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.