Modesty of Attire

I. Notion of Modesty of Attire. Modesty of attire is defined: a moral virtue inclining man to preserve measure, according to the prescription of reason illumined by faith, in the adornment of the body and the arrangement of external things.

II. Object of Modesty of Attire. 1. The remote material object is external things which someone can use for the cultivation and adornment of the body, and for the necessities and conveniences of life; the proximate object is the passions which are occupied around these things.

2. The remote formal object is the reason of debt of preserving in these things the measure of right reason, which prescribes that all these things be congruent and adapted to persons, places, times, and other circumstances (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 169, a. 1); the proximate formal object is the special moral goodness which shines forth in preserving the aforesaid measure.

III. Opposed Vices. By excess there is opposed luxury, inclining one to adornment of the body and arrangement of external things beyond the measure of right reason; by defect, negligence, by which someone in the adornment of the body and arrangement of external things remains below the measure owed to his condition (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 169, a. 1).¹

¹ Cf. Salmanticenses, cited place, n. 160 end (p. 503).

Modesty in Style of Living and Dress.-(a) The Virtue.—External goods, such as dwellings and clothing, are necessary for body and soul, as a protection to health and decency; others, such as furnishings, decorations, ornaments, cars, radios, entertainments for guests, etc., are useful for convenience, beauty and the maintenance of one’s station. But one may be immoderate in the use of these goods, and hence there is need of a virtue to regulate their use, so that it may truthfully be in keeping with one’s position and be not offensive to others.

(b) The Sin of Excess.—This is committed when one’s style is extravagant according to the standards of the community, or when like Dives, clothed in purple and fine linen, one aims only at display or sensual gratification, or when one is too much preoccupied with externals (e.g., when too much time is spent before the mirror or too much money at the dressmaker’s). Dignitaries and the ministers of the altar are not guilty of excess in the pomp and splendor which the Church sanctions, since the honor is intended for their station and the divine worship they perform.

(c) The Sin of Defect.—This is committed when one’s mode of life is not up to the reasonable standard of one’s community, especially if this is due to negligence or itch for notoriety or disregard for decency. Examples are those who through carelessness go about unwashed or unshaven, who keep their quarters in a filthy and disorderly state, or who wear their clothing untidily; also females who dress in male attire, nudists who appear undressed in public places, and cynics who scorn the conventions of refined society. It is not sinful, however, but a virtuous act of temperance, to wear simpler and poorer garments from the spirit of mortification and humility (Heb., xi. 37). The clergy and religious, since they should be models of the penitential spirit, are to be praised, therefore, when they give an example of plainness and simplicity in personal style and dress.

Morality of Self-Beautification.—Is it wrong to beautify oneself in order to improve one’s looks or to win admiration?

(a) In itself there is no harm, especially for females, in using means to improve one’s looks, such as remedies for deformities, facial paints, powders and cosmetics, hair waves and dyes, and the like. But accidentally there could be sin (e.g., deception). A poor man would be a deceiver if he lived in great style to make a woman believe he was wealthy, and likewise a woman would be a deceiver if she used an artificial beauty to deceive a man about her age (see 2404).

(b) In itself also it is not sinful to desire that others approve one’s appearance and dress. Thus, a wife should strive to be attractive to her husband (I Cor., vii. 34), and modest ornamentation may be used to win a suitor (I Tim., ii. 9). It is mortally sinful, however, to attire oneself with the purpose or in a manner to arouse carnal temptation or to awaken sinful desire in others—for example, if one wishes to capture the sex love of others without marriage (Prov., vii. 10); it is venially sinful to groom oneself well from mere vanity, that is, from a silly ambition to be regarded as handsome and fashionable. By a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (January 12, 1930), parish-priests, parents, and teachers are admonished to oppose indecent female dress; and it is ordered that women and girls improperly dressed shall be excluded from Communion or even from church, and special services and sermons on decency are prescribed for December 8 of each year (see 1456, 1457).

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.

20. I. In this place we are not treating of the moral virtue of chastity, but of the natural affection and sense of modesty, of which anthropologists undertake the analysis, while philosophers and theologians seek the higher reasons.

This is certain. Venereal appetite at once produces a certain shame and promises a certain happiness, so that it can be said of man: he is ashamed to manifest, indeed to some extent to do, that which delights most carnally. He blushes at that from which he rejoices! This affection, sufficiently strange at first sight, is shown to pertain to the nobility of human nature, so that contempt falls upon the person who has cast modesty aside. Modesty can therefore be described as a certain intimate hesitation and reluctance of the soul, which opposes to venereal appetite a certain difficulty to be overcome, whence it happens that consent is granted to it less openly and less promptly ¹.

¹ Thus Buchan and Ellis, in Moll, also think that sexual repugnance is signified by modesty at first.

Joubert ² describes the same thing beautifully, especially in the age of adolescence: "Modesty is one knows not what fear attached to our sensibility, which causes the soul, like the flower which is its image, to fold back and conceal itself within itself, so long as it is delicate and tender, at the slightest appearance of that which might wound it by impressions too vivid or by illuminations too premature."

² Pensées, pp. 80-83.

In truth, modesty signifies a restraint, rather than opposition, lest one proceed without consideration; it by no means extinguishes or diminishes carnal libido, but imposes a certain measure and rule upon it.

The elements by which the spontaneous affection or instinct of modesty is constituted or composed must be drawn chiefly from the mutual relations of the sexes, since modesty pertains to the order of sexual union.

Moreover, an anthropological investigation of modesty then reveals these things:

1. Sexual union requires a mutual surrender of bodies; hence, in the reluctance of modesty there is discerned a certain defense and guardianship of individual ownership.

2. The sexual parts are not very becoming in themselves and are found near the organs of the lowliest functions. Hence, in their first exposure, which is demanded by sexual commerce, a certain loss of esteem and enticement is to be feared. Consequently, natural timidity obtains some place in modesty.

3. A person's own estimation of himself also impels him not to surrender himself to just anyone as cheap merchandise, but to choose a worthy lover. Modesty therefore contains a certain care for one's own dignity.

4. And since whatever lies open to all becomes cheap, the difficulty first opposed also manifests a desire to increase the value of the thing afterwards conceded.

Thus the instinct of preservation, timidity, care for one's own dignity, and the desire for reputation and honor appear in the sense of modesty; and since these are natural or innate, the modesty resulting from them must likewise be called natural.

St. Thomas ³ demonstrates these two further causes of modesty in the mind, or higher part of man: the one, common to both sexes, namely, the vehemence by which the ardor of pleasure is accustomed to occupy and absorb the mind; the other, proper to the male sex, namely, that manifest rebellion of the flesh which obeys the command of reason only imperfectly, so that even against our will we experience various movements of the flesh.

³ Summa theol., II-II, q. 131, art. 4.

St. Augustine had already rendered this reason in these words: "Hence they were both naked and were not ashamed, namely, the first parents. For now, by natural shame, the rational soul is ashamed that in the flesh, into whose servitude it received the right of power, it cannot, through some weakness I know not what, bring it about that these members not be moved when it is unwilling and be moved when it is willing. Because of this, in every chaste person they are deservedly called the shameful parts, because against their mistress, the mind, as though they were of their own power, they are aroused as it pleases them; and the restraints of virtue have only this right over them, that they do not permit them to proceed to unclean and unlawful corruptions" ⁴.

⁴ De peccatorum meritis et remissione, book 2, chapter 22 (M. 44, 172-173).

Since, moreover, in fulfilling sexual appetite, a woman exercises the passive part, while a man rather sustains the role of the aggressor, a woman is more inclined to modesty than a man and, having laid modesty aside, she loses the special ornament and comeliness of her sex. Nature itself, by the manner in which it conceals the woman's shameful parts within the labia, seems to invite her to greater modesty.

These utilities of modesty at once disclose themselves. It causes sexual relations to be entered upon more cautiously, which contributes not a little to mutual happiness and man's social good; through the selection of persons it favors a better multiplication of the human race; it teaches man a certain victory over himself, whence he himself becomes stronger; and it provides for the dignity of man.

21. II. Sacred Scripture ascribes the first origin of clothing to modesty ⁵. Hence St. Augustine said most beautifully: "He who, clothed with grace, had nothing in his naked body of which he was ashamed, when stripped of grace perceived what he ought to cover" ⁶.

⁵ Compare Genesis 3:10-12.

⁶ Contra Iulianum Pelagianum, book 4, chapter 16, no. 82 (M. 44, 781).

Students of anthropology, however, dispute concerning this origin. Not a few today, with very little basis, deny that it is to be traced back to modesty. This tenet of theirs coheres sufficiently with the denial of a spiritual soul which is created immediately by God. For they hold no affection of the moral order to be primitive.

They nevertheless by no means call into controversy the assistance which clothing affords to modesty.

And in truth, clothing in itself diminishes sexual enticements. The natural sense of modesty seems to demand that at least the strictly sexual parts be covered by clothing. Certainly, a greater immediate power of attraction is present in extensive nudity than in the particular exposure of those parts; the latter rather inspires horror. But obscenity, immodest boldness itself, seems to invite toward libido as if psychologically, while care for covering the parts of the body inculcates and proclaims human dignity and the restraint to be imposed upon appetite, and thus indirectly restrains libido.

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

Moreover, in judging the quality of clothing, not only the power of direct seduction must be considered, but also the formal signification of boldness or modesty, to which signification many circumstances can contribute. Clothing which, in concrete circumstances, manifests wanton boldness is to be condemned, while we shall approve that which displays the sense of modesty in a reasonable manner.

Custom can do much here; it is one thing among civilized nations, another among barbarians, and even among civilized nations it possesses a real, though lesser, variety.

412. - 1. Concerning less modest clothing, whether in dances or outside dances, a few words will suffice.

Those who originate customs of this kind sin gravely; those who merely conform themselves to an already received custom are more easily excused from grave sin. St. Alphonsus ¹ admits that this is valid even concerning a bared breast. He himself, however, wisely adds: "Nevertheless, I do not doubt that the opinion, as related above, must 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 so proceed.... I do not doubt that an indecorous custom of this kind is strenuously to be restrained and extirpated by preachers and confessors, insofar as it can be done."

¹ Book 2, nos. 54, 55.

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

2. Indeed, in our days, that the desire of St. Alphonsus may be satisfied, that excessive servitude by which Christian women are attendants of tailors and prostitutes in the garments to be worn seems worthy of being shaken off; and, with the aid of an association, it is to be procured that those who devise new manners of clothing be impelled by the very hope of profit to devise and propagate garments which are at once beautiful and modest.

717. Modesty in external things is a moral virtue inclining a man to preserve decorum in external things according to right reason. These external things are: a) movements of the body; b) games; c) clothing and ornaments of the body.

a) Modesty in the external movements of the body is very necessary for pleasant social intercourse. Whence St. Augustine admonishes: "In all your movements let nothing be done which offends the sight of anyone."¹⁴¹⁸ And it is deservedly said in Ecclesiasticus: "A man is known by his appearance, and a sensible man is known by the meeting of his countenance; the clothing of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of a man declare concerning him."¹⁴¹⁹ Therefore writers, both sacred and profane, give many rules concerning the right ordering of the movements of the body. But especially to be avoided are affectation on the one hand and rusticity on the other.

b) Right modesty in games is equally necessary, lest someone be excessively addicted to games with scandal to others and damage to himself. The virtue moderating the right use of play is called eutrapely.¹⁴²⁰

c) Modesty in clothing and the adornment of the body avoids not only all indecency, but also every superfluity or deficiency. Against this modesty one sins:

1. By excess, when adornment, all the conditions of person, place, and time being considered, is either sought with excessive care or acquired at excessive expense. Not a few persons of each sex sin by such excess, who prodigally expend time, labor, and money in procuring excessive adornment. The quantity of sin in such excessive adornment must be weighed from many things: from the scandal arising, from the duties of state injured, and from the evil end intended. Let the confessor and preacher be cautious in admonishing the faithful concerning this matter, because he often exhorts altogether uselessly and causes laughter and indignation rather than a good effect. This indeed holds especially concerning the adornment of women. But if this adornment incites to lasciviousness, then assuredly it is to be sharply censured. Women can lawfully adorn themselves in order to increase their beauty, provided, however, that an honorable end is present and every scandal is absent. Ancient authors spoke more severely concerning cosmetics applied to the face. But apart from scandal and every evil end, there is no reason why cosmetics should be morally evil. A graver difficulty exists concerning the more or less extensive baring of the breast which women are accustomed to employ especially on certain occasions, for example, at great banquets and dances.¹⁴²¹

2. By defect, when someone does not employ due diligence in adornment and clothing.

Let these things said concerning the cardinal virtues suffice. He who desires to learn more should approach St. Thomas,¹⁴²² who, discoursing concerning their dignity, writes: "Among the other [moral] virtues prudence is the greatest, because it is the moderator of the others; and after this, justice, through which man bears himself well not only toward himself, but toward another; and after this, fortitude, through which man on account of the good despises the dangers of death; and after this, temperance, through which man on account of the good despises the greatest bodily pleasures."¹⁴²³

¹⁴¹⁸ Regula ad servos Dei (Migne, Patr. lat. 32, 1380).

¹⁴¹⁹ Ecclus. 19:26 ff.

¹⁴²⁰ Cf. above, n. 317, and S. theol. 2, 2, q. 168, a. 2.

¹⁴²¹ Cf. what was said above, I, n. 613, concerning the adornment of women.

¹⁴²² S. theol. 2, 2, qq. 47-170.

¹⁴²³ Quaest. disp. unic. de virtut. card., a. 3.

S. Th. II-II, q. 169.

1063. Modesty of external equipment is the virtue which applies the moderation of reason in the equipment of external things, for example, clothes, furniture, horse, carriage, banquets, etc., with attention to the state and condition of persons, of place, time, custom, etc. For although in exterior things themselves there cannot be virtue or vice, nevertheless there can be in the man who uses them well or badly. But he can use them badly in two ways: in one way by comparison with the custom of men of the same condition with whom someone lives; in another way from the inordinate affection of the user, whether he observes custom or does not observe it.

Exterior equipment, namely, is ordered 1. to the protection of the body against injury of the air (necessity on the part of the body); 2. to covering the shameful parts of nature (necessity on the part of the soul); 3. to preserving the decorum of one's state according to the custom of the country (fittingness of honorableness and honor); 4. to fostering and raising up beauty (fittingness of beauty): for it is fitting and conformable to reason that man proceed honorably in political life, so that he may adorn his state fittingly.

1064. To this virtue by defect is opposed neglect of external equipment (slordigheid): a) if from negligence man does not apply care or labor to this, that he use exterior equipment as is fitting, for example, if from sloth he drags a garment along the ground, or thus provides tedium or scandal to others, which is more indecorous among those who, by force of function or office, ought to enjoy the good esteem of others; b) if he orders defect of exterior equipment to glory, which pertains to hypocrisy. Hence to use more vile things on account of boasting or pride is a sin, but not on account of mortification of the flesh or humility of spirit, for example, if someone exhorts others to penance.

1065. By excess is opposed luxury (weelde; prachtliefde) above one's state, namely beyond condition and received custom: a) if someone from superfluous adornment of clothing seeks an evil end, for example, human glory; b) if in these things he seeks delights, according as clothing is ordered to the protection of the body; c) if he applies excessive solicitude, care, or time to his equipment, whether by seeking, preserving, or arranging it, as happens to not a few women and to certain effeminate young men. But it would not be excess to wear extraordinary or costly garments, not indeed for glory but for signifying the excellence of ministry.

Hence three parts or species of the opposite virtue can be distinguished: 1. as to quantity in use, humility in clothing, which excludes intention of glory: it is a habit not superabounding in expenses and preparations; 2. as to instruments and helps which we need, per se sufficiency (zuinigheid), which excludes intention of delights: it is a habit content with the things with which one ought to be content; 3. as to the mode of seeking, simplicity (eenvoudigheid), which excludes superfluous solicitude for these things: it is a habit content with the things which occur.

1066. On worldly adornment. - Specially, excess can be given and modesty must be regarded in adornment, which theologians are accustomed to consider in women, to whom it more pertains to adorn themselves; nevertheless the same principles, with the same conditions granted, are to be applied to men. Now the adornment of women, even for fostering and raising up beauty, per se is an indifferent thing, and therefore good if it is done according to right reason; hence excess per se is only a venial sin, yet it can be mortal both by reason of intention or of an evil end mortally evil, and by reason of danger or grave scandal. To estimate this, three principles must be regarded:

1. Adornment is licit or illicit, venially or mortally evil, according to a diverse end: if it is done for an honorable end and according to the custom of the country, it is good, for example, so that a woman may please her husband or find a spouse; if it is done on account of levity alone, vanity, or displaying beauty, it is venial; if for provoking concupiscence and impure love, mortal.

2. For estimating danger or scandal, the custom of the country has much force; hence those things which in such a region provoke scandal and strongly incite to lust can elsewhere be excused from sin or from grave sin: for accustomed things entice less; yet to introduce immoderate adornment is not licit, because that is not done without the scandal of many.

3. A certain fiction in adornment is licit for concealing ugliness or covering a defect, arising from some cause, for example, sickness; but not for simulating a quality or beauty not possessed (which nevertheless is not mortal unless it is done on account of lasciviousness or in contempt of God): except if there were already a general custom of applying fictitious adornment, because then it would deceive no one.

Hence St. Thomas, a. 2, ad 1: "Sober and moderate adornment is not prohibited to women, but superfluous (by reason of mode), and shameless (by reason of scandal), and immodest (by reason of the end)."

1067. Practical applications. - With these things presupposed, we say:

A. Women sin mortally: a) if they adorn themselves with the mind of provoking to lust; b) if they use clothing so thin and fine that the dishonorable parts are not sufficiently covered; c) if they have the breast immoderately bared so that the middle parts of the breasts or almost the whole breasts are uncovered, or covered only with a transparent veil; which holds for cultivated regions, not for barbarous peoples among whom such is the custom; d) if they have the breast not altogether immoderately bared and display only the upper part of the breasts, but apart from the custom of the country, or introduce such a custom: for extraordinary and unaccustomed things move more. Which custom is not praiseworthy, and therefore is rather to be extirpated.

B. On the contrary, they sin only venially: a) if from levity, vanity, or boasting they adorn themselves according to the custom of the country; b) if the adornment is apart from the condition of their state; c) if without sufficient reason they bear the breast not altogether immoderately bared according to the custom of the country (for accustomed things entice less); and also if, apart from this custom, they have the breast moderately bared or the arms bared, or garments so made that the form of the breast entirely appears, or introduce such a custom: yet such a custom is not praiseworthy; d) if in adornment there is fiction or simulation properly so called, for example of beauty, as if without an excusing reason, at least of legitimate recreation, a woman uses masculine clothing, puts on masks and costumes, smears the face with rouge and pigments, uses another's hair in order to lie about her own, wears false breasts, etc., unless these things have been introduced by general custom; e) if they invent or make new and curious ornaments (modes ridicules) or introduce them.

C. There is no sin: a) if right intention, legitimate custom of the country, and condition of state are observed: hence, in many regions, to go forth today with hair unveiled is no sin; yet this custom is not praiseworthy (1 Cor. 11:6); b) if a woman adorns herself so that she may please a man, a married woman for pleasing her husband (with him commanding, or lest he turn aside to other women), or an unmarried woman for obtaining a husband; yet if she does not wish to have a husband, she should also leave behind superfluous adornment; c) if there is only dissimulation and someone uses an ornament for covering or concealing a defect, for example, another's hair for covering baldness, a false breast if the other has been cut off, rouge for concealing ugliness arising from a defect.

1068. Remark. - Let it be noted that there is no obligation of putting away decorous adornment according to the custom of the country, even if certain determined persons would be enticed from it to concupiscence; because this would be too burdensome. But if it is apart from the custom of the country, or if it is immodest, yet not altogether dishonorable, such an obligation is present for avoiding the scandal of a determined person at least on some occasions, according to the principles explained in the treatise on charity, I, n. 966.

We put an end to the complete exposition of all the cardinal virtues with their annexed virtues, according to the natural order of their respective perfection: namely prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. For in the order of generation one must proceed in an inverse way in the exercise of these virtues, namely by making a step from the less perfect to the perfect. For first the passions must be restrained, and the order of reason must be established in the concupiscible appetite, consequently in the irascible appetite, finally in the operations of the will toward another; and only when all these things have been placed will prudence be perfect.

By the moral virtues man becomes perfectly apt and disposed for leading the moral and Christian life excellently, whether active or contemplative. For the exercise of the moral virtues constitutes the essence of the active life; but they dispose toward the contemplative life, which especially consists in the exercise of the theological virtues and of the gifts of understanding, knowledge, and wisdom under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

"The active and contemplative life," says St. Thomas, "are distinguished according to the diverse pursuits of men tending to diverse ends; of which one is the consideration of truth, which is the end of the contemplative life, but the other is exterior operation, to which the active life is ordered. But it is manifest that in the moral virtues contemplation of truth is not principally sought, but they are ordered to working... Hence it is manifest that the moral virtues pertain essentially to the active life" (q. 181, a. 1). "But dispositively the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life. For the act of contemplation, in which the contemplative life essentially consists, is impeded both by the vehemence of passions... and by exterior tumults. But the moral virtues impede the vehemence of passions and quiet the tumults of exterior occupations. And therefore the moral virtues pertain dispositively to the contemplative life" (q. 180, a. 2).

Thus man is well instructed for the perfect life, active and contemplative. But concerning this it is now customary to speak in ascetical and mystical theology; but concerning the states of the life of perfection, of bishops, clerics, and religious, and their obligations, in canon law.

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.