Well, that would certainly be inappropriate (vs. the knee-length ones in the picture). But thus far this remains an anonymous allegation.

I'm the OP, I was there, I saw it. No one that was there can deny it.

Can I wear a speedo if it is a modest one?
Shorts are per se immodest by definition.

You are seriously likening knee-length shorts to speedos?  What's wrong with you, man?

I'm the OP, I was there, I saw it. No one that was there can deny it.

Yeah, but those of us who were not there have nothing to go by except an anonymous post.  Heck, for all we know, your personal definition of exposing half the thigh actually amounted to being able to see part of the knee.  You may in fact be the same person as the nutcase who thinks that knee-length sorts are no different from speedos.

I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not. 

I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo,  THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.

I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.

I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo,  THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.

Exactly.  Case closed.

As an aside from this thread about a school ordering the children to wear shorts to mass, totally Novus Ordo:

Here’s a few points of interest from my life experiences:

When I was in my school years K-12, in public schools, we were not allowed to wear shorts to school. I assume the reason was that they didn’t want to deal with the parents subjective lengths issue. When I was in 5^th grade wearing dress shorts was considered by us to be unmanly, an embarrassing punishment.

If you dress your little children in shorts to mass, at what age do you stop it? It is like mothers dressing their little daughters in short dresses, then one day they tell their daughters they can’t wear that length to mass.  Maybe they even say they can’t wear that length just to mass but no problem any other time? And at what age? It all depends on the parent. Then when the daughters rebel, the parents will wonder why? No, it is best to train the children how to dress for life.

As a teenager working in the hot sun mowing lawns,  chainsawing trees, digging ditches and such , I quickly learned that shorts do not work. Your legs get full of dirt, grease, oil, Poison Ivy, Mosquito bites, thorn cuts, cuts, bruises and scrapes…. Needless to say, I only wore shorts at the beach.  I never saw much difference in heat between shorts and long pants.

So, why wear shorts at all? I see old men today walking around in shorts, high socks, and sneakers, they look like giant children, ridiculous.

I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, [....]

Certainly true.  With which you have led readers straight into your dilemma:

[....] you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.

Then "or not" it'll be!  You're displaying a serious lack of perspective about this CathInfo (sub)forum:

There is no logical reason for any CathInfo reader to feel any obligation whatsoever to "have to take [the] word" of any writer who posts as "Anonymous".  That should be self-evident as the trade-off you made in return for your anonymity.  As a matter of crucial contrast, even those of us who post under pseudonyms (i.e., nicknames) have accuмulated an accessible history of postings against which readers can evaluate our latest postings.