J.M.J. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) instructs us about today's Saint, Saint Ildephonsus, Bishop (+667):
"Ildephonsus, it is said, was one day praying before the relics of Saint Leocadia, when the martyr arose from her tomb and thanked the saint for the devotion he showed towards the Mother of God. It was related, further, that on another occasion the Blessed Virgin appeared to him in person and presented him with a priestly vestment, to reward him for his zeal in honoring her.
--- --- --- --- ---
"Modesty in Dress"
(available in booklet form from Queenship Publishing)
Inarguably, the kinds of dress for both men
and women have changed dramatically, especially in the past seven decades. Much
of today’s prevailing “high fashion” is meant to accentuate or expose
particular body parts rather than to conceal them, the latter being the
traditional reason for clothing.
Acknowledging
that some of these styles in contemporary fashion would have been deemed
“immodest" or outright “obscene” even a few years ago, one is bound to
ask: are these ways of dressing still immodest at the beginning of the Third
Christian Millennium? Or do changing values allow for the admitting of these
various types of clothing?
To give an
intelligible answer, one first must look at the norm that for centuries guided
Christians in the manner of dress: the notion of modesty.
Modesty in
the strict sense is the virtue that regulates one’s actions and exterior
customs concerning sexual matters. Specifically, modesty, which guards the
virtue of chastity and is its “external protection,” controls one’s comportment
so as to avoid unlawful sexual arousal in oneself or others. In this essay, we
shall confine ourselves to the theme of modesty in dress.
(Many think
modesty to be the humility of one who is not interested in self-promotion and
fame. This is a different understanding from the one that is presented here.)
Modesty is
counted as one of the Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit; these perfections that
the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory” are listed in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness,
faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity” (#1832).
To choose to
dress modestly implies that one, by his dress, is deliberately avoiding to cause
sexual excitement in himself or his neighbor. Hence, one who dresses modestly
shuns clothes that are known or reasonably expected to effect sexual arousal in
oneself or others.
Has the
Church encouraged the practice of this virtue? Yes. Only a few of the stirring
exhortations offered by some holy members of the Church are now presented. (We
remember that these counsels apply to men as well as to women.)
Saint Paul (+
ca. 67), in his First Letter to Saint Timothy, wrote: “Women should adorn
themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or
gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befit women who profess
religion” (2:9–10).
Saint John
Chrysostom (ca. 347-407) spoke out against immodesty in dress. “You carry your
snare and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited
others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your
dress and your deportment and much more effectively than you could by your
voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent?
Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish? Those
who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal poison? You
have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink, and
you are more criminal than those who poison the body; you murder not the body
but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any
imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and
pride.”
It has been
said that Jesus Himself appeared to Mother Mary Rafols, a Spanish Religious,
and delivered a message about modesty. From some writings dated 1815, we read:
“The offenses that I (Jesus) have received, and those that I shall yet receive,
are many; especially the offenses of woman, with her immodest dress, her
nakedness, her frivolity and her evil intentions. Because of all this, she
shall accomplish the demoralization of the family and of mankind. . . .”
The Servant
of God Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) addressed the urgent necessity of cultivating
modesty several times during his nearly twenty year long pontificate. Here are
a few relevant quotations.
“How many
young girls there are who see nothing wrong in following certain shameless
styles like so many sheep. They would certainly blush with shame if they could
know the impression they make, and the feelings they evoke, in those who see
them.
“The good of
our soul is more important than the good of our body; and we have to prefer the
spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts. . . If a certain kind
of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the
salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up. . . O
Christian mothers, if you know what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill
guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them
accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose their sense of
modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you
are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing to these children,
whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.
“There is a limit which no type of fashion, however licit, should
exceed; beyond which fashion becomes the cause of ruin to the souls of those
who adopt it and for the souls of all who come into contact with it. The right
of souls is above those of fashions. Christian girls, think also of this: the
more elegant you will be, and the more pleasing, if you dress with simplicity
and discreet modesty.”
On November 8, 1957, Pope Pius XII, in an enlightening address to the
Congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion, presented the still-valid
principles of the Christian understanding of modesty in dress. Although given
over forty-five years ago, this discourse offers some crucial and unchangeable
aspects concerning modesty for all to ponder.
Clothing fulfills three necessary requirements, those of hygiene,
decency and adornment. These are “so deeply rooted in nature that they cannot
he disregarded or contradicted without provoking hostility and prejudice.”
These demands are discovered in virtually all eras and almost among every
people.
Hygiene pertains mostly to “the climate, its variations, and other
external factors” (e.g., discomfort, illness). This first factor is derived
from man’s physical nature.
Decency involves the “proper consideration for the sensitivity of
others to objects that are unsightly, or, above all, as a defense of moral
honesty and a shield against disordered sensuality.” It comes from man’s
spiritual nature.
Adornment is legitimate and “responds to the innate need, more greatly
felt by woman, to enhance the beauty and dignity of the person with the same
means that are suitable to satisfy the other two purposes.” Adornment, which is
preferable to the term beautification because the former is not limited to
“mere physical beauty,” hails from man’s psychological and artistic nature.
The aim of fashion is to enhance one’s physical appearance. It “has
achieved an indisputable importance in public life, whether as an aesthetic
expression of customs, or as an interpretation of public demand and a focal
point of substantial economic interests.” One may unmistakably conclude that
built into the fashion industry is the constraint to change continually. One
style is quickly ellipsed by another. “The rapidity of change is further
stimulated by a kind of silent competition, not really new, between the ‘elite’
who wish to assert their own personality with original forms of clothing, and
the public who immediately convert them to their own use with more or less good
imitations.”
The Pontiff then isolated the current (even now in 2004) difficulty
with fashion. “The problem of fashion consists in the harmonious reconciliation
of a person’s exterior ornamentation with the interior of a quiet and modest
spirit. “Like other material objects, fashion can become an undue
attachment—even perhaps an addiction—for some persons. The Church “does not
censure or condemn styles when they are meant for the proper decorum and
ornamentation of the body, but she never fails to warn the faithful against
being easily led astray by them.”
Because the human body is a creation of the Creator Himself, the Church
has the obligation to speak out when this temple of the Holy Spirit is being
abused or manipulated. The human body is truly “God’s masterpiece in the
visible world”; Jesus the Lord elevated the human body “to the rank of a temple
and an instrument of the Holy Spirit, and as such must be respected.” Indeed,
the beauty of the human body “must therefore not be exalted as an end in
itself, much less in such guise as will defile the dignity it has been endowed
with.”
Sadly, we must admit that there do exist certain fashions and styles in
our age that “create confusion in well-ordered minds and can even be an
incentive to evil.” While it is rather problematic to define the universal
norms that separate the seemly styles from the shameful because of several
factors like the times, places, persons and education of people, nevertheless
it is possible to declare when the “limits of normal decency” have been
violated. It is true that this sense of decency sounds an alarm when either
immodesty, seduction, lust, outrageous luxury or “idolatry of matter” exists.
What the Holy Father said in 1957 is as applicable—and essential—now:
“. . . no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be,
there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition
of conscience warning against approaching danger; style must never be a
proximate occasion of sin.”
Those who design, promote and sell fashions have considerable
responsibility. If, God forbid, any of these endeavor to inculcate “unchaste
ideas and sensations,” then “there is present a technique of disguised malice.”
For decency in dress to be restored, the intention of those who design the
fashions and those who wear them must be upright. “In both there must be an
awakening of the conscience as to their responsibility for the tragic
consequences that could result from clothing which is overly bold, especially
if it is worn in public.”
We may assert that “the immorality of styles depends in great part on
excesses either of immodesty or luxury.” In fashion, immodesty involves the cut
of the garment. How is immodesty to be judged? “The garment must not be
evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society,
but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and
seriousness of its public attire.”
Wanton luxury is also excessive. “Prescinding from the dissipation of
wealth which excessive luxury demands of its worshippers, who will more often
than not end by being devoured by it, it always insults the integrity of those
who live by their own toil, and it displays a cynicism toward poverty, either
by flaunting too easy gains or by breeding suspicion about the way of life of
those who surround themselves with it.” If the use of riches—even those
obtained morally—is not moderated, then “either frightful barriers will be
raised between classes, or the entire society will be set adrift, exhausted by
the race toward a utopia of material happiness.”
Here is the trio of principles that is still pertinent to the question
of what is modest clothing.
1. The Influence of Styles. There is a “language of clothing” that
communicates certain messages. The dress of a policeman and a nurse convey that
these persons are “helpers” and possess specific knowledge and authority.
However, attire may also communicate negative and even destructive messages.
For example, one who with knowledge and deliberation routinely dresses in a
provocative or seductive manner so as to entice another to impurity commits a
mortal sin, not only harming himself or herself but also gravely damaging the
immortal soul of the other.
Jesus demanded of His disciples purity in glances, thoughts, desires
and actions. Furthermore, He warned against giving scandal to others. The Old
Testament Prophet Isaiah (3:16-24) prophesied that the holy city of Sion would
be infamous because of the impurity of its daughters.
Pope Pius XII declared: “It might be said that society speaks through
the clothing it wears. Through its clothing it reveals its secret aspirations
and uses it, at least in part, to build or destroy the future.” Styles that
respect the human body for what it is—the temple of the Holy Spirit—are
commendable: those that seek to expose the body as a mere object to be used,
abused or enjoyed for illicit sexual pleasure are to be condemned.
2. The Importance of Control. Fashion designers, critics and consumers are to
recall frequently “that style should be directed and controlled instead of
being abandoned to caprice and reduced to abject service.” Those who “make
style,” such as designers and critics, cannot allow the craze that is in vogue
to dictate to them when that particular trend goes against right reason and
established morality. Consumers for their part must remember that their
“dignity demands of them that they should liberate themselves with free and
enlightened conscience from the imposition of predetermined tastes, especially
tastes debatable on moral grounds.”
3. Moderation is Necessary. The respect of a standard
measure is termed moderation. It is moderation that provides “a pattern by
which to regulate, at all costs, greed for luxury, ambition, and
capriciousness.” Pope Pius urged: “Stylists, and especially designers, must let
themselves be guided by moderation in designing the cut or line of a garment
and in the selection of its ornaments, convinced that sobriety is the finest
quality of art.”
Should those who are responsible for today’s fashions return to the
“outdated forms” of earlier times? No. Rather, there is a perennial value for
clothing that transcends time and culture. When Christian decency is the mark
of one’s attire, then that same dress becomes “the worthy ornament of the
person with whose beauty it blends as in a single triumph of admirable
dignity.”
Practically speaking, what exactly are examples of immodest clothing?
This author, while acknowledging with the mind of the Church that not all
change is bad and that one needn’t necessarily wear clothes popular decades ago
in order to be modest, believes that there are standards which are so basic in
every era that to transgress them—regardless of one’s good intention or
ignorance—is to offend against human decency. Precisely what are these
criteria?
Clothing composed of a transparent (i. e., “see-through”) material
isn’t modest because of its obvious intent to expose to view various body parts
that have been deemed—by most cultures and in most time periods—needy of cover.
Shorts that are very short (i. e., exposing much of the thigh), whether
for a man or woman, can’t be regarded as decent. (Athletic pursuits indicate
that shorts and a “jersey” type of shirt for both genders may be tolerated
provided the shorts and shirts are moderate and that no temptation is
encouraged.) Boys and men shirtless without sufficient reason (an allowance is
made for swimming and vigorous work and exercise, as long as temptation is
avoided) is problematic, especially given that such a sight may well be an
unnecessary occasion of sin for another.
Perhaps the area of modesty in dress that attracts the most attention
is that of attire for women and girls. Some may argue that this is unfair. Why
should the responsibility concerning modesty in dress pertain to women and
girls and not to men and boys?
As we have seen, men and boys are also held to modesty in attire. And
it must be said forthrightly that not only do they have a responsibility to
dress modestly themselves but also they are to encourage to whatever extent
they can the women and girls of their acquaintance to dress modestly, even
avoiding those who do not when they themselves are tempted to sin because of
that immodest clothing. But it must be admitted; the sight of unclothed (even
partially) bodies of women and girls has generally inspired lust and desire
more than the bodies of men and boys. Such a conclusion is both sound and unbiased.
Clothing no matter how “chic” that reveals the front and back of women
and girls, thereby significantly exposing their flesh, and drawing attention in
some way to their breasts, is reprehensible. Skirts that rise much above the
knee and highlight the shape of the leg for that very purpose are
inappropriate.
A lady in her middle forties related that every time she
purchases a skirt (regardless of the store), the clerk mentions that since she
is tall and thin she really must buy something sufficiently short that will
draw attention to her legs. The lady replies that she is not interested in such
a possibility.
A wife and mother of two children recounted her genuine unease when
attending Mass to find herself, her husband and her teenage son and daughter in
the pew behind an adolescent girl who, with bare shoulders and a short dress,
causes her husband and young son undue distraction during the Holy Sacrifice.
One may contend here that this mother’s young daughter is also adversely
affected by the bad example of another girl approximately the same age.
God has made the human body beautiful. It is not an object to be used
for impurity but a gift to be esteemed and legitimately shared in the building
up of the Kingdom of God here on earth. Immodest attire neither contributes to
the promotion of the human person nor to the establishing of the Kingdom. More
than ever, the chastity and modesty of Jesus the Messiah, the Blessed and
Ever-Virgin Mary, particularly under the title of Our Lady of the Rosary at
Fatima, Saint Joseph, and the powerful intercessions of Saint Thérèse of the
Child Jesus ansd the Holy Face (1873-1897), Saint Maria Goretti (1890-1902),
Saint Mary Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938), Saint Maximillian Mary Kolbe
(1894-1941), Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968), Blessed Francisco Marto
(1908-1919), Blessed Jacinta Marto (1910-1920), Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati
(1901-1925), Blessed Teresa Bracco (1924-1944), Blessed Pierina Morosini
(1931-1957) and Blessed Mary Teresa of Calcutta (1910-1997) are urgently
required if we are to obtain the holiness that the Risen Lord Jesus expects of
us—His cherished brothers and sisters.
