Church denies First Communion to fashion-loving girl because she wanted to wear a suit

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

Church denies First Communion to fashion-loving girl because she wanted to wear a suit

By Julie Zauzmer October 12 at 12:34 PM

Cady Mansell has always had a strong sense of fashion. At 9 years old, she likes trying on makeup and painting her nails. She likes shopping trips to Chicago with her fashion-conscious mother. And since she asked for her first bow tie during one of those trips to the mall when she was just 4 years old, Cady has had a thing for snazzy suits.

When it came time for her First Communion, a major event for Cady, she naturally started thinking early about what she wanted to wear on the big day. She settled on a brand-new all-white suit.

“It kind of sparkles in the sunlight,” she enthused when she tried it on.

But then word got out at her Catholic school about Cady’s planned attire. School officials told Cady’s parents that she couldn’t participate in First Communion with the rest of her class unless she wore a skirt or dress. When the Mansells dug in their heels, insisting that their daughter should wear the outfit she had picked out for her special day, the argument escalated quickly — to the point that the Mansells pulled their daughters out of the school and the church altogether.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/12/church-denies-first-communion-to-fashion-loving-girl-because-she-wanted-to-wear-a-suit/

[guillaumeb]

1. From the article:

At the school, St. John the Evangelist in St. John, Ind., an official, who asked The Washington Post not to publish her name because she didn’t make the decision to ban Cady’s suit, said that the school simply couldn’t bend its dress code to suit Cady’s style.

“We have a dress code in place for our school. We consistently enforce that,” she said. “Oftentimes you’ll get somebody who wants to wear sneakers instead of dress shoes, or a purple shirt instead of a white shirt.”

The first question is, does the institution have a legal right to impose a dress code?

Second, could an exception have been made, and have exceptions been made in the past?

[Lordquinton]

4. Are the boys allowed to wear suits?

If so then she's not really in violation. Unless of course it's an intolerant code based on outdated gender roles.

[guillaumeb]

5. If the dress regulations are specific, you might research it.

But I actually asked if the institution has a legal right to impose dress codes. If you feel that no institution has the legal right to specific dress codes, you can make that argument.

Good luck with that battle.

To your question, based on the action of the church, yes, she would be in apparent violation.

[Lordquinton]

6. And you again didn't speak to my question

Interesting that.

[guillaumeb]

24. Your question has no relevance to the issue.

Which might explain why you have ignored my questions that were posed to you.

Interesting indeed.

[Lordquinton]

41. Yes, I ignored your deflections

My questions are more than relevant, they point to the intolerance of the RCC, why do you dodge them?

[guillaumeb]

49. Your questions are the deflections.

Given your position here, I understand your desire, your need, to deflect.

[Lordquinton]

68. Nice retort

Why does it seem so familiar?

[guillaumeb]

71. Possibly because you do not wish to admit that the institution is correct?

I might disagree with the rule, but I am not the one who makes the rules.

[Lordquinton]

72. So they are correct in their intolerance?

You think they aren't wrong here?

[guillaumeb]

73. Still avoiding the issue?

I understand.

Is the Army intolerant for having sex specific uniforms?

Is the USPS?

I will patiently await your answers, plural, to my original question, and these following questions.

[Lordquinton]

98. You first

In your own time, of course.

[Angry Dragon]

8. Gender based dress code .............. BAD

[guillaumeb]

25. Argue with the institution.

The Post Office allows women to purchase skirts, but not the men.

[Angry Dragon]

28. the discussion was about narrow minded catholics

[guillaumeb]

29. The discussion was about many things.

Including the right of private institutions, and public ones, to set rules.

Are you an anarchist?

[Angry Dragon]

33. If thnking that a fine young girl should be allowed to wear a nice white pants suit

to her First Communion then I am the biggest anarchist the world will ever see

[guillaumeb]

34. You missed the actual point.

The point about institutions and rules.

[Angry Dragon]

39. No I didn't

Do we need rules?? ....... yes
Are all rules good?? ........ no
Should stupid rules be pointed out?? ....... yes

Here we have a young girl taking her First Communion, her first steps on the path to her adult relationship with her god.
Should she have the right to face her god in the manner in which she chooses?? ............. I say yes
She honored her father and mother by asking them if was okay. I believe that is one of the Ten Commandments.

Please explain what rule she was breaking in wanting to face her god, with her faith and belief, in wanting to face her god and showing her god what she was?? Was she wronging her god by wearing what she thought was good??

In my world any church that goes around raping young children for hundreds of years and then hides that truth deserves no respect.

[guillaumeb]

50. Organizations have a legal right to set rules. That is the issue. eom

[Angry Dragon]

57. I asked questions, you did not answer them,

I have rules and you are not following them

[guillaumeb]

58. And if I ever attend your school,

I will demand to know the reason for your rules.

[Angry Dragon]

59. Why would you get to question them??

They are my rules, your job is to follow them

[guillaumeb]

60. You are my guru, my inspiration.

As anarchists, we must always ignore and defy the rules simply because they are rules.

[Angry Dragon]

61. You are no anarchist

and you still refuse to answer many questions put to you
that to me shows that you are afraid of questions that question what you believe...........your beliefs sound weak to me

I believe said the Dragon

[guillaumeb]

63. The cognitive dissonance set off a destructive resonance..........

and I cannot form a response.

[Angry Dragon]

65. that does not surprize me in the least

perhaps next time you decide to engage me in discourse you might answer questions put to you

[Lordquinton]

42. Your framing is about institutions and rules

Stripping any role the Church has in this display of gross intolerance. But, we can easily see through your display and bring it back to the actual subject at hand, enforcing gender roles on young girls.

[guillaumeb]

51. Organizations have a legal right to set rules. That is the issue.

Many can easily see why you insist on pivoting away from this unavoidable fact.

[Lordquinton]

67. Many can see why you are attempting to remove religion from the conversation

You'd take us back a hundred years, they have certain rights, but discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and race is not protected. They are clinging desperately to their religion to justify their bigotry, and you're here defending them.

[guillaumeb]

70. Where do you, or any other, find evidence of this?

I feel you are reading too much into my comment that private and public institutions have the right to impose rules of conduct.

[Angry Dragon]

9. I would think that if a boy wanted to wear a kilt ........... it would also break the rules

[Lordquinton]

19. I thought about starting with that

But went with the easier argument. If suits are in the dress code, then everyone should be allowed to wear them.

[Angry Dragon]

21. so true but I assume it is broken down to sex on what to wear

[Lordquinton]

23. Which is where the issue arrises

As pointed out elsewhere, gender discrimination in clothing causes problems. Some seem to not see any trouble with it.

[guillaumeb]

31. Some seem intolerant of the fact that institutions have the right to enforce certain rules.

Would you walk into a mosque in boots to make a point?

If so, what would your point be?

[Lordquinton]

43. Institutions have the right to enforce certain rules?

So any rule they enforce should never be challenged? I suppose banning burqas would be covered under "institutions have the right to enforce certain rules."

[trotsky]

47. He just makes it too easy sometimes.

[guillaumeb]

54. See #53.

[Lordquinton]

66. You're not helping yourself here

Yu just said it was ok for an institution to ban burqas, is that what you intended?

[guillaumeb]

69. A careful reading of my other post regarding the shark suit and Austria

will, one hopes, resolve your apparent misunderstanding.

[trotsky]

46. "institutions have the right to enforce certain rules"

So you DO support governments passing so-called "burqa bans."

Fascinating.

[guillaumeb]

53. Do you know the difference between private institutions and the government?

You make it too easy sometimes.

[trotsky]

64. Government is an institution, and you didn't distinguish.

You really need to try harder. I mean, it's fun to laugh at your blatant hypocrisy and feeble attempts at holding your own in a debate, but c'mon.

[Angry Dragon]

74. I would assume that is part of their religion

the rule I would think is to show respect for their god's house
and it applies to everyone which makes it FAIR

[guillaumeb]

75. Agreed.

So if institutions can have rules, or customs................

[Angry Dragon]

78. rules are NOT customs

the catholic church promotes rules based on discrimination
so that makes them not fair
it seems you like to keep adding things to make your stance seem more credible

[guillaumeb]

84. It seems to me that some here cannot admit that institutions can make rules.

The real crux of the matter.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

86. Of course they can make rules.

And I can say that those rules are ridiculous and mock them for it. Can even say it makes them bigoted. The RCC can also take child rapists and those that protected the child rapists to Vatican City and protect them. Doesn't mean that isn't a really shitty thing to do and that people can't point that out.

[Angry Dragon]

91. institutions can make rules.

The crux of the matter is rules that are discriminatory

Did god say how one should be dressed when you come before him??
Or is it just the church exercising their power to control??

Perhaps if you really answered the questions then people would understand where you stand

[guillaumeb]

92. What I said was my entire point.

And it is where I stand on the single issue that:

institutions can make rules and people have the choice of:
following the rules,
challenging the rules,
or finding another institution.

My personal position on gender roles or so-called appropriateness of dress have nothing to do with the right of institutions to make and enforce rules. At one time in the RCC, the rule was that women would cover their heads and wear dresses. That rule has been ignored for a long time. Evolution, or simply response to change?

[Angry Dragon]

93. At one time priests could marry and have families

So I will put you down as one who is okay with discrimination as long as people follow the rules

[guillaumeb]

94. You can project, or frame, as you wish.

But your framing ignored what I actually wrote.

So why, in the interest of dialogue, do you feel this need to frame?

Is it a desire to paint others as always having bad motives?

A desire to attempt to put others on the defensive?

An interesting and revealing initial response on your part.

[Angry Dragon]

95. The OP was about a church denying a young girl her wish of wearing a nice pants suit

Through out your stance was that institutions could make rules
I do not remember you saying you found this rule bad, just if one thought the rule was bad they could leave

I always hope for good motives

I do expect and hope for answers from posters to explain their positions as I try answer their questions

and it was not my initial response

[Angry Dragon]

7. If it is private it has the right to have dress codes

a god has no exceptions

[guillaumeb]

26. We agree that private institutions can impose rules. eom

[TexasProgresive]

22. Private schools have a right to set things like dress codes.

Generally the rule is- follow the rules or seek another school. There is no right to attend a private school. All that I attended had a strictly enforced dress code, some required uniforms. I am in favor of uniforms because it ends some of the clothes competition between those who have and those who have not.

I didn't click on the link- I would like to know if the 1st Holy Communion was to take place at a regular parish Sunday Mass. If so the school dress code should be vacated. Were there children making their 1st Holy Communion that were members of the parish but attended public school?

[guillaumeb]

27. Agreed on your points.

If the church is associated with and directed by the school, or the opposite, the same rules might apply to students/churchgoers.

[MineralMan]

48. This is not a matter of legal issues at all.

Of course a private institution can have dress codes. Nobody's arguing that it can't. What is in question is whether or not that institution is being silly and stupid to prevent this child from dressing as she chooses for her first communion.

That is the subject of the thread, not any "rights" or legal ability to do stupid things. Many stupid, and even idiotic, things are done by many organizations and institutions. When that happens, we have a perfect "right" to point that out and mock them.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. No worries. This problem will be resolved soon enough.

Just another pebble in the avalanche of people abandoning an anachronism.

[guillaumeb]

85. I will not step aside to avoid that "avalanche" at this point. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

87. And you are free to do so.

Don't forget to wave.

[guillaumeb]

88. At the current rate of theist to non-theist "conversion", so to speak,

unless I approach Methusaleh in longevity, the avalanche will be centuries in coming, if ever. So the wave will not be necessary.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Look closer at people under 40.

Sleep tight.

[guillaumeb]

90. Projections, or "projection"?

And you as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Trend lines.

[guillaumeb]

97. Others well after us will see.

And I feel that the same discussion of trends toward a non-theistic society will still be discussed, with non-theists confidently predicting the imminent demise of theism.

[LisaM]

2. They didn't actually deny her Communion.

They said they would administer it privately (I'm not saying that's an acceptable offer for the family, I'm just pointing out that they didn't actually deny her Communion).

I usually reserve judgment on stories like this because there is often more to it than just what's being reported. For the record, I'm a Catholic and it wouldn't bother me if a girl wanted to wear pants for her First Communion.

[Angry Dragon]

10. First Communion is a celebration in the joining of a soul to the church

not something done in private
a community event

[LisaM]

12. I did not say I thought it was an acceptable response.

I just think the headline was somewhat misleading. It doesn't bother me in the least if a child wants to wear pants for her First Communion.

[Angry Dragon]

13. I understood the pants acceptance

I just questioned that you thought the private First Communion was acceptable ........ I understand your stance better

[LisaM]

14. I just don't like misleading headlines (clickbait!) so I try to flag them. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

15. I bet she would have been very pretty in her pantssuit

[LisaM]

17. There was a picture of it somewhere.

It looked a little more Diane Keaton than First Communion to me, but hey! I don't care because it's about the communion, not the outfit.

[Lordquinton]

3. The intolerant gender separation is strictly enforced

no exceptions.

[Angry Dragon]

11. organized religion is so tolerant

[Lordquinton]

20. The good deeds of the church are held above reproach

While it's intolerance and bigotry are minimized, always "look to the more in your eye" and "he who is without sin" well, I'm without sin, it's a flawed concept created by the church to keep people controlled while they amass wealth and move around pedophile priests.

Sick of RCC defenders.

[ClarendonDem]

35. What's

RCC?

[Lordquinton]

44. Roman Catholic Church

It's a common shorthand.

[Doreen]

16. In the town I live in there is a Catholic school and

when I was a girl the girls going to that school had to were skirts. They were allowed to wear pants under their skirts on their way to school and back if it was cold. If they went outside during school they could not put the pants on under. The parents had to fight for the girls to show up or leave with pants on under their skirt. Basically what happened in school in the winter was that the boys went out to play and the girls stayed in to sit and behave. There was very little give back then particularly for the girls. That was back in the early to mid 80's so I hope it has changed but I do not know.

[LisaM]

18. Well, my town had that in the public schools.

We couldn't wear pants (in Michigan) except on special "pants days" and we had to pay money for a ticket to do so (the money went for something, I can't remember what). We all had to do the snowpants thing, too - though we did get to go out to recess -and this was not a Catholic school.

Once they changed it - at our school - it changed fast. One year it seemed as if everyone was dressed like Lulu in "To Sir, With Love" and the next year, half the girls in school looked as if they could have tried out for the cast of "Hair". It was weird.

[Doreen]

45. I know they used to do that at public schools also but they had

stopped that where I am before I was there.

I like your description of before and after the change.

[LisaM]

52. It was a peculiar time....

I wasn't very old, but I remember it so distinctly.

Years later, my good friend was trying to explain to her son how it was when girls couldn't wear pants to school. His honest reaction was, "who changed that? Martin Luther King?"

[Doreen]

55. That is funny.

We need to have classes in school that teach out children what women had and still have to go through to get equal or close to equal rights. Our boys need to learn about that when they are young. I say between the time of girls have cooties and when they are most likely to start treating them badly ( somewhere between 4th and 7th grade. As I grew up and have seen from times of being around kids it is around those ages that it is at a neutral point. It might not work with all boys but it might make enough of a difference to work towards out goal. Just a thought.

[LisaM]

56. It was funny, and the poor kid (now a freshman at Vanderbilt) has to hear about it a lot.

However, it's also a little worrisome that women's rights and civil rights get so blended, even something that was only 50 years ago. The struggle continues for both groups, and it's best when we can work together, but it's still shocking to me that MLK's message can get drilled down to girls wearing pants in school, AND it's also important to remember that women have had to deal with being less than equal for a long time.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Church forgot that we have religious freedom in this country.

Meaning families are free to spend their tithe dollars where they want.

This from a religion in which the men wear dresses. The Catholic Church is based upon a Roman cult in which the men castrated themselves and dressed like women and only the Pater--the Roman Father--was an intact man.

[guillaumeb]

32. Have you ever seem Muslim men wearing a long robe in public?

It is quite common.

[ClarendonDem]

36. What does religious freedom

Have to do with this issue?

[Irish_Dem]

37. Good lord, females fought that battle when I was in high school and we won.

The girls in my high school finally got to wear pantsuits to school in 1970.
Had to be a matching pant suit, and the jacket had to cover your behind and hips.

Beat wearing a skirt. The principal made us kneel down in his office and if the skirt hem didn't touch the floor he sent us home. We loved short skirts. The shorter the better.

[Not Ruth]

38. Don't take communion, it is not a real thing?

[Iggo]

40. And stay out!

Seriously, kid. Now's your chance. Keep walking.

[RKP5637]

76. K&R!!! She's learning at an early age what religion is all about. Hope she walks and

never looks back.

[Iggo]

80. There's so much more to life without religion.

I hope she makes it out.

[lunasun]

62. It's in the bible and communion dresses are big business

Seriously just don't go , stop going to church it's only going to get worse as you go from girl to women on what they will tell you should not be done.
Way beyond the terms of a special occasion outfit btw

[50 Shades Of Blue]

77. This is news why? It's the Catholic "Fetuses' Lives before Women's Lives" Church.

Seriously, what did her parents, if not herself, because she's only a little girl, expect?

[Act_of_Reparation]

82. An understandable sentiment, but blaming the victim isn't a productive use of our time.

The Church is wrong. Obviously. It's not the girl's fault, and it isn't the parents' fault for believing -- against all evidence to the contrary -- that the community to which they belong would treat their child respectfully.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

83. There is no victim here - only delusional parents who seemed to think the Catholic Church

would change its rules for them.

I don't think the daughter is a victim either.

[left-of-center2012]

79. As a church or church school, are they not a private institution?

Why would they not be allowed to set a dress code?

If it were a public school, funded by tax dollars, it might be different,
although locally there are schools here that do have dress codes.