St. Charles Borromeo, On Sacred Images - Instructions on Church Building (1577)

Chapter 17. Sacred Images or Pictures

According to the decree of the Council of Trent and the Provincial constitutions,(1) the bishop must take great care that the sacred images are piously and religiously depicted. Moreover a heavy punishment or fine for painters and sculptors who depart from the prescribed rules in the representations mentioned above has been provided for. A sanction has also been provided for the ecclesiastical rectors who allow an unusual image to be depicted or placed in their church, contrary to the rules prescribed by the Tridentine decree.(2)

What is to be avoided and what is to be observed in the sacred images 

First of all no sacred image containing a false dogma or that offers the uneducated an occasion for dangerous error, or that is at variance with the Sacred Scriptures or Church tradition, is to be depicted in the church or elsewhere. Conversely, the image must conform to the truths of the Scriptures, the traditions, ecclesiastical histories, customs and usages of the Mother Church.(3)

Moreover in painting or sculpting sacred images, just as nothing false, uncertain or apocryphal, superstitious, or unusual is to be depicted, so whatever is profane, base or obscene, dishonest or provocative will be strictly avoided. Likewise all that is outlandish, which does not incite men to piety, or which can offend the soul and eyes of the faithful is forbidden.

Furthermore, although attempts must be made to seek as accurate as possible a semblance of the saint, care will be taken not to purposefully reproduce the likeness of another person, living or dead.

Images of beasts of burden, dogs, fish and other brute animals are not to be shown in the church or other holy places, unless the depiction of the holy story, in accordance with the custom of the Mother Church, specifically requires it.(4)

The dignity of sacred images

The representation of the sacred images will correspond in all things to the dignity and holiness of the prototypes, fittingly and decorously, in the appearance, position and adornment of the person.

Distinguishing characteristics of the saints 

Those things that for their meaning as something sacred are painted on or attached to the images of the saints, must conform, in an adequate and decorous manner, to what is specified by the church. Examples are the nimbus or crown, similar to a round shield, placed around the heads of the saints, palms held by martyrs, the miter and crosier which are given to Bishops, and other like things, as well as the distinctive attribute of each saint.

Moreover, care must be taken that the representation corresponds to historical truth, to church practice, to the criteria prescribed by the Fathers. 

Care must be taken that the nimbus of Christ the Lord is distinguished from those of the saints by a cross. Finally care must be taken not to attribute the nimbus to anyone who has not been canonized by the Church.

Locations unsuitable for sacred pictures

No holy image is to be depicted on the ground, not even in the Church, nor in humid places, where with time the painting would be ruined and deteriorate; neither under windows, from which rain water could drip, nor in the proximity of points where nails [ubi clavialiquando figendi sunt ponerse clavos] are to be fixed at any time, nor, we repeat, on the ground or in dirty and muddy places.

In locations of this kind, not even the stories of the saints or depictions of symbols of the sacred mysteries will be represented.(5)

Rite for blessing the images

Not only must one pay attention to the location but also to the ancient Ecclesiastical rite. In other words, the images of the saints, once made, will be consecrated by solemn benediction and those specific prayers prescribed in the Pontifical or Ceremonial book.

The names of the saints that must sometimes be inscribed

It is not untoward that, in many of the sacred images depicted in a church, the names of the saints represented are written under the lesser known figures. This is an ancient practice, as confirmed by St. Paulinus in this line: "Martyribus mediam pia nomina signant." [Let the pious names be marked among the martyrs].(6)

Accessories and ornamental additions

The accessories, that is the elements the painters and sculptors usually add to the images for decoration, shall not be profane, nor sensual, nor solely for aesthetic delight, nor incompatible with the sacred picture, such as for example the deformed human heads commonly called "mascaroni," or the birds, or the sea, or the green fields painted to please and delight the eye and for decoration. [They may be used] only if they are an integral part of the sacred story represented, or unless they are ex-votos, in which human heads or other things, mentioned above, are painted to explain the meaning.

The ornaments and apparel painted onto the sacred images must have nothing unsuitable, or which, in other words, has little or nothing to do with sanctity.

Votive panels

Care must also be taken, as prescribed above, regarding the ex-votos, offerings, wax images and other objects habitually hung in the churches according to ancient practice and tradition, in remembrance of health recovered, or danger avoided, or a divine grace miraculously received, for frequently they are false, indecorous, indecent and superstitious depictions.

---

Notes

1. During the first Provincial Council of 1565 Borromeo referred to the Tridentine Synod and reiterated the regulations that no one might display a sacred image in any place or church without Episcopal approval, and that nothing false, profane, tasteless, preposterous or inconsistent with ecclesiastical history and tradition was to be exhibited.

2. Another practical approach in this period of ecclesiastical reorganization under Borromeo was his suggestion to call a mass meeting of artists and inform them of their obligations. At the same time he also advised that "in order that bishops might more easily execute these and other like prescriptions of the Council of Trent, let them call together the painters and sculptors of their dioceses and inform all equally about things to be observed in producing sacred images; and that they [the bishops] were to see to it that no painter or sculptor publicly or privately produced any sacred image without consulting the parish priest."

Punishments, fines and penalties were frequently mentioned by Borromeo; for example, in concluding the above advice, he added that "if any transgress, let them be punished, the artists themselves as well as those at whose expense or by whose order the images are produced."

At the fourth Provincial Council (1576) eleven years later, and one year before the norms, the movement of Counter Reformation art was still at a point where the threat of punishment appeared to be an added impetus to obedience. Borromeo stated that "for painters and sculptors, let there be established by the authority of the bishop a heavy fine and punishment as well as ecclesiastical interdicts if, contrary to the decree of that same Tridentine Council, they paint or fashion anything that is excessively, unnaturally, or hurriedly done, anything that is profane or tasteless." As in the Instructiones, Borromeo follows with a warning to the pastors of churches "who have permitted the placing of any inaccurate sacred image that is contrary to the sanction of that Council [Trent], even through their churches be exempt, let there be established also the penalty of excommunication or fine at the bishop's discretion in assessing the degree of fault."

3. The language used by Borromeo is similar to that found in the Trent proceedings.

If any abuses shall have found their way into these holy and salutary observances, the holy Council desires earnestly that they be completely removed, so that no representation of false doctrines and such as might be the occasion of grave error to the uneducated be exhibited. (Trent, 216)

But now, if these things, either painted images or formed statues, by reason of the temerity or ignorance of the artists, or by chance of the kind that seem in no way tolerable, let the Bishops, when they have obtained the counsel for learned and skilled men, see to it that these works are completely removed or at least in some way corrected. (Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis, 37)

4. The warning that animals were not a part of religious iconography was clearly expressed by Borromeo in 1576 when he decreed that "representations of beasts of burden, dogs or other brute animals must not be made in church; since on the sanction of the Tridentine Council it is wrong for anything tasteless or profane to appear in church and this clearly was also forbidden at the seventh ecumenical Synod of Nicaea. But if the expression of sacred history after the practice of the Holy Mother Church demands that it occasionally be done in different ways, clearly this is not forbidden."

5. "If any sacred paintings or painted images are of unseemly appearance by reason of being all but effaced by age, decay, location or dirt, let the Bishop order them renovated by those whose concern is pious and religious painting, or if this is not possible, totally destroyed. Paintings of saints expressed in images which have been damaged by age must not be turned to any vile, sordid, or profane use; rather, as has been sanctioned by the decree of the blessed Clement, priest and martyr, in the case of altar curtains and hangings which have been consumed by time, they should be burned; then the ashes, moreover, lest they be stepped upon, should be placed beneath the pavement. Likewise sacred statues, if deformed, should be removed and placed under the pavement of the church or at least under the ground of the cemetery."

6. St. Paulinus was elected Bishop of Nola near Naples in 409. He chose his predecessor St. Felix as patron and built a basilica in his honor.

---

Source: St. Charles Borromeo, "Chapter 17: Sacred Images or Pictures," in Instructions on Church Building (Instructiones Fabricae et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae [1577]), trans. Evelyn Voelker.

Notes are also by Evelyn Voelker.

Pius XII, The Function of Art (April 8, 1952)

[3] An address by His Holiness Pope Pius XII to a group of Italian artists received in audience on April 8, 1952.

1. With deep satisfaction, beloved sons and daughters, promoters of the figurative arts, We welcome your devout homage and that of your families, by reason of your coming to Us on the occasion of the sixth Roman quadrennial meeting, and We express to you Our pleasure for the remembrance-gift which you are leaving with Us.

2. How delightful your presence is to Us is shown by the tradition itself of the Roman pontificate. As the heir of universal culture it has never ceased to appreciate art, to surround itself with works of art, to make art, within due limits, the collaborator of its divine mission, preserving and elevating its destiny, which is to guide the soul to God.

3. Upon crossing the threshold of this house of the common Father, you felt as though you were in your own world, perceiving yourselves and your ideals in the masterpieces gathered here throughout the centuries. Nothing is lacking therefore to make this meeting mutually delightful between the Successor, though unworthy, of those Pontiffs who shone as generous patrons of the arts, and you who continue the Italian artistic tradition.

4. It is needless to explain to you—who feel it within yourselves, often as a noble torment—one of the essential characteristics of art, which consists in a certain intrinsic 'affinity' of art with religion, which in certain ways renders artists interpreters of the infinite perfections of God, and particularly of the beauty and harmony of God's creation.

5. The function of all art lies in fact in breaking through the narrow and tortuous enclosure of the finite, in which man is immersed while living here below, and in providing a window to the infinite for his hungry soul.

[4] 6. Thus it follows that any effort—and it would be a vain one, indeed—aimed at denying or suppressing any relation between art and religion must impair art itself. Whatever artistic beauty one may wish to grasp in the world, in nature and in man, in order to express it in sound, in color, or in plays for the masses, such beauty cannot prescind from God. Whatever exists is bound to Him by an essential relationship. Hence, there is not, neither in life nor in art—be it intended as an expression of the subject or as an interpretation of the object—the exclusively "human," the exclusively "natural" or "immanent."

7. The greater the clarity with which art mirrors the infinite, the divine, the greater will be its possibility for success in striving toward its ideal and true, artistic accomplishment. Thus, the more an artist lives religion, the better prepared he will be to speak the language of art, to understand its harmonies, to communicate its emotions.

8. Naturally, We are far from thinking that in order to be interpreters of God in the sense just mentioned, artists must treat explicitly religious subjects. On the other hand, one cannot question the fact that never, perhaps, has art reached its highest peaks as it has in these subjects.

9. In this manner, the great masters of Christian arts became interpreters, not only of the beauty but also of the goodness of God, the revealer and Redeemer. Marvelous exchange of services between Christianity and art! From their Faith they drew sublime inspirations. They drew hearts to the Faith when for continuous centuries they communicated and spread the truths contained in the Holy Scriptures, truths inaccessible, at least directly, to the humble people.

10. In truth, artistic masterpieces were known as the "Bible of the people," to mention such noted examples as the windows of Chartres, the door of Ghiberti (by happy expression known as the Door of Paradise), the Roman and Ravenna mosaics and the facade of the Cathedral of Orvieto. These and other masterpieces not only translate into easy reading and universal language the Christian [5] truths, they also communicate the intimate sense and emotion of these truths with an effectiveness, lyricism and ardor that, perhaps, is not contained in even the most fervent preaching.

11. Souls ennobled, elevated and prepared by art, are thus better disposed to receive the religious truths and the grace of Jesus Christ. This is one of the reasons why the Sovereign Pontiffs, and the Church in general, honored and continue to honor art and to offer its works as a tribute of human beings to God's Majesty in His churches, which have always been abodes of art and religion at the same time.

12. Beloved children, crown your artistic ideals with those of religion, which revitalize and integrate them. The artist is of himself a privileged person among men, but the Christian artist is, in a certain sense, a chosen one, because it is proper to those chosen to contemplate, to enjoy and to express God's perfections. 

13. Seek God here below in nature and in man, but above all within yourselves. Do not vainly try to give the human without the divine, nor nature without its Creator. Harmonize instead the finite with the infinite, the temporal with the eternal, man with God, and thus you will give the truth of art and the true art.

14. Even without making it a specific aim, endeavor to educate men's hearts—so easily inclined toward materialism—toward kindness and a spiritual feeling; you to whom it is given to speak a language which all peoples can understand. Strive to bring men closer to one another. May the artist's vocation, for which you are indebted to God, lead you to this mission: a mission so noble and worthy that it is sufficient in itself to give to your daily life—often harsh and arduous—its fullness and a courageous faith.

15. In order that these Our wishes may be fulfilled and God glorified in your art, We invoke upon you and your families an abundance of heavenly favors and may the Apostolic Blessing which We impart upon you from the fulness of Our heart be a promise of them.

---

Source: Pius XII, "The Function of Art," address, The Function of Art: Address of Pope Pius XII; On Sacred Art—Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Welfare Conference, 1952), 3-5.

Pius XII, The Art of Fra Angelico: Window into Heaven (April 20, 1955)

 [125] Address of Pope Pius XII at Opening of Exhibition of Paintings of Fra Angelico at the Vatican

In welcoming into Our dwelling so many masterpieces of Fra Giovanni of Fiesole it is Our intention not only to pay a special tribute of admiration to his genius, which reached the highest pinnacle of art by drawing inspiration from the mysteries of faith. It is also Our desire to revive the deeply religious and human message his paintings have preached to his own and succeeding generations, which have never tired of contemplating his symbolic images where beauty and harmony seem to transcend the summit of the purely human and to open as it were a window into Heaven.

Above all, We wish to express Our great pleasure at the extensive study inspired by the 5th centenary of his death. It has stimulated outstanding critics and authors to deepen and spread knowledge of the personality and work of Fra Angelico in noteworthy publications. Some of these have presented in a new and truer light the period and currents of thought and art which marked the first half of the 15th century. They are publications which redound to the honor not only of the arts but of culture in general and of religion itself.

Perennial witness

We wish also to express Our heartfelt gratitude toward each and all of those distinguished persons who responded with filial solicitude to Our desires and arranged that the works of Fra Angelico, cherished as incomparable treasures in the museums and galleries of various nations, be entrusted to U s for a while on this happy occasion. This has secured Us the pleasure of viewing them and at the same time the joy of being able to show them to Our beloved sons from all over the world who will be visiting Rome at this time. 

The present Exhibition is the first important collection of Angelico's works in one place, and fittingly enough in this Apostolic Palace, whose threshold the eminent man of genius crossed many times. The humble and pious Fra [126] Giovanni of Fiesole, as is well known, came here at the peak of his artistic maturity at the request of Our predecessors, first of Eugene IV, and later of the great patron of the arts Nicholas V, to whom the Renaissance owes much of its early beginnings. And here ono these walls Angelico immortalized some of the most vigorous creations of his artistic imagination, an honor and adornment of this Apostolic residence, and a perennial witness of the perfect accord between Religion and art. 

The homage rendered today, after five centuries, to this holy monk and consummate artist, gives added meaning to the well deserved tribute We gladly pay him, because, among other things, his memory and his work seem somehow associated with Our own laborious Pontificate. It is a pleasures to recall Our visit fifteen years ago to the Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minerva where his mortal remains are cherished with pious devotion. But in a special way, Fra Angelico, who may be called the ecstatic painter of Mary Queen of Heaven, recalls the extraordinary favor Divine providence granted Our lowliness, that of honoring the Mother of God in singular ways. Among these was crowning with Our own hand the image of the Virgin, as he did so often in the ecstasy of art in masterpieces which throughout the centuries have remained models of celestial beauty.

Acclaimed in every age

And now Our high esteem for Fra Angelico, so many of whose works are here before us, would lead Us to make some analytical comment on his art. However, Our present condition permits Us only to touch briefly upon a few of its most characteristic aspects. We shall leave to the eminent critics the function and pleasure of going deeply into some of the questions which have always interested lovers of art since the age in which he flourished and especially since the science of the history and the criticism of art developed with its own methodology. It is inf act one of the great honors of Fra Angelico that in every age he has claimed the admiring attention of scholars. [127] Nor in fact could he have been overlooked by anyone attempting to trace the main avenues along which Western culture advanced; he is unquestionably one of the pillars of this culture, as a successful promoter of its progress and development as well as an interpreter of his own era.

While in the past and the present critical judgments have been divided in his regard, these judgments have been concerned only with secondary aspects of his personality or of the genesis of his art, or else have differed only in its interpretation. But no honest critic has ever questioned his essential attributes, which are universally recognized, namely, that he was a very great painter, of deep spirituality, a felicitous innovator, an effective, sincere and perfect artist. Although with the passage of time tastes and fashions change in the field of art, too, and although the search for new forms of expression often leads to a certain forgetfulness or disdain of the old, Fra Angelico, like all great and true geniuses, has never in any age suffered a lessening of the admiration he evoked both in the scholar and in the popular mind. His art is bound, it is true, to one time; it belongs to a specific era, succeeded by many, many others. But later developments are not to be considered as improving on or surpassing his art, as if it had lacked perfection or failed to attain its goal. The most modern scholars concur in this basic judgment, and have also resolved in his favor the long debated question as to whether he was a disciple of the Gothic tradition or a precursor of the humanistic renaissance. Fra Angelico was ready and prompt to assimilate the new revivifying currents of art, but he always strove to preserve for it the traditional religious character of its didactic and ethical aims. There is no doubt that he was one of the most representative links in the labor of transition from one period to the next.

Sermon and prayer

Similarly, his personality has been set in its true light, extricated from the popular and pious legend which depicted the fervent friar painting his Saints while absorbed in unconscious ecstasy, his brush guided by superterrestrial beings. This does not mean, however, that his profound religious sense, his serene and austere asceticism, nourished by solid virtue, contemplation and prayer, did not exercise a determining influence on his artistic expression, giving it the potency and immediacy with which it spoke to the minds of others and, as has frequently been noted, transmuting it into prayer, just as he was int h e habit of repeating "he who makes the things of Christ ought always to be with Christ" (G. Vasari, Vite dei piu eccell. Pittori, Scult. ed. Arch., Florence, 1878, t. II, p. 520).

As for whether or not he derives in certain respects from Giotto; what influence Masaccia had on him; with what criteria he resolved the new and difficult problems then debated around the theories of space and light; how he understood the return to classicism; whether he sided with Cennini, who considered that the function of painting was to discover the invisible, [128] and not with Alberti, who restricted the realm of art to the visible alone; whether he intended an explicit polemical stand against the neoplatonic current, which he unquestionably rejected — these questions are still objects of studies and research which do honor to those who conduct them. 

Thomistic in content and technique

The candid piety of Fra Angelico is rightly considered an essential basis for his efficacy as a painter. But still another basis is to be sought in his cultural formation, that is in the doctrine of the universe he learned in the school of the philosophia perennis and to which he adhered with clear and tranquil certitude. Not a few critics have rightly pointed out how Thomistic doctrine is reflected not only in the content of his paintings but also in his style and technique. Fra Angelico takes nature as his point of departure, one might say, like the great Doctor in his exposition of the "five ways." And he loves nature passionately as the work and the reflection of God. However, he insists on highlighting the aesthetic aspects of nature; he seems in fact to be striving boldly to fix upon it his own ideal of beauty, sought in devout contemplation of his supernatural world. The vision of creation in his aesthetic form is neither stunted nor incomplete, for he identifies the beautiful with the true, the good, the holy, the perfect, the chaste, almost in the same way that the Divine perfections, of which creatures are the reflection, are not really distinct in God but only more or less explicitly so because of the innate weakness of the created intellect.

The Alpha and the Omega

Likewise he has learned from the teachings of St. Thomas the great synthesis of the universe, which, varied as it is in the elements which compose it, takes its origin from God and returns to Him after having run its course in the form of an orbit radiant with harmony, beauty, truth and holiness. This synthesis seems reflected in those famous compositions in which delightful figures of angels, saints, friars and virgins form a crown for the throne of the Redeemer and his Mother.

Celestial light

Certainly Fra Angelico's painting is always religious, both in subject matter and in style and method of treatment. Accustomed to the tranquility of monastic discipline, and striving always for perfection in intention, in word, and in action, it is natural he should seek to attain it also in the techniques of his art, which, as a result, is always cleanly bright and serene. In his life, as in his paintings, there are no moments of exterior drama, but inner struggles, fought in complete resignation to the Divine Will and with calm confidence in the victory of good. The very light which he pours over his figures and through his backgrounds is measurable not so much in quantity as by its quality of purity; it is in so far as possible, a celestial light.

Spiritual lyricism

His themes are simple and [129] linear, patterned as it were on the style of the Evangelists. His figures always reveal an intense interior life. Their countenances, their gestures, their movements are all transfigured by it. As he narrates or expounds the divine mysteries to his audience, Fra Angelico is ever the skillful [sic] "preacher," seeking to elicit an immediate response with descriptive and decorative elements in order to speak more quietly to the inmost soul. When, on the other hand, his aim is to offer a subject for contemplation to his brother monks, practised [sic] in the meditation of supernatural truths, he is careful to eliminate any element of distraction, such as strong tones of light and color or the busy converse of too many figures and gestures, and his emphasis then is on the purely internal. The figures are sublimated in an ethereal, other-worldly lightness, the background is empty, the canvas is smaller, and the decorative elements so dear to him, like the gentle landscapes of his native Tuscany and the architectural forms created by Brunelleschi, disappear. The result is a spiritual lyricism, bursting from pure interior harmony, which still hovers in the cells and corridors of the convent of San Marco in Florence, whose walls alone would be sufficient to celebrate an artist's immortal glory.

On occasion, as in this "study" of Nicholas V and in other large altar pieces, he uses a monumental style but always within the measure allowed by his artistic purpose, become by now his unalterable canon of expression, namely, to speak of things divine in accents which are true and understandable but at the same time worthy of God and of his Saints.

Religion, a transhumanizing force

But what is substantially the aim of the picture language which Fra Angelico addresses to the children of his own and succeeding centuries? On the one hand, his purpose is to teach the truths of faith, convincing men's minds by the very force of their beauty. On the other, he aims to draw the faithful to the practice of the Christian virtues by setting before them beautiful and attractive examples. Because of this second purpose, his work becomes a perennial message of living Christianity, and, in a certain sense a sublimely human message based on the principle of the transhumanizing force of religion, by virtue of which everyone who comes in direct contact with God and his mysteries becomes like Him in holiness, in beauty and in bliss; becomes, that is, a creature according to the original design of his Creator. 

Model man—balanced, serene, perfect

Fra Angelico's brush, therefore, gives life to a kind of model man, not unlike the angels, in whom all is balanced, serene, perfect: a model man and Christian, rarely found perhaps in the circumstances of earthly life but still to be offered for imitation by the people. Look carefully at the Saints who surround Christ and the Virgin, or even the anonymous figures in his picture stories. They betray no intellectual uncertainties or torments; each of them enjoys the [130] calm possession of the truth, which he has attained by natural knowledge or by supernatural faith. Their will is oriented toward the good; the passions, reactions, emotions to which they are subject because they are human creatures, are always tempered by the inner control of the soul. The tears for the dead Redeemer represent indeed a bitter grief but not desperate anguish. The joy of the blessed is not yet abandonment to uncontainable exultation. The austerity of the penitents has no shadow of torment. The contemplative concentration of St. Dominic is quite different from the ecstatic abstraction which would erase his human personality. The vehemence of John the Baptist is controlled by the strong temper of his soul. This moderation in the passions and emotions is what Fra Angelico wished to preach to Christian souls. 

Positive goodness

A positive goodness, besides, clothes every one of his figures, be they angels, or saintly religious, or humble folk. His Madonnas breathe a material goodness even when seated in majestic grandeur on a throne. The angel who has received from God the tremendous duty of driving the first parents from Eden manages to lay a sword-free hand on Adam's shoulder, as if to give him courage and hope. Even the wicked judges and executioners of the martyrs have a certain air of goodness about them, as if they were conscious of being the instruments of God's glory.

It might be said, in fact, that the artist himself declares his inability to portray what is turbid or evil. Constrained at times to include in his world the darker elements of human reality, he avoids as much as possible their direct portrayal, as can be noted in the "Martyrdom of Saints Cosmas and Damian" and in the "Last Judgment." The group of the damned in the latter painting is attributed by some to disciples of his school.

Man, in Fra Angelico's world, which is the world of truth, is naturally neither good nor holy. But he can and must become so, for holiness is easy and beautiful, since Christ, whose ultimate sacrifice he painted so often, died for this very purpose, His most holy Mother is the supreme example of it, the Saints rejoice because they have attained it and the Angels take delight in conversing with the Saints.

Reward of virtue

To win souls to the virtues he sets before them, he highlights not so much the effort of achieving them as the bliss that comes from possessing them and the nobility of those adorned by them. Thus the profound humility of the Virgin listening to Gabriel is expressed in her face with the same queenliness that illumines it as she is crowned by her Son. Thus both portraits of the Virgin bespeak the same queenliness, except for the slight hint of perturbation in the one, transformed into a delicate smile of joyousness in the other. In the condemnation of St. Stephen, virtue and passion confront each other in the persons of the accused and the judge respectively. But the accused humiliates the man of power, though seated on his throne, by the [131] sheer fearless strength of his faith. Fra Angelico is unsurpassed in weaving praises of other Christian virtues. This praise becomes perhaps a poem in the wonderful fresco here which might be called the apotheosis of poverty and misfortune endured with a Christian spirit. The blind man, the paralytic, the man covered with sores, the widow and the other poor who cluster about the holy deacon Lawrence draw from the Christian faith that fills them a shining dignity which their pitiful miseries cannot obscure. Perhaps one of the many delightful angels who grace his other pictures would not be out of place in this group of human creatures, who may be poor but whose soul is rich with serenity and hope.

World of peace and holiness

The world of Fra Angelico's paintings is indeed the ideal world, radiant with the aura of peace, holiness, harmony and joy; its reality lies int he future when ultimate justice will triumph over a new earth and new heavens (cf. 2 Pet. 3, 13). Yet, this gentle and blessed world can even now come to life in the recesses of men's souls, and it is to them he offers it, inviting them to enter in. It is this invitation which seems to Us to be the message Fra Angelico entrusts to his art, confident that it will thus be effectively spread. 

Art and religion

It is true that an explicit religious or ethical function is not demanded of art as art. If, as the aesthetic expression of the human spirit, it reflects that spirit in its complete verity or at least does not positively distort it, art is in itself sacred and religious, that is, in so far as it is the interpreter of a work of God. But if its content and aim are such as Fra Angelico gave his painting, then art rises to the dignity almost of a minister of God, reflecting a greater number of perfections.

Sublime possibility

We should like to point out to artists, who are ever dear to Us, this sublime possibility of art. For if instead the words and cadences of artistic expression were fitted to minds which are false, empty and confused, that is, unlike the Creator's plan, if, instead of lifting the mind and heart to noble sentiments, art excited the baser passions, it would indeed encounter some response and welcome, if only because of its novelty, which is not always a virtue, and because of the slim fraction of reality reflected in all human expression. But such art would be a degradation of itself; it would be a negation of its primary and essential character. Nor would it be universal and eternal, like the human spirit to which it speaks.

A message religious and human

In paying homage to the greatness of the artist and in inviting Our beloved sons to accept, almost as if disposed by Providence, the religious and human message of Fra Giovanni of Fiesole, Our mind cannot escape the anxious consideration of the present world in which we live, so different form that portrayed in these wonderful [132] paintings, win which the loftiest and truest human aspirations are sealed with exquisite artistry.

Ardently therefore do We hope that the breath of Christian goodness, serenity and Divine harmony that escapes from the works of Fra Angelico may pervade the hearts of all, while in pledge of more abundant grace from heaven, We impart with all Our heart Our paternal Apostolic Blessing.

---

Source: Pius XII, "The Art of Fra Angelico: Window into Heaven," address, The Pope Speaks 2, no. 2 (summer 1955): 125-132.

Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Catholic Artists (September 3, 1950)

 [3] You have undertaken a thing both timely and useful, dearly beloved sons, in promoting and organizing among yourselves the First International Congress of Catholic Artists, the distinguished representatives of which we are happy to greet on this occasion.

So much has already been said about art — that inexhaustible subject! Your present undertaken moves us to outline — very briefly — art's part in the task of Peace [sic]. Pax Romana!

The tremors of a world shaken to its foundation, misunderstandings between the minds of men, opposing interests, and shadows cast by hypersensitive individualism — all these, despite the new abundance of contacts and assimilation in material matters, have sharpened the sense of separateness, broadened and deepened the moral distances. The very excess of this evil has bit by bit made clearer the need for uniting in common action all the scattered strength of the nations and peoples anxious for peace. 

Neither to-day nor yet yesterday have first seen tenacious and skilful [sic] efforts everywhere aimed at bringing about joint action or cooperation with other lands. Contemporary events have stressed, not the futility and uselessness, but rather the inadequacy and shallow-rootedness of such efforts. Hence, with laudable eagerness, and faced with difficulties of every kind, men have set about establishing international associations on the political, juridical, economic, and social levels. it was promptly realized that there was still need for something more intimate, more human, and associations — at least partial associations — have begun to take shape in the technical, scientific, and cultural realms.

On this intellectual level, the Congress of Catholic Artists, now holding its first general meeting, ranks among the most estimable activities. This is self-evident, given first of all that art is, in certain respects, the most living, the most all-inclusive expression of human thought and feeling, and, moreover, the most broadly understandable, because art, speaking directly to the senses, knows not the diversity of tongues, but only the highly stimulating diversity of temperaments and mentalities. What is more, thanks to its subtlety and refinement, art — whether heard or seen — reaches depths in the mind and heart of him who beholds or listens, which words, either spoken or written, with their insufficiently shaded analytical precision, cannot attain.

For these two reasons, art helps men — regardless of all differences in character, education, or civilization — to know themselves, to understand themselves, at least mutually to comprehend each other and, consequently, to make common store of their respective resources with a view to rounding themselves out, one complementing the other. 

A first condition is required for art to be able to produce so desirable a result: namely, its expressive value, lacking [4] which it ceases to be a true art. To say as much is not superfluous in our day when all too often, among certain groups, the work of art is not sufficient in itself to render the thought, to externalize the feelings, to lay bare the soul of its author. Yet the moment it needs to be explained in verbal terms, it loses its value as a sign and serves only to afford the senses a physical joy rising no higher than their own level, or else it affords the mind merely the pleasure of subtle and useless play. Another condition exists if art is to accomplish fruitfully and worthily its glorious mission of understanding, of concord, and of peace; this is that through art the senses, far from burdening the soul and anchoring it to earth, should indeed supply the soul with wings, with which it may lift itself above passing trifles and meannesses toward the eternal, toward the true, toward the beautiful, toward the only true good, toward the only centre [sic] where union takes place, where unity is achieved, toward God. Is it not here that we may literally apply the resplendent utterance of the Apostle? "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen — His everlasting power also and Divinity — being understood through the things that are made." (Rom. i. 20.)

Hence all the schools of thought which cause art to forfeit its sublime role profane it and make it sterile. "Art for art's sake": as though it could serve itself as it sown end, sentenced to bestir itself, to drag itself about close to sensible and material things; as though through art man's senses do not obey a vocation higher than that of the simple apprehension of material nature, the vocation to awaken in the mind and soul of man, thanks to the transparency of that nature, the desire for "things that the eye has not seen or ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man." (I Cor. ii. 9.)

We shall say nothing here about an immoral art, which professedly lowers and enslaves the soul's spiritual powers to the passions of the flesh. After all, the words "art" and "immoral" are in flagrant contradiction, and your programme [sic] nowhere suggests their union. Congratulations, then, Gentlemen, for having understood the task incumbent upon you and for having desired, in the face of a "culture without hope" to regard art as "the source of a new hope." Make then to smile upon the earth, upon mankind, the reflection of the divine beauty and the divine light, and you shall, as you help man to love all things which are true, pure, just, holy, and worthy of love, have greatly contributed to the task of peace, and the "God of peace will be with you." (Cf. Phil. iv. 8-9.) May the immaculate Virgin, mirror of God's justice and splendor, Queen of peace, and whom we may well call the Queen of the arts, inspire and help you, may she cause to descend upon you, whose .lovingly contemplated ideal she is, her Son's graces, in pledge of which we give you — you and the whole body of Catholic artists and all those who are dear to you — our apostolic benediction.

---

Source: Pius XII, "The Sovereign Pontiff's Address to the First International Congress of Catholic Artists" (September 3, 1950), address, Liturgical Arts 19, no. 1 (1950): 3-4.

Summary of Moralists on Organ Playing Non-Catholic Services and Communicatio in Sacris

[3] Some authors do not give formal communication so wide an extent; they do not consider every active participation in a non-Catholic religious service as a formal communication. Vermeersch, for example, looks upon playing the organ as a form of proximate material co-operation [sic].[16] Since the majority of the moralists,[17] however, consider that action as a formal communication in non-Catholic worship, and since the Holy See has said it is never allowed,[18] there seems to be justification for including it under the general heading of formal communication. By reason of its part in the function, playing the organ at a religious service is to be classed as a specifically religious action.

This attitude of Vermeersch follows from a difference he notes between communication and participation. Both consist in taking part in the action of another, whether merely internally by intention [4] and desire, or externally, too. To his mind external communication is considered as formal, while external participation is reduced rather to co-operation, which in some matters can be formal or merely material, according to the intention.[19] There seems, however, to be no practical reason for this distinction in regard to our matter. To participate actively, even only externally, in a non-Catholic religious ceremony is  a formal communication. Therefore, communication and participation are used interchangeably in this study. [...]

[36] Per accidens intention and moral circumstances can become the primary sources of the morality of an human act.[3] When an act is indifferent morally from both its object and its circumstances, the only source of the morality of that act will be the intention for which it is done. For a person in every human act must act with some intention, which must be either morally good or morally bad. An act, which is morally indifferent by reason of its object, can also become good or bad by reason of one or more of the moral circumstances. In that case the circumstances assume the character of moral objects, and become accidentally the primary sources of the goodness or badness of the individual act. Thus, although the playing of an organ is morally indifferent in itself, when it is done as a part of a non-Catholic religious service, it becomes bad by reason of the circumstances making it an active participation in the non-Catholic religious service. [...]

[51] There is clearly a formal co-operation when there is question of a participation in what is essential in the service, as to receive the eucharist of heretics. An active participation in what is accidental in such worship, as singing, even though the hymns be orthodox in their content, or playing the organ in a religious service, is also a formal co-operation.[54] Such activity implies an approval of the cult, for it is intended to add beauty, attractiveness, and appeal to the service; this implication is inseparable from any subjective attitude of the one actively participating in accidentals. In other words, all accidental activity of a religious nature is as wrong, by reason of the circumstances, as that which is essentially a part of the service. Whatever activity in a non-Catholic service has a specifically religious character, whether by its nature, or by reason of the circumstances, is intrinsically wrong, as a profession of the belief of a false sect.[55] Since such activity in the exercise of idolatrous or false worship is intrinsically wrong, it cannot be reduced to merely material co-operation.[56] An objection cannot be made on the score that the sin of irreligion on the part of the non-Catholic is only material. Even if that is true, co-operation in it in a formal way is not licit. For one is never allowed to co-operate formally in something which is intrinsically wrong objectively. Although the other person may not be subjectively guilty of sin, the formal co-operator incurs the guilt of the virtues violated, for he does something he knows to be intrinsically wrong. [...]

[72] B. Singing or Playing Musical Instruments

Singing or playing musical instruments in non-Catholic religious services is an active participation, and, therefore, a formal communication. Concerning this point La Croix says that it is not licit to sing psalms together with non-Catholics in their churches or meetings, nor is it licit to play the organ or other musical instruments in their temples, because such things seem to be a public approbation of, or a scandalous communication in, sacred things.[53] The author of the Appendix to the article Fides in the Bibliotheca of Ferraris says that they ratify a false rite and cult, who play the organ or exercise the musical art in another way in churches of schismatics and heretics.[54] Kenrick holds that in this country those who sing hymns or play the organ in the churches of heretics become participants in the cult, and, therefore, betray their faith in some way.[55] [73] Konings states that to perform the office of organist, even only one or the other time, in the churches of heretics in their religious gatherings would be illicit, for it involves a communication in their religious rites or a formal co-operation.[56] Noldin-Schmitt,[57] Marc-Gestermann,[58] Prümmer,[59] Merkelbach,[60] and Aertnys-Damen[61] agree that singing or playing the organ in religious services is wrong, because each involves a participation in the cult. Noldin-Schmitt expressly call these actions formal communications in the worship.[62] Wouters makes the same judgment about playing the organ, but does not mention singing.[63] Lehmkuhl[64] and Augustine[65] call singing and playing the organ formal co-operations. Sabetti-Barrett consider singing in a non-Catholic religious service as an active part in the cult, and, therefore, intrinsically wrong.[66] In 1889 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated, with the approbation of Pope Leo XIII, that it is illicit to play the organ in the churches of heretics when they are exercising false cult there; the seriousness of this matter is made clear when it is remembered that this was a reply to a petition for permission to play the organ in Protestant churches on feast days so that the organist could provide for himself.[67]

Davis allows a Catholic organist to continue in his position in a non-Catholic church so long as he is in grave necessity, provided there is no serious scandal.[68] This opinion indicates that he looks upon this action as a form of proximate material co-operation. Vermeersch expressly states that he considers organ playing as a proximate [p. 74] material co-operation.[69] These opinions are too mild. In licit material co-operation there is required an action which is at least indifferent. Playing the organ in a non-Catholic service adds beauty, solemnity, and appeal to the worship, and as such is inseparable from the religious rite. Therefore in that circumstance it is intrinsically bad, and is a formal co-operation. Because of the strength of the intrinsic arguments for this opinion, and of the great weight of extrinsic authority favoring it, the view of Davis and Vermeersch is somewhat singular and exceptional, to say the least.

Sabetti-Barrett cite, without approval, an opinion that a Catholic may sing in non-Catholic services in a very rare case, when the following conditions are verified: (1) there is nothing contrary to the faith in the hymns; (2) there is no scandal or danger of perversion; (3) there is a most grave necessity. The reason given is that in these circumstances the malice seems to be, not on the part of the action, but on the part of other persons, and hence the co-operation is only material, and can be permitted for a just cause. On the other hand, Sabetti-Barrett believe that singing must be considered as an active part in non-Catholic worship, and intrinsically wrong. Hence it involves a formal co-operation, and the intention, or the grave necessity, of the singer cannot change the nature of the act placed in such circumstances.[70] It is difficult to see how singing in the religious services of non-Catholics can be viewed in any other way.

Regarding the singing in non-Catholic services, it makes no difference whether the hymns are orthodox or not.[71] Even if they are orthodox, they are used as a part of non-Catholic worship. Non-Catholic worship, even when it contains nothing false, is conducted in defiance of the Catholic Church, the only organization authorized by God to establish public worship. Vermeersch says that for Catholics to sing the Te Deum together with non-Catholics in a non-Catholic church as an expression of common joy, even when it has a religious signification, is not intrinsically wrong, although Catholics should not do it.[72]

[p. 75] It seems, however, that an action of this kind always has a religious signification, and hence it implies an approval of non-Catholic worship, and is an expression of religious indifference. It seems, therefore, to be wrong. The Holy See has allowed Catholic civil officials to assist only passively at non-Catholic religious celebrations commanded by the state at which the doxology was sung.[73] The mind of the Church is that Catholics have their religious celebrations separately in their own churches.[74]

Playing the organ, or other musical instruments in the course of a non-Catholic religious service, but not as a part, or as an ornament of it, will not constitute a religious participation, for example, to do so in honor of a non-Catholic king who is present.[75] Similarly, it contains no religious communication to play the organ or other musical instruments, or to sing hymns which are orthodox, for profane purposes in non-Catholic churches outside all occasion of cult.[76] The use of the church, however, brings in some co-operation, and there must be a proportionate reason present to justify such activity. For a Catholic to sing hymns containing errors in faith, even outside the occasion of a religious function, is a formal religious communication, as an external expression of wrong doctrine. This could apply to some negro spirituals. On the part of a Catholic organist accompanying such hymns there is a formal co-operation, because in the circumstance the music makes the external expression of wrong doctrine more appealing.

---

Footnotes:

16. Op. cit., [Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Concilia] Tom. II, n. 50, p. 41; n. 8, p. 124. Cf. Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. I, p. 286.

17. Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., [Summa Theologiae Moralis] Tom. II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40; Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, n. 314, II, Qu. 4, p. 236; Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 526, d), p. 372; DeMeester, op. cit., n. 1253, note 4, p. 154; Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48; Konings, Theologia Moralis S. Alphonsi in Compendium Redacta, Vol. I, n. 313, 1, p. 142.

18. Col. S.C.P.F., Vol. II, n. 1713, p. 240.

19. Loc. cit., p. 41.

3. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 54, p. 50. Cf. I-II, q. 18, a. 9 and a. 11.

54. Cf. Augustine, A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. VI, p. 197.

55. De Meester, op. cit., [Iuris Canonici et Iuris Canonica-civilis Compendium] Lib. III, Pars I, n. 1252, 2, pp. 153–154.

56. Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 313, 1), p. 142. Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Tom. I, n. 198, p. 149.

53. Theologia Moralis, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. III, n. 68, p. 170.

54. Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Fides, Appendix, n. 57, Tom. III, col. 1137.

55. Op. cit., Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48.

56. Op. cit., Vol. I, n. 313, (1), p. 142.

57. Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40.

58. Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 449, 6, p. 288.

59. Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 526, d, p. 372.

60. Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 758, (3), p. 586.

61. Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 314, I, Quaer. 4, p. 236.

62. Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 38, 2, p. 38.

63. Op. cit., Tom. I, n. 557, 5, p. 391.

64. Op. cit., Vol. I, n. 813, p. 450.

65. Op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 197.

66. Op. cit., n. 154, 10, pp. 159–160.

67. Epistola S. C. de Prop. Fide, July 8, 1889, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. II, n. 1713, p. 240.

68. Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 286.

69. Op. cit., Tom. II, n. 147, 8, p. 124.

70. Op. cit., n. 154, 10, pp. 159–160.

71. Prümmer, loc. cit.

72. Loc. cit., n. 147, 9, pp. 124–125.

73. Instructio S. C. S. Officii, May 12, 1841, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. I, n. 921, p. 519.

74. Cf. Littera Encyclica S. C. de Prop. Fide, April 25, 1902, Coll. S.C.P.F., Vol. II, n. 2136, p. 425.

75. Lehmkuhl, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 813, p. 450; Merkelbach, op. cit., Tom. I, n. 758, (3), note 2, p. 586.

76. Konings, op. cit., Vol. I, n. 313, (1), p. 142.

---

Source: John R. Bancroft, "Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics," PhD diss., (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1943), 3–4, 36, 51, 72–75.

Dom Augustine on Playing Organ in Non-Catholic Services (1921)

 [197] Difficulties may arise concerning coöperation [sic] in the divine services of Catholics who are employed by non-Catholics as singers or organists. Although we could find no specific decision with regard to Catholic singers at non-Catholic services, it is evident that the Church cannot tolerate such a formal coöperation, for to that it would certainly amount. Besides, if it is forbidden for a Catholic to play the organ at non-Catholic services—which has been formally decided[34]—it naturally follows that Catholics may not sing at such functions. The Church has been more lenient lately with regard to admitting non-Catholics as singers and organists at Catholic services. Thus, in 1889, the Holy Office wished the abuse to be eliminated as soon as possible, in 1906 it made a concession for Bulgaria, in favor of sisterhoods whose non-Catholic pupils were admitted to sing in their chapels.[35]

The present canon [c. 1258] only forbids active assistance at, or participation in, the religious services of non-Catholics. 

---

Footnotes:

34. S. C. P. F., July 8, 1889 (n. 1713): "Cum ibi falsum cultum exercent." Exception might be made for school exercises or purely civil celebrations held in non-Catholic churches, provided they have no religious feature attached; for in that case there would be no "exercise of false worship."

35. S. O., May 1, 1889; Jan. 24, 1906 (Coll. P. F., n. 1703, 2227).

---

Source: P. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1921), 6:197.

Henry Davis on Organ Playing in Non-Catholic Services (1943)

 [286] Organ Playing

It is wrong to play the organ in a non-Catholic church as a help to the religious service (S.O., Jan. 19, 1889), or to be a member of the choir during services, but it is not wrong, scandal apart, to take part in musical festivals in such places. A Catholic organist might continue in his post so long as he was in grave necessity, apart from serious scandal.

---

Source: Henry Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1943), 1:286.

Francis J. Connell on Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites (excerpt) (1944)

 [183] The application of these principles to problems which arise frequently in our land should be familiar to Catholics, particularly to the clergy. In the first place, there is the case of the Catholic who has the chance to earn a few sorely needed dollars by playing the organ or singing in the Protestant church. He is sufficiently grounded in the faith to be safe from the danger of perversion; he will attend Mass faithfully every Sunday before fulfilling his function at the non-Catholic service. Nevertheless, the answer must be an absolute: Non Licet. To sing or to play the organ for a non-Catholic service must be regarded as an active participation in the act of worship, which can never be justified. Such is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians,[16] corroborated by a decision of the Holy See to the effect that a Catholic might not play the organ at non-Catholic services, even though he needed the money as a means of livelihood.[17] The same principle applies to singing in the choir of a non-Catholic church.

---

Footnotes:

16. Cf., for example, Noldin-Schmitt, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis (Innsbruck, 1939), II, n. 39; Pruemmer, D., O.P., Manuale Theologia Moralis, (Freiburg Brisg., 1935), I, n. 526; Aertnys-Damen, C.SS.R., Theologia Moralis (Turin, 1939), I, n. 314.

17. S.C. de Prop. Fid., July 8, 1889; Coll. S.C.P.F., n. 1713.

---

Source: Francis J. Connell, "Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites," The American Ecclesiastical Review 140, no. 3 (Sept. 1944): 183.

Communicatio in sacris

Francis J. Connell on Co-Operation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Religious Activities (excerpt) (1956)

[2] However, the chief problems connected with the association of Catholics with persons of other religions center about religious communication and co-operation. These two terms are not synonymous, [3] as used in theology. Communication in sacris signifies participation in public (official) non-Catholic religious rites. This is active when it involves a real participation in the functions, such as the reception of the sacraments, singing or organ-playing, joining in the prayers, etc. [emphasis mine] It is passive when it consists of one's mere presence at the service without any active participation. The rules for religious communication are thus expressed in the Code of Canon Law:

1. It is never lawful for the faithful to assist actively in any way or to take part in the religious rites of non-Catholics.

2. Passive, or merely material presence can be tolerated, by reason of civil duty or honor, for a grave reason, to be approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, marriages and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion and scandal.[6]

However, the purpose of the series of articles now beginning is to consider problems of co-operation, rather than communication, on the part of Catholics in the religious activities of non-Catholics. Co-operation has a wider scope than communication. There are many ways of co-operation in religious matters without being present at religious functions. Decisions of the Holy See have given directions regarding many of the problems of co-operation in non-Catholic religious activities; but many others are left to the judgment of theologians and canonists. In the United States such problems are numerous at the present day; hence, it is my purpose to discuss a number of such problems, in the hope that this discussion may be helpful to our priests, so often confronted with questions of this nature. I shall be grateful if my brother-priests who read these articles and have encountered some unusual cases pertinent to this type of co-operation will send them to me for inclusion in this series.

---

Footnotes:

6. Can. 1258.

---

Source: Francis J. Connell, Co-Operation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Religious Activities (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1956), 2–3.

This booklet is reprinted from The American Ecclesiastical Review 134 (1956).

Communicatio in sacris

Fr. Adrian Fortescue on St. Pius X (1910)

You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives ... unity, authority. etc., Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it. I am always preaching that sort of thing, and yet is it now getting to a reductio ad absurdum? Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic? ...

We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England ... I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the tenth century Johns and Stephens, or a Borgia!

They were less disastrous than this deplorable person...

---

Source: Letter to Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., Nov. 5, 1910.

Francis P. Donnelly, The Science of Theology and the Art of Sacred Eloquence (1911)

[11] The antithesis of science and art has been so often formulated that it would be idle and wearisome to rehearse the details. The title of this article will in itself clarify some ideas and point the way to practical corollaries. Without entering, then, upon the larger question of the contrasts of art and science, it might be well to single out some difficulties the preacher may be expected to meet with in transmuting the substance of his theological science into the material of his sacred eloquence, in translating a thesis into a sermon, in making Aquinas a Lacordaire or Suarez a Bourdaloue. It would seem paradoxical at first sight to affirm any difficulty whatsoever. Truth is one and the same whether couched in a syllogism or resonant in a period. Falsehood may assume a thousand disguises; but truth has but one expression upon its immobile features, one look in its sleepless eyes; eternally fixed upon eternal foundations, with unswerving gaze—the ideal of sphinxes, moored with shiftless fixedness upon the shifting sands of falsehood.

[12] But the difficulty in question does not come from truth. You have the same proportions of hydrogen and oxygen in the glacier as you have in the river, but in some cases it took geological ages, in all cases it involves the expenditure of immense energy, to strip ice of its accidental rigidity and frigidity and run it molten down the valleys of the world, conforming itself to every varying width and every varying depth of its proper channel. There is no substantial change in the truth, but its accidental form must put off the inflexible austerity of science and assume the flexibility and warmth of eloquence. In the famous statement of St. Augustine, which embodies the world-old tradition of oratory, theology puts a full stop after the first member; eloquence, leaving the commas, goes on to the end of the three clauses. "Ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat." [i.e. "That the truth be clear, that it please, that it move."]

ELOQUENCE IS UNTECHNICAL.

The technical term is something that must be left in the lecture-room. Science could scarcely exist without the technical term. Such terms constitute the shorthand of science. One phrase in theology is sometimes an index to volumes, condenses ages of church history, expedites scientific discussion and is the gravestone of a thousand heresies. Pelegianism, transubstantiation, hypostasis, circum-insesssion, and all the terminative's and formaliter's of the theological disputation are absolutely essential to science, very nearly fatal to eloquence. The reason is not, because shallow thinkers or careless students make the technical term a substitute for knowledge and think they have theology because they have mastered its language, as though the mere murmuring of x, y, z, entitled one to a degree in algebra. A terminology is the scaffolding needed to erect the temple of truth. A certain amount of acrobatic skill will enable one to scale its bare boards or tread securely its precarious rafters, but while irresponsible youths are playing hide-and-seek on the scaffolding, the builders, resting on that necessary structure, lay the stones of the temple in solidity.

It is not, therefore, because of its abuse that terminology is unserviceable to eloquence; it is precisely because of its [13] scientific utility. Technical terms constitute a language, and a very difficult language. It is a language which saves valuable time for the teachers. It is comprehensive, precise, severely intellectual, but it is a foreign language to people who listen to sermons and scarcely serviceable for even a congregation of theologians. Its very condensation makes it indigestible within the brief time given to the spoken word, and even the Bread of the Lord must be leavened, though not with the leaven of the Pharisees. Sometimes the very terms of ascetical theology likewise need leavening before being dispensed to the multitude. Mortification and the spiritual life and the interior spirit and supernatural motives, these and many another term that has come to us from the good books we read, are stereotyped formulas of asceticism and may be idle words for many hearers.

The sacred orator must melt down the stereotyped and run his language into new molds for his audience. He must leave the glacial period of science where "froze the genial currents of his soul" and thaw out in the pulpit. Estimate, if you will, the energy of heat required to convert a world of ice into a sea of fire, and you will have some idea of the labor required to change a small quantity of theology into the palpitating flexibility of a sermon. Modern inventions have been able by high-pressure machines to force air bubbles into baking dough and so shorten the leavening process by dispensing with the slower release and permeation of yeasty vapors. The work calls for time and energy. If you shorten the time, you must increase the energy. Sometimes it is only after years of thought and familiarity with the solid truth of theology that it has become light and wholesome for public consumption in the pulpit; sometimes the intense application of special study will force at once technicality and density into freedom and grace; but always either by expenditure of more time or more energy in the mastery of thought, must the prime matter of truth be made to doff the form of science and assume the form of art.

Suppose you should try to bring home to the audience the personality of God. You would have visions from theology of pantheism and agnosticism. You would recall shattered fragments of discussion about hypostasis and the individual. [14] Perhaps half-forgotten heresies would struggle into consciousness with other flotsam and jetsam. All that would be quite unleavened for the audience you have in mind, and you might say to yourself, "I will talk to my good people about going to Mass and confession." But perhaps with longer meditation you would feel that the personality of God might give a meaning to religious life, might comfort a lonely soul, might take prayer out of the region of the clouds, making it, instead of what would be deemed as senseless talking to the air, rather the loving converse with one who knows and loves, whose ear is ever at our lips, as Fr. Farrell puts it somewhere; and moved by these many advantages your thoughts of God's personality would shed its technicalities. Fr. Pardow, who died but recently, was a preacher who had in his life a vivid realization of the personality of God and made many attempts to formulate his knowledge for the pulpit. He often tried to make his hearers realize what he felt. One illustration had some success. "A government," he would quote or say, "is impersonal. 'I cannot shake hands with the United States', was the cry of the soldier. My Colonel is my government for me." But Fr. Pardow's most successful attempt at making his audience realize God's personality was closely allied to one which Christ Himself used for a similar purpose. Not far from where Fr. Pardow lived at Poughkeepsie he saw on one of his walks an incubator whose source of heat was an oil-lamp. His mind was ever alive to spiritual analogies, and one suggested itself at once. The lamp would represent the impersonal idea of God as a force in the universe and would be contrasted with the mother-hen the embodiment of the personal idea. The illustration is crude as here presented, but it was not so in his development of it, and his fine sense of humor was able in a delicate way to make much of the absurdity of an oil-lamp masquerading as a mother-hen. whatever may be the thought of it, it certainly was, with other explanations, effective in securing a realization of God's personality. One good, shrewd Irishman was full of the idea after the sermon, and prayer became for him a new thing. Another person wrote to Fr. Pardow in English which is rude but in enthusiasm which is unmistakable: "Dear Father on Good Friday night Will you please give us the Leture [sic] you gave [15] down at the 16st Collige [sic]. About the Chicken who had a Mother. And the Chicken who had the Incubator for a Mother. Father I am trying to get some of the Boys who do not know what the inside of our church look [sic] like and I know if they was to hear about the Chicken it would set them to think of God in this holy season of Lent." The note is unsigned. 

Assuredly it would seem to be a far cry from the personality of God to an incubator, yet it made the writer of that note think of God and with the zeal of an apostle he wanted the boys to think the same way. Similar but greater enthusiasm was aroused, we may feel sure, by the supreme eloquence of, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?" We feel the Great Theologian and Sacred orator would not have disdained the incubator with its homely oil-lamp. There are few technical terms in the eloquence of the Gospels.

ELOQUENCE IS IMAGINATIVE.

Scientific truth differs from artistic truth in its presentation. The truths of science are general. Science works from the particular and concrete back to the general and abstract. The truths of art are embodied in the concrete. Contrary to science, art begins with the ideal and works toward a concrete presentation. Geometry will reduce a flower-garden to a blueprint; landscape gardening will turn lines into borders and blank spaces into mosaics of flowers. The architect must have his blueprint to keep him from going wrong, but art finds its realization in the cathedral. Science gives an anatomical chart; art produces a statue. Principles, deductions, conclusions, classification, systems, these are processes of science and valuable they all are for art, but all these operations are facing the abstract and general. Art faces the concrete and particular, and after its survey of heaven and earth it is not content until it gives "airy nothings a local habitation and a name." Science is ever climbing up the tree of Porphyry; art is ever climbing down it.

[16] Apply all this now to theology and preaching. Anyone can see the two opposite processes exemplified in such works as Corluy's Spicilegium Dogmaticum, and in most commentators who are looking to the essential truths of Scripture. The sermon on the Mount is reduced to a series of general propositions where everything local, particular, and concrete is set aside to arrive at the essence, to classify the product and codify a system. Take again the sermon on prayer (Luke 11). "Lord, teach us to pray", said one of His disciples. The first part of the sermon advises the recitation of the Our Father; then follows a famous parable, a picture with all its details, local, actual, and contemporary; the perfection of the concrete. In the crucible of science these details are all swept away. "Friend, lend me three loaves," is generalized into "prayer". "If he shall continue knocking," is the artistic expression for the scientific "persevering". So with the rest: the midnight hour, the shut door, the children in bed, the continual knocking, the reluctant rising, the triumph of the visitor, all disappear, and this piece of eloquence becomes a theological conclusion asserting "the efficacy of persevering prayer; for if selfishness and indolence yield to importunity among creatures, how much more is this true of God?" 

Think a moment of all the great truths of our faith which have been embodied in exact terms and defined and made perspicuous by reason and authority; and set them aside by side with the gospel which is sacred eloquence and from which these great truths arose; and you will understand the marked difference between the scientific and artistic form of the same truth. The providence of God and the lilies of the field, the papal supremacy and the keys, the infallibility and the rock and the sheep, unity and the one fold, grace and the wedding garment, charity and the Good Samaritan, humility and the little child, perfect contrition and the prodigal, torments of hell and unquenchable fire without a single drop on a parched tongue—there is no need of prolonging the catalog. The parable, the example, the story, the similitude, the epigram, the brief description, these are rarely employed in the textbooks of science, where clearness of truth is looked for: "ut veritas pateat". These, however, always enshrine the truths of eloquence where the charm of truth is sought for: "ut veritas placeat".

[17] ELOQUENCE IS EMOTIONAL.

Finally, scientific truth is unemotional. Earnestness may galvanize a chapter of Suarez into momentary life, but that life is only galvanic and extrinsic. It comes from flashing eye and thrilling tone and vigorous gesture, but the truth itself is unemotional. Science wants it so. It excludes emotion as distracting and out of place. Imagine a professor of geometry tearfully and exultantly announcing in tremulous tones his Q. E. D. Science does not amplify, does not enforce its truths with emotional vehemence, does not perorate. If you do not understand, it gives another proof, or another exposition. When you catch the fact or principle, the work of science is done. The mind is equated with objective realities; it is vested with the truth. You have a perfect mental fit. It is no part of science to comment on the beauty of the vesture or its goodness. It has already passed on to fit your mind with another truth. Ah, but art does not pass on. In its mental vestures, art dwells upon their beauty and is attracted or repelled by their goodness or evil. The truth of art is transfigured by the imagination into a thing of beauty and is shown to be stained with evil or flowing with goodness, because in eloquence the truth must pass from the mind through the imagination to the heart: "ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat".

One glance of the opened eye sees the flash of truth; the gaze must be riveted to behold its beauty; the looks must be fascinated to thrill with truth's emotion. "Veritas stat in indivisibili", our philosophers tell us, but "pulchritudo non stat in indivisibili nec malitia nec bonitas." So the orator amplifies and is diffuse. He deepens the dark shadows of the picture that you may hate it more and more; he emphasizes the light areas that you may like the picture more and more. He will never be content with your merely seeing it. In a sense, therefore, the sacred orator must know theology better than the theologian. He will not be content with a surface knowledge but will feel the pulse of truth and listen to its heart-beat. He will get down below terms to realities. Before his imagination general truths will marshall [sic] the multitudes of their individuals, and disclose the significant individual which will best represent the class. His knowledge [18] of theological truths will widen out into the myriad relations and analogies in history, art, and nature wherein the profoundest theology may be presented and illustrated in the simplest object-lesson familiar to every audience. Part of Chesterton's success consists in his power of bringing his philosophy, as much as he has, down to the lowest common denominator. He sees philosophy in the veriest [sic] trifles of life. I know, too, a chemist who has so mastered his science that I really believe he could give a complete course in chemistry with experiments and illustrations from the stains and paints and what not of his room. So must the preacher have mastered his theology for the pulpit. He must be able to see sermons in everything, discern the great round orb of God's truth reflected in countless shades and tints from all the creatures in God's universe.

His truth will be apostolic, will become all things to all men to save all, will avoid the scientific language which appeals to the expert and the trite language which appeals to no one, will keep its language from degenerating into mere symbols, and so will be ever on the lookout in realms of the imagination for new forms in which to body forth the old thoughts. The truth of the orator must be apostolic; it must win its way by beauty and charm and ensure its progress to its destination, the human heart, by filling itself with emotion, by manifesting its goodness or evil. "Ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat".

Francis P. Donnelly, S.J.

St. Andrew-on-Hudson, N. Y.

---

Source: Francis P. Donnelly, "The Science of Theology and the Art of Sacred Eloquence," Ecclesiastical Review 45, no. 1 (July 1911): 11–18.

Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches (1934)

[537] Qu. 1. Sometimes at a garden party held for the benefit of the parish a dance is given by a parish society in the parish hall and the proceeds are donated to the parish. Is this practice in conflict with the prohibition of dances under church auspices?

2. Are only public dances held for that purpose forbidden, or are also dances held in private houses, but promoted in order to obtain funds for the church? Can you indicate the canons of the Code to substantiate your answer?

Resp. In both the decree of 31 March, 1916,[1] and the [538] declaration to this decree, 10 December, 1917,[2] the Sacred Consistorial Congregation forbids priests "to promote and foster" (promoveant et foveant) dances. It is difficult to see how such dances may be held in parish property unless the pastor gives his approval. One must therefore conclude that the practice described above is forbidden. It is true, by questionable casuistry, some priest may cleverly (?) direct the society to proceed "without his knowledge and consent" to hold the dances; and thus pretend that he is not at fault. Actually, however, this ruse deceives no one, not even himself.

2. The two documents referred to above make no distinction as to the place where the proscribed dances for the benefit of a church are to be held. Without distinction they forbid all priests to promote them and even to be present at them, if the dances are arranged for by lay persons.

There is no explicit mention of this prohibition in the Code. At most (if the words "Ad decimarum et primitiarum solutionem" may be taken in a wide sense), it would come under canon 1502, since the condemned practice is anything but a "laudable" custom. Directly, however, this prohibition derives from the above decree of the Consistorial Congregation. Although it antedates the Code, it nevertheless remains in force as a particular rule not contrary to the canons. It is moreover not a mere disciplinary regulation, but rather a condemnation and proscription of a practice that is an abuse.

The decree and the declaration in regard to it were issued only for the United States and Canada. As such they do not oblige other countries.

---

Footnotes:

1. Acta. Ap. Sedis, VIII (1916), 147-148; Ecclesiastical Review, LXV (1916), 69-70.

2. Acta. Ap. Sedis, X (1918), 17; Ecclesiastical Review, (1918), 537.

---

Source: "Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches," Ecclesiastical Review 90, no. 5 (May 1934): 537–538.

"Dancing Priests" and the Council of Baltimore (1919)

[445] A zealous pastor who frowns upon dancing among Catholics because the practice, much like card-playing and brandy, has a bad name, comments adversely upon the answer given in the August number of the REVIEW under the heading "Priests and Dancing Parties". He holds that dancing parties, even for good objects promoting religion or piety, are an abuse, and that the proceeds of such entertainments is "tainted" money, which a priest may not accept for religious purposes. In support of this view a canon from the Council of Baltimore is cited: "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis [balls] ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current."

We have in the many instances when discussing the question directed attention to the distinction between dances that are a danger to morals, and dancing as a popular amusement indulged in for recreation. The latter is not illicit, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain methods and functions connected with balls violate decency and modesty and are therefore forbidden by the moral law. In some cases dancing, like wine and card-playing, becomes a direct occasion of sin, against which Christians are to be warned. On the principal that "Qui amat periculum in illo peribit," the Church as the guardian of morals formulates definite precautions against the peril of sin, and this is the object of the Council of Baltimore when it forbids convivia cum choreis. [446] What the Bishops of the Plenary Council forbid is not dancing, but a certain class of dancing parties protracted into the night after banqueting, when the bodies and the imaginations of the participants are heated to the danger point of passion. "Convivia cum choreis", when they constitute an abuse, are very different things from dancing as a mere amusement. Glycerine has a soothing and healing virtue, though in connexion [sic] with certain chemicals it becomes an explosive calculated to destroy health and life. So here. In medio virtus.

---

Source: "'Dancing Parties' and the Council of Baltimore," Ecclesiastical Review 61, no. 4 (Oct. 1919): 445–446.

Priests and Dancing Parties (1919)

 [200] Qu. Will you kindly answer the following questions:

1. Does the prohibition regarding dances extend to institutions under the supervision of religious, such as orphanages, hospitals, etc., when these institutions arrange entertainments, bazaars, lawn parties, etc., for the benefit of their upkeep?

[201] 2. May the different committees or societies or sodalities which have booths for these institutions or for a church benefit at such entertainment, permit dances in connexion [sic] with the event in order to swell the proceeds?

3. May a pastor receive for church uses, funds which he knows to be the result of dances under the auspices of said societies, especially when he knows of the arrangement in advance, though he is not directly connected with such amusements?

Resp. Dancing in itself is not an illicit amusement, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain dances, or methods connected with them, which plainly violate decency and modesty, are forbidden by the moral law, and whatever tends to these practices is to be prevented like all other moral wrong in the flock, by the prudent foresight of the pastor charged with the care of souls.

Since it is not always possible for the priest personally to determine the actual line at which decorum is overstepped, or to anticipate possible acts calculated to scandalize sensitive consciences, his presence at such amusements may easily start criticism and scandal without his being responsible for or even capable of censuring it in the individual. For this reason the ecclesiastical authorities forbid priests to promote or be present at such diversions. (S. C. Consist., 10 Dec. 1917.) To refuse, however, to permit these dances or to regard the proceeds of dancing parties organized for charitable purposes as "tainted money" which a priest may not accept, would be to pronounce the dancing under the circumstances as immoral, which is not true. Those who, as Catholics, promote the parties are obliged to safeguard their enterprise as far as possible from becoming a source of sin or scandal. And priests as well as other religious instructors are bound to present this obligation to their charges.

---

Source: "Priests and Dancing Parties," Ecclesiastical Review 61, no. 2 (Aug. 1919): 200–201.

Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church (1918)

 [323] Qu. Would you kindly answer the following question in the next issue of your REVIEW? May I give permission to the Catholics of my parish to give a concert for the benefit of our new church, knowing that the concert includes a dnace?

Resp. As this query comes from a far-off clime we presume that the inquirer has not seen the question of dancing at Church celebrations discussed in the pages of the REVIEW. Briefly, then, for his benefit, and that of others to whom a reminder may not be untimely, the decree of 31 March, 1916, renewing the provisions of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, forbids two things: first, that priests should organize or "get up" ("promovere vel fovere") dances, even when such dances are for the benefit of the Church or for some other pious purpose; second, when such dances are organized by others, the priest is forbidden to be present. To give permission for a concert at which the pastor knows that there will be dancing will or will not fall under the first of these prohibitions according to circumstances. In most cases, we think it would.

---

Source: "Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church," Ecclesiastical Review 58, no. 3 (March 1918): 323.

Promulgation of New Decrees (1916)

 [192] Qu. Does the new decree in regard to dancing bind pastors as soon as it is made known through the Catholic press, even if the Ordinary has not promulgated it in the diocese?

Resp. Since 1909, to make a Roman law or decree binding in foro externo it is sufficient that it be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The publication of a document in that periodical takes the place of the dispatch of an official copy to the bishops, as was the custom before 1909. The presumption is that a decree enacted and promulgated by the Holy See will be put into execution by the Ordinary. If, in exceptional cases, for reasons which he must make known to the Holy See, he suspends the application of a Roman decree, he [193] must expressly notify his diocese. A clergyman therefore who reads a decree in the Acta, or who, through the Catholic press, knows that it is published in the Acta, is bound, without further notification, by the provisions which it enacts.

---

Source: "Promulgation of New Decrees," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 2 (August 1916): 192–193.

The Decree On Dancing (1916)

 [193] Qu. In the small country parish in which I am stationed, the people have been accustomed to dance at our church picnics. The dances in vogue, however, were the old-fashioned country, or square, dances. Recently, after I had prohibited dancing at the annual picnic, a delegation of young men asked me to give them permission to hold a free dance in the parish hall, for the use of which they would pay a small fee. In the event of not getting permission, they would, they told me, hold the dance in the town hall, some distance from the church. After giving the matter some thought, and for the reason that it is better to have the dance under some kind of parochial control, I decided to let them have the hall. Now I would like to have your answer to the following questions:

1. Does the phrase "certain dances" apply to all dances whatsoever, or only to some?

2. Is a pastor permitted to visit the hall during the dancing, to see that it is orderly and that the dances are conformable to Christian modesty?

3. Is a pastor justified in permitting the dances in the parish hall in order to keep a certain control over them, it being understood that there is no thought of thereby raising funds for religious purposes?

Resp. 1. The answer to the first query is that all kinds of dances, no matter how old-fashioned or "harmless", are meant. The phrase "certain dances" occurs in the title of the decree, "Decretum circa quasdam choreas"; but it is evident from the use of the word "choreas" in the text of the decree that we must translate: "Decree concerning certain dancing-parties". The decree makes no distinction between new dances and old, between square dances and round; it does, however, distinguish between dancing-parties that are given under church auspices and those organized by laymen. The former kind are forbidden, no matter the program of dances may be.

2. In regard to the second question, we think that the text of the decree clearly prohibits the pastor's presence at dancing[194]-parties organized by lay people. The motive, namely, "to see that the party is orderly, etc.", does not justify his presence. Of course, if grave disorder should occur in a dance-hall and the pastor were summoned thither in the performance of his duty, the present decree need not deter him from entering the hall.

3. There may be room for discussion of the third question. The decree positively forbids the promotion and encouragement of such entertainments on the part of members of the clergy, religious or diocesan: "quonimus memoratas choreas promoveant et foveant"; at the same time, when it comes to the case of such entertainments being organized by lay people, the decree does not say that the pastor should interpose his authority, and forbid them, but enacts that he should not be present. Does the renting of the parish hall amount to a mere tolerance or is it promoting and encouraging? In a thoroughly Catholic community, where there is no danger of the priest's attitude being misunderstood, especially if the entertainment be not associated with a church picnic, excursion, or any other church affair organized by the priest, it seems that, since there is no authoritative interpretation of the decree on this point, the priest may rent the church hall for an entertainment organized by lay people, even when he knows that dancing is part of the program.

---

Source: "The Decree on Dancing," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 2 (August 1916): 193–194.

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

Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices (1916)

[84] Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices.

The current "Analecta" contains a document of special importance from the S. Congregation of Consistory. Its purpose is to enforce the decree of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore which prohibits "entertainments" with balls for the purpose of promoting pious projects—"convivia cum choreis". The "provida mens" of the Bishops in Council assembled not only forbade such entertainments but enjoined the pastors to do what they could to prevent them. "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis (balls) ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current" (Conc. Plen. Balt. III. cap. V, n. 290).

How far ecclesiastical superiors may be responsible for the neglect of the decree is not easy to determine; but the fact that Catholic papers in various parts openly advertise such entertainments would indicate that no particular censorship has been exercised in the matter. A primary qualification of fitness of a Catholic editor is or should be the ability to exercise intelligent responsibility in safeguarding, besides knowing, the diocesan laws. Catholic editors may have been guided in such matters by priests who overlooked these laws. Some of them have been foreigners, and diocesan statutes, much less the Baltimore Councils, were not their normal guides. So the matter went on until we had a "custom" against which an individual voice and even the local Ordinaries found it difficult to raise a successful protest. Now the protest has come, apparently from Canada, whose border parishes have been invaded by the usage tolerated in the United States. It will be difficult to abandon it, at least without creating the discontent that turns hundreds who are bound by the chains of social [85] obligations away from the sacraments or the Church and religion. But the Holy See has made it clear that our tolerance has been amiss.

Once more we may be allowed to call attention to the conduct of the Catholic press. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the duties of Catholic editors and about the support our people owe to Catholic periodicals. Some years ago the REVIEW published a paper on this subject. We reprint it in part here because it may be suggestive. The excuse of editors that "the priests should advise us in such matters" is puerile. A journalist has no right to assume the editorship of a Catholic paper unless he knows and is prepared to defend the laws of the Church, if need be even independently or against the practice of the priests. Says the writer referred to in the ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW:

When a brother custodian of "Religion's sacred fires" guards his trust according to his own conscience, even though is methods differ from mine, I may have no right to find fault. But if the smoke of those "fires" blows in my direction, to the detriment of my discipline and the confusion of my flock, surely my giving some account of the faith that is in me, cannot be construed into any assumption on my part of superior wisdom or piety, or as meddlesome impertinence.

Now I wonder how Catholic papers can consistently and conscientiously make a practice of publishing emblazoned accounts of dances and balls given by Catholic societies and under Catholic auspices. Catholic papers, persistently and rightly, I think, insist on the importance of the apostolate of the Catholic press. While the readers of Catholic papers may not accept as doctrine every salutary statement they see in a Catholic paper, most of them will, probably, accept as "gospel truth" from which there is no appeal, any declaration or suggestion favoring greater amplitude in a matter of coveted liberties.

Some time ago one of my Reverend neighbors was reported as having declared that his parishioners might dance all they wished. Knowing by experience that this man weighs the moral bearing of his words, I felt entirely safe in absolutely denying the report as it stood, and I soon found that he had said nothing of the kind. Such a declaration from a pastor would, it seems to me, unnecessarily encourage a practice which, given the reins, soon runs to the devil, and would considerably embarrass parents who conscientiously keep their sons and daughters away from such places of amusement.

[86] But if such a declaration from a pastor were imprudent, is not the publication of such amusements in a Catholic paper likewise imprudent? Let a pastor see fit publicly to denounce dancing in his parish, while his hearers read reports in Catholic papers, of balls and dances under Catholic auspices, and they will probably conclude that their pastor is rather old-fashioned or fanatical, too young or too old to know better.

Of course, there is no dearth of authority, sacred and profane, ancient as well as modern, in support of the pastor's position. Several Councils of the Church have anathematized dances, and the Council of Laodicea forbade them even at weddings. The Council of Trent (sess. XXII. c. 1. De ref.) forbids clerics under pain of ecclesiastical censure to be even present at any. The good and learned St. Charles Borromeo called dances "a circle of which the devil is the centre [sic] and his slaves the circumference". St. John Chrysostom denounced them as "a school for impure passions". Many more similar texts might be adduced. Nor are these at variance with Holy Scripture, which says anent this subject, among other uncomplimentary things: "Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, lest thou perish ["] (Ecclus. 9: 4).

Should it be suspected that the saints are not competent judges in a matter of this kind, profane and heathen authors may be found galore to testify to the same effect. Sallust, for instance, himself a dancer, and anything but a saint, declared of a certain Roman lady, that "she danced too well for an honest woman". Even applied in our day these words are not without some truth, at least.

Certainly, there is no disputing the theory that dancing under favorable circumstances may be tolerated, and that even waltzing may be done decently. Yet may we not say, in the words of Dr. Cook, author of Satan in Society, that waltzes at their best are, to put it mildly, "subversive of that modest reserve and shyness, which in all ages has proved the true aegis of virtue"? Whence one might ask, has Terpsichore the right, under the palliating title of "fashionable grip", to sanction liberties and poses that would be accounted rude indecencies, to say the least, under any other auspices?

Of course so long as theory says that some dances may be innocent, on goes the dance—the St. Vitus's dance, the Tam O'Shanter dance, and the innocent dance. But it is one thing, quietly and restrictedly to tolerate dancing, and quite another thing to herald and trumpet such toleration to a public only too apt and eager to accept the liberty and ignore the restriction. (C. P. B.)

Such toleration, however, cannot be identified with the sanction given to public and fashionable dancing in connexion [sic] with Catholic charities or educational enterprises, in which [87] while we offer to Catholics aid and instruction with one hand, we press them down with the other to the low level in which they breathe sensual amusement. The advertisement of such amusements is not mere toleration.

---

Source: J.F.S., "Dancing Parties under 'Catholic' Auspices," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 1 (July 1916): 84–87.