What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church? (1930)

[1328] Question: I there any authoritative statement of the Holy  See as to what constitutes indecent dress of women? It is evident that effective action against unchristian fashions for women can be had only if one can point out with precision things that are judged indecent by the Church. —VERITAS

Answer: Yes, there is such an authoritative statement. Recently one of our correspondents has kindly sent us a copy of 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 this leaflet there are translated from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 12, 1930 (cfr. THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW, April, 1930, pp. 757-759), those points which the Holy See wants the bishops to attend to in an effort to stop the spread of indecent fashions for women. So earnest is the Holy See about this matter that it requires the bishops to state in their quinquennial report on the state of their dioceses what they have done to counteract this evil. Furthermore, the above-mentioned leaflet draws attention to the fact that the aforesaid Instruction incorporates by reference a letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 23, 1928, to the religious communities of women 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 from the leaflet: "In order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women regarding the cases in which the aforecited [sic] prescriptions of the Congregation of Religious apply, we recall that 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 material are improper, as also flesh-colored stockings, which suggest the legs being bare."

The reader can judge for himself how many of the Catholic ladies, young and old, contradict the teaching of the Supreme Authority of the Church in their manner of dressing, not only in the streets, but even in our churches and when approaching Holy [1329] Communion. The 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, have made even ordinarily good Catholic women and young ladies unconscious of the indecency of modern dress and its offense against public Christian morality. It will require a country-wide concerted effort of the Catholic Church in the United States to bring back to them the Christian sense of modesty, not by impatient scolding and severe condemnation and penalties, but by persistent and uniform teaching of the high sense of morality evidenced in the lives of the Saints and the vast majority of our Catholic ancestors.

---

Source: Stanislaus Woywod, OFM, LLB, "What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church?" The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30, no. 12 (Sept. 1930): 1328–1329.

 https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1930-09_30_12/page/1328/mode/2up

Authenticity of the Vatican Standard of Modesty with Documentation

I want to thank this anonymous comment left on "Repost: Modesty in Dress (June 1958)" which provides a thorough history of the documentation surrounding the Vatican Standard of Modesty and also definitively locates its original Italian publication in the Bollettino del Clero Romano 8 no. 10 (Oct. 1928), 134. This is a major step forward in clarifying the confusing history of this publication. For example, it corrects Fr. Kunkel's original, but mistaken, statement that he found the standard in L'Osservatore Romano, when in fact it was published in the above-mentioned Bollettino.

As I noted in my reply to the comment, "Even if Pius XI may not have seen and/or explicitly promoted these particular directives, nevertheless clearly bishops and theologians took the directives as expressing the authentic mind of the Holy See, despite all the subsequent and inexplicable confusions surrounding its origins and related documentation from the various Curial offices." This is verified for example in this quotation from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: 

"The words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious quoted by our correspondent are very helpful to the priests and Catholic educators inasmuch as they express the mind of the Holy See on the subject of immodesty in women's dress" (emphasis mine).

I've reposted this comment below (with accompanying footnotes) unedited for everyone's edification:

---

Hello,

In case you are still interested in establishing the authenticity of the Vatican Standards, here is some new information.

These standards were issued by Cardinal-Vicar Basilio Pompili [2]. They were then translated into French [3], and this translation was successively quoted by Bishop Rouleau [6 p. 20], Bishop Decelles [7 p. 538] and Bishop Douville [8 p. 359].

Unfortunately, the translation [3] has a number of flaws:

(1) "che non scenda un poco più giù del ginocchio" (which does not fall a bit below the knee) has been translated into "qui descend à peine au-dessous des genoux". This sounds to me like the knees have to be covered by a large margin, which is an overstatement of what the original standard asks for. Note that this problem is also present in the English translation.

(2) "quante frequentano l'Istituto da Lei diretto" (all those who attend the institution over which you preside) has been translated into "toutes les personnes qui dirigent votre institution" (all those who preside over your institution).

(3) The words "che pur professano di appartenere al gregge di Gesù Cristo e alla sua Chiesa", the whole paragraph "Sarà Nostra cura [...] i deplorati abusi" and the words "della S. C. dei Religiosi" have been omitted without notice.

(4) The words "auxquelles nous vous prions de vous conformer dans la direction de votre établissement" are not present in the original text.

The two last omissions are particularly unfortunate, because they can mislead one into thinking that the guidelines were included in the directions issued by the Congregation of Religious [1] and later referred to by the Congregation of the Council [5], which are quoted just before. This kind of confusion has indeed been observed repeatedly; for an extreme instance, see [11-12], whose account is completely at variance with the historical facts.

I have no similar explanation, however, as to why such confusion is widespread in the English speaking world as well (and it has been since an early date, as your post [4] shows).

By the way, while it seems plausible that Pope Pius XI at least read and approved Cardinal Pompili's standards, as far as I know even that is not yet conclusively established. Therefore, it is probably best to refrain from claiming that these standards were written by order of the Pope, as some people do [10 p. 13].

References:

[1] Commentarium pro Religiosis 9 (1928), 414-415. Quoted in [2]. An English translation is given in [9].

[2] Cardinal B. Pompili, "Circolare alle Superiore degli Istituti religiosi femminili", Bollettino del Clero Romano 8 no. 10 (Oct. 1928), 134.

https://archive.org/details/circolare-alle-superiore-degli-istituti-religiosi-femminili

[3] "Les modes inconvenantes", La Documentation Catholique no. 491 (Oct. 1929), 655-656.

https://archive.org/details/les-modes-inconvenantes

[4] Immodest Women's Dress, The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30 no. 1-6 (Oct. 1929 to March 1930), 171-173.

https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html

[5] Sacra Congregatio Concilii, "Instructio ad ordinarios diœcesanos: De inhonesto feminarum vestiendi more", Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 22 (1930), 26-28.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-22-1930-ocr.pdf

[6] Bishop R.-M. Rouleau, "Circulaire au clergé", 6 April 1930, part I, in Mandements, lettres pastorales et circulaires des Évêques de Québec 13, suppl. 33, 15-20.

https://archive.org/details/mandementslettre13glis/page/n638

[7] Bishop F.-Z. Decelles, "Circulaire au clergé", 15 Sept. 1933, part III, in Mandements des Évêques de Saint-Hyacinthe 18, 537-540.

https://archive.org/details/circulaire-au-clerge/page/n5

[8] Bishop A. Douville, "Lettre pastorale et mandement", 22 July 1944, in Mandements des Évêques de Saint-Hyacinthe 21, 353-361.

https://archive.org/details/lettre-pastorale-et-mandement

[9] "Rome’s Decrees on Modesty in Dress", Marylike Crusader, Nov.-Dec. 1963.

https://ladyofperpetualhelp.weebly.com/

https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html

[10] R. T. Hart, Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions, 6th edition, 2017 (1st edition 2003).

http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf

[11] "Règles de l'Église sur la modestie", Vers Demain, Aug.-Sept. 2007, 15.

https://docplayer.fr/85502325-En-preparation-du-congres-eucharistique-2008-a-quebec-ravivons-notre-devotion-a-la-messe-du-dimanche-et-a-la-sainte-eucharistie.html

[12] "Règles de l'Église sur la modestie", Vers Demain, March-April 2009, 7.

https://docplayer.fr/79586446-L-eglise-reaffirme-les-valeurs-du-mariage-et-de-la-famille.html

A New Vocation (1930)

[66] The Catholic Gazette (Vol. XXI, No. 2) thinks the moment is propitious for some sort of corporate action by Catholic ladies (and every true Catholic woman is a lady) to emphasize the present trend of fashion towards a more becoming and more artistic style of dress. Any artist will tell you, says our contemporary, that the short dress was not beautiful, whatever may be claimed for it on the score of comfort and hygiene. The trend of fashion is now against it, and possibly the energetic action of Catholic women in Italy and elsewhere has had much to do with the change. We have heard an eminent professor of moral theology argue that a few Catholic women, recognized as leaders of fashion, could quickly put an end to the extravagances of the dress designers by corporate action. Let it be agreed amongst them that they will resolutely refuse to buy anything, however beautiful, which offends Christian modesty, and let it be equally agreed that they will not buy a modest garment which is not beautiful, and the designers will quickly toe the line. This idea opens up the interesting possibility of turning the ''cult of fashion" into a vocation, but it requires a little pluck on the part of the few Catholic women who are sufficiently well-off and well-placed to be recognized as "leaders of fashion."

---

Source: Anonymous editorial, "A New Vocation," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 66.

National Council of Catholic Women's Resolution on Modesty in Dress (1928)

[20] WHEREAS careful study of costumes made by the best sports-goods houses and used by the majority of private and public schools and colleges, leads to the conclusion that the necessary requirements for an appropriate costume for the girl and young woman in athletics may be met by the knicker-bloomer of material suited to the season; middie [sic] Blouses for children; tailored shirts with long (or short) sleeves for older girls; sweaters, sleeveless or with sleeves according to season; long stockings and "sneakers;"

BE IT RESOLVED that the National Council of Catholic Women recommend the above costume as best suited to feminine dignity and the best interest of sportsmanship and good health.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council condemn "trunks" and other such objectionable extremes of costume which are as inappropriate and undesirable for women as are the particular forms of athletics with which they are especially associated.

The National Council of Catholic Women directs attention again to the Resolution on "Christian Conduct" passed by the Convention of 1927 and reaffirms its positive opposition to bathing and other "beauty" contests as vulgar and dangerous to the morals of Christian women.

---

NCCW = National Council of Catholic Women

Source: "Resolutions Adopted at the 8th Annual Convention of the N. C. C. W.: Modesty in Dress," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 20

Hard on the Girls (1928)

To the Editor:—

"Our sympathy may be wholly wasted, but occasionally these cold mornings, especially on the draughty street cars, we feel a tug of pity for the girls. They sit huddled in their knee-length coats, their legs protected only by sheer stockings, holding them close together, perhaps unconsciously in a pitable [sic] attempt to encourage warmth. The gooseflesh is sometimes visible. It may be true, as some contend, that the average woman, and more particularly the young girls who never wore long skirts, are seldom 'legconscious.' But that isn't true on such mornings as Jan. 3rd. They are 'legconscious,' painfully so, but it's their business, and perhaps they count the cost small for the effect obtained."

The above is an editorial from the N. O. Item-Tribune. It is timely and the point is well taken. These girls, and many older women too, expose themselves and their health to the cold and to the ridicule of others. From a sanitary and from an aesthetic point of view this abominable fashion stands condemned; but what of the moral point of view? According to the laws of God and of nature, and according to the teaching of Catholic theologians and the rules laid down by the Holy Father and the members of the hierarchy, this modern fashion is immoral. The average woman may not be conscious of the fact, but those of the other sex are. By tempting men and boys to commit sin, the women of to-day [sic] give grave scandal, and our Lord says of those who give scandal: "It were better for them that a millstone should be hanged around their neck and they should be drowned in the depth of the sea."

But what about Catholic girls and women who, in defiance of the laws of God and the regulations laid down by the Holy Father and the hierarchy, appear indecently clad even in the house of God! Not only for Holy Mass and Communion, but in particular for weddings? During the month of December, at several wedding ceremonies, in one of our "fashionable" churches, the brides and bridesmaids appeared half nude, and this is no exaggeration. Sleeveless, low-necked with bare backs and bare sides down to the waistline, they appeared in the sanctuary and remained there during Holy Mass. O tempora, o mores. "Woe to the world because of scandals," says our Lord (Matth. 18, 7). I am an old man, have seen the world, old and new, and I have some experience; but in all my life I had never to witness marriage ceremonies such as those I witnessed during the month of December, 1927. The parents of to-day have not the authority to regulate the dressing of their daughters and (sad to behold) some pastors have not the courage to enforce the laws of God and the regulations of the Church.

---

Source: An Old Pastor, "Hard on the Girls" The Catholic Fortnightly Review 35, no. 5 (March 1928): 97.

A Reply Regarding the Vatican Standard of Modesty of September 24, 1928

There was a well-intentioned reply to my re-posting of a 1958 article that criticizes and calls into question the existence of the so-called Vatican Standard of modesty, published in a letter from the Sacred Congregation of Religious, dated September 24, 1928. This reply, hoping to prove the existence of the Vatican Standard by referring to reliable sources, unfortunately further demonstrated the problem that exists among Traditional Catholics when it comes to the Vatican Standard, namely, they don't actually provide a credible, on-hand source. They simply quote each other or books that they themselves have published, which quote each other. This ends up being a giant circle that goes no where.

So, do we have reason to despair that the Vatican Standard actually ever existed? No, because we have a reliable source that suggests the existence and provides the substantial content of that Vatican Standard. It is found in a Q&A of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, volume 30, nos. 1-6, pp. 171-173, entitled "Immodest Women's Dress," which article I have republished in its full text here: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html

In my reply, I note that the fool-proof way to discover the existence of the Vatican Standard is if someone can find and provide either of the following:

1. Its Latin or Italian original has to be found. 

2. The October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano must be found where the statement is quoted in Italian.

Since I don't have the time to hunt either down, I invite anyone with the means to please do so for the benefit of all Catholics of good will.

Anyway, below is the comment on my post as well as my reply.

---

Comment (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536709580628#c8522873001587796019)

"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?"

> Precisely this "mathematical criteria" won me to the cause of dressing with modesty (which is a necessary help to promote that other aspect of modesty, modesty in behavior).

Without specific standards (or mathematical criteria per say), nothing can be followed or enforced. Parish priests in attempting to address immodesty have no way of showing a woman the error of her mode of dress. Parents experience the same issue when they try to teach their children to dress modestly. For example, how can the letter you referenced from the, “Congregation of Religious (Aug. 23, 1928) to teaching sisters in Rome," be enforced without any guideline to define "immodest dress"?

This 1928 letter is referenced in a second letter on the same topic titled: Letter of the Congregation of the Council, Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress. This 1930 letter can be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930, Vol. 22, pp. 26-28 (see links below). (1)

Next I would like to clarify a misunderstanding regarding this statement:
"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..."
You are correct; this was not issued by Donato, Cardinal Sbaretti, Pref. of the Congregation of the Council. (The document Cardinal Sbaretti issued was the 1930 letter.) This does not mean though, that the statement is fabricated. It is, in fact, an authentic statement issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompilj, on 24 September 1928. I have provided links below to support its authenticity. (2)

Two of these links also mention that the authenticity of the statement is further supported by Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila (a),(c). Cardinal Santos quoted these standards as, “‘The Church’s stand concerning modesty in dress’ in his Pastoral of December 6, 1959. He attributes them to Pope Pius XI Himself, and gives the exact date of issuance, September 24, 1928.” (c)

(1) Find the Letter of the Congregation of the Council, Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress in Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930, Vol. 22, pp. 26-28 at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-22-1930-ocr.pdf
Translation: https://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity%20-%20Letter%20of%20the%20Congregation%20of%20the%20Council.html

(2) Links supporting the authenticity of statement issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompilj, on 24 September 1928:
(a)https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/
(b)http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html
(c)https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html
(d)http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf (pp. 13)

---

My reply:

Part 1 (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536774720394#c7619766449871230137)

1. God bless you for dressing modestly and with dignity in this darkening age!

2. The article you were responding to were not my own words but a reprint of an article (see the citation at the bottom of the original post).

3. There are a number of unresolved problems with the August 23, 1928 letter.

a) The only English translation available online is attributed to the late Fr. John Rubba, OP, and seems to trace back to a certain issue of the Marylike Crusader publication, which does not seem to be available online.

b) Fr. Rubba claimed that his translation came from the Commentarium pro Religiosis (vol. 9, 1928, pp. 414-415). This volume has not been scanned online, and I don't currently have access to it, and hence no one actually knows what the original Latin says.

c) Assuming that the reporting and translation of the Aug. 23 letter is accurate, this letter mentions nothing of the Vatican Standards that Pius XI supposedly issued on Sept. 24, 1928, because the letter obviously predates September. There is nothing in this August 23 letter of what later theologians would call "mathematical standards of modesty" but simply general directives.

d) The reference to the August 23 letter in the January 1930 directive simply indicates the existence of such a letter but does not reveal its contents. Hence referring to the Jan. 1930 letter is no help for finding the August 23 letter.

4. The other links you provided supporting the authenticity of the September 24, 1928 statement do no such thing unfortunately.

All references to Cdl. Santos of Manila claim he cites the Vatican Standard in his pastoral letter of December 6, 1959, yet the original text of this letter is nowhere to be found, and even if we could find it, we don't know what source document Cdl. Santos was quoting from, if any. It would be worth pursuing the original document, but currently I don't have the time to.

Other references to the bishops of Quebec, specifically Cardinal Raymond-Marie Rouleau, are likewise problematic. For example, this website (https://pour-reflechir.blogspot.com/2017/03/limmodestie-des-toilettes-feminines-mgr.html) seems to have Cdl. Rouleau quoting the Vatican Standard, yet the citation given by the blog owner is an Italian quotation from a self-published text from 2016! So we have no idea 1) whether Cdl. Rouleau actually quoted the standard, and 2) what his source was.

A similar reference to the bishops of Quebec issuing a pastoral letter entitled "Purity Crusade" ("Croisade de Purete" in the original French) claims that this letter includes the Vatican Standard. One of your own sources claims this (https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/). Yet when one looks at the original French document (pp. 239-240, https://ia800308.us.archive.org/19/items/mandementslettre17glis/mandementslettre17glis.pdf), these standards are nowhere to be found. Further, a so-called "Decree 102" of the Synod of Bishops from 1940 is also not in this letter, nor does this letter quote Cdl. Rouleau's pastoral of December 8, 1930.

In fact, this website you linked to (https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/) does not make any sense in its references to the Quebec bishops. It seems to say the joint pastoral letter "Purity Crusade" (1946) quotes the decree of 1940, which the website gives as its source Cdl. Rouleau's 1930 pastoral letter! Is it possible that everyone has missed the time travel necessary for this to work?

---

Part 2 (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536774743628#c3749831196629159323)

5. Your second source (http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html) is likewise unhelpful because it is a reprinting of the Marylike Modesty Handbook. Fr. Kunkel claims there that his source was the October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano, sent to him by a Father Jesus M. Cavanna, CM. This October issue cannot be found online; hence we don't have the original citation. It would validate Fr. Kunkel's source however!

This second source of yours also repeats the copy-and-pasted claims about Cdl. Santos, but again, if the original pastoral of Cdl. Santos is not available, we have no means of actually seeing the original contents. And as we have seen numerous times, these various pastoral letters have been very inaccurately reported by well-intended traditional Catholics.

6. The third source you give (https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html) is further unhelpful. It simply copies what is found elsewhere about Fr. Rubba, Cdl. Santos, etc. These are all dead ends without the original letters and original sources.

7. Your last source (http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf) quotes a book "Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church," by Louise Martin (found here http://www.catholictradition.org/Children/immodest-dress.htm). Once again, this book simply repeats all the same claims about Cdl. Santos, the bishops of Quebec (Martin's book adds a further claim that Bishop Douville of Quebec quotes the standards in his pastoral letter of July 22, 1944, yet gives no source citation for this claim).

Martin's book simply quotes from Fr. Kunkel's Marylike Handbook.

8. Hence we get to the crux of the problem: all of these websites and books are quoting from each other the same so-called proof of the authenticity of this elusive September 24 statement. They all exist in a giant echo chamber, and none provide the original source documents to back their claims.

As far as I can tell, there are basically two ways to prove absolutely the existence and content of this letter:

1. Its Latin or Italian original has to be found.

2. The October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano must be found where the statement is quoted in Italian.

All of these other claims of authenticity referring to bishops living back in the 1930s and '40s are dead ends because none of their pastoral letters are available to us, and those that are available say nothing close to what the promoters of the Vatican Standard say they do, which only further harms their credibility.

9. To close, however, I have found another source, not mentioned by any of these other websites and booklets, that I believe gives us a reasonable certitude of the authenticity of the September 24, 1928 statement. It is found in an article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, vol. 30, no. 1-6, November 1930, pp. 171-173, in which a question is submitted quoting the exact Vatican Standards and attributing them to the statement of Sept. 24. The responder in the HPR journal in no way disputes the authenticity of the quotation and even affirms its existence, writing, "The words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious quoted by our correspondent are very helpful to the priests and Catholic educators inasmuch as they express the mind of the Holy See on the subject of immodesty in women's dress." (source: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html)

I believe, aside from direct proof of the Sept. 24 statement itself, this is the best evidence we have of the existence and authenticity of the Vatican Standards. Since all the other references to Cdl. Santos, Fr. Rubba, the Canadian bishops, Cdl. Mundelein, are so far removed from our access and all seem to simply copy and paste each other, I do not refer to them at all as reliable. However, an article posted in a reputable theological journal only two years after the original statement was issued is very good for establishing its credibility!

I hope this helps. God bless you.

Jenn Morson and the Rejection of Purity Culture

The following is a reflection on Jenn Morson's article "The Dress that Ended My Modesty Obsession": https://www.racked.com/2017/3/28/14982578/modest-dressing-clothes-purity-culture

Experiences like the one described in the above article always strike a nerve for me. Not only is the behavior of the roommates described appalling in multiple ways, but the outcome and lasting effects it had on Morson only make the whole thing more tragic. I have seen something analogous with another person at my own college who began his freshman year as a self-identified traditional Catholic and because of excruciatingly negative experiences with other traditional Catholics ended up drinking the liberal Kool-Aid by the time he was a senior.

Yet why is the outcome of the author's experience tragic? A reader might get to the end of the essay cheering for the author and her newfound sense of freedom, of liberation from the poisonous aspects of purity culture. Indeed, the article is written in such a way as to evoke that sympathetic response from the reader. But the author doesn't just reject the poisonous aspects of purity culture. She rejects the entire culture itself: "My faith remained the same, although purity culture was no longer a part of it."

If by purity culture, we mean this sort of Orwellian, omnipresent surveillance and intrusion via secret purity police, who always style themselves as "friends," into literally the nooks and crannies of other people's lives, then of course, we should reject this culture, which isn't culture in any true sense of the word but a prison. On the other hand, the notion that "[n]ot having to worry whether or not my bare shoulders were causing others to sin was freeing, and if anyone, man or woman, thought it was their place to call me out, I’d inform them to avert their eyes if they couldn’t handle it"—this is simply not Catholic but classic liberalism and the attendant exaggerated individualism that we see today in feminism and most forms of libertarianism.

Morson summarizes purity culture:

In purity culture, the highest good is your virginity. It teaches that safeguarding your soul and your physical virginity means that you will be immune to the deep heartache of lost love. In other words, keeping your hymen intact means keeping your heart intact as well.

Of course, given her experiences, Morson is hardly an unbiased reporter, yet she is not trying to be objective. Her goal here as throughout her entire article is to show not only why she rejected purity culture but implicitly why anyone should reject it. If purity culture means a commitment to ridiculously naive beliefs, such as a direct correlation between maintaining purity, physical virginity, and the affections of love, then we would be crazy to accept it in the first place. But Morson's caricature is simply naive itself. Who actually believes such things? And what should we make of those many virtuous women who suffer so much because they have a hard time finding a virtuous man, who may have had to end a relationship because they realize the man they currently love seem woefully inadequate to be a father or spouse? This common experience simply sets aflame the straw man that Morson has set up.

Morson continues: "A commitment to purity culture must be expressed in dress: You show the world how unblemished you are by dressing modestly." Yet this is precisely backwards. Modesty isn't virtue signaling, or at least it ought not to be. One dresses modestly because one wishes to remain unblemished, pure, chaste, virtuous, not because one wishes to peacock to others that one is chaste. Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter demonstrates this discrepancy eloquently. The world has nothing to do with it at least not in its fundamental motivation and principal purpose. The commitment to purity and its expression in dress is the result of consistency between believing that sexuality is a powerful and profound good, that man is fallen and prone to weakness and temptation, that we as social beings must build each other up and not be stumbling blocks, and the most effective means to preserve these beliefs and principles. Modesty, like all forms of temperance, is an external expression of an interior disposition, yet before it is a powerful statement to a rapidly degenerating civilization, it firstly ought to be the result of a powerful commitment to a virtuous life.

The moral theology of scandal (CCC 2284–2287) and the ways in which we can participate in another's sin (CCC 1868) clearly form some of the basic principles, the guide posts, by which any truly healthy civilization may emerge. Is the attitude expressed by Morson in the above quotation one that shows concern for the spiritual well-being of her fellow man, or is it more like the snide retort of Cain, who when asked by God where the slain Abel was, said, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9). There are extremes here to be avoided. What is tragic is that this woman was pressed into another extreme because of the opposite extreme that vilified her.

Morson's error is further illustrated by the following rhetorical question: "I knew that I was the same person whether I was wearing baggy pants or a mini skirt, so why wouldn’t that apply to the world at large?" This is a simple philosophical error. Aristotle lists as one of the accidents, that is, non-essential characteristics of a substance, the manner in which one dresses (vestition). Obviously to change the way one dresses does not change one's substance, one's essence, and by extension one's intrinsic dignity as a human person. No one is claiming that your dress does effect such profound, substantial change. The issue is that the nobility of man is expressed through accidents, and that one's substance may shine through well-ordered accidents. Everyone recognizes the effects of good grooming, of care of one's body, of being well dressed, of carrying oneself with deliberation, of speaking eloquently and persuasively. These are all accidents in Aristotle's terminology, but they have a true effect: they express man at his best, and when the accidents are disordered, they hide man's dignity, or better, they tar and smear it behind disorder. Modesty is a virtue that beautifies; if one is dressing in such a way that makes one positively or objectively ugly, then that is not modesty but a sham form of it.

We would do well to recall the summary of the moral theology of scandal contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis mine):

II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons 

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. 

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6) 

Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing. (Mt. 7:15) 

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible." (Pius XII, Discourse, June 1, 1941) This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. 

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!" (Lk. 17:1)

If we have learned anything from the feminists, is it not that sexuality may be a form of power? Chastity and purity protect this power, the power of life, so that it may not become a weapon of death. Purity culture ought to be one that celebrates life in every true, good, and beautiful manifestation of it. There will be fear, for we are suffering from generations of emasculated men, who are weak in the face of exposed, raw sexuality. But the nurturing, the patience, the mutual concern of one for another, the fruits of the Holy Ghost, these ought to imbue and to till the spiritual soil of present Catholics as they strive not only for their own sanctity, but to lay the groundwork for a renewed West, for future generations of strengthened individuals who when faced with slighter—or greater—forms of immodesty will have the power of virtue to resist temptation.

Morson concludes, "Nothing about my own values was altered, but the lens through which I viewed those around me changed." The sad thing here is that whatever lens we choose to view others or the world through is precisely determined by our values. We do not exist as "objective," detached (floating) thinking things ala Descartes. We exist in flesh, in the world, and pressed by our biology and our fallen, fractured nature. On the most fundamental, psychological level, the way in which we perceive, structure, and participate in the world is determined by what our brain deems as valuable and what our mind (intellect and will) pursues as good. There can be no change of lens without a change of values. But perhaps rather Morson means to confess that the scales of a lens she never really bought into finally came off her eyes.

Those roommates who confronted Morson failed on multiple counts: they presumed Morson's guilt; they presumed to correct without prudent consideration of the best means; they presumed to intrude into Morson's privacy; they presumed to represent the best of purity culture. They failed in all of these and more. But most of all, they failed to encourage. Our role is not to police but to encourage, literally to fill with courage, with fortitude and strength. And in this we must also be conscientious not to cause scandal as our Lord Himself warned us. The tragic irony of Morson's experience is that in being scandalized by the dress, that supposed sign of promiscuity, those fellow Catholics scandalized Morson in a much more profound and lasting way.

"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

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:

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.

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.

Repost: Pius XI (Jan.1930) Instruction: De Inhonesto Feminarum Vestiendi More (On the Shameful Manner of Women's Dressing)

[212] In virtue of the Supreme Apostleship which he exercises in the universal Church, His Holiness, Pius XI, has never ceased to inculcate in word and writing that precept of St. Paul (I Tim. II, 9, 10): "Women also in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works."

And on many occasions the same Supreme Pontiff has reproved and sharply condemned the immodesty in dress which today is everywhere in vogue, even among women and girls who are Catholics; a practice which does grave injury to the crowning virtue and glory of women, and moreover unfortunately leads not merely to their temporal disadvantage, but, what is worse, to their eternal ruin and that of other souls.

It is no wonder, then, that Bishops and other Ordinaries of places, as becomes ministers of Christ, have in their respective dioceses unanimously resisted in every way this licentious and shameless fashion, and in doing so have cheerfully and courageously borne the derision and ridicule sometimes directed at them by the ill-disposed.

Accordingly this Sacred Congregation for the maintenance of discipline among clergy and people, in the first place accords merited approval and praise to this vigilance and action on the part of the Bishops, and moreover earnestly exhorts them to continue in the purpose and undertaking they have so well begun, and to pursue them with even greater vigor, until this contagious disease be entirely banished from decent society.

That this may be accomplished with greater ease and security, this Sacred Congregation, in pursuance of the orders of His Holiness, has determined upon the following regulations on the subject:

I. Especially pastors and preachers, when they have the opportunity, must, according to those words of St. Paul (II Tim. 4, 2): "be instant, reprove, entreat, rebuke," to the end that women may wear clothes of becoming modesty, which may be an ornament [213] and safeguard of virtue; and they must also warn parents not to permit their daughters to wear immodest clothes.

II. Parents, mindful of their very grave obligation to provide especially for the moral and religious education of their children, must see to it with special care that their girls receive solid instruction in Christian doctrine from their earliest years; and they themselves must by word and example earnestly train them to a love of modesty and chastity. After the example of the Holy Family they must strive so to order and regulate the family that every member of it shall find at home a reason and inducement to love and to cherish modesty.

III. Parents should also prevent their daughters from taking part in public drills and athletic contests. If the girls are obliged to take part in them, the parents must see to it that they wear a costume that is entirely modest, and must never permit them to appear in immodest dress.

IV. Heads of girls' schools and colleges must strive so to imbue the hearts of their girls with the love of modesty that they may be induced to dress modestly.

V. They shall not admit to the schools or colleges girls who are given to immodest dress; and if any such have been admitted, they shall be dismissed unless they change their ways.

VI. Nuns, in accordance with the Letter of 23 Aug., 1928, of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, shall not admit to their colleges, schools, oratories, or amusement centers, nor allow to remain there any girls who do not observe Christian modesty in dress; and in the education of their charges they shall take special care to sow deeply in their hearts a love of chastity and Christian modesty.

VII. Pious associations of women shall be established and fostered for the purpose of restraining by counsel, example, and activity, abuses regarding immodest dress, and of promoting purity of morals and modesty of dress.

VIII. Women who wear immodest clothes should not be admitted to these associations; and those who have been admitted, if they afterward commit any fault in this regard and fail to amend after being warned, shall be expelled.

IX. Girls and women who are immodestly dressed are to be refused Holy Communion and excluded from the office of sponsor [214] in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation; and in proper cases are even to be excluded from the church.

X. On such feasts throughout the year as offer special opportunities for inculcating Christian modesty, especially on the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, pastors and priests who have charge of pious unions and Catholic associations should not fail to preach a timely sermon on the subject, in order to encourage women to cultivate Christian modesty in dress. On the feast of the Immaculate Conception, special prayers shall be recited every year in all cathedral and parish churches, and when it is possible there shall also be a timely exhortation by way of a solemn sermon to the people.

XI. The diocesan Council of Vigilance, mentioned in the declaration of the Holy Office, 22 March, 1918,[footnote 1] shall at least once every year treat especially of the ways and means of providing effectively for modesty in women's dress.

XII. In order that this salutary action may proceed with greater efficacy and security, Bishops and other Ordinaries of places shall every third year, together with their report on religious instruction mentioned in the Motu proprio, Orbem Catholicum, of 29 June, 1923,[footnote 2] also inform this Sacred Congregation upon the situation as regards women's dress, and upon the measures that will have been taken in pursuance of this Instruction.

[Source of translation:] AAS 22-26; S.C. Conc., Instruction, 12 Jan., 1930. Periodica, 19-195.

[Footnotes:]

1. See c. 6; AAS 10-136.

2. See c. 1329; AAS 15-327.

Source: "Council of Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress (Instruction, S.C. Conc.) AAS 22-26, 12 Jan., 1930," Canon Law Digest 1 (1917-1933): 212–214.

Under: Book II, Persons, Canon 363:

§1. The diocesan Curia consists of those persons who render assistance in the governance of the whole diocese to the Bishop or others who govern the diocese in the place of the Bishop.

§2. Belonging to it, therefore, are the Vicar General, officialis, chancellor, promoter of justice, defender of the bond, synodal judges and examiners, pastor consultors, auditors, notaries, couriers, and citation servers.

[Translation source: Edward N. Peters, The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001), 144.]

---

An alternate English translation may be found here: https://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/de-inhonesto-feminarum-vestiendi-more/

---

[The following is copied from the online scanned edition of the AAS on the Vatican website; some of the Latin is undoubtedly mis-scanned. Unlike the earlier AAS, where the page numbers are 22-26, in this edition, the pages are 26-28. Here is a link to the relevant file on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-22-1930-ocr.pdf]

[26] SACRA CONGREGATIO CONCILII INSTRUCTIO AD ORDINARIOS DIOECESANOS: DE INHONESTO FEMINARUM VESTIENDI MORE

Vi supremi apostolatus, quo in universa Ecclesia divinitus fungitur, Ssmus Dominus Noster Pius Papa XI verbis et scriptis nunquam destitit illud S. Pauli (I ad Tim., II, 9,10) inculcare, videlicet: «mulieres in habitu ornato cum verecundia et sobrietate ornantes se, et... quod decet mulieres, promittentes pietatem per opera bona ».

Ac saepenumero, occasione data, idem Summus Pontifex improbavit acerrimeque damnavit inhonestum vestiendi morem in catholicarum quoque mulierum ac puellarum usum hodie passim inductum, qui non modo femineum decus atque ornamentum graviter offendit, sed nedum in temporalem earumdem feminarum perniciem verum etiam, quod peius est, in sempiternam, itemque in aliorum ruinam miserrime vertit.

Nihil igitur mirum, si Episcopi ceterique locorum Ordinarii, sicut decet ministros Christi, in sua quisque dioecesi pravae huiusmodi licentiae ac procacitati modis omnibus unaque voce obstiterunt, derisiones nonnumquam ac ludibria ob hanc causam sibi a malevolis illata aequo fortique animo tolerantes.

Itaque hoc Sacrum Consilium cleri populique disciplinae provehendae cum eiusmodi Sacrorum Antistitum vigilantiam et actionem merita probatione ac laude prosequatur, tum eosdem vehementer hortatur ut consilia atque incepta opportune inita insistant et alacrius pro viribus urgeant, quoadusque hic pestíferas morbus ex honesta hominum consortione penitus extirpetur.

Quod ut facilius ac tutius ad effectum deducatur, haec Sacra Congregatio, de mandato Sanctissimi Domini, ea quae sequuntur ad rem statuere decrevit:

I. Parochi praesertim et concionatores, data occasione, secundum illud Apostoli Pauli (II ad Tim., IV, 2) instent, arguant, obsecrent, increpent ut feminae vestes gestent, quae verecundiam sapiant quaeque sint ornamentum et praesidium virtutis; moneantque parentes ne filiae indecoras vestes gestare sinant.

[27] II. Parentes, memores gravissimae obligationis qua tenentur prolis educationem in primis religiosam et moralem curandi, peculiarem adhibeant diligentiam, ut puellae a primis annis in doctrina christiana solide instituantur atque in earum animo ipsi, verbis et exemplo, amorem virtutum modestiae et castitatis impense foveant; fairiiliam vero, Sacrae Familiae exempla imitati, ita constituere atque gubernare satagant, ut singuli verecundiae amandae atque servandae inter domesticos parietes habeant causam et invitamentum.

III. Parentes iidem filias a publicis exercitationibus et concursibus gymmcis arceant; si vero eisdem filiae interesse cogantur, curent ut vestes adhibeant quae honestatem plene praeseferant; inhonestas vero vestes illas gestare nunquam sinant.

I[V]. Collegiorum moderatrices et scholarum magistrae modestiae amore puellarum animos ita imbuere enitantur, ut eaedem ad honeste vestiendum efficaciter inducantur.

[V]. Eaedem moderatrices ac magistrae puellas, ne ipsarum quidem matribus exceptis, quae vestes minus honestas gestent, in collegia et scholas ne admittant, admissasque, nisi resipiscant* dimittant.

VI. Religiosae, iuxta litteras die xxiii mensis Augusti, a. MDCCCCXXVI[II], datas a Sacrae Congregatione de Religiosis, in sua collegia, scholas, oratoria, recreatoria puellas ne admittant, admissas ne tolèrent, quae christianum vestiendi morem non servent: ipsae vero in alumnis educandis peculiare adhibeant studium, ut in earum animo sancti pudoris et verecundiae christianae amor altas radices agat.

VII. Piae instituantur et foveantur feminarum Associationes, quae consilio, exemplo et opere finem sibi praestituant cohibendi abusus in vestibus gestandis christianae modestiae haud congruentibus et promovendi morum puritatem ac vestiendi honestatem.

VIII. In pias Associationes feminarum ne illae admittantur, quae inhonestas vestes induant; admissae vero, si quid postea hac in re peccent et monitae non resipiscant, expellantur.

I[X.] Puellae et mulieres, quae inhonestas vestes induunt, a Sancta Communione et a munere matrinae in sacramentis Baptismi et Confirmationis arceantur, atque, si casus ferat, ab ipso ecclesiae ingressu prohibeantur.

X. Cum incidunt per annum festa, quae modestiae christianae inculcandam peculiarem exhibeant opportunitatem, praesertim, vero.festa B. M. Virginis, parochi et sacerdotes piarum Unionum et Catholicarum Consociationum moderatores feminas ad christianum vestiendi morem, opportuno sermone revocare atque excitare ne praetermittant. In festo autem Beatae Mariae Virginis sine labe conceptae peculiares preces in omnibus cathedra-

[28] libus et paroecialibus ecclesiis quovis anno peragantur, habitis, ubi fieri potest, opportunis cohortationibus in soHemni ad populum concione.

[XI]. Consilium dioecesanum a vigilantia, de quo in declaratione Sancti Officii die xxii mensis Martii, a. MDCCCCX VIII data, semel saltem in anno de aptioribus modis ac rationibus ad feminarum modestiae efficaciter consulendum ex professo agat.

XII. Quo vero haec salutaris actio efficaciter et tutior succédât, Episcopi aliique locorum Ordinarii, tertio quoque anno, una simul cum relatione de religiosa, institutione, de qua in Litteris Orbem catholicum die xxi x mensis Iunii, a. MDCCCCXXin Motu proprio datis, etiam de rerum conditione ac statu circa feminarum vestiendi morem deque operibus ad normam huius Instructionis praestitis, hanc Sacram Congregationem certiorem reddant.

Datum Romae, ex aedibus Sacrae Congregationis Concilii, die XII mensis Ianuarii in festo Sacrae Familiae, anno MDCCCCXXX.

£8 D. CAED. SBARBETTI, Episc. Sabinen, et Mandelen., Praefectus.
L. $ S.
Iulius, Ep. Lampsacen., Secretarius.

Repost: Pope Benedict XV Sacra Propediem (1921) on Modesty

[...] 19. From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty.

20. In considering attentively this state of things, the Tertiaries will understand what it is that our epoch expects from the disciples of St. Francis. If they bring their gaze back to the life of their Father, they will see what perfect and living resemblance to Jesus Christ, above all in His flight from satisfactions and his love of trials in this life, had he whom they call the Poverello, and who had received in his flesh the stigmata of the Crucified. It is for them to show that they remain worthy of him by embracing poverty, at least in spirit, in renouncing themselves, and in bearing each one his cross.

21. In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals.

---

Source: Pope Benedict XV, "Sacra Propriedem" [On the Third Order of St. Francis], Vatican website, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_06011921_sacra-propediem.html, nn. 19–21.

Repost: Head-Covering of Women in Church (Jan. 1909)

[96] Qu. Would you, please, kindly inform me and many others, who are in doubt about a supposed rule compelling women to wear a head-gear in church. Is there a rule or law of the Church, which obliges women to wear a hat or head-covering in church? Weltzer and Welte's Kirchenlexikon says: "Nach den Untersuchungen de Rossi's besteht keine Gewaehr dafuer, dass Papst Linus den Frauen die Verschleierung in der Kirche geboten hat."

Does usus or church decorum require head-coverings for women in church? Should ladies and girls be told not to appear in church without hats?
PH. W.

[97] Resp. There is no present and universal ecclesiastical law that obliges women to appear in the church with or without any particular head-covering. Usage and decorum in Italy and other Catholic countries appear to be in favor of the wearing of veils, and there is a decision of the S. Congregation answering this question, whether women assisting at the sacred functions in church should wear veils, in the affirmative (Decr. authent., 7 July, 1876, n. 3402). The decision is for Ravenna.

To the question whether women and young girls should be told by the priest not to come to church without hats, we would answer emphatically, no; at least not as though such a prohibition were the law of the Church. We have other ways of inculcating upon women what modesty demands of them in church, and the priest who enters into the details of millinery, or even notices them, must have exceptional qualities if he can manage to talk about such things without forfeiting some of that high esteem which our women ought to have for their pastors. Our suggestion would be to let their hats alone; if we speak rightly to them about their needs of soul, they will most likely come with their veils or hats or whatever is needed to give us the proper impression of their modesty and decorum.

---

Source: "Head-Coverings of Women in Church," The Ecclesiastical Review 40 (January 1909): 96–97.

Repost: Immodest Women's Dress (Nov. 1929)

[171] Question: In the Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus ordered to be recited by His Holiness Pope Pius XI we read: "In particular we purpose to expiate immodesty and shamelessness in behavior and dress." What is immodest and shameless dress? Would the following words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious of September 24, 1928, addressed to the educational institutions for girls in Rome apply: "We recall that 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 elbow, and scarce reaches a bit below the knee. Furthermore, dresses made of transparent material are improper, as are also flesh-colored stockings which suggests the legs being bare."
SACERDOS.

Answer: The very fact that the Holy Father thought it important enough to mention specially the expiation for the sins committed [172] by the immodest behavior and dress, proves how serious a matter it is in the eyes of the Supreme Pontiff. It is difficult to determine with absolute precision what dresses are immodest. The approved fashions of today have certainly sinned against Christian decency under the pretext of enhancing the beauty of the female figure and of a hygienic form of dress. The worship of nature in opposition to the God of all created things is at the bottom of the ideas manifested in the fashions, which offend the religious feelings of Christian people who have a sincere regard for God's law that demands reverence for the human body because it is the temple of the Holy Ghost. The Saviour [sic] says that he who looks at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart. The enemies of God and of all true Christians constantly endeavor to put God out of the heart and mind of His devoted children, and they know that they can succeed best by first seducing them to sins of the lust of the flesh. Besides, they tackle the servants of God in the weakest point, for it is well known that the flesh continually rebels against the spirit. All the nudity that the so-called fashionably dressed girls and women exhibit, must necessarily arouse the passions of the flesh in the opposite sex, and God only knows how many sins are committed by impure thoughts and desires frequently followed by impure actions. Unfortunately, there are very few people, even among those who want to lead a Christian life, who have enough strength of character and independence to resist the perverse fashion of women's dress; they feel shame and humiliation at the way they are dressed, because they are forever trying to pull the dress down far enough to cover their knees while they are sitting down in trains and buses; but they will continue to wear that kind of clothing because it is the fashion of the day. It has been said that the girls and young women cannot help wearing such dresses, because they cannot buy any others in the market. Be this as it may, not all girls and young women dress in the extremes of the fashion, and there must therefore be some way out of the bondage of fashion that is meant to give a sinful attractiveness to the human figure. The words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious quoted by our correspondent are very helpful to the priests and Catholic educators inasmuch as they express the mind of the Holy See on the subject of immodesty in women's dress. We have frequently read in the [173] Osservatore Romano of the efforts made by very many bishops in Europe to combat the present sinful excesses of the fashion in women's dresses, and it is to be hoped that the hierarchy of the United States take a united stand against the ever-growing evil, for the individual pastor or bishop cannot effectively fight an evil that reaches through the length and breadth of the country.

---

Source: "Immodest Women's Dress," The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30, no. 1-6 (October, 1929 to March, 1930): 171–173.

Repost: Instruction Concerning Indecent Dress of Women (April 1930)

[757] At the exhortation of His Holiness, Pope Pius XI, to counteract [758] the indecent fashions, many bishops have made regulations in their dioceses and forbidden Catholic ladies to wear fashionable but unbecoming dresses at the sacred functions in church, and especially when receiving Holy Communion. Though they had to suffer the insults that a heathenized press hurled against them, they remained firm in their prohibition of the unchristian fashion. The Sacred Congregation praises them for their constancy and publishes the following regulations:

1. Pastors and preachers shall urge the Catholic women to wear modest dresses, and insist that the mothers stop their daughters from wearing unbecoming apparel.

2. The parents have the obligation to care for the religious and moral education of their children and they must take special care to instruct the girls in the principles of Christian doctrine, and by word and example foster in their souls a love for the virtues of modesty and chastity.

3. The parents must keep the girls away from public gymnastic exercises and exhibitions; if their daughters are forced to take part in such affairs, the parents should see that they wear clothes that are absolutely modest and never allow them to wear immodest uniforms.

4. The heads of girls' colleges and schools and the teachers must endeavor to instill into the minds of the girls such a love for modesty that they shall detest immodest dress.

5. The heads of schools and the teachers shall not admit to their schools girls who wear unbecoming dress, or whose parents wear them; if those already admitted do not heed the warning, they shall be discharged from those schools.

6. The religious Sisterhoods shall not admit to their schools, colleges, chapels, or gymnasiums girls who do not dress in a manner becoming Christians, nor shall they tolerate girls already admitted.

7. Pious associations of women should be formed and fostered whose purpose shall be to counteract by example and practical efforts the abuses of the unchristian fashions and to promote purity of morals and decency in dress.

8. Into these associations are not to be received women who do not dress according to Christian modesty, and, if actual members fail against the principles of the association and do not heed the [759] admonition to stop the abuse, they shall be expelled from the associations.

9. Girls and women who wear immodest dress shall be denied Holy Communion, and shall not be admitted as sponsors at Baptism and Confirmation, and, if needs be, shall be stopped from entering any church.

10. On those feast days during the year which present a special opportunity to inculcate Christian modesty, especially the feast of Our Blessed Lady, the pastors and the priests in charge of women's societies shall by appropriate sermons exhort the women to wear dresses that bespeak Christian modesty. On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception special prayers shall be offered in all Cathedral and parochial churches and, if circumstances permit, an appropriate sermon should be preached.

11. The Diocesan Vigilance Committee, spoken of by the Holy Office on March 22, 1918, should at least once a year meet for the purpose of specially considering ways and means of promoting effectively Christian modesty of women.

12. In order to put these Instructions into effect, the local Ordinaries shall every three years, together with the report on religious teaching (cfr. Motu Proprio, June 29, 1923), inform the Sacred Congregation of the Council on the matter of immodest dress of women and what the Ordinaries have done to counteract that evil (January 12, 1930; Acta Ap. Sedis, XXII, 26-28).

---

Source: "Instruction Concerning Indecent Dress of Women," The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30, no. 7-12 (April to September, 1930): 757–759.

Repost: Discretion Necessary in Preaching Against Immodest Dress of Women (April 1930)

[751] Question: In dealing with the matter of modesty in dress, is not the indirect method far more effective? We have heard numbers of sermons in which it was evident that the preacher was thoroughly enjoying his own talk, and the members of the congregation—especially the ones referred to—nearly or quite as much. For the chief reason for wearing such clothes was to attract attention by startlingness [sic], and they were receiving abundant and vociferous assurance that the object had been attained. Furthermore, they knew that they would be still more closely scrutinized by the men of the congregation. A theatrical manager would have paid handsomely for such an advertisement. Would not a sermon on the Blessed Mother or the Little Flower delivered with equal vigor and enthusiasm have produced far better results in promoting modesty?

PASTOR.

Answer: There is a great deal of truth in the remarks of our correspondent. If all preaching requires careful preparation and study as to what to say and how to say it in order that the discourse may be worthy of the sacred place and the holy purpose, preaching about modesty of dress of women and denunciation of sins committed by immodest apparel need careful weighing of words and expressions lest the serious-minded Catholic people be scandalized and the superficial ones be amused.

The seriousness of this particular form of immodesty is evidently very grave at the present time, for our Supreme Teacher of religion, the Vicar of Christ, remarked in his discourse to the Lenten preachers of the City of Rome (February 11, 1929) that the first thing he would request them to bring into their Lenten course of sermons is the shamelessness in the manner of dressing of so many disgraceful women and girls, who nevertheless call themselves and wish to be considered Christians. The preachers should endeavor with fatherly kindness, with patience and perseverance to convince them of the wrong they are doing, for many of them are slaves to this fashion, which is unworthy not only of Christian countries but of any civilized people. Very many, the Holy Father remarks, know that they are slaves to the fashion and are ashamed of it, but do not have the strength to rebel against a tyranny that exploits their [752] modesty as the slave trader does the blood of the slaves. Against those who do not only not feel their disgrace but glory in it and boast of it, the preachers should inveigh with all the vigor of their apostolic zeal.

---

Source: "Discretion Necessary in Preaching Against Immodest Dress of Women," The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30, no. 7-12 (April to September, 1930): 751–752.