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.

Authenticity of the Vatican Standard of Modesty with Documentation

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

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

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

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

---

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://ladyofperpetualhelp.weebly.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

"Of those girls committed to a policy of modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been won to the cause precisely through the effectiveness of mathematical criteria?"

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

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

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

Next I would like to clarify a misunderstanding regarding this statement:
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper..."
You are correct; this was not issued by Donato, Cardinal Sbaretti, Pref. of the Congregation of the Council. (The document Cardinal Sbaretti issued was the 1930 letter.) This does not mean though, that the statement is fabricated. It is, in fact, an authentic statement issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompilj, on 24 September 1928. I have provided links below to support its authenticity. (2)

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

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

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

---

My reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps. God bless you.

Repost: What is Indecent Dress? Fr. Winfrid Herbst Replies (1946)

[42] Since so much is said and written about indecent dress of women, will you tell me what is really considered indecent dress by the supreme authority of the Church? What are Catholic women to do, or not to do?

We have an authoritative statement in the Instruction on this matter issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 12, 1930. That Instruction incorporates by reference a letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 23, 1928, to the religious communities [43] in the city of Rome conducting girls' schools. In that letter specific directions are given as to what the Holy See considers unbecoming dress for Catholic women and girls. We quote the following as given in a leaflet published by the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein, with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. John J. Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis: "In order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women regarding the cases in which the afore-cited [sic] prescriptions of the Congregation of Religious apply, we recall that dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper, as also flesh-colored stockings, which suggest the legs being bare."

Even ordinarily good Catholic women and young ladies are often unconscious of the indecency of modern dress and its offence against public Christian morality, due to the prevailing spirit of liberty in its exaggerated form and the lack of delicacy of Christian modesty lost through contact with life in the midst of an overwhelmingly large neo-pagan population that is mostly Christian in name only. What is necessary is persistent and uniform teaching of the high sense of Christian morality evidenced in the lives of the saints and the vast majority of our Catholic ancestors and corresponding practice by our Catholic women. The following dialogue illustrates what we mean:

"Yes, I know, I think I really could dress a bit more modestly if I just wanted to, but, really, I don't see why. Everybody's doing..."

"Now, now!" I admonished her. "Don't say anything silly. You don't see why you shouldn't [44] be a slave to extreme fashion. Why, even you must have read those forceful words spoken by Pope Pius XI not long ago. Remember them? Listen: 'The unfortunate mania for fashion causes even honest women to forget every sentiment of dignity and modesty. The decrease of womanly reserve has always been a sign of social decadence. The vanity of women causes the disintegration of the family. An immodest mother will have shameless children. A shameless girl cannot be a good wife. It is possible to dress with ladylike decorum without imitating monastic severity.'"

"Yes, I know. But I don't see why..."

"But I see why—why you should always be careful not to offend in the matter of dress, regardless of what others may do or say. If your dress is of such a kind as to constitute a sensual appeal to men and to encourage other girls to follow your bad example, you are both directly and indirectly giving scandal and leading others into temptation. Of course, a girl may dress well and attractively, if she does not offend against the laws of modesty. But charity demands that she assist others in their struggle against sin and shield them from temptation, instead of doing just the opposite. If she boldly displays her seductive charms, then she has no reason to resent it if insult is offered. She throws out a challenge. She has freely given up her right to be treated as a lady."

"But one gets used to it. So I don't see why..."

"You say 'one.' Who gets used to it? When a girl first appears in an immodest costume she feels very guilty and embarrassed. But soon she does, alas! get used to it: her sense of modesty becomes blunted, her maidenly reserve gradually vanishes. Then her love of chastity dies out, and sin and vice are not far off. Alas for those [45] who force themselves to cast away that saving sense of shame, virtue's greatest protection in this regard! Who gets used to it? Do the men? Some do, perhaps, others don't. Immodest dress, as being co-operation in sin, may earn for its wearer a long and painful purgatory. Of course, I cannot give any universal rule as to how far you can go without offending God. Time and place and different circumstances—all must be taken into consideration. Moreover, we shouldn't try to see how close we can get to a mortal sin without falling into it. We should rather try to see how far we can remain from even venial transgressions."

She was silent now. Poor girl! Why hadn't some sensible mother told her these things long before—and taught her how to dress? I continued, "And think of this, the immodestly dressed girl even comes to church to distract and tempt those who are praying in the holy place. What a mockery prayer is on such lips! 'Hail, Mary, full of grace,' she says. 'And I am full of sin,' she might add, if she be a seductress in the house of God. In improper costume such a girl will even approach the table of the Lord. But God forbid that I should think it is done out of malice. Rather let me call it ignorance and weakness of the saddest kind.

"After all, real beauty is not in the outlines of the body, but in mind, personality, and heart—the cultivated mind, the heard for sensible thinking, the engaging personality, the sterling character. Beauty of soul, reflected from the eyes, radiating from the countenance—that is true beauty. And where we find sterling character there the laws of health are not defied in slavish obedience to the caprices of fashion; there natural physical beauty adds modest charm to the already engaging personality. 

"Disregard all comment. Avoid all excess. [46] You can dress attractively and yet in an inconspicuous manner. If others offend God, that is no reason why you should offend Him by following their pernicious example.

"Start a new movement. Set a good example. You will soon have imitators. Resolve: 'I will never dress in such a way as to feel ashamed of myself. I will never dress to kill—to kill the souls of men.'"

---

Source: Rev. Winfrid Herbst, Questions of Catholics Answered (St. Nazianz, WI: The Society of the Divine Savior, 1946), 42–46.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnotes:]

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

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

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

Under: Book II, Persons, Canon 363:

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[171] Question: In the Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus ordered to be recited by His Holiness Pope Pius XI we read: "In particular we purpose to expiate immodesty and shamelessness in behavior and dress." What is immodest and shameless dress? Would the following words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious of September 24, 1928, addressed to the educational institutions for girls in Rome apply: "We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbow, and scarce reaches a bit below the knee. Furthermore, dresses made of transparent material are improper, as are also flesh-colored stockings which suggests the legs being bare."
SACERDOS.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Repost: Concerning Certain Balls in the United States and in Canada

[20] The decree from the Sacred Congregation runs thus:

"In the last century in the United States the custom sprang up of gathering Catholic families to balls at which supper or other refreshment was served and the entertainment prolonged usually to a late hour of night. The reason given for this was that Catholics might get to know each other and become more intimately united in the bonds of love and charity, while at the same time funds could be secured for some charitable purpose. Those who used to promote and preside over these gatherings were generally the heads of some pious work, not rarely the rectors or the parish priests of churches.

"But the Ordinaries of dioceses, although they entertained no doubt of the upright purpose of those who promoted these balls; still looking at the perils and losses caused by the growing custom, considered it their duty to forbid them, and therefore in canon 290 of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore they laid down as follows: 'We order also that priests take care to remove entirely that abuse in virtue of which banquets with balls are given for the purpose of promoting pious projects.'

"But as often happens in human things, what was very wisely and justly ordered in the beginning gradually commenced to fall into oblivion and the custom of giving balls again begand [sic] to flourish and even spread into the neighboring Dominion of Canada.

"Knowing these things, the Most Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation having consulted several Ordinaries of dioceses and having subjected the matter to deep study, concluded that the decisions laid down by the Third Council of Baltimore must be obeyed, and with the approbation of our Holy Father, Benedict XV, Pope, they decreed that all priests, secular and regular, and other clerics are absolutely forbidden to promote or foster the said balls, even though in aid of and in support of pious works, or any other pious end; moreover, all clerics are forbidden to be present at these balls if they happen to be promoted by laymen.

"This degree the Sovereign Pontiff ordered to become a part of public law and to be religiously observed by all, everything to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Given at Rome from the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, March 31, 1916.

"CARDINAL DE LAI, Bishop of Sabina, Secretary.

"THOMAS BOGGIANI, Archbishop of Edessa, Assessor."

---

Source: "Concerning Certain Balls in the United States of America and in Canada," Our Young People, October 1916, 20. https://books.google.com/books?id=HhXZAAAAMAAJ

Repost: Tradition in Action Article on Dancing and Catholic Morality

From Tradition in Action
(http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k026pDance.html; accessed Jan. 3, 2017):

Unfortunately today, when we live in an atmosphere of complete moral tolerance for all the vices as a consequence of Council Vatican II, it is not rare to see a weak moral approach, even in conservative and traditionalist priests. Although these priests often take good positions on other topics, when it comes to dances, they orient their parishioners in a way that, before the Council, would hardly escape a reprimand.

Your question gives TIA the opportunity to provide an extended answer on the topic to help you and, also, those faithful who have uncertainties on the matter, so that laymen can clearly see what is correct and act accordingly.

This answer is based on the text by Fr. Théophile-Marie Ortolan O.M.I. – Oblates of Mary Immaculate – (1869-1937). He wrote an extensive article on dance for the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique - DTC, which is a collection quite prestigious for its scholarship. If any criticism were to be made of the general orientation of the DTC, it would be that it leans to liberalism in morals.

General principle

Dance is an art turned to express beauty with the means at its disposal. Now, any art, whatever it is, while it expresses beauty is not intrinsically bad. It becomes bad insofar as it is favors bad morals.

History

Dance has existed for as long as recorded history. To be fair, theologians have acknowledged that dance is basically a neutral activity. It can be either good or bad depending on the circumstances and the way it is done.



King David dances before the Ark of the Covenant; below, Salome performs to seduce Herod



The Old Testament gives us examples of good dance when the Jews incorporated choreography as a means to express religious piety. King David danced before the Ark of the Covenant, and some women of Israel would dance to celebrate the military victories of the Chosen People. However, strict rules applied to the activity, and it was standard for the Jewish men and women of the Old Testament to avoid the danger of sensuality by dancing separately, not together. These examples show that dance can, in an idealized form, be acceptable.

Outside of Israel, the situation was much worse. Many dances of the Greeks and Romans were conceived specifically to provoke sensuality. Often such dances were made in honor of pagan gods, such as Bacchus or Mercury, and ended in orgies. These pagan dances were condemned even by pagan writers, such as Cicero, who denounced dance as the last vice that follows all the other vices (gluttony, vanity, sensuality etc).

Due to the strong influence of Greek and Roman culture, these degenerate dances began to affect the Chosen People. Let us recall that, at the time of Our Lord, St. John the Baptist was beheaded as the result of a sensual dance that captivated King Herod, who promised Salome to grant her any request.

Teaching of the Church

By the time of Our Lord those good ancient Jewish dances had largely degenerated under the influence of the Roman and Hellenic cultures. Later, in the early Christendom, the bad leaven of pagan heathen dance led the Church to condemn dancing as unfit for Christians.




Bulgarian dancers show that sexes can dance together without embracing or dressing immodestly; below, Brazilian gaucho pairs prove the same thing

The Council of Laodicea (363 AD) forbade Catholics to join in wedding dances. The Third Council of Toledo (589 AD) condemned dancing at the commemorations on the eve of Saints’ feast days and repeated the warning for Catholics to avoid participating at weddings where love was the subject of songs or dances. The Council of Trullo (692 AD) excommunicated any layman who participated in theatrical dancing; it also deposed any cleric who did so.

Despite these condemnations a certain amount of liberty has been given for the innocent folk dances that preserve modesty. Children’s dances and military dances also fall into the category of dances permitted.

Fr. Ortolan quotes theologians who stress that dancing can be an occasion of sin, both for oneself and for others. One must be especially conscious of the sin that one may commit by inciting others to sensuality through dance.

Although some folk dances may fall into the category of innocent, it must be remembered that the waltz and the polka were condemned, since they involve embraces, a romantic atmosphere or even the interlacing of fingers. Passions that arise from such dances and balls are considered deliberately provoked temptations. Several theologians state that going to such dances is, at the least, to invite sins of sensuality, and, consequently, this risk may constitute a mortal sin against the virtue of prudence. The musician who provides the music for sensual dances is deemed unworthy of absolution.

Looking at more contemporary times, Ortolan and other theologians condemn the performing arts, such as ballet, that involve tight clothing, pastel or skin colored apparel and revealing or transparent dresses. Such attire alone is deemed a grave sin against modesty and this is often compounded by the illicit and immoral positions and movements that are part of the dance itself. It is not a mark of virtue that one’s sensitivity to such flagrant immorality has been dulled by overexposure to such immodesty, as is often the case today.

The author reminds us that in times when the Catholic Faith and acts of piety diminish, sins in dancing become the rule rather than the exception. He also notes that those who sin in dance are far more numerous than those who do not.

Modern dances



These immodest outfits and poses are not permitted by Catholic Morals

Given this information a few conclusions seem inevitable.

* When one considers the kinds of dances condemned in the 1920s and 1930s – the waltz, polka, ballet and masquerade balls – it is not difficult to see that most of the dances we find in the 20th and 21st centuries are not fitting for Catholics;

* Regrettably, almost all dances today are unacceptable by Catholic standards. Rock n’ roll, jazz, the twist, swing dancing, and nearly every other dance contrived in the last century – such as tango, samba, rumba, salsa, calypso and even more “conservative” dances like the blues, bolero and fox-trot – fall under the same restriction;

* More rigorously the dreadful-sensual movements that pass for dance in most nightclubs and the modern rock concerts should be rejected.

Criteria for parents

As a practical advice for parents, the general criteria to judge a good dance for a young woman and a young man are to check whether or not:

Basque dancers in colorful traditional dress


Below, Basque girls learning the traditional folk dances in the town square

1. The dresses are modest – no exposition of the body parts except the head, hands, lower arms and lower legs (skirts below the knees), no transparent or see-through clothing, no tight apparel that reveals the shape of the body, especially when it is skin colored;

2. The positions are appropriate – no close embraces where the bodies touch; no leaning of woman’s head on the man’s shoulder; no faces touching; no interlacing of fingers.

3. The movements are decent – no sensual twisting or vibration of the waist, no lifting of the legs or jumps that reveal what the dress covers, no fast twirling that allows the skirts to fly outward, no provocative positions of the derrières, no challenging protrusion of the breasts, no languid abandonment of the arms.

Let us conclude following the advice of St. Francis de Sales. If we have to attend a dance, we should try to counteract this risk by framing a pious state of mind. We should think about the many souls who went to Hell for dancing or sinned because of dancing.

We should take into consideration also the dissipating effect dances have on the mind of a Catholic, and think about those who, in contrast, profitably employ their time in prayer and meditation about God.

Even if one avoids the sins of vanity, immodesty, sensuality and indiscretion, we should remember what St. Francis de Sales said: Even the best of balls are of no value.

Cordially,

TIA correspondence desk

Catholic Magisterium Against Modern Dances

[53] The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church in General Against Modern Dances.

In the history of the Roman Catholic Church, we find that Bishops entrusted with the care of saving souls were very solicitous to eradicate the evil of dancing from their dioceses. The history of the early Church tells us that Bishops assembled in council and condemned vigorously the various dances of their day, especially the New Year's Day, the Twelfthtide, and Shrovetide dances inherited from the pagan Roman civilization. These dances were condemned by the councils of the Church, the most prominent of which was the Council of Tours, held in A.D. 567. It is true there were not round dances in those days, but we suppose that some of the dances were immodest, though not admitting the sinful pose of the present-day Waltz. The condemnation of these Bishops is still followed in the Church and is an argument against modern dancing, showing the spirit of the Church and her Bishops to be against such diversion, and we feel that were these noble men in our midst to-day, they would most emphatically cry [54] out against the sinful practice as a de facto violation of the Sixth Commandment.

Priests are impressed by Benedict XIV.'s [sic] magnificent treatise on the Diocesan Synod, of which it has been said that it should be the manual of Bishops. The true spirit of the Church eradicating abuses is found in that treatise. This great Pope saw the evil of dancing. With fiery words he pronounced balls in general to be filthy amusements. (L. XI., c. 10, No. 11.) See also Bouvier quoting him. (Vol. IV, p. 100, Edition 1868.) We are sure that no conscientious Bishop would approve filthy amusements for his flock. Benedict XIV lived in 1758. Had he lived in 1800 or thereabouts he would have been horrified at the immorality of the modern Waltz, and would in very deed have stigmatized it as the most vehement destroyer of morality.

[55] The First and Second Baltimore Plenary Council Against Modern Dances.

The Catholic Bishops of the United States were fully aware of the iniquity of modern dances introduced into this country from Germany for the corruption of society when they assembled in Baltimore in 1866 to hold the Second Plenary Council. They condemned most severely modern balls and recorded a special decree against them. (Decree 472.) They condemned them as immodest dances, which they said were increasing daily, and just now, 1904, are a perfect fury.

The Fathers certainly told the truth. Modern dances have been on the increase ever since they were introduced into this country. Dancing masters, our modern mephitic corrupters of youth, have invented more daring dances, alluring young people to practice them because of their sensual fascination. Milwaukee, Wis., may be said to be the Germany of America. A few months ago, we read a special dispatch to the "Baltimore American," to the effect that the Dancing Masters' [56] Association adopted the "Five-step" and other dances on June 12, 1902. The dances are "The Lyric," a Polka, submitted by H. L. Walker, of Buffalo; "The Pompadour," a Five-step Schottische, by Isadore Sampson; "The Delmar," a Redowa with a two-step combination, submitted by E. B. Gaynor, of Chicago; and "The Stirlings," by Austine McFaddin. This is the most complicated of any of the dances and is a combination of Minuet, Gavotte and Waltz. It is set to original music and the dancing masters say it is very attractive. Isadore Sampson also presented a children's dance, which he calls "The Eros." It is set to Mazourka music. The new dances were demonstrated before the association by their authors and were greatly admired by the teachers.

The Fathers declare such diversion to constitute an offense against God, society and the family. They included in their condemnation not only those who promote those dances, but also those who encourage them by their presence. The Bishops did not refer their condemnation to the old-style square dances, which exclude bodily contact of the different sexes and which could be performed decently, but they condemned the Waltz and other modern dances which according to the code of corrupted modern society, demand close embrace.

The First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) protests [57] against round dances especially, because they are highly indecent. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1868) says: "We consider it to be our duty to warn our people against those amusements which may easily become to them an occasion of sin, and especially against those fashionable dances, which, as at present carried on, are revolting to every feeling of decency and propriety, and are fraught with the greatest dangers to morals." And to all those priests who have the care of souls, the same council, in its 472d [sic] decree, says: "Let them ATTACK and BOLDLY condemn immodest dances, which are becoming more and more common every day. Let them admonish the faithful how much they sin, not only against God, but against society, against their families and against themselves, who take part in these dances or at least seem to countenance them by their presence. Let them teach parents particularly of how grievous a judgment they become guilty if they expose their young sons and daughters to the danger of losing purity and innocence of mind by allowing them to be thus entrapped in the snares of the devil." This is the literal translation from the Latin text.

Soon after the council, Archbishop Martin John [58] Spalding enacted in the Diocesan Synod the following statute: "As the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, in their pastoral letter to the people, wholly condemned those dances which are commonly called Waltzes and round dances, we decree that they are not to be taught nor to be tolerated in the colleges, academies and schools of the diocese, even for the sake of recreation among persons of the same sex."

If the Fathers of the First and Second Plenary Council of Baltimore call modern dances immodest, they are most emphatically so by reason of the pose. And if they are immodest they essentially constitute a violation against the Sixth Commandment. Parents mark well the above quoted words of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. You are guilty of enormous sin by exposing your children, yet unconscious, to evil, to be entrapped by the meshes of the devil. It is a sad commentary on the conduct of some of the present-day pastors to think that this very important Decree has become null and void on account of their inactivity and their laxity in enforcing Church discipline.

This serious legislation is still in force and prevaricators only will regard it abrogated. We back up the authority of the II. Roman Plenary Baltimore Council by giving to the American young descendants of the faithful and pure Irish nation the authority of Archbishop [59] Walsh of Dublin, addressing his people in one of his Lenten Pastorals, saying: 

"Never engage in those improper dances imported from other countries and retaining foreign names, such as Polkas and Waltzes, which are so repugnant to the notions of strict morality, are condemned by many of the highest and most respectable members of society and are at direct variance with that purity and modesty of the female character for which Ireland has been ever distinguished."

In addition to the censures above quoted it might not be amiss to add the condemnation of modern dancing by Bishop McCluskey of Louisville, Ky., which is of a very recent date. In his Decree published June 16th, 1903, he says: "In view of the shockingly indecent style of modern dance we hereby forbid dancing of any kind at any of the fairs, picnics, entertainments or outings."

The Cumberland "Evening Times," Md., published the following open letter:

[60] SHEER DEVILIZATION. [sic]

Thus Father Sartori Designates the Modern Dance.

The following is a copy of a letter addressed to Bishop McCluskey, of Louisville, by Rev. Father Sartori, of Midland:

Midland, Md., June 18th, 1903.

Rt. Rev. William George McCluskey,
Louisville, Ky.

Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir:

I read in the Cumberland "Evening Times," Md., June 17th, 1903, your decree condemning dancing of any kind at any of the fairs, picnics, entertainments or outings, giving as a reason for condemnation "the shockingly indecent style of the modern dance." You are right, my Lord, the Waltz is a main feature of the square dances, and together with the Polka, Gallop, Mazourka and other dances of this kind constitutes to-day the most bold and impudent vice raging in the land, threatening to overthrow the Bishops' and [61] Priests' authority for the license pandering to carnal passions.

The modern dance for high and low society is not civilization, but sheer devilization [sic]. It is nothing else but sinful gratification of the flesh. Let Catholics and Catholic Societies be ashamed to practice the modern dance, which is a downright insult to Christ and His immaculate Church.

Congratulating your Lordship, for your timely and noble stand taken in your diocese, and hoping others of your Fellow Bishops will follow your praiseworthy example, I remain, Rt. Rev. Sir,

Yours truly,

Don Luigi Sartori.

Rt. Rev. Wm. G. McCluskey, D.D.

The above condemnations show the spirit of the Roman Catholic Church to be against modern dancing, not because it is a harmless recreation, but because it is a sinful diversion and a source of still more grievous sins to all who engage in it or encourage it by their presence.

---

Source: Immorality of Modern Dances, ed. by Beryl and Associates (New York, NY: Everitt and Francis Co. and S.F. McLean and Co, 1904), 53–61.

Pius XI and Media in Christian Education

89. It is no less necessary to direct and watch the education of the adolescent, "soft as wax to be moulded into vice,"[58] in whatever other environment he may happen to be, removing occasions of evil and providing occasions for good in his recreations and social intercourse; for "evil communications corrupt good manners."[59]

90. More than ever nowadays an extended and careful vigilance is necessary, inasmuch as the dangers of moral and religious shipwreck are greater for inexperienced youth. Especially is this true of impious and immoral books, often diabolically circulated at low prices; of the cinema, which multiplies every kind of exhibition; and now also of the radio, which facilitates every kind of communications. These most powerful means of publicity, which can be of great utility for instruction and education when directed by sound principles, are only too often used as an incentive to evil passions and greed for gain. St. Augustine deplored the passion for the shows of the circus which possessed even some Christians of his time, and he dramatically narrates the infatuation for them, fortunately only temporary, of his disciple and friend Alipius.[60] How often today must parents and educators bewail the corruption of youth brought about by the modern theater and the vile book!

91. Worthy of all praise and encouragement therefore are those educational associations which have for their object to point out to parents and educators, by means of suitable books and periodicals, the dangers to morals and religion that are often cunningly disguised in books and theatrical representations. In their spirit of zeal for the souls of the young, they endeavor at the same time to circulate good literature and to promote plays that are really instructive, going so far as to put up at the cost of great sacrifices, theaters and cinemas, in which virtue will have nothing to suffer and much to gain.

92. This necessary vigilance does not demand that young people be removed from the society in which they must live and save their souls; but that today more than ever they should be forewarned and forearmed as Christians against the seductions and the errors of the world, which, as Holy Writ admonishes us, is all "concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes and pride of life."[61] Let them be what Tertullian wrote of the first Christians, and what Christians of all times ought to be, "sharers in the possession of the world, not of its error."[62]

Footnotes:

58. Horat., Art. poet., v. 163: cereus in vitium flecti.59. I Cor. XV, 33: corrumpunt mores bonos colloquia mala.

60. Conf., VI, 8.

61. I lo., II, 16: concupiscentia carnis, concupiscentia oculorum et superbia vitae.
62. De Idololatria, 14: compossessores mundi, non erroris.

---

Source: Pius XI, "Divini Illius Magistri." http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html