Article II: On the Adornment of Women

9. "Feminine adornment," says St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 169, a. 2, "provokes men to lasciviousness, according to that saying of Prov. 7: Behold a woman meets him, prepared with the adornment of a harlot to deceive souls." But the same Holy Doctor soon shows in the same article that this very fact, that feminine adornment is provocative to lasciviousness, nevertheless is not imputable to fault unless it proceeds from a depraved intention.

Cajetan explains this very well in the Commentary on that place of St. Thomas. Moreover, Cajetan first distinguishes a fourfold adornment: "1. For the support of the body; and this is of necessity, and on account of this God made tunics for the first parents. 2. For honesty; and this too is of necessity on the part of the soul, as the first on the part of the body. For it is shameful for a rational animal to carry the private parts manifest, as natural shame testifies; and on account of this the first parents made perizomata for themselves, providing first for the soul rather than for the body. 3. For adornment either of honor or of beauty. And adornment of honor, although it is not altogether common, since those dead to the world are exempt from care of this adornment, can nevertheless by reason of ministry be common to all. But every apparatus which is made so that a man may proceed decently and according to state is adornment of honor. But right reason dictates this, that anyone, as befits him, proceed honorably in this life, in which external things are certain testimonies of internal things. But adornment of beauty seems almost proper to women, since it is fitting that they be loved as beautiful, in order to have or preserve well-disposed husbands."

Then, indeed, concerning this adornment of beauty, about which the whole controversy is, he immediately adds these things: "Since art imitates nature, and a beautiful woman by her own nature is provocative to desire of herself, hence it happens that feminine adornment according to itself is provocative to concupiscence or lasciviousness, insofar namely as it makes for the apparent beauty of the woman. But because nature surpasses art, and the natural beauty of woman is much more provocative to concupiscence of the woman than artificial beauty, therefore just as every natural beauty of a woman is without fault, so every artificial beauty is without fault according to itself, so that it is to be imputed to neither according to itself as fault that it is provocative to concupiscence of the woman. And on account of this both are explained in the text: both that feminine adornment is provocative of men to lasciviousness, and that to be provocative is not imputed to adornment as fault unless from another fault, for example from the intention of provoking." - St. Thomas, Quodl. 10, a. 14.

10. Corollaries. 1. There is per se no sin, whether grave or even light, in adornment, if the custom of the country and the condition of state are observed. Yet they sin mortally if they adorn themselves with the mind of provoking to lust; but only venially if from vanity, levity, or boasting.

2. Superfluous adornment beyond the custom of the country and the condition of state is per se a venial fault.

3. Yet women lawfully add something of adornment that they may please their husbands, lest occasion of sinning with others be given to them; likewise women lawfully add something of adornment that they may find a spouse.

4. Cosmetics will be mortal sin if they are applied for lasciviousness; venial if merely for feigning beauty; but no sin if for hiding some defect.

5. "Know," says Cajetan, l. c., "that to use another's hair for fitting adornment, not for lying that it is one's own, seems no less lawful than to use wool from sheep and linen from the earth. And because this adornment makes a woman truly beautiful before men, by supplying a defect of nature in her adornment, therefore this act does not seem properly to look to cosmetics."

6. "For women to uncover their hair, whom the Apostle also commands to veil the head, does not befit even married women. Yet in this case some could be excused from sin when this was not done from any vanity, but on account of a contrary custom, although such a custom is not laudable." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 169, a. 2. "To have the head uncovered and the hair curled according to introduced custom is either no sin, or only a venial sin... otherwise one must speak of those who would introduce the custom." Bouvier, Diss. in 6 dec. praec., de orn. mul., 5.

7. Women who wear garments so constricted that the form of the breast plainly appears, indeed also those who add to themselves fictitious swelling breasts, sin only venially if they do this merely from vanity, with danger of lust and scandal excluded. Craisson, Notiones circa 6 Dec. pr., C. 2, n. 233.

8. "Because the breast in some places is carried bare by women for the sake of comeliness, and through this is reduced to the adornment of beauty, adornment also having such a condition, namely of the uncovered breast according to the custom of the country, is not mortal according to itself... But where there is no custom, it would have to be inhibited and quickly rooted out lest it grow." Cajetan, l. c. In the Summa, v. Adornment, the same Cajetan has these things: "A disordered quality of adornment commonly introduces venial sin, if it is indecent and less chaste, as the adornment of women showing the middle of the breasts. Nevertheless, where the custom is already accustomed, it seems to be without sin." St. Alphonsus raises the question whether women showing their breasts for their adornment sin gravely, and responds: "When I performed the office of preacher, several times I strove strongly to reprove this pernicious usage; but since here I perform the office of Writer concerning moral science, I must say what I judge according to truth and what I have learned from the doctors. I do not deny, first, that those women who would introduce this custom somewhere would certainly sin gravely. I do not deny, secondly, that the denudation of the breast could be so immoderate that per se it could not be excused from grave scandal, as gravely provoking to lasciviousness. I say, thirdly, that if the denudation were not so immoderate, and somewhere a custom were present that women should thus go forth, it would indeed be reproved, but not altogether condemned of mortal sin. Thus most commonly." L. l. 2, n. 55. "A fortiori, those who uncover or lightly cover arms, neck, and shoulders according to the custom of the country do not gravely sin per se. But those who introduce such customs are judged by the cited authors to sin mortally." Bouvier, l. c., 8.

9. "Nakedness itself of the private parts according to itself is shameful and corruptive of modest souls... hence such a habit, that is, so thin or diaphanous that the whole woman would be seen, would introduce mortal sin. For there would be there a vicious provocation to lasciviousness from the very species of the action, by which a dressed woman offers herself as if naked to common eyes. Whence it is read of Blessed Barnabas that he cursed naked men and women." Cajetan, Commentary on St. Thomas, l. c.

10. "To put on garments of the other sex with intention or grave danger of lust, or with notable scandal, is a mortal sin, as is clear: from necessity, for example, for hiding oneself, or from lack of other garments, with scandal and danger excluded, it is no sin; if this is done from jest or from mere levity, and scandal and danger are absent, it is only a venial sin... By the same reason one must judge that those who use masks do not always sin mortally, namely if they act thus from jest or from levity, with scandal and danger excluded, especially when they do not change garments of their own sex, but only condition, as if a servant should appear in the garments of a master, or a girl in the adornment of a mistress." Bouvier, l. c., 6 and 7. - Diana, tract. 5, de scandalo, Resol. 11, 13, 63; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 12.

11. Note as regards various persons who can cooperate with this adornment of women: 1. "He does not sin who sells ornaments to a girl who through them is going to solicit others to sin, which ornaments would be sold by another; thus Sanchez, Navarrus, Azor, Lessius, Bonacina, Diana, against Castro and others. The reason is partly because that sale is something indifferent and remotely related to sin; partly also because if the seller sinned, it would be because he does not impede the sin of his neighbor. But although he did not sell, he would not therefore impede it; for there would be another who would sell. Therefore by selling he would not sin." La-Croix, l. 2, n. 263.

2. Among the questions to be asked of tailors, St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confess., n. 60, also lists these: "Whether there would be for him a proximate occasion of sinning from receiving rules for well forming the garments of women through the measurement of their bodies, as it is commonly said, in pigliar la misura, or whether it would be from fitting garments to women, which cannot be done except with the handling of the women themselves; and whether this would be for the tailor a proximate occasion of falling into depraved delectations or desires, as not rarely happens to men of wicked conscience."

3. As regards barbers, the same Holy Doctor has these things, l. c., n. 62: "Let him be asked whether he arranges the hair of women, according to the wicked usage invented by Satan in this time. Ordinarily speaking, I think that this is for men a proximate occasion of sinning mortally by base delectations, or at least desires; whence I say that this is by no means to be permitted to anyone who has not had a contrary experience in himself. But if someone at any time, through a notable time, had experienced in an action of this kind that he remained immune from sin, he truly cannot be condemned of mortal sin; but, this notwithstanding, let the confessor not omit to remove him as much as he can from an office of this kind, which certainly contains danger in itself. Hence I do not wish to discuss another doubt, whether women can, or cannot, with a safe conscience call in men, that these arrange their hair. I hear that in several places they do this; and they confess and communicate; let them and their confessors see to it. At least let the confessor impose on them that they not use some younger man from whose actions they have perceived that he conducts himself maliciously. For the rest, I judge that women of purer conscience indeed will not use men, but will be content with women by whom the hair may be arranged in the better manner possible." But these things, as is clear, hold also for women who shave the beard of men and arrange their hair.

12. Note besides as regards the scandal which, by reason of such adornment, a woman can furnish to others: 1. that a woman who, from adornment even suitable to her state, probably foresees that someone in particular is going to fall mortally, is bound for a brief time to dismiss him, or to flee the sight of such a one. I said for a brief time, because for a long time it would be too grave for her. Whence if to omit that adornment even for a brief time would bring grave inconvenience to her, she is bound in no way, even for a brief time, to omit it.

2. But if the same thing were feared in particular from superfluous, vain, and unsuitable adornment (which to assume for the sake of vanity and pleasing others, so that she may appear beautiful and find a spouse more easily, other things being excluded, is only venial), per se speaking she would be bound to dismiss it altogether, even under mortal sin, because she has no right to that adornment, and on the other hand she is bound to avoid another's sin when she conveniently can. Whence, if grave inconvenience would follow from this, she would not be gravely obligated to omit that adornment either. Per se speaking; for since superfluous adornments, practically speaking, soon are turned into the custom of the country of women who are honorable, neither can it be said absolutely that such a woman has no right of following the custom of her country, nor is grave inconvenience lacking.

3. If a woman thinks that, not so in particular, but only in general, some will be scandalized in her, provided she does not intend their lasciviousness and is not pleased by it, although she is pleased that she be praised as beautiful, she does not seem to be bound to abstain from that adornment, even superfluous, under mortal sin, for example by coloring the face, etc. "The reason is both because it is scandal received rather than given, and that adornment and beauty provokes only to venial sin; and because it would be too grave for that sex, especially if she is seeking a husband, perpetually to abstain thus, since that occasion is universal and perpetual, and the more beautiful would never licitly go outdoors, since natural beauty harms more than artificial." Liguori, l. 2, n. 54.