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
    I've not had this pointed out to me. Very interesting. Thanks, CMGr.
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    member
    Thank you all. 

    I'm a Christian but not Catholic, so I am familiar with that passage. We don't use head coverings (although at my old church, there was one lady who always came with a piece of lace on her head). To me, it seems pointless since it's not preserving modesty, but to each their own. :)

  • This passage is also the origin of why men take their hats off when entering a church.  Europeans get very angry when they see Americans wearing their baseball caps inside a church.  I have seen men being asked to leave because of it.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards