Doubt I: On the adornment of women

HERE arises a question exceedingly grave and necessary concerning the ornament of women; on which St. Thom. art. 2. and St. Bonaven. in speculo animae, cap. 3. ante medium, §. circa inhonestatem habitus: an sit Lethalis.

The holy Doctor observes, first, that four excesses are enumerated in these things. The first is of superfluity, when they have more garments than is fitting, or too wide and flowing ones. The second is curiosity, whether in color or in the manner of workmanship. The third is dishonesty, when the workmanship of the garments displays dishonesty and provokes to evil, as when the neck and bare breast are exposed. And unctions are employed to acquire color, paints, deceptions in changing the hair, or painting the head. The fourth is composition, when a singular manner is employed, tocalia are multiplied, new fashions are devised, etc.

He observes, second, that these four can have the nature of sin, either by reason of a perverse intention, or of a contrary custom, or of the condition of the person, or of the time, or by reason of the root.

¶ BY REASON of the end they can be done out of vanity, or out of an intention of provoking to lust; and plainly where there is a mortal intention, the fault will be mortal also.¹ Such is the intention ut appetaris, for, as St. Augustine says, epist. 100, not only to desire, but also to wish to be desired, is criminal. ¹ Editor's note: the 1655 print reads 'ad luxuriam ex sanè ubi est intentio mortalis'; 'ex sanè ubi' is corrupt, probably for 'ex quâ sanè' (whence plainly); rendered from context.

Secondly, vicious ornament can be sinful by reason of a contrary custom, especially soft ornament, as when a man walks about in womanly attire; and he says that so grave a scandal can be given in this as to be mortal. Whence St. Augustine, lib. 3. confess. c. 8. Consuetudo, vel lex terrae, nulla civis, vel peregrini libidine violetur. [Custom, or the law of the land, is by no means to be violated by the lust of citizen or stranger.]

Thirdly, they can be evil by reason of the condition of the person; as if a cleric or religious use the indecent dress of seculars, a poor man the garments of the rich, a widow the habit of married women; and it can be a grave excess in one's state, arise from an evil root, and verge into scandal.

Fourthly, they can be evil by reason of the time; as when one uses such things and multiplies them in a time of the poor's necessity, and when famine is so great that the poor suffer gravely, when they ought rather to be helped; and the indigence in the poor can be so great, and the superfluity in the rich on the other side so great, that they can have the nature of mortal sin, in the way said of prodigality. Thus the holy Doctor, to whom D. Thomas also assents, art. 2. And Cajetan there, his doubts multiplied, where they take the gravity of this excess either from the end and grave scandal, or per accidens from the evils that follow. Concerning these I shall put forward many assertions, and I shall cite Doctors on both sides.

I ASSERT first. The ornament of women, or of men, if it is ordered to provoking to lust, is mortal. Thus commonly, with the holy Doctors, Cajetan ad art. 2. D. Thomae, and others to be cited.

It is PROVED from the holy Doctors, because a mortal end gravely depraves the work, and if the eye is wicked, the whole body of the work will be full of darkness, as Christ says.

I ASSERT second. That moderate ornament, by which a woman knows she will dishonestly provoke some one to lust, is not evil, nor is she simply bound to abstain or stay at home. Thus Cajetan 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 4. in fine; and quaest. 169. art. 2. ad 2. dubium with St. Thomas, who asserts it is lethal only from the end, Armilla sum. verb. Ornatus, and verb. Scandalum, where also Palacios, Granado 2. 2. Controv. 3. tract. 23. disp. 5. sec. 5. Citing Navarro Summa cap. 14. num. 47. and cap. 23. num. 18. Azorius tract. 1. lib. 11. cap. ult. quaestio. 12.

Against this is D. Antonius PP. tit. 7. cap. 4. §. Ad finem. Sylvester verb. Scandalum, quaest. 2. Corduba Summa, quaest. 5. Medina p. 2. quaest. 54. art. 6. ad 2. Zumellus ibidem art. 8. dub. 4. Lopez P. P. instruc. cap. 10. Navarre and Azor are also cited by Sanchez in Decalogum tract. 1. lib. 1. cap. 6. num. 16.

For indeed Navarre speaks of one too much adorned, who knows she will be coveted by some determinate person; but Azorius speaks of excessive ornament.

I JUDGE, however, that there ought to be some cause for going out, with Diana part. 5. tract. 7. resol. 51. Castro Palao. tomo 1. trac. 6. disp. 6. puncto 7. Hurtado 2. 2. disp. 173. sec. 31. §. 404. et seq. The reason is, because one ought to provide for the spiritual danger of the neighbor,¹ while one can without grave loss. And this is the sense of D. Antoninus and the others above, to whom Sanchez subscribes, who says: It is one thing to deprive oneself of one's liberty: another to offer oneself spontaneously: the latter is evil. Wherefore Diana concludes that one who knows she is desired, when she could go to another temple, cannot transfer herself to this place where a coveter is; or that one showing herself at the window like the horse of Amasis, or going out to be looked at, sins by giving cause and occasion of ruin. ¹ N. Editor's note: the print reads 'debet minae spirituali providere'; kept as printed in the Latin — the translator conjectured 'periculo spirituali' (spiritual danger), since 'providere' with the dative 'minae' is irregular.

Moreover, since moderate ornament is of itself lawful, likewise going out according to circumstances, one is not bound scrupulously to deprive oneself of these altogether.

Lessius, however, lib. 4. cap. 4. num. 110. gives this Rule: That when something is not evil of itself but indifferent, excess in its use (all extrinsic malice set aside) is only venial; and therefore excess in bodily ornament, considering the quality of the person, place, etc., is only venial sin.

And that one so adorns oneself out of vanity does not yet contract the guilt of scandal, Salas denies — prim. 2. tom. 2. tract. 13. disp. 5. num. 132. Zumel prim. 2. quaest. 73. art. 8. dub. 2. conclus. 3. Hurtadus 2. 2. disp. un. 173. sect. 14. §. 299. Because, he says, scandal arises of itself neither from the substance of ornament nor from a vain end. But if a woman is bound by some precept of her husband, or a vow, or another grave circumstance to abstain gravely, then he says it will be mortal.

I think the opposite, however, with Alphonso de Leone de offic. Confess. tom. 1. recollect. 7. num. 369. et 371. Sanchez num. 17. ut supra, because I am bound by charity to guard against the spiritual ruin of my neighbor; and therefore I am bound not only not to cause it by my vanity, but, without grave cause, not to furnish even an unintentional occasion.

I assert third, that the nakedness from lascivious modes of ornament, by which women display the breast, from which men ordinarily seek an occasion of sinning, is not without grave stimulus. Thus the holy Doctor seems to think, even if it is done according to the custom of the country without evil intention.

I know the opposite is taught by Layman lib. 2. tract. 3. cap. 13. num. 11. quaestio 13. nor does Diana refuse it, loco citato, where he sends one to see Suarez disp. 10. sect. 3. Granadum Tom. 1. lib. 6. quaest. 16. cap. 5. §. 2. Sanchez, and Lessius on this question.

Diana adds, resol. 32, that it is indeed evil for women to use the dress of men and men that of women, but not mortal. Thus also Sylvius 2. 2. loco citato, ad 3. It was, however, prohibited Deuter. 22. as Tannerus notes, num. 122.

I assert fourth, with the holy Doctor, that it is not immediately mortal, but it can nevertheless be mortal if it is introduced against the laws of the country, and scandal results from it; for instance, if this manner is commonly introduced at great expense by the luxury of the rich.^{1 1} N. Editor's note: the print reads 'Asseso quarto' — a typesetter's slip for 'Assero quarto', matching the series Assero primo/secondo/tertio/quinto.

I assert fifth, that it can be evil by reason of the persons, as if Religious use dissolute ornaments, if Clerics use purple shoes and other similar, lascivious things, etc.

I assert sixth, that it can be mortal by reason of the time, if the poor gravely suffer from it; for it is against charity; nay, against justice prescribed by the law of nations, that the rich should retain what they occupy, yet not to the grave prejudice of the necessity of the poor, from whom things had been unjustly seized. Thus perished the purpled Dives at the feast, letting Lazarus hunger, as D. Gregory teaches, Homil. 40. in eundem, and the holy Doctor on that place of Luke; and Tannerus observes it, disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 8. and many others.

I assert seventh, that paints and other artifices by which women are colored, and their faces smoothed, are not of themselves mortal sin. Thus the holy Doctors, where Cajetan, loco citato, and others.

The reason is had from the holy Doctors, because artifice is not mortal unless it is pernicious, as I said of lying, as Cajetan notes there: it is nevertheless vicious and reproved by the Saints. Whence 1. Petri 3. Quarum non sit extrinsecus capillatura, aut circumdatio auri, aut indumenti vestimentorum cultus. [Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the surrounding with gold, or the clothing of garments.] It pleases me to cite here many holy Fathers from the Seraphic Doctor lib. 3. Pharetrae, cap. 20.

D. Gregory, lib. 20. Moral. cap. 15. says: The wicked, when under the pretext of covering they seek garments for their limbs, seek not only those which cover, but also those which adorn: and against the torpor of cold, not only those which protect by thickness, but also those which delight by softness; and not only those which caress the ankle by their softness, but also those which seduce the eyes by their color.

Chrysostom, de compunctione cordis, has thus: We consume all the time of our life stripping the mistress and adorning the handmaid with divers ornaments.

From the same, in Matth. He who shines forth with unmeasured cultivation of body and dress, or the splendor of other things, is easily convicted by the very things that he is a follower of the pomps of the world.

D. Augustine is cited, lib. 4. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 20. where he says: What judge, O woman, would we seek more lenient of your deformity than yourself, who fear to be seen? If you are deformed, why do you pretend to be beautiful, having neither your conscience nor the favor of another's face: but this is a saying of Ambrose, lib. 1. de Virginitate.

D. Ambrose there, speaking of the paints of women: The crimes in adultery are almost more tolerable: for there chastity, here nature, is adulterated.

Likewise before, from D. Cyprian, lib. de disciplina, et habitu Virginum, cap. 7. the voice of the Apostle admonishing is: expurge the old leaven, etc. In the unleavened bread of sincerity, etc. Does sincerity persevere, and truth, when things sincere are polluted, and true things are changed into falsehood by the adulterine paints of colors? Your Lord said: You cannot make your hair white or black: and do you, to conquer the voice of your Lord, wish to be mightier with a bold attempt and a sacrilegious contempt? You dye your locks; with an evil omen of things to come, you already take the auspices of flaming hair for yourself.

The same St. Cyprian, cap. 6. Let chaste virgins flee, and modest ones, the adornments of the defiled, and the habit of immodest women, the ensigns of the brothel, the ornaments of harlots. These things God blames, these he marks. Clothed in silk and purple, they cannot put on Christ: adorned with gold and pearls and necklaces, they have lost the ornaments of the heart and breast.

The same there, cap. 3. Let virginal integrity offer itself equal in all things, nor let the cultivation of the body defame the good of the heart. For why does a virgin go forth adorned, made up, as though she had, or sought, a husband? Let her rather fear to please, if she is a virgin, nor seek danger for herself, who keeps herself for better and divine things.

Jerome, Epist. 14. It is a crime, after the sanctification of chrism, for the head to be defiled with the paint of saffron, or of any other pigment, or with powder; or to be adorned with gold, or gems, or any lovely species of earthly creature, when it already shines with the splendor of heavenly ornament.

The same, Epist. 10. What does the rouge and ceruse do on a Christian face, of which the one feigns the redness of cheeks and lips; the other the whiteness of face and neck — the fires of youths, the fomentations of lusts, the signs of an immodest mind. And below: That ornament is not of the Lord; that veil is of Antichrist. With what confidence are countenances raised to heaven which their Creator does not recognize.

D. BerD. Bernard, epist. 113. Daughters of Babylon, whose true glory is in confusion, are clothed in purple and fine linen, and presently their conscience lies ragged: they shine with necklaces, and are foul in morals.

The same in Apologia ad Guilliel. Abb. soft garments indicate a soft soul.

Hence you have it proved that these painted ornaments are culpable.

For indeed D. Thomas observes that some of these Fathers gravely condemn the ornament of women, either because it was ordered to pleasing others than their husbands, or to alluring to lust and into contempt of God; especially D. Cyprian; and Tannerus also admonishes, num. 221. and others; nevertheless all superfluous ornament is altogether to be reprehended.