"The True Seriousness of Modesty in Dress" - A Response

This post is a response to "The True Seriousness of Modesty in Dress": https://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/the-true-seriousness-of-modesty-in-dress/

The blog post quotes a passage from an article on immodest dress in The Casuist (full citation below) and gives commentary:

“Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage or outside of masked balls,* will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered. Physical charm is more alluring than dress, and yet no one is obliged to destroy their beauty because others take scandal at it.” 

There you go. Venial sin.

Of course, such commentary doesn't make clear whether the poster is suggesting: 1) that the original Casuist article is arguing that immodesty in dress is always or only at most a venial sin; 2) who is guilty of the venial sin—the immodest dresser or the one committing lust; 3) that the argument(s) given in the article are definitive or even representative of the moral theological literature from that time period; or 4) whether and to what extent other forms of immodest dress in modern circumstances still fall under the same moral rubrics (e.g. it no longer is the case that as a rule the most immodest forms of dress in "civilized society" would be found on stage or at masked balls!)

All four of the above distinctions are important, for casuistry and technical moral reasoning is preeminently concerned with making the necessary distinctions, applying universal principles to particular circumstances. Yet an actual reading of the article will reveal the answers to the above distinctions and paint a very different picture than what the original poster seems to have intended.

The author first defines scandal and the types of scandal. He briefly summarizes how scandalous conduct may lead others into sin, not as an efficient cause but as an occasion of sin, that is, as an incidental or accidental cause. Then these principles are applied specifically to the concrete case in consideration, to a woman named "Claudia." In Claudia's case, the author writes:

We are inclined to think that she commits a venial sin. Immodesty in dress, at least off the stage or outside of masked balls, will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin. The custom of the country must be considered. Physical charm is more alluring than dress [....] If some persons unknown to her take grave scandal by her conduct, such scandal is rather scandalum sumptum et non datum. [...] 

She could scarcely be obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to change her style of dress, since it is rather her personal beauty than her dress that is the cause of the scandal. (27)

When is scandal mortal or venial? The author states,

One may commit a mortal sin or only a venial sin in giving scandal. It all depends on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will commit. The action that I perform may be only venially sinful, and yet I may by it commit a mortal sin of scandal, because I either intend to incite my neighbor to commit a mortal sin, or at least I foresee that he will be incited by my conduct to commit a mortal sin. On the other hand, I may sin mortally myself and still only give venial or slight scandal, where I foresee that my action, although mortally sinful, will lead another only into venial sin. Consequently the gravity of the scandal one gives does not depend on the gravity of the sin one commits, but on the gravity of the sin that one foresees one's neighbor will be incited to commit. (25–26)

We now have enough context from the principles of the moral theology on scandal laid out by the article to address the above four concerns.

With respect to 1), the author clearly allows that 1a) immodest dress may itself be a mortal sin and 1b) that it may give rise to mortal sin.

With respect to 1a), the author implies this when he says, "Immodesty in dress [...] will hardly ever amount to more than a venial sin." If it will hardly ever but not always, then in principle immodesty may be a mortal sin for the immodest dresser in some circumstances. This single quotation above, taken out of context, means immodesty in dress as an indirect scandal, that is, not intentionally calculated to cause others to commit grave sin. But if the scandal is direct and calculated to incite others to mortal sin against purity, then immodesty would take on the gravity of a mortal sin by the principles laid out in the article. In the first case, it is a venial sin against charity; in the latter, it is a mortal sin against charity and a mortal sin against purity.

1b) is self-evident from the principles of scandal itself. The gravity of the scandal depends on the gravity of the action that a scandalized person takes:

The action that I perform may be only venially sinful, and yet I may by it commit a mortal sin of scandal, because I either intend to incite my neighbor to commit a mortal sin, or at least I foresee that he will be incited by my conduct to commit a mortal sin. (26)

With respect to 2), in the context of the article, Claudia's actions are under discussion, and the author is only "inclined to think" that Claudia commits a venial sin (27). But in general, who commits mortal or venial sin from scandalous behavior is clearly explained in the principles given, especially the quotation from pages 25–26 above. It should be noted that the confessor who submitted the original inquiry about how to handle Claudia's case states that he "knows that [Claudia] has been the occasion of grave sins of thought and desire to certain young men of the parish" (22), but the reason Claudia is only committing a venial sin against charity is because she did not intend to incite grave sins of lust in these young men who see her but only because she dresses immodestly for the sake of personal vanity as she herself admits, which is indirect scandal.

With respect to 3), while further study would need to be done to determine if the attitudes expressed in this article are representative, we can at least say that they are standard and established, for The Casuist was a well-known and trusted journal for moral theology.

And with respect to 4), it is simply beyond the particular scope of the article in question. The author clearly did not foresee the changes in fashion that would occur even 10 years later, let alone 50+ years later. The same moral theological principles apply today as then however. Outside of a larger study of male response to immodest dress, some of which has been conducted in psychology and sociology, which we may examine at another time, we need only look to the average male response on social media of various sorts to clear examples of immodesty. Examples and instances of different types may be multiplied endlessly, and the average man is exposed to far more immodest dress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in all sorts of social contexts than anyone in the past has had to endure. A great number of responses to immodesty in popular culture and media (and the huge amounts of printed and digital media dedicated to different kinds of immodest female dress as they show up in all sorts of social contexts—public spaces and events, exercise, video games and movies, etc.) center around masturbation and sexual fantasies, which are in themselves grave matter.

According the principles laid out in the article, if a person intends through immodest dress to incite others to grave sins against purity and acts in a manner calculated to do so, that person commits a mortal sin of scandal and is guilty not only against charity but also "the particular virtue or commandment against which he incites his neighbor to sin" (26). It is becoming increasingly difficult to doubt that many women today dress precisely in such a fashion, and popular culture pressures women to do so. To take just one out of hundreds of possible examples, one famous song lyric says, "If you sexy, then flaunt it."

What is also interesting is the attitude that Claudia expresses regarding her dress:

If others think evil on [Claudia's] account, they do so because they are evil-minded, and that it is no concern of hers. She does not propose to dress like a nun, just because some people happen to be disposed to think evil. The evil that they think must be ascribed to their own impure minds, and not to her way of dressing. (22)

This is exactly the attitude of modern feminists and anti-modesty promoters. Maybe in 1912 this attitude was more excusable when women's dress regularly covered almost every inch of her body. In 2018 it simply is not excusable and clearly marks the dividing line between those who promote the continual disintegration and destruction of Western culture and morality and those who fight against that collapse.

Original Casuist article source: "Scandal by Immodesty in Dress," The Casuist 4 (1912): 22–27.

The article may be found scanned on Google Books here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rCdZAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AsNGBHbI74AoC&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false