§ 3. On Various Immodest Acts

I. - On the Immodesty of Words or Signs.

Order of Speaking. - Of itself, the logical arrangement of matters would demand that we treat successively of those who utter words or give signs, then of their cooperators, then of those who receive these things as hearers or readers. But the exposition will be clearer and easier if we take the beginning of the order from the object, and pass from words and other gestures to writings. Therefore:

I. Words and Gestures. 1. Of themselves, unless custom and related studies weaken their force, prolonged conversations concerning gravely obscene matters must be held as gravely illicit; but not isolated words or shameful witticisms, which are uttered playfully.

2. Tender words are gravely culpable between persons who love each other lustfully; they are dangerous and reprehensible between outsiders or those not betrothed, when they render love futile or sensual.

3. To sing gravely obscene little songs before others will be grave at least from the object. Yet for a short time, on account of grave poverty, they judge that those can be excused who cooperate by action or song in comedies not absolutely gravely shameful but notably dishonorable, unless, however, what we think must be added, they must sing shameful things which, as such, are received with applause. He who alone, without a witness, has sung such things will be able to be excused from grave sin if he attends more to the melody.

Hearers should at least strive to disapprove such things by silence. But in a person who neither by reason of authority must forbid these things nor by reason of condition must show himself averse from them, a certain blushing, a certain fear of a person smiling, are not judged grave.

Workshops and offices are often a necessary occasion. Having prudently observed the quality and character of the persons, let the confessor advise good young persons to decline shameful conversations not fearfully and timidly, but firmly and simply, and, by making an association, to render themselves stronger.

N. B. - The things which have been said concerning words can almost be transferred to gestures, since they are signs.

II. Immodesty of Writings. 1. They sin mortally, on account of scandal, who write or indiscriminately sell to all books or periodicals inciting to lust or hostile to good morals.

Sellers can be excused, from very grave necessity, for a brief time.

2. Without sufficient cause, which literary studies or commerce with literary persons can furnish: "They say, with Busembaum, Sanchez, Tamburini, and Sporer, that of itself it is only venial to read shameful books from curiosity, without shameful pleasure or its proximate danger (But confessors should diligently strive to prohibit this, as much as they can, in young persons; for from readings of this kind, universally, they draw great ruin of soul)." St. Alph., l. 3, n. 426. But the reading of a book entirely obscene will, in unmarried persons, rather have to be judged mortal.

3. Young persons must be greatly turned away even from slightly dishonorable readings: the anthropologists themselves testify that they are fuels of lust.

And prolonged reading often ends in lustful reading. And girls and women in general must especially be turned away from novelistic works, lest they hope for themselves a chimerical life, or, given over to empty dreams, lose time and moral force.

Adolescents who, moved by curiosity, look up the meaning of certain obscene words in dictionaries, commonly do not sin except lightly.

4. A certain special eagerness by which slippery matters are heard or read is explained partly by the novelty or rarity of the matter, partly by carnal inclination. But sinful approval of the will or deliberate venereal pleasure is not therefore had. (Cf. Ballerini, Opus theol., t. 1, tr. 4, n. 541.)

II. - On the Immodesty of Sight.

First we shall treat of those looking, then of those who give occasion of being looked at.

I. On Looks. 1. A look, neither studied nor lingering, at one's own body, from curiosity or levity, is reputed of itself venial; likewise a look made in passing, from some levity or jest, at the less decent parts of a person even of different sex.

2. A look at a nude person of the other sex, or even of the same sex, if that person is loved with sensual love, or if the one looking is prone to a homosexual excess, just as a look at human concubitus, does not seem excusable from mortal sin, unless distance or mode has greatly diminished the danger.

Indeed they judge it mortal, in our regions, for a man lingeringly to fix his attention on the exposed breast of a woman.

N. B. - Looks at an indecent part of a body otherwise covered excite the flesh much less than looks at a person whose shameful parts alone are covered.

3. A look at a nude painting or sculpture must be estimated from the cause, from the mode of representation, and from the object. Painting is accustomed to sharpen the stimuli of the flesh more than sculpture.

— Hence you will ask concerning those visiting museums of art. Those reasons alone for going to museums of art are plainly to be approved which manifest a noble intention; for example, if someone, for exercising aesthetic sense, has wished attentively to consider a few things made with marvelous art.

On the contrary, it is altogether to be disapproved that someone should enter museums for seeing nude statues or pictures.

Visits made from futile curiosity will often have to be tolerated: then it will with difficulty happen that in looking at these pleasurable things nothing is conceded to sensuality; but the danger is compensated by no utility. Yet because the intention is not perverse, and no proximate danger of full assent to venereal satisfaction seems to be present, there is no place for grave prohibition; and custom itself brings some reason or excuse. Yet those going are to be warned not to fasten their eyes upon obscene things.

— Useful looks are lawful for physicians. But let them beware of a fictitious utility. And it is to be commended that a person of the other sex have a faithful companion.

Concerning painters and sculptors, some speak more severely than others. Insofar as there is need, art brings a just cause, and the prevailing opinion creates for magistrates and rectors of academies a necessity of tolerating various things. But a serious end of study diminishes the danger. Therefore:

a) Among rectors of an academy we shall try to obtain that persons are not exhibited beyond what is judged necessary; - that persons of different sex are not exhibited at the same time; - that students of different sex are not mixed; - that in exhibiting persons possible precautions be admitted: for example, that a person not take off clothing before painters or sculptors; that the eyes be veiled; that the shameful parts be covered, at least for affirming modesty; if it is done privately, that an honorable witness of the same sex be present; etc.

To individual painters and sculptors those things must be prescribed which convert a proximate occasion into a remote one.

II. On Those Who Offer Immodest Things to Be Looked At. 1. It can never be permitted that painters or sculptors paint or make images which are so obscene and so arranged that they can have no honest use. If they could serve some good end, for example anatomical art, but nevertheless honest use is foreseen to be lacking, "the art of painting," says Lehmkuhl, I, 827, "is not changed into an action evil per se intrinsically, but remains material cooperation." Tamburini, Castropalaus, and others think that this cooperation can be furnished from an altogether grave cause; Lehmkuhl, however, when the reason for asking is abuse toward lasciviousness, as commonly must be supposed unless the good use is established, requires "a most grave cause, such as fear of death or of extreme necessity, so that cooperation so proximate can be furnished without grave sin, and in addition it is required that the artist himself remove from himself the danger of depraved consent. Whether this can practically be hoped for is difficult to determine."

2. Concerning paintings or sculptures not obscene but sufficiently nude, there must be weighed the circumstances of the person asking, the place of exhibition, the harm to be sustained if they are refused, scandal, the efficacy of refusal, etc. For a timid painter or sculptor will of his own accord never make those things which are an occasion of temptations and sins for many.

3. Women "models" (Modelli) must besides decline every formal cooperation toward painting or sculpting indecorous things. Material cooperation, according to the general rules, will be able to be excused according to the gravity of the cause and the character of the evil. (Cf. Noldin, De sexto, n. 60.)

— You will ask concerning the clothing, insufficiently modest, of women and adolescents. 1. In estimating the quality of clothing, not only the force of direct seduction must be considered, but also formal signification: we shall approve clothing which in a reasonable manner betrays a sense of modesty; clothing must be disapproved which, in concrete circumstances, manifests insolent boldness.

Clothing can also increase allurements, when by its elegance it supplies beauty, or when it turns the eyes toward the sexual organs or the forms of the body.

Custom has much force here.

2. Concerning less modest clothing (concerning plainly immodest clothing no question is raised), whether in dances or outside dances, these few things will be sufficient.

Those who give origin to usages of this kind are with greater difficulty excused from grave sin than those who merely accommodate themselves to a usage already received.

St. Alphonsus admits that this also holds concerning an exposed breast (l. 2, n. 54, 55). Yet he wisely adds: "For the rest, I do not doubt that the opinion, as related above, ought to be used with great discretion by a prudent confessor, lest he indulge the excessive license of women, which involves lust, since those living piously do not walk so... I do not doubt that an indecent custom of this kind must earnestly be restrained and extirpated by preachers and confessors, as far as can be done."

But this must always be urged, that clothing be adapted at the same time to custom and to modesty.

3. Indeed, in our days, in order that satisfaction may be made to the wish of St. Alphonsus, that excessive servitude by which Christian women are followers of tailors and prostitutes in the clothing they use seems to have to be shaken off; and by the aid of association this must be procured, that those who invent new styles of clothing may be impelled, by the very hope of profit, to devise and propagate clothing which is at once beautiful and modest.

4. Finally observe that not a few are allured and tempted more by the soft flesh of adolescents and girls than by the clothing of an adult woman.

— You will ask concerning the scenic plays of public theaters. Whether you consider the plots of most plays, or the connected dances (by which the sense is excited more than by the plays), or the nearly necessary or at least most frequent corruption of girls who place their work in these things, or the commerce and pursuits of those who frequent spectacles, theaters must be pronounced most alien from the evangelical spirit. Nor must one judge otherwise concerning "circuses," on account of the lascivious dances and clothing of the girls who take part in equestrian games.

Yet it is useful of itself that, for avoiding his sins, a wife accompany her husband; the decency of state also can require presence: in such circumstances let Catholics learn to act both fearlessly and honorably.

To attend, without necessity, very shameful comedies, and to watch those things which of themselves greatly move the flesh, is judged grave of itself, unless someone has experienced that he is little moved by these things. To attend comedies not very shameful from curiosity will be venial, unless grave scandal or one's own danger has more gravely forbidden the matter to you. Every fault will be absent if public office, a grave injunction of a master or parent, or a true utility of knowing these things, lest someone, to the detriment of his own action, seem too foreign in his own region, has supplied a just cause.

He who pays money merely to be present at spectacles of this kind furnishes material cooperation, which will have to be estimated from the general rules.

III. On the Immodesty of Imagination

1. A merely notional, or ideal representation of a shameful object, without imaginary imitation of the thing, is in itself neither evil nor proximately inciting. If it has been idle or useless, it will laudably be repelled; yet no scruple is to be had concerning it.

2. But a thing can be painted in the imagination as in a picture. Concerning this fictitious picture one must reason as concerning a true one:

a) To consider in passing something involuntarily present, with lustful intention excluded, will not be grave. If there has been a just cause of study, etc., there will be no sin.

Yet a cause for contemplating or gazing at an imaginary exhibition will be rarer than if a work made by art had to be considered.

But if attention has been commanded with lustful intention, grave sin will be committed.

With this intention excluded, the lingering consideration of a gravely obscene or gravely moving phantasm, on account of the proximate danger of assent, is infected with grave guilt, unless a just cause (if ever there is one) and the positive repudiation of pleasure remove at the same time the danger and the self-deception.

The lingering consideration of a thing lightly moving will be venial in itself, if a cause is lacking;

b) to excite images of this kind, or voluntarily to render them present, must be estimated by a similar reason: it will be grave if it is done from lust, or if, on account of the nature of the image, you expose yourself to a proximate occasion of assent; otherwise it will be a light sin or no sin, according as a sufficient cause has been lacking or excuses the matter.

Yet active procurement induces an aggravating circumstance. (Cf. Noldin, De sexto, n. 61.)

3. But the positive obligation of repelling impure and useless phantasms, although that repudiation is always laudable and commendable of itself, is not grave, except insofar as the proximate danger of assent to present pleasure must be taken away. That danger is judged to be sufficiently removed of itself by an interior act of displeasure made once or twice in the same temptation.

Once this danger has been removed, a light obligation does not exist except insofar as it can be fulfilled conveniently enough.

But the best mode is this: that, with every anxiety put aside and the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary implored, the mind be positively diverted to other, healthier, higher things.

But he who knows himself subject to these temptations should, better outside the temptation, in the morning or evening, around the usual time of temptation, elicit a firm purpose; let him pray to God; and then, intent upon his own affairs, let him pass over these thoughts as though neglecting them.

But if they press the mind more, it will often be very useful to promise or perform some act of penance, or even to exercise an act of humility, as if you open the matter to a spiritual man.

But let the one impurely tempted beware, let him diligently beware lest he quickly judge himself guilty and thus be cast down in mind or disturbed; whence worse things are accustomed to happen.

It happens that more vehement temptations are brought on by physical excitation of the body. This must be explained by an excessively tight foreskin, which then not rarely must be removed by circumcision; or by uncleansed smegma of the foreskin, which then must prudently be washed away. If the commotion is more interior, it can be soothed by certain medicines, such as lupulin, adalin, camphor.

IV. On the Immodesty of Touch

I. On Kisses. 1. Kisses according to the custom of one's country can be disapproved only from the depraved affection of the agent, which, even in doubt, is not to be presumed. Nor are kisses given from the affection of piety among near blood-relatives inciting. A noble affection of mercy can also prudently be expressed by kisses which are directed to an end plainly diverse from venery. Yet here one must already beware of self-deception and false pretext. In kisses thus honorably given on account of a just cause, the permission of a spontaneous carnal movement without voluntary complacency also becomes legitimate.

2. Kisses, even honorable ones, by which love is signified, are more inciting. Their honesty must be estimated from the honesty of the love. Made in passing, quickly, even when a cause is lacking, they are thought only venial.

Kisses too frequently repeated, especially on the mouth or lips, and embraces too prolonged, because they gravely move the flesh and have no cause among unmarried persons, are charged as grave, unless the carnal movement is positively repressed and, if pollution is more imminent, one ceases from them.

A dove-like kiss also is marked by graver reprehension, by which the tongue of one is received in the mouth of the other.

3. Therefore kisses practically are to be prohibited absolutely to those who, since they do not have matrimonial negotiations between themselves, can exercise them only from sensuality; especially to those between whom a suspect or less honorable love exists; and, also on account of scandal, between priests and outside persons.

From the general rules, the confessor will gather what, while he tries to obtain all things, he can sometimes tolerate as done in some good faith; let him be especially cautious and severe when there is question of those persons who profess perfect continence.

4. Kisses made in passing from some venial vanity, jest, curiosity, levity, or petulance do not exceed venial fault.

II. On Other Touches. 1. A touch of the indecent parts of one's own body, made from curiosity or levity, does not exceed venial sin, with scandal and danger of venereal consent nevertheless excluded. If it is done studiously and lingeringly, then it is reproved more gravely, because it is judged gravely inciting of itself.

If it is done for some natural and not evil end, there will not even be venial sin: as if by friction you wished to extinguish a non-venereal itching. (Cf. what was said n. 115.)

Even positive penances can be suspect. Therefore there are persons who, on account of the very custody of purity, ought to put aside hair-shirts and omit disciplines. Abstinences, fasts, and various acts of self-denial do not fall under this suspicion.

2. A touch of the less decent parts of another's body, made in passing, is not judged mortal. But for the most part kisses impressed upon parts of this kind or upon less usual parts are mortal, because they flow from lust or proximately induce it. (St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 417.)

3. A touch of the indecent parts of another's body, made in passing from petulance or curiosity, apart from affection and danger of venereal consent, can be excused from mortal sin, at least if the person is of the same sex and some occasion, for example of persons swimming together or washing themselves, has given place to petulance. (Sanchez, De matrimonio, l. 9, d. 46, n. 12.)

Similarly they excuse maidservants who touch the shameful parts of little children whom they dress, because this age moves less. Yet they must diligently be deterred from frequently making such touches, lest boys assume a depraved custom of touching themselves. But those who tickle infants in the shameful parts should be especially reproved. For the rest, it is objectively grave to excite venereal titillation of which an infant is capable.

The other nude touches of the indecent parts of another's body, especially if it has been of different sex or of a loved person, cannot be excused from mortal sin.

Indeed, touches upon the shameful parts of the other sex over clothing, even made in passing, are very suspect, although strictly and certainly they do not seem able to be condemned as mortal. (Sanchez, De matrimonio, l. 9, d. 46, n. 11; Palmieri, Opus theol., t. 2, tr. 6, n. 892, who inclines toward the more severe opinion of St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 420.)

4. A touch of the genitals of brute animals is judged of itself venial. If it is carried all the way to the emission of seed, St. Alphonsus responds rather severely: but finally and at last the affection of the agent must be considered.

— Physicians and surgeons who, in exercising their art, must touch the bodies of others even in indecent parts, are excused from every sin on account of necessity. Nor does involuntary pollution stand in the way. Indeed, they must convert the proximate occasion of sin into a remote one. This is easier for them, since they are moved by an honorable and grave end, and, having implored God's aid, can strive more confidently.

Yet it is necessary that in these examinations and in the manner of doing them they not exceed measure.

Those who then sin formally are commonly situated in a necessary occasion. And you will bring them with greatest difficulty to abandon their art, even if they can. Wherefore it will be better efficaciously to turn those who are excessively lustful away from exercising a dangerous art while they are engaged in studies, or better still before they have chosen those studies. For the more remote they are from exercising the art, the less the occasion seems necessary, and the more easily they will be persuaded.

Several women have now today obtained the degree of medical art. That they should come to the aid of persons of their own sex in those matters in which they are proved to be equally skilled and fit as men can contribute to the greater cultivation of modesty. But since the experience is recent and still uncertain, sick women who ask for the work of physicians for themselves are not to be disapproved.

— You will ask what must be thought concerning dances. Omitting certain annual dances which are sometimes exercised in the country rather innocently and cannot be suppressed without danger of a greater evil, worldly dances, in the concrete, are such that, as far as social condition permits it, a true Christian should abstain from them and extricate himself from them. For if they are dance games, as now for the most part, unless they strictly represent martial actions, they express or imitate amatory deeds, for example by the pursuit by which the male follows the female. But in dances, at least from clothing, contact, and festive apparatus, all things dispose a man to sensual commotions.

Yet on account of a just cause, such as custom, the decency of one's proper state, the command of parents, to lead honorable dances or to attend them will not be illicit, unless there has been probable danger of sin. Thus Ball.-Palm., Opus theol., Tom. II, n. 995. But participation in dance games whose impure signification is sufficiently open will have to be declined.

Dances which are proposed indiscriminately to all, especially masked ones, furnish an easier occasion of ruin.

But dances of boys and girls already under this title must be disapproved, because they are a school of worldly vanity.

Before the last war it was disputed whether more recent dances, such as Waltz, Polka, Galop, were to be reckoned among dishonorable ones or not.

But now the matter has gone into something much worse. "No one is ignorant," the Supreme Pontiff recently wrote in the Encyclical Ubi arcano (Per. XII, p. 5), "how the levity of women and girls has passed beyond the limits of modesty, especially in clothing and dances, by whose more luxurious dress the hatred of the poor is stirred up." And his predecessor, Benedict XV, after deploring "the blindness of women, who, infatuated by zeal for pleasing, do not see how much, by that madness of clothing which they use, they displease not only every upright person, but offend God," added these things concerning dances: "But we pass over those dances which recently have come from barbarism into the custom of elegant people, one worse than another, than which nothing can be found more apt for stripping off all modesty" (Enc. Sacra propediem, Jan. 6, 1921. A. A. S. XIII (1921), p. 39).