The fact that not an insignificant number of young Catholics as well as old are perfectly fine with the content of the following video is yet another sign of the fundamental division and crisis within the Church. While I would never say this sort of immodest and in some instances lewd dancing is of the level of sexual abuse, aren't both a result of the fact of many priests not taking seriously their priestly role and identity? The devil said to St. John Vianney, "If there were three of you, my kingdom would come to an end." Ironically and sadly, the same people who call the naysayers at the below video "pharisees" or "puritans" would undoubtedly have said the exact same things to St. John Vianney and St. Padre Pio.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Friday, August 3, 2018
Repost: Modesty in Dress (June 1958)
[183] Of the priests in this country who have expressed themselves on the subject of modesty in feminine dress, not all are convinced that this cause is best advanced by proposing norms of modest fashions in more or less mathematical terms of body coverage. This honest doubt as to the efficacy or advisability of a particular means to an end does not in any sense of the word indicate disinterest in the end itself. And it would be an even more serious misinterpretation to infer that the doubt bespeaks indifference to the very virtue of modesty. Certainly we are all unhappily aware of the flagrant disregard of decency so often exhibited in feminine fashions. And there is no priest worthy of the name who is not eminently in favor of devising ways and means not only to correct this external abuse but to inculcate the interior virtue of modesty to the highest possible degree. If we differ in our carefully considered estimates of one technique or another, it should be only [184] because the ultimate end to be achieved is too important to all of us to be jeopardized by using any means but the most effective.
It is the belief of "Pater Sine Nomine"[38] that, due to an inherent characteristic of female human nature, girls are seriously handicapped in their attempts to distinguish between the modest and the immodest in feminine fashions. The handicap referred to is the commonly recognized fact that women as a rule are relatively immune (some even to the point of frigidity) to the sexual stimuli which ordinarily evoke immediate and highly pronounced physical and emotional response in men. Lacking in themselves this sensitivity to sexual stimulation, which the author identifies with "a warning to cover up," women are chronically unable to appreciate the sexual responsiveness of men and therefore cannot determine what is modest or immodest in the matter of their own dress. The result, our nameless Father maintains, is that many actually make erroneous judgments and in all innocence wear clothing which is immodest. On this premise, and on the precedent of a 1928 letter from the Congregation of Religious to teaching sisters in Rome, the author concludes that only by providing a set of measured norms can we supply for a common inability among girls to judge modesty in concrete styles of feminine attire. The article more than implies that the failure of some priests to agree on this last point is obstructing the cause of modesty and is therefore a dereliction of their pastoral duty.
It simply cannot be that the author means to infer that a natural sense of modesty depends essentially on the actual experiencing within oneself of physical sex reaction. The exquisite instinct to modesty exhibited by so many entirely inexperienced in this regard is too obvious to need proof. It is true that girls may be for a long time unaware of male sensitivity to sexual stimulation and be unable to fathom it, once it is realized, in the light of what they know about themselves. But does this deprive them of the basic ability to sense which a considerable degree of accuracy what is modest and immodest in fashions? My own experience tells me no. The average American Catholic girl, at an age level to which this problem pertains, is surely capable of recognizing as modest or immodest those fashions which would be unhesitatingly and with virtual unanimity so designated by a representative group of decent adults. At the point where style begins to verge towards the risqué [sic], she may become uncertain or even in her innocence fail to sense the incipient trend. In this area, all would agree, guidance of some sort is needed—not in order to designate a line where virtue ends [185] and sin begins, but in order to educate and win her to an ideal of modesty which will be conspicuous.
It would be universally conceded that any rational program of education and inspiration to modesty must be basically designed to communicate correct notions of the virtue itself, an appreciation of the principles and facts pertaining to occasions of sin, and effective motivation along positive lines. The only legitimate point of debate is whether mathematical standards of dress are a necessary or useful adjunct to this indispensable phase of the project. If some theologians have reacted with less enthusiasm to particular programs already inaugurated and widely publicized, it is only because they perceive certain risks inherent in some of the tactics employed.
There is, first of all, the proven danger of presenting ideals in a doctrinally false context. The following preamble to the specific directives proposed by organization simply would not sustain theological scrutiny:
The example serves at very least to illustrate one reason why many priests are reluctant to subscribe unreservedly to these crusades in their every detail. It is far from unreasonable to fear that false consciences could result from such misrepresentations of theological fact, unwitting though they may be. And it is no lack of zeal which prompts a demurrer against that danger.
Furthermore, as Pater Sine Nomine concedes, "we [sic] could not set up a plaster statue, draw two sets of lines on it, and say: 'At this line begins venial sin; at that line begins mortal sin.'" Presumably this is not what is intended when specific measurements are proposed as practical norms of an ideal in modesty. But some of the formulae in which these criteria have been expressed are objectively open to that interpretation, as is certainly true of the preamble quoted above. And such are the psychological quirks of human nature—or perhaps such is the nature of the matter itself—that this is the impression too often taken, especially from the printed word, despite all precautions against it. The proponent of the mathematical standard can easily find himself in the awkward position of appearing to measure modesty in absurd mathematical absolutes, and of being forced to explain the why of a thesis he actually does not defend, namely, that precisely so many inches from a given point lies the last frontier of virtue.
There are those who deny that mathematical criteria actually do result in misunderstandings, ridicule, confused consciences, and the like, on the part of girls to whom they are proposed. But there are also others, no less zealous and experienced in the same apostolate, who in total sincerity testify to the contrary. Granted this difference of opinion on the point, the following questions [187] would make for most interesting discussion, at the dispassionate level, at an imaginary meeting of all priests truly experienced in this phase of the ministry: (1) Of those girls committed to a policy of modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been won to the cause precisely through the effectiveness of mathematical criteria? (2) Of those who disregard or are indifferent to modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been alienated because of misunderstandings occasioned by mathematical criteria? (3) All things considered, are mathematical criteria a necessary or beneficial adjunct to an effective crusade for modest fashions?
The preceding comments do not imply that we should content ourselves as counselors with vague and platitudinous exhortations to modest fashions. Besides inculcating the genuine meaning and beauties of the virtue, we should give a reasoned explanation of the scandal involved not only in immodest dress but, even more important, in immodest behavior. (It would be a mistake to give the impression that modesty consists exclusively or even primarily in what one wears, since a girls' posture, gestures, and general comportment are far more indicative of modesty, or the lack of it, than is the total yardage of her costume.) Finally, we should specify to some degree what can constitute suggestive or provocative attire in girls and women: form-fitting slacks and jeans, skimpy shorts, plunging necklines, snug sweaters, and the like. Any attempt to define with further exactitude the criteria of modest dress is, in the considered opinion of many, unnecessary and perhaps inimical to the effectiveness of such a crusade. And when we shall have devised the perfect syllabus for decency in feminine apparel, it would still be colossal conceit on our part to forget the multitudes of the impeccably modest who are what they are due to the grace of God, their own wholesomeness, and the example and training of conscientious parents no less wise than ourselves in the ways of modesty.
Footnotes:
38. "Measures and Modesty," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 58 (Nov., 1957) 164–72. An editorial note prefixed to this article apologizes for the anonymity but explains that the priest-author advanced very good reasons for not identifying himself.
39. "The Marylike Standards for Modesty in Dress" as reproduced in Divine Love 1 (July-Sept., 1957) 17.
40. "Instructio ad ordinarios diocesanos: De inhonesto feminarum vestiendi more," AAS 22 (1930) 26–28; cf. also T. L. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest 1, 212–14.
41. Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30 (Sept., 1930) 1328.
42. The complete Italian text of the letter may be found in Commentarium pro religiosis 9 (1928) 414–15. An editorial note cites Monitore ecclesiastico, 1928, pp. 289–99, as CPR's source.
---
Source: John J. Lynch, SJ, "Notes on Moral Theology: Modesty in Dress," Theological Studies 19, no. 2 (June 1958): 183–187.
It is the belief of "Pater Sine Nomine"[38] that, due to an inherent characteristic of female human nature, girls are seriously handicapped in their attempts to distinguish between the modest and the immodest in feminine fashions. The handicap referred to is the commonly recognized fact that women as a rule are relatively immune (some even to the point of frigidity) to the sexual stimuli which ordinarily evoke immediate and highly pronounced physical and emotional response in men. Lacking in themselves this sensitivity to sexual stimulation, which the author identifies with "a warning to cover up," women are chronically unable to appreciate the sexual responsiveness of men and therefore cannot determine what is modest or immodest in the matter of their own dress. The result, our nameless Father maintains, is that many actually make erroneous judgments and in all innocence wear clothing which is immodest. On this premise, and on the precedent of a 1928 letter from the Congregation of Religious to teaching sisters in Rome, the author concludes that only by providing a set of measured norms can we supply for a common inability among girls to judge modesty in concrete styles of feminine attire. The article more than implies that the failure of some priests to agree on this last point is obstructing the cause of modesty and is therefore a dereliction of their pastoral duty.
It simply cannot be that the author means to infer that a natural sense of modesty depends essentially on the actual experiencing within oneself of physical sex reaction. The exquisite instinct to modesty exhibited by so many entirely inexperienced in this regard is too obvious to need proof. It is true that girls may be for a long time unaware of male sensitivity to sexual stimulation and be unable to fathom it, once it is realized, in the light of what they know about themselves. But does this deprive them of the basic ability to sense which a considerable degree of accuracy what is modest and immodest in fashions? My own experience tells me no. The average American Catholic girl, at an age level to which this problem pertains, is surely capable of recognizing as modest or immodest those fashions which would be unhesitatingly and with virtual unanimity so designated by a representative group of decent adults. At the point where style begins to verge towards the risqué [sic], she may become uncertain or even in her innocence fail to sense the incipient trend. In this area, all would agree, guidance of some sort is needed—not in order to designate a line where virtue ends [185] and sin begins, but in order to educate and win her to an ideal of modesty which will be conspicuous.
It would be universally conceded that any rational program of education and inspiration to modesty must be basically designed to communicate correct notions of the virtue itself, an appreciation of the principles and facts pertaining to occasions of sin, and effective motivation along positive lines. The only legitimate point of debate is whether mathematical standards of dress are a necessary or useful adjunct to this indispensable phase of the project. If some theologians have reacted with less enthusiasm to particular programs already inaugurated and widely publicized, it is only because they perceive certain risks inherent in some of the tactics employed.
There is, first of all, the proven danger of presenting ideals in a doctrinally false context. The following preamble to the specific directives proposed by organization simply would not sustain theological scrutiny:
At Fatima, Portugal in 1917, the Blessed Virgin Mary condemned in advance the pagan fashions of our day, warning us: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." [italics original] At a later date, Our Blessed Mother made known what standards of modesty in dress she requires, through the Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, her Divine Son's Vicar, who set this guide:
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper..." By Donato, Cardinal Sbaretti, Pref. of Congregation of the Council; Feast of the Holy Family, Jan. 12, 1930.
Until this mandate of the Holy See, as to what constitutes modesty in dress, is revised, modified or rescinded by the Holy See itself, these minimum standards are binding on everyone, regardless of any opinions to the contrary held by so many people these days—even within the Church.
To further confirm this Pope Pius XII stated very recently: "Our Divine Saviour [sic] entrusted the deposit of faith not to theologians, but to the magisterium of the Church for its authentic interpretation. Hence, the 'sensus ecclesiae' (the mind of the Church) is decisive for the knowledge of truth; not the 'opinio theologorum' (the personal views of individual theologians). Otherwise, theologians would be the magisterii [sic], which is evidently erroneous." (Sept., 1956).[39]Even if the statement attributed to the Congregation of the Council were authentic, the theology of this preamble would still be open to serious criticism. But the truth of the matter is that those words are not to be found [186] in the Instruction cited.[40] According to S. Woywod, O.F.M.,[41] whose acknowledged source was a leaflet published by the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein, they are contained in an earlier document to which the Instruction makes passing reference, viz., a letter from the Congregation of Religious (Aug. 23, 1928) to teaching sisters in Rome. A careful reading of that letter reveals nothing of the kind[42]—literally not a word which could possibly be construed as an attempt to define in concrete terms what is modest or immodest in feminine dress. What the origin of the interpolation may have been, one can only conjecture. But until more reliable evidence to the contrary is adduced, the passage in question would appear to qualify as a theological facsimile of Topsy.
The example serves at very least to illustrate one reason why many priests are reluctant to subscribe unreservedly to these crusades in their every detail. It is far from unreasonable to fear that false consciences could result from such misrepresentations of theological fact, unwitting though they may be. And it is no lack of zeal which prompts a demurrer against that danger.
Furthermore, as Pater Sine Nomine concedes, "we [sic] could not set up a plaster statue, draw two sets of lines on it, and say: 'At this line begins venial sin; at that line begins mortal sin.'" Presumably this is not what is intended when specific measurements are proposed as practical norms of an ideal in modesty. But some of the formulae in which these criteria have been expressed are objectively open to that interpretation, as is certainly true of the preamble quoted above. And such are the psychological quirks of human nature—or perhaps such is the nature of the matter itself—that this is the impression too often taken, especially from the printed word, despite all precautions against it. The proponent of the mathematical standard can easily find himself in the awkward position of appearing to measure modesty in absurd mathematical absolutes, and of being forced to explain the why of a thesis he actually does not defend, namely, that precisely so many inches from a given point lies the last frontier of virtue.
There are those who deny that mathematical criteria actually do result in misunderstandings, ridicule, confused consciences, and the like, on the part of girls to whom they are proposed. But there are also others, no less zealous and experienced in the same apostolate, who in total sincerity testify to the contrary. Granted this difference of opinion on the point, the following questions [187] would make for most interesting discussion, at the dispassionate level, at an imaginary meeting of all priests truly experienced in this phase of the ministry: (1) Of those girls committed to a policy of modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been won to the cause precisely through the effectiveness of mathematical criteria? (2) Of those who disregard or are indifferent to modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been alienated because of misunderstandings occasioned by mathematical criteria? (3) All things considered, are mathematical criteria a necessary or beneficial adjunct to an effective crusade for modest fashions?
The preceding comments do not imply that we should content ourselves as counselors with vague and platitudinous exhortations to modest fashions. Besides inculcating the genuine meaning and beauties of the virtue, we should give a reasoned explanation of the scandal involved not only in immodest dress but, even more important, in immodest behavior. (It would be a mistake to give the impression that modesty consists exclusively or even primarily in what one wears, since a girls' posture, gestures, and general comportment are far more indicative of modesty, or the lack of it, than is the total yardage of her costume.) Finally, we should specify to some degree what can constitute suggestive or provocative attire in girls and women: form-fitting slacks and jeans, skimpy shorts, plunging necklines, snug sweaters, and the like. Any attempt to define with further exactitude the criteria of modest dress is, in the considered opinion of many, unnecessary and perhaps inimical to the effectiveness of such a crusade. And when we shall have devised the perfect syllabus for decency in feminine apparel, it would still be colossal conceit on our part to forget the multitudes of the impeccably modest who are what they are due to the grace of God, their own wholesomeness, and the example and training of conscientious parents no less wise than ourselves in the ways of modesty.
Footnotes:
38. "Measures and Modesty," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 58 (Nov., 1957) 164–72. An editorial note prefixed to this article apologizes for the anonymity but explains that the priest-author advanced very good reasons for not identifying himself.
39. "The Marylike Standards for Modesty in Dress" as reproduced in Divine Love 1 (July-Sept., 1957) 17.
40. "Instructio ad ordinarios diocesanos: De inhonesto feminarum vestiendi more," AAS 22 (1930) 26–28; cf. also T. L. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest 1, 212–14.
41. Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30 (Sept., 1930) 1328.
42. The complete Italian text of the letter may be found in Commentarium pro religiosis 9 (1928) 414–15. An editorial note cites Monitore ecclesiastico, 1928, pp. 289–99, as CPR's source.
---
Source: John J. Lynch, SJ, "Notes on Moral Theology: Modesty in Dress," Theological Studies 19, no. 2 (June 1958): 183–187.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
A Brief Talk on Music, Morals, and Culture
Among all the fine arts, music is perhaps the most evocative, the most beloved, and yet the most mysterious. The philosophical traditions of the West and East alike have commented on the power of music and its relation to culture, education, and morals. There tends to be two extremes: first, that music provides merely passing, recreational pleasure and has no educational, formative, or moral impact. On the opposite side, that music has a direct causal relation with the development of cultural and individual values and morals. St. Thomas formulated the golden mean between these two positions in his characteristically pithy manner: music does not cause virtue or vice but disposes one for either by being an imitation of the human passions.[1] Nevertheless, the twentieth-century Thomist Josef Pieper could assert without hesitation the existence of an “intimate relationship between the music made and listened to in a society on the one hand, and the inner existential condition of such a society on the other.”[2] I would like to flesh out Pieper’s proposition regarding this close relationship, especially by examining how music imitates the passions, the Thomistic understanding of the relationship between art and morality, and finally, the way music reflects and shapes the culture in which it arises.
St. Thomas bases his understanding of music principally on Aristotle.[3] Aristotle in his Poetics states that music imitates the passions (1340a 19), and in the Politics he notes that music can lead to an emotional catharsis in a way similar to the literary arts (790–791). In the same work, he lists three purposes of music: 1) moral betterment or education; 2) cultivated leisure or amusement; and 3) practical wisdom that is liberal and noble (1338a, 10–33; 1340a, 12–14). Jacques Maritain, another Thomist, noted that the exact meaning of art imitating nature, and in the case of music, the passions, is extremely difficult to specify;[4] nevertheless, it seems to mean communicating the essence of something in a distilled manner. The Thomist John Oesterle adds, “Art, in imitating nature, also perfects nature; it adds an intelligibility and beauty not found in nature as such.”[5] Pieper draws our attention to how man is dynamic, growing, how he is always standing in relation to the Good, pursuing it in truth and in error. Life is a journey, and the Good is our goal, and insofar as we come closer to the Good or are hindered in our pursuit of it, our passions are stirred in different ways. Music can suggest something of this great odyssey of life.[6] Quoting Schopenhauer, who was certainly not a Thomist but in this case accurately summarized the Western tradition, Pieper says, music “tells of weal and woe,” of our triumphs and tragedies.[7] The rise and fall of melody, the alternation of consonance and dissonance in harmony, the accelerating and calming of the rhythm, all of these suggest the movement of passion: from its inception, to its fevered heights, and finally, to its cathartic release.[8]
But what does St. Thomas say about the relationship between art and morality? First, St. Thomas argues a sharp distinction between the relevant virtues at play in these two areas: art is governed by the virtue of art, which is right reason employed in the making of things, and morality is governed by prudence, right reason in the doing of things (Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae.57.3).[9] St. Thomas says, “The good of [the works of art, whether useful or the fine arts] depends, not upon the disposition of the maker’s appetite, but on the worth of the very work done.” A knife is a good knife if it cuts well; a painting is a good painting if it is well executed. These have nothing to do with the morality of the artist or the subject matter of the art per se. Nevertheless, Aquinas continues, “In order that a man may make good use of the art he has, he needs a good will, which is perfected by moral virtue” (ibid., ad 2). He says prudence is necessary for a good life but not for good art: “Art is necessary, not that the artist may lead a good life, but so that he may produce a good and lasting work of art. Prudence is necessary, not merely that a man may become good, but so that he may lead a good life” (1a2ae.57.5 ad 1). And as for those artistic works that can be put to good or evil use, St. Thomas argues: if something is in the majority of cases put to evil use, it should be removed by the State, for art is subordinated to the common good (2a2ae.169.2 ad 4).
If art and morality stand in two completely different spheres, why do they seem so closely linked in our daily experience? St. Thomas gives us the key: “No man can live without pleasure. Therefore a man deprived of the pleasures of the spirit goes over to the pleasures of the flesh” (2a2ae. 35.4 ad 2). Man needs recreation and pleasure to renew his strength after working. Where shall he get this pleasure? Father Benedict Ashley, also a noted Thomist, responds,
“Let me make the songs of the nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”[14] Who can deny the moral effects of music on culture? Every year, high school faculty worry about the growing excesses of lewd dancing during prom nights; entire festivals and cultural events are dedicated to music and vice, such as Lollapalooza, Coachella, etc.; and most tellingly, there is no nightclub to be found where the dance music consists of the minuets and gigues of Bach, Handel, Haydn, or Mozart. Yet the same heavily rhythmic (and formulaic) music is common to all of the above. Pieper observes piercingly,
And yet Pieper adds, “There still exists … the music of Johann Sebastian Bach!”[16] The task falls upon us: to fill our lives with nobility; to make friends with Bach, Palestrina, and Mozart, for these are our true friends, who through their music give us a glimpse of the contemplation of heaven. They fill us with noble sentiments and evoke passions that are primed for virtue and heroic acts. Our life should be one steady melody of love to God, contemplating Him now hidden and then face to face. Benedict Ashley said that even when the virtuous man grows weary of contemplation because of his frail human nature,
Footnotes:
1. Basil Nortz, “The Moral Power of Music,” The Homiletic & Pastoral Review (April 2002): 17.
2. Josef Pieper, Only the Lover Sings, trans. Lothar Krauth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 48.
3. Aristotle’s views are summarized in Basil Cole, Music & Morals (New York: Alba House, 1993), 34–41.
4. Jacques Maritain, Art and Scholasticism, trans. J.F. Scanlan (North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 2002), 150–151, fn. 121.
5. John Oesterle, “Towards an Evaluation of Music,” The Angelus Online, 2.
6. Pieper, Only the Lover, 42–44.
7. Ibid., 42.
8. Cf. Marcus Berquist, “Good Music and Bad” (lecture, Thomas Aquinas College, October, 1991), 15–16.
9. Cf. also Maritain, Art and Scholasticism, 5–7.
10. Benedict Ashley, The Arts of Learning and Communication (Dubuque: The Priory Press, 1958), 275–276.
11. Ibid.
12. The full analysis is found in Chad Ripperger, Introduction to the Science of Mental Health, volume 3 (Lincoln, NE, 2005), 5–8.
13. Quoted by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, volume 1, trans. M. Timothea Doyle (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989), 317, fn. 4.
14. Ashley, The Arts, 274.
15. Pieper, Only the Lover, 49.
16. Ibid., 50.
17. Ashley, The Arts, 281.
St. Thomas bases his understanding of music principally on Aristotle.[3] Aristotle in his Poetics states that music imitates the passions (1340a 19), and in the Politics he notes that music can lead to an emotional catharsis in a way similar to the literary arts (790–791). In the same work, he lists three purposes of music: 1) moral betterment or education; 2) cultivated leisure or amusement; and 3) practical wisdom that is liberal and noble (1338a, 10–33; 1340a, 12–14). Jacques Maritain, another Thomist, noted that the exact meaning of art imitating nature, and in the case of music, the passions, is extremely difficult to specify;[4] nevertheless, it seems to mean communicating the essence of something in a distilled manner. The Thomist John Oesterle adds, “Art, in imitating nature, also perfects nature; it adds an intelligibility and beauty not found in nature as such.”[5] Pieper draws our attention to how man is dynamic, growing, how he is always standing in relation to the Good, pursuing it in truth and in error. Life is a journey, and the Good is our goal, and insofar as we come closer to the Good or are hindered in our pursuit of it, our passions are stirred in different ways. Music can suggest something of this great odyssey of life.[6] Quoting Schopenhauer, who was certainly not a Thomist but in this case accurately summarized the Western tradition, Pieper says, music “tells of weal and woe,” of our triumphs and tragedies.[7] The rise and fall of melody, the alternation of consonance and dissonance in harmony, the accelerating and calming of the rhythm, all of these suggest the movement of passion: from its inception, to its fevered heights, and finally, to its cathartic release.[8]
But what does St. Thomas say about the relationship between art and morality? First, St. Thomas argues a sharp distinction between the relevant virtues at play in these two areas: art is governed by the virtue of art, which is right reason employed in the making of things, and morality is governed by prudence, right reason in the doing of things (Summa Theologiae, 1a2ae.57.3).[9] St. Thomas says, “The good of [the works of art, whether useful or the fine arts] depends, not upon the disposition of the maker’s appetite, but on the worth of the very work done.” A knife is a good knife if it cuts well; a painting is a good painting if it is well executed. These have nothing to do with the morality of the artist or the subject matter of the art per se. Nevertheless, Aquinas continues, “In order that a man may make good use of the art he has, he needs a good will, which is perfected by moral virtue” (ibid., ad 2). He says prudence is necessary for a good life but not for good art: “Art is necessary, not that the artist may lead a good life, but so that he may produce a good and lasting work of art. Prudence is necessary, not merely that a man may become good, but so that he may lead a good life” (1a2ae.57.5 ad 1). And as for those artistic works that can be put to good or evil use, St. Thomas argues: if something is in the majority of cases put to evil use, it should be removed by the State, for art is subordinated to the common good (2a2ae.169.2 ad 4).
If art and morality stand in two completely different spheres, why do they seem so closely linked in our daily experience? St. Thomas gives us the key: “No man can live without pleasure. Therefore a man deprived of the pleasures of the spirit goes over to the pleasures of the flesh” (2a2ae. 35.4 ad 2). Man needs recreation and pleasure to renew his strength after working. Where shall he get this pleasure? Father Benedict Ashley, also a noted Thomist, responds,
The contemplative activity of man is the goal of his life, but it must be moral. This means that we can take a true pleasure in contemplation only if what we contemplate is true—that is, God, or something which God has made as he intended it to be…. Because of this, a work of fine art ought to make us delight in what is true, noble, courageous, hopeful, pure, charitable, so that we may become like these things.[10]Fr. Ashley also reminds us that “we are not made evil simply by an occasional meeting with someone or something evil. But when this association is repeated, then the disposition to evil is produced in us.”[11] The same applies to the disposition for the good. Father Chad Ripperger explains in depth how this occurs. Because music “has the ability to affect the appetites, it has the ability to corrupt the virtues of temperance and fortitude.”[12] This is the Thomistic doctrine, for as Aquinas says, quoting Aristotle, “Every man judges of what is good according to his good or evil interior dispositions.”[13] When we expose ourselves habitually to certain types of art, these in turn create the habit of stirring certain passions, which we take pleasure in, and these habits affect how we judge matters. We are now in the position to see the relation between music and the shaping of a culture.
“Let me make the songs of the nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”[14] Who can deny the moral effects of music on culture? Every year, high school faculty worry about the growing excesses of lewd dancing during prom nights; entire festivals and cultural events are dedicated to music and vice, such as Lollapalooza, Coachella, etc.; and most tellingly, there is no nightclub to be found where the dance music consists of the minuets and gigues of Bach, Handel, Haydn, or Mozart. Yet the same heavily rhythmic (and formulaic) music is common to all of the above. Pieper observes piercingly,
If we now look at our society, what facts do we observe? … We observe how much the most trivial and “light” music, the “happy sound”, has become the most common and pervasive phenomenon…. The “happy sound” as well as the numbing beat, claim legitimacy as “entertainment”, as means, that is, of satisfying, without success, the boredom and existential void that … have become a common and pervasive phenomenon.[15]And he said this sixty years ago! We should not be surprised that our culture is simultaneously dominated by the cheap, consumeristic noise known as “pop music” and the greatest materialism perhaps the world has ever known. It is no wonder that the younger generations who are nourished by the emptiness of today’s “art” are also starving for a purpose-filled and grander vision of life.
And yet Pieper adds, “There still exists … the music of Johann Sebastian Bach!”[16] The task falls upon us: to fill our lives with nobility; to make friends with Bach, Palestrina, and Mozart, for these are our true friends, who through their music give us a glimpse of the contemplation of heaven. They fill us with noble sentiments and evoke passions that are primed for virtue and heroic acts. Our life should be one steady melody of love to God, contemplating Him now hidden and then face to face. Benedict Ashley said that even when the virtuous man grows weary of contemplation because of his frail human nature,
he does not wish utterly to put it aside. It is here that the work of fine art is so great a gift…. It recreates us because it gives the pleasure of looking at something beautiful … and yet it is itself a continuation of contemplation. Such recreation is inspirational, since it both rests us and elevates our soul.[17]Why should we settle for anything less than the highest and most beautiful art we have here below if we are made to contemplate eternally the infinite Source of all beauty?
Footnotes:
1. Basil Nortz, “The Moral Power of Music,” The Homiletic & Pastoral Review (April 2002): 17.
2. Josef Pieper, Only the Lover Sings, trans. Lothar Krauth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 48.
3. Aristotle’s views are summarized in Basil Cole, Music & Morals (New York: Alba House, 1993), 34–41.
4. Jacques Maritain, Art and Scholasticism, trans. J.F. Scanlan (North Stratford, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 2002), 150–151, fn. 121.
5. John Oesterle, “Towards an Evaluation of Music,” The Angelus Online, 2.
6. Pieper, Only the Lover, 42–44.
7. Ibid., 42.
8. Cf. Marcus Berquist, “Good Music and Bad” (lecture, Thomas Aquinas College, October, 1991), 15–16.
9. Cf. also Maritain, Art and Scholasticism, 5–7.
10. Benedict Ashley, The Arts of Learning and Communication (Dubuque: The Priory Press, 1958), 275–276.
11. Ibid.
12. The full analysis is found in Chad Ripperger, Introduction to the Science of Mental Health, volume 3 (Lincoln, NE, 2005), 5–8.
13. Quoted by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, volume 1, trans. M. Timothea Doyle (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989), 317, fn. 4.
14. Ashley, The Arts, 274.
15. Pieper, Only the Lover, 49.
16. Ibid., 50.
17. Ashley, The Arts, 281.
Repost: What is Indecent Dress? Fr. Winfrid Herbst Replies (1946)
[42] Since so much is said and written about indecent dress of women, will you tell me what is really considered indecent dress by the supreme authority of the Church? What are Catholic women to do, or not to do?
We have an authoritative statement in the Instruction on this matter issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 12, 1930. That Instruction incorporates by reference a letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 23, 1928, to the religious communities [43] in the city of Rome conducting girls' schools. In that letter specific directions are given as to what the Holy See considers unbecoming dress for Catholic women and girls. We quote the following as given in a leaflet published by the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein, with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. John J. Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis: "In order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women regarding the cases in which the afore-cited [sic] prescriptions of the Congregation of Religious apply, we recall that dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper, as also flesh-colored stockings, which suggest the legs being bare."
Even ordinarily good Catholic women and young ladies are often unconscious of the indecency of modern dress and its offence against public Christian morality, due to the prevailing spirit of liberty in its exaggerated form and the lack of delicacy of Christian modesty lost through contact with life in the midst of an overwhelmingly large neo-pagan population that is mostly Christian in name only. What is necessary is persistent and uniform teaching of the high sense of Christian morality evidenced in the lives of the saints and the vast majority of our Catholic ancestors and corresponding practice by our Catholic women. The following dialogue illustrates what we mean:
"Yes, I know, I think I really could dress a bit more modestly if I just wanted to, but, really, I don't see why. Everybody's doing..."
"Now, now!" I admonished her. "Don't say anything silly. You don't see why you shouldn't [44] be a slave to extreme fashion. Why, even you must have read those forceful words spoken by Pope Pius XI not long ago. Remember them? Listen: 'The unfortunate mania for fashion causes even honest women to forget every sentiment of dignity and modesty. The decrease of womanly reserve has always been a sign of social decadence. The vanity of women causes the disintegration of the family. An immodest mother will have shameless children. A shameless girl cannot be a good wife. It is possible to dress with ladylike decorum without imitating monastic severity.'"
"Yes, I know. But I don't see why..."
"But I see why—why you should always be careful not to offend in the matter of dress, regardless of what others may do or say. If your dress is of such a kind as to constitute a sensual appeal to men and to encourage other girls to follow your bad example, you are both directly and indirectly giving scandal and leading others into temptation. Of course, a girl may dress well and attractively, if she does not offend against the laws of modesty. But charity demands that she assist others in their struggle against sin and shield them from temptation, instead of doing just the opposite. If she boldly displays her seductive charms, then she has no reason to resent it if insult is offered. She throws out a challenge. She has freely given up her right to be treated as a lady."
"But one gets used to it. So I don't see why..."
"You say 'one.' Who gets used to it? When a girl first appears in an immodest costume she feels very guilty and embarrassed. But soon she does, alas! get used to it: her sense of modesty becomes blunted, her maidenly reserve gradually vanishes. Then her love of chastity dies out, and sin and vice are not far off. Alas for those [45] who force themselves to cast away that saving sense of shame, virtue's greatest protection in this regard! Who gets used to it? Do the men? Some do, perhaps, others don't. Immodest dress, as being co-operation in sin, may earn for its wearer a long and painful purgatory. Of course, I cannot give any universal rule as to how far you can go without offending God. Time and place and different circumstances—all must be taken into consideration. Moreover, we shouldn't try to see how close we can get to a mortal sin without falling into it. We should rather try to see how far we can remain from even venial transgressions."
She was silent now. Poor girl! Why hadn't some sensible mother told her these things long before—and taught her how to dress? I continued, "And think of this, the immodestly dressed girl even comes to church to distract and tempt those who are praying in the holy place. What a mockery prayer is on such lips! 'Hail, Mary, full of grace,' she says. 'And I am full of sin,' she might add, if she be a seductress in the house of God. In improper costume such a girl will even approach the table of the Lord. But God forbid that I should think it is done out of malice. Rather let me call it ignorance and weakness of the saddest kind.
"After all, real beauty is not in the outlines of the body, but in mind, personality, and heart—the cultivated mind, the heard for sensible thinking, the engaging personality, the sterling character. Beauty of soul, reflected from the eyes, radiating from the countenance—that is true beauty. And where we find sterling character there the laws of health are not defied in slavish obedience to the caprices of fashion; there natural physical beauty adds modest charm to the already engaging personality.
"Disregard all comment. Avoid all excess. [46] You can dress attractively and yet in an inconspicuous manner. If others offend God, that is no reason why you should offend Him by following their pernicious example.
"Start a new movement. Set a good example. You will soon have imitators. Resolve: 'I will never dress in such a way as to feel ashamed of myself. I will never dress to kill—to kill the souls of men.'"
---
Source: Rev. Winfrid Herbst, Questions of Catholics Answered (St. Nazianz, WI: The Society of the Divine Savior, 1946), 42–46.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)