We as Catholics are to strive for...
Mary-Like Modesty
"Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be done,
on Earth as It is in Heaven"
We as Catholics are to strive for...
Mary-Like Modesty
Our Motto is to...
This is the Most Perfect Model for Modesty
Modesty of Women throughout History,
when Society was Catholic.
4th century
6th century
10th century
13th century
14th century
15th century
16th century
19th century
"A woman shall not be clothed with mans apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he is abominable before God that doeth these things."
(Deuteronomy XXII. 5)
abominable means "detestable"
Attire
by Bill Wyler
As we can see, the modesty of Catholic women of the first
13 centuries pretty much imitated Our Lady's dress completely, from head to toe. The code
during this time was "fashion cater to modesty," not "modesty cater to
fashion." We see a change in this trend in the 14th century with the introduction of
the Renaissance. Now although the women then did not dress wantonly(see glossary below),
their modesty was not the Perfect Model's. Some of them flaunted their hair, while others
wore a bit of pompous clothing. Still, none of it outlined or uncovered the sensual areas
of the body. Later during the heretical Reformation of the 16th Century, the women of
Protestant nations began to expose more than decency allowed of the the upper regions of
the body. During the 19th century, contrary to the wide-spread notion that women were
modest, women were practically intimidated by the fashion industry, going through
extravagant measures into twisting and outlining their figure, to keep up with the latest
trend. As a reaction to this being "bottled-up" and confined by clothing, women
in the 20th century catered to the flapper craze. This new rebellious fashion freed them
from the restrictive hour-glass shape of the "gay 90's" to the opposite extreme
by the clothing being straight, and narrow, making them look boyish. This idea of
"breaking free" from the slavery of 19th century pseudo-modesty made women
reveal rather than conceal a little more each decade, to the point in which we end up with
the scandalous fashions of the modern catholic woman today. Although Catholic women since
the Reformation were not as modest as those from the first 1300 years of the Church, they
still none the less kept the same standard of decency according to the natural law.
During the Renaissance, men became immodest and indecent
as well. In the 14th century some men wore skin-tight pants, and in opposition the clergy
of that time branded this clothing not only indecent but effeminate. For a man to fall
into the "vice of women"(to entice sensually), by outlining his body with
clothing is very effeminate. During the revolutionary 18th century the royal men displayed
so much pomp and effeminacy in attire, that they could not properly act the fatherly role
as head of state. This effeminacy was probably a factor in their weakness against their
usurpation. After the revolutions men regained their modesty for the most part, but by
then it was too late. The devil knew from history that behind every man is a woman. If he
could get the woman to fall first, he could then use her to break the man next. For every
Adam there was an Eve, for every David there is a Bathsheba, and for every Henry VIII
there is an Anne Boleyn.
The standard of decency for women throughout the
centuries, was always to cover the legs and not outline nor display them at all. This
changed with the 20th century's "new tradition" of decency for Catholic women.
Although this new decency was proposed by neither the Church(anyway, she cannot do such a
thing as to redefine the natural law) nor by Catholic custom, many Catholics none the less
decided that since the heretics were showing a new decency, they could do the same. If
enough people do it, then it's right, was these Catholic's motto, as if the norm dictated
right and wrong, and not the natural law anymore. Saint Augustine once said,"wrong is
wrong whether everyone is doing it and right is right whether no one is doing it." We
as Catholics should know we do not base our morality on the status quo, but on God and the
natural law (neither of which change.)
The wealthy tend to cater to a new trend before the poor
do; rich and famous women(including the activists) made the "new decency"
fashionable in the first place. The middle and poor class Catholic women wanting to be
fashionable(envy and avarice play a part here) ended up following suit.
Who did start the "Fad" of Catholic Women
wearing Pants instead of Modest Skirts? Was
it a Traditional Catholic Woman who was striving to be a Saint? Let's see what history tells us...
"A pair of baggy trousers gathered at the ankles
and worn with a short belted tunic was sported by Amelia Jenks Bloomer of Homer, New York,
in 1851. She had copied the pants costume from a friend, Elizabeth Smith Miller. But it
was Mrs. Bloomer, an early FEMINIST and staunch supporter of reformer Susan B.
Anthony, who became so strongly associated with the MASCULINE-TYPE outfit that it
acquired her name. Pants, then MEN'S wear, appealed to Amelia Bloomer...Amelia
Bloomer REFUSED to wear the popular fashion. Starting in 1851, she began to appear
in public in baggy pants and a short tunic. And as more women joined the campaign for the
right to vote, Mrs. Bloomer turned the trousers into a UNIFORM OF
REBELLION...CHALLENGING the long TRADITION of who in the family wore the PANTS."
--article on the origin of bloomers/women wearing pants,
taken from "Panati's Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things" by Charles Panati
So what can we gather from all this? That a feminist miscreant desired to wear the other
sex's clothes to express a demand for "women's rights" and to spark a rebellion
against the traditional mores in decency. Feminists challenged the tradition of the man
being the head of the family by wearing his clothes. Later on in the 1930's, the
Communists would finalize this revolution in women's clothing. Using gnostic
"theology", the communists deemed women nothing more than imperfect men, who in
order to be as perfect as men, had to express masculinity and repress their feminine
attributes. They made it the ideal fashion, in their propaganda, that women, in order to
express true equality with men in all things, would also have to wear the
masculine clothing for men only, called Pants. So we can see that this custom of women
wearing pants is nothing more than a feminist tradition. It certainly does
not come from the long held decency code passed down from Catholic woman to Catholic woman
throughout the 19 centuries of the Church's influence on society.
There is a reason that the the custom of women wearing
pants DIDN'T start with Catholic women in a Catholic Society. It was deemed unnatural and
indecent since the time of Christ until this decadent century. The custom would be deemed
unnatural because Catholic women in history thought (and were right) that pants are for
men, and dresses are for women. There was no question about it. It is indecent because
women's bodies are more sensual, so women wore dresses to cover up more. According to
physiology, women are centrifugal(fleeing away from the center)in their perspective,
seeing things from within themselves, outwardly. Men on the other hand are
centripetal(seeking from the center) in their perspective, seeing things from without
themselves, inwardly. In other words women tend to be the show'er and men tend to be the
looker. This is the reason that women's bodies are more sensual than a man's. Their bodies
are made to be appealing, so that they can attract a mate(who is designed to look from
afar). That is why there is more of an area on women that is semi-private than there is on
men. Women are by nature designed to be more sensual due to the centripetal-centrifugal
relationship. Knowing this, it is understandable that exhibitionists tend to be women and
voyeurs are usually men.
That's just the way things are. We can't change what is
sensual on a person and what isn't. If it was deemed indecent for women to expose or
outline above the knee in the first 19 centuries of the Church, it is still indecent for
women to expose or outline above the knee in the 20th. A man's sensual area is in the hip
region, so the legs would not have to be completely covered up and pants would be
suitable. The sensual area of a women's body, being from above the knee, to the elbow, and
up to the neck, requires clothing that could effectively cover this large region. Its
always been this way and you cant change what is sensual unless you dare change human
nature, which as catholics we know we can't change the natural law. That is the reason why
dresses were for women and pants were for men in the first place.
Another reason that women never wore pants and only modest
skirts is in respect to their femininity. According to physiology,the female form exhibits
rounder and less extreme contours and more obtuse angles. A male body form is more sharp
edged, angular, rugged and broken. This can be seen not only in the skeleton, and
musculature, but also in each sex's face and movements. A man's face has sharp features, a
woman's more soft and round in appearance. A man's motion is more thought out and jagged
with "countless endings", while a woman's movements are "endlessly
continuous". Clothing is supposed to reflect these masculine and feminine traits. A
man is to wear masculine clothing, and a woman is to only wear feminine clothing. So that
a man's garb should express his masculinity by tending to be straight and narrow, while a
woman's attire should be round, soft, graceful and flowing. So it comes as no surprise
that Catholic women throughout history only wore full length dresses, not only to be
modest, but also because that clothing(being soft, wide, and flowing) is in accordance to
their feminine nature. Men dressed accordingly to their nature as well. Pants being sharp
and narrow, are harmonious with masculinity. Pants are anything but graceful. Unisex
clothing is for unisex people. It would be abhorrent if a man were to wear the clothing of
a woman, so why is it not abhorrent if women wear masculine clothing such as pants? The
Church has defined what is indecent or not on women, when it said this, about covering up,
at the very least, the sensual areas...
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut
deeper than two fingers breadth below the base of the throat, which does not cover the
arms at least to the elbow, and which scarcely reaches a bit below the knees. Dresses of
transparent materials are also indecent."
The Sacred Congregation of Religious, under Pius XI
"One cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of
so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not
see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends
God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault
against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public
thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Holy
Altar, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity."
Benedict XV
"As long as certain audacious modes of dress
remain the sad privilege of women of dubious reputation and almost a sign by which they
may be known, no-one else would dare to wear that same dress upon herself: but the moment
that it appears upon persons beyond all reproach, she will hesitate no longer to follow
the current, a current which will drag her perhaps to the worst fall." Pope Pius XII, May 22, 1941
"O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of
anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters,
imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the
sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are
making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has
entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians." Pope Pius XII
"Certain fashions will be introduced which will
offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions.
Our Lord is always the same." Our
Lady of Fatima warning the people of the 1920s of the fashions that were to come for
Catholic women. It wasn't a warning of the fashions that were to come for protestants and
pagans since they were already indulging in indecent fashions. It was a warning to the
Children of God, who are going to imitate them.
So Catholic women have to ask themselves who are they using as their
Perfect Model for modesty, the Blessed Virgin Mary or the feminist infidel Amelia Bloomer?
The reason for covering the body in the first place is to
unshape it. If people think wearing skin-tight clothing serves the purpose of covering,
they are dead wrong. Skin-tight does nothing but uncover the shape of the body. It is as
if one were to wear nothing at all.
The first step of the feminist influence in the Church was
Catholic women wearing pants. It would follow next that there would soon be female
lectors, nun's wearing pants, altar girls, female "Doctors" of the Church, and
maybe Priestesses with a Popess!
Rebellion has to start somewhere, and if you don't nip it
in the bud, it will continue to grow.
Before Adam fell, Eve sinned first, and it was through her
that the father of mankind gave us original sin. Vatican II's evil, done by men, would
never have happened so soon or at all, if the backbone (women) of the Church had not first
fallen. Imitating Eve in falling first, Catholic women of the years preceding this Council
already were becoming lax in their modesty. Without the strength of modest women, men
would fall into lechery and begin to become blind to what the Faith is, and isn't.
Here is a quote that I came across while reading G. K.
Chestertons famous book, "What's Wrong with the World"...
"...And since we are talking here chiefly in types
and symbols, perhaps as good an embodiment as any of the idea may be found in the mere
fact of a woman wearing a skirt. It is highly typical of the rabid plagiarism which
now passes everywhere for emancipation, that a little while ago it was common for an
"advanced" woman to claim the right to wear trousers; a right about as GROTESQUE
as the right to wear a false nose...It is quite certain that the skirt means female
dignity..."
pgs. 110-111
I would like to conclude with a quote of a Catholic prophecy sent in by
one of our concerned readers...
PROPHECY OF ST. NILUS
Realizing that St. Nilus is
scarcely known to a large part of the Church, a brief sketch of his life, taken from the
Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 copyright edition), is related below:
"St. Nilus was one of the
many disciples and fervent defenders of St. John Chrysostom. He was an officer at the
Court of Constantinople, married, with two sons. While St. John Chrysostom was patriarch,
before his exile (398-403), he directed Nilus in the study of Scripture and in works of
piety. St. Nilus left his wife and one son and took the other, Theodulos, with him to Mt.
Sinai to be a monk. The Bishop of Eleusa ordained both St. Nilus and his son to the
priesthood. The mother and other son also embraced the religious life in Egypt. From his
monastery at Sinai, St. Nilus was a well-known person throughout the Eastern Church; by
his writings and correspondence he played an important part in the history of his time. He
was known as a theologian, Biblical scholar and ascetic writer, so people of all kinds,
from the emperor down wrote to consult him. His numerous works, including a multitude of
letters, consist of denunciations of heresy, paganism, abuses of discipline and crimes, of
rules and principles of asceticism, especially maxims about the religious life. He warns
and threatens people in high places, abbots and bishops, governors and princes, even the
emperor himself, without fear. He kept up a correspondence with Gaina, a leader of the
Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He denounced vigorously the persecution
of St. John Chrysostom both to the Emperor Arcadius and to his courtiers. St. Nilus must
be counted as one of the leading ascetic writers of the fifth century. His feast is kept
on November 12th in the Byzantine Calendar; he is commemorated also in the Roman
Martyrology on the same date. St. Nilus probably died around the year 430 as there is no
evidence of his life after that."
Now
the prophecy:
" After the year 1900, toward the
middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the
time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from
carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will
become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible
to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These
people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the
Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and
Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to
distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions
of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation
will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those
who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in
society. At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness,
people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy
Baptism and equally of remorse. The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and
pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will
completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of
knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy
refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet
obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist
wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will
produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man
so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another
from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air
like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all
this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls,
that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! -- he will so complete science
with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the
existence of God in three hypostases. Then the
All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the
sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen
into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly
appear and kill the perverter and his servants."
In essence the prophecy has basically said that Catholics (those who are
orthodox in the faith) would change the traditions and morals of the Church and
specifically points out that one of these is *modesty*. It even remarkably states that
with these new fashions you could not see the difference between the masculine and
feminine clothing as to blur what sex the person was. Also that if you tried to correct
these people that they would feel no shame in what they were doing, and classify it as the
norm or at least trivial. If you tried to ask advice from the Catholic Pastor, although
good with knowing dogma, they would fail to distinguish the "right-hand way from the
left" in morality. These are wicked times and we need to "Therefore, brethren,
stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our
epistle." The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 2:14; if we are ever
going to be saved, despite the reluctance our Pastors have to condemn these modern
fashions right up from the beginning of this century. In their giving us the
"Greenlight" in these matters, "easing" our conscience, they are doing
more harm than the apparent good. People forget that although the Saints might have
differed on different points of dogmatic doctrine (prior to the Church explicitly ending
the differences with a magisterial decree), they all agreed as to what was modest in
attire. There was not a single Canonized Saint or Church Father who deviated from the
decency code in over 1800 years. We as Catholics are not allowed to differ from their
perspectives. We are to condemn and to condone what they condemned and condoned. It is
when we deviate from THEIR NORM, that we can say we are no longer of their One, Holy,
Catholic, Apostolic Faith. For in order to be Catholic we must be of the same religious
body, and in order to be of the same body, we must profess the same religion of Christ in
Faith *and* morals. We must use the traditions and habits of the Saints, that they
all had in common, throughout the centuries of the Church. If we fail in achieving this
common denominator, we can expect to fail in achieving our Supernatural End as well.
Notification Concerning
MEN'S DRESS WORN BY WOMEN
by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri Genoa, June 12, 1960
To the Reverend Clergy,
To all Teaching sisters,
To the beloved sons of Catholic Action,
To Educators intending truly to follow Christine
Doctrine.
I. The first signs of our times of our late arriving
spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by
girls and women, even family mothers. Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant
the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women
from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men's dress (men's
trousers).
The extension of this behavior obliges us to take
serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to
the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way
responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment
upon the wearing of men's dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the
moral question.
Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female
body, the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE
OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman?s body than do
modern women's skirts.
Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not
only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body. Now it is true
that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be
made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives
us no less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body. So the immodesty of men's
trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all
judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.
II. However, it is a different aspect of women's
wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.
The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly
the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women;
secondly it affects the woman as wife of her
husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the
woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes. Each of
these points is to be carefully considered in turn:--
A.MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF
WOMAN.
In truth the motive impelling women to wear men's
dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered
stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress
is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man".
Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and
modifies that persons gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn
outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
Then let us add that women wearing man's dress
always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority
when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be
seen.
These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to
warn us how wrongly women are made to think by wearing men's dress.
B. MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
In truth when relationships between the two sexes
unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant. The
essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made
possible only by their complementing or completing one another. If than this
"diversity" becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is
eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the
alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.
The problem goes further still. Mutual attraction
between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame
which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to
a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would
push onwards to uncontrolled acts. To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals
and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to
help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.
It is at least to hinder that sense. And when the
sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and
women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or
esteem.
Experience is there to tell us that when woman is
de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.
C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER
IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
All children have an instinct for the sense of
dignity and decorum of their mother. Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when
they awaken to life around them before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the
sense of their mother counts. Children are as sensitive as they can be on this point.
Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it. But we would do
well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own
mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their
mother's misbehavior. Many lines of later life are here to be traced out (and not for
good) in these early dramas of infancy and childhood.
The child may not know the definition of exposure,
frivolity, or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them
when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.
III. Let us think seriously on the import of
everything said so far, even if women's appearing in man's dress does not immediately give
rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.
The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental
and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human
affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all
to be seen within a short time. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously
worn down, torn apart, perverted.
Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and
wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed? Or is any true education of
children imaginable, which is so delicate in its
procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother's intuition and instinct
play the decisive part in those tender years? What will these women be able to give their
children when they will so long have worn trousers that their
self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as
women?
Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather
since they became civilized, why have men in all times and places been
irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division
between the functions of the two sexes? Do we not have here strict testimony to the
recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?
To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to
be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.
IV. The logical consequence of everything presented
so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a
SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the
word, a severe and decisive ALARM.
We address a grave warning to parish priests. To all
priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of
association, to all religious, to all nuns,
especially to teaching Sisters.
We invite them to become clearly conscious of the
problem so that action will follow. This consciousness is what matters. It will
suggest the appropriate action in due time. But let it not
counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by
a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!
Men may come and men may go, because God has left
plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of
nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never
changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may
stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; there are limits which
empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not to take seriously, but they put
together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And
history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of
nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always,
sooner or later, catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had
dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many
people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is
that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they
cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and
far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.
The consequences of such violations are not a new
outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness
of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long
since out of people's sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness, and
rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken
families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast
to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and (at the end of the line) souls in despair
and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the
"line of God" does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaptation to the
delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers!
V. We have said that those in whom the
present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem at
hand.
Accordingly they know what they have to say,
starting with little girls on their mother?s knee.
They know that without exaggerating or turning into
fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men,
as a general rule.
They know they must never be so weak as to let
anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and
undermining the moral standing of all institutions.
They, the priests, know the line that they have to
take in the confessional, while not holding women to be dressing like men to be
automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and
decisive.
Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a
united line of action, re-inforced on every side by the co-operation of all men of good
will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever
capacity understand useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the
arts, the media and the crafts. The position taken by fashion design houses, their
brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole
question. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but
dignified solutions as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or
engage in this or that exercise or work. What matters is to preserve modesty, together
with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all
children will continue to associate with the face of mother.
We do not deny that modern life sets problems and
makes requirements unknown to our grandparents. But we state that there are values more
needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence
there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified
solutions to problems as they come up.
Out of charity we are fighting against the
flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests
the
complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not
so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring
about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word,
monstrosities.
This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public,
but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations. Let them do
their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.
Giuseppe Cardinal Siri,
Archbishop of Genoa
GLOSSARY
Immodesty:
The vice which incites others to look upon the
individual be it in dress, word, or deed.
Wantoness:
Unchaste immodesty in dress, word, or deed, i.e.
dressing indecently when it comes to accenting or exposing the sensual areas of a man or
woman.
Modest Covering:
In modesty that which hides or blurs the outline of the
body for decency. Skin-tight, transparent, or flesh tone clothing do not conceal and are
not to be deemed a modest covering.
Decency:
That which conforms to standards or propriety, good
taste, or morality. In modest dress, at the bare minimum that which covers the sensual
areas of man and woman in public. As Catholic traditional decorum indicates, the natural
law has it that the sensual areas of a man are around the hipbone, and that of a woman is
from the knee, to the neck, to the elbows. The only times the sensual areas may be
exposed, is in private for health or conjugal reasons. In certain places and times more
modesty is required when it is necessary to do so, i.e. going to Church etc.
Sensual:
That which appeals to the senses, and usually incites
them to venereal pleasure.
I would appreciate those who can contribute to this page any proofs
that would be useful in defending the universal decency code in the natural law. If anyone
has any ideas, questions or comments, please email the Webmaster at...
