Dear Friends and Benefactors, 
Saint John the Baptist lost his head over a dance (Feast day – August 29… The Beheading of St. John the Baptist). Can we lose our soul over a dance? Since immodesty usually accompanies the dance, both topics will be examined in this newsletter. First, let us study the morality of dances.

I. MORALITY OF DANCES

What is the attitude Catholics should have regarding dances and balls? It is a frequently asked question, and it does not always receive a clear, prudent response. However, Catholic doctrine on this topic is perfectly defined. It is exposed with great richness of argument in various pastoral letters by the Archbishop of Seville, Cardinal Segura y Saenz (1880-1957). Here we [the monthly magazine ‘Catolicismo’, Campos, January 1952] publish a summary of these important documents.

CARDINAL’S PASTORAL LETTER – SUMMARY, 1952, SPAIN

Throughout the whole world today, we are seeing the spread of a disproportionate inclination for dances and balls, which, according to common knowledge, are corrupted in such way that they frequently are incompatible with the most elementary principles of decency.

Notwithstanding, there are persons who believe that, without risk, they can exercise a type of apostolate that is very dangerous for the soul, which consists in frequenting dances and balls with the aim of improving their moral atmosphere. Because of the danger that dances can cause, as well as the bad example given by those who frequent them, it is opportune to deal with this delicate matter with apostolic frankness.

WHAT ARE BALLS?

Blessed Friar Diogo de Cadiz, writing in the year 1792 to the Duchess of Medinaceli about the problem of the licitness of balls, defined them in this way: “The ball is a gathering or grouping of richly dressed men and women whose aim is to amuse and enjoy themselves, not according to God and the spirit, but following the joys of the world and the flesh. Mixing together, they dance to music of various instruments and perhaps sweet and soft songs for an extended period of time.”

It is certain not all the balls entail the same gravity. Speaking of those in our century, Fr. Remigio Vilarino of the Society of Jesus wrote in an article published in 1916: “Balls are gravely sinful and illicit because the way of dancing strongly incites one to sin.” He enumerates some of these ways, and adds: “Today we have gone very far and we are going even further since, to our disgrace, other new dances are being admitted that are much more indecent and dangerous.”

HOLY SCRIPTURE

The Books of the Old and New Testament speak only occasionally of dances or balls, because among the Chosen People governed by the Old Law, as well as the first followers of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, they were not in use, although they were frequent among the pagans.

However, in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, the Holy Ghost says this about dances, “Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, and hearken not to her, lest thou perish by the force of her charms. Gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumbling block to thee.

“Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another’s beauty. For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire.” (9:4-9)

What caused the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist was the famous dance to which the Evangelists refer (Matt 14:6; Mark 6:22), which shows the fatal effects this type of diversion can cause.

THE CHURCH COUNCILS

It would be too long to list all conciliar decisions that consistently condemned balls.

It suffices to record, among the older Councils, the Council of Constantinople, which says: “Public dances are prohibited under pain of excommunication.” The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle calls them “infamous things;” the Council of Rouen, a “great madness,” and the Council of Tours considers them “frauds and artifices of the Devil.”

Do no think that it was only in the early times of the Church that Councils so severely condemned dances and balls. More recent councils have likewise prohibited them.

The Tenth Council of Baltimore, USA, celebrated in 1869, issued a Pastoral Letter of the Conciliar Fathers about dances, warning the faithful: “We judge that it falls to our pastoral mission to warn you once again to avoid the new kind of dances, where the occasion of sin is increasingly frequent. This whole type of diversion is all the more dangerous to the degree it is considered innocent, and persons fling themselves into it as if they did not profess our Religion. Notwithstanding Divine Revelation and ancient wisdom, experience and reason themselves clamor in unison warning against this type of diversion which, even when contained within the limits of modesty, always engenders more or less danger to Christian souls.”

If such judgment can be made about dances and balls that could be considered less reprehensible than those of today, how can one not severely condemn today’s modern dances, which offend every sentiment of uprightness and constitute a true outrage against good customs.

THE CHURCH FATHERS

St. Ephrem, one of the oldest Fathers of the Church, said this: “Who invented the dances and balls? Was it St. Peter? Was it St. John or some of the Saints? Certainly not, but rather the Devil, the enemy of souls.”

Further, he adds, “Where there are balls, the angels are sad and the devils are jubilant.” And also, “It is not possible to jump and dance here and enjoy eternal happiness afterwards because the Lord told us ‘Woe to you that now laugh: for you shall mourn and weep.’(Luke 6:25)”

St. Basil describes dances as a “shameful showroom of obscenities.” St. John Chrysostom calls them the “school of impure passions.” St. Ambrose declares them “choirs of iniquity, destroyers of innocence and sepulchers of purity.” And he exclaims, “The daughters of infamous mothers may go to dances and balls to become like them, but those who are chaste must avoid dances if they do not want to perish.” (Lib. III de Vir.).

THE SAINTS

St. Charles Borromeo says that the dance “is a circle whose center is the Devil, and his cohorts constitute the circumference, since very rarely or almost never does one dance without sin.”

St. Frances de Sales, well-known for his goodness and suavity, states: “Because of the circumstances surrounding dances, it is so propitious to evil that souls run the greatest risks at them. Balls, dances and similar nighttime gatherings ordinarily attract the vices and sins of that region: complaints, envy, jeers and infatuations of heart. Just as the exercise of dance opens the pores of the body, so also it opens the pores of the heart. For this reason, if some serpent comes to inspire words of lust or flattery to be whispered in one’s ear, or if some lizard approaches darting impure and amorous looks, hearts are most disposed to let themselves be contaminated and polluted.”

St. Frances also counsels “Philothea” [a faithful soul]: “The doctors say that the best mushrooms have no value; I say the same to you about balls, the best are not absolutely good.”

Persons who judge dances as compatible with the life of Christian perfection should meditate often on the considerations of the Holy Doctor (‘Philothea’ or ‘Introduction to the Devout Life’, III, 32, 33).

In the life of the Holy Cure of Ars, St. John Marie Vianney, one notes how strongly he condemns the dangerous diversion of dances. He said: “The dance is the means the Devil uses to destroy the innocence of at least three-quarters of our youth. How many girls – because of dances – lost their reputation, their Heaven and their God!”

St. Anthony Marie Claret, who in the pulpit and his writing fought hard to stop the balls in Spain, in his book ‘The Basket of Moses’ affirmed, “The Devil invented balls for girls to be lost, and extended them throughout the world like an immense net in order to catch the young people and submit them to his tyrannical domination.”

He added, “The goddess Venus was the model of charms and the mother of carnal pleasures, and, for this reason, the pagan girls, in their idolatrous fanaticism, believed that the best way to honor the impure goddess was to offer before her altar every type of impure frivolity. … The truth is that dances are of pagan origin – and as for those practiced today – only the Devil could have invented them for the corruption of youth. In the first three centuries of our era, the persecutions and the opposition of the Church to all things that came from Paganism were obstacles against the use of the balls among the faithful. But after the fourth century, little by little they were introduced among Christians and immediately the Ecclesiastical Authority came to prohibit them.”

A MEANS OF ‘DECENT’ CORRUPTION

Fr. Felix de Sardá y Salvany in his great work ‘Entertainment and Morals’ wrote, “In his eagerness to make the youth his, the Devil invented a multitude of nooses and ways to corrupt them: Impious magazines, obscene theater shows, the emotions of gambling, the impure tavern, the casino or the cabaret – which is no more than a tavern in which people wear clean shirts. There was not, thank God, a place for the systematic corruption of women. …

“What was lacking, therefore, was a ‘decent’ means of corruption. A means of corruption that would wipe modesty from the face, reserve from the gaze and purity from the heart – which are the most precious feminine qualities, the best adornments of the Christian damsel. This had to be done without staining the good name of the one to be seduced, without disturbing her conscience with remorse, without embarrassing her honest mother, but rather filling her with complacence and maternal pride. It was difficult to come up with an invention that could attain all these, at first glance, contradictions. Nonetheless, the Devil found one. IT WAS THE DANCE HALL.”

II. THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUE OF MODESTY

“The immodest shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21)

“A woman shall not be clothed with a man’s apparel; neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God “(Deuteronomy 22:5).
“The more a civilization becomes Christian, the more the clothing of men will be virile, dignified, noble — from the highest dignitary to the lowest worker.” (Horvat)

Heaven warned us to offer a “firm and courageous resistance to the styles and customs,” for Our Lady of Fatima told Jacinta Marto in 1919:
Certain fashions are to be introduced which will offend Our Lord VERY MUCH!  Those who serve God should not follow these fashions.  The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same.

Those in the false church of Vatican II seem to think that a moral principle can change with the times. Catholic Morals do not change. What changes with the times is the Situation Ethics of the Conciliar Church. However, this “New Morals,” or “Situation Ethics” was already condemned by Pope Pius XII.

FATHER ROYO MARIN, O.P.
The well-known pre-Vatican II moral theologian, Fr. Royo Marin, O.P. has written the following.
Modesty is a virtue derived from temperance which inclines the individual to conduct himself in his internal and external movements and in his dress in accordance with the just limits of his state in life and position in society. (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 160)

Modesty is a virtue by which one observes proper decorum in his gestures and bodily movements, in his postures and in the way he dresses. In the matter of modesty, it is necessary to attend especially to two considerations: the dignity of each person and of those who are in his company.

Bodily modesty has great importance both for the individual and for society. Ordinarily, a person is judged by externals, and for this reason any inordinate movement, staring, indiscreet glances or any other uncontrolled movements are generally interpreted as signs of an inordinate and unruly interior. With good reason does St. Augustine recommend in his ‘Rule’ that individuals should be especially careful to observe external modesty of deportment lest they scandalize their neighbors.

And, we read in Sacred Scripture: “A man is known by his look, and a wise man, when thou meetest him, is known by his countenance. The attire of the body, and the laughter of the teeth, and the gait of the man, shew what he is.” (Ecclesiasticus 19:26-27)

The vices opposed to modesty of demeanor are affectations and rusticity or rudeness.

WHY MUST DRESS PROTECT CHASTITY?
In his ‘Allocution to the International Congress of High Fashion’, November 8, 1957, Pope Pius XII says the following. Note that he calls ‘modesty’ – ‘pudency’.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MODESTY (PUDENCY)
The origin and final end of apparel is the natural demand of pudency, understood in its broad sense, which includes consideration for the sensibility of others toward things repugnant to the eyes, and, above all, a protection for moral honesty and a shield against disordered sensuality. …

Pudency, seen in its strictly moral significance – no matter what its origin – is based on the innate and more or less conscious tendency of each person to defend, against the indiscriminate greed of others, his own physical good [virginity] in order to preserve it – by the prudent choice of circumstances – for the wise ends of the Creator [marriage and children], who placed it under the shield of chastity and pudency.

This virtue, pudency, whose synonym “modesty” (from modus, i.e., measure, limit) perhaps better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially the sensual, is the natural bulwark of chastity, its strong wall of defense, because it moderates the acts closely connected to the object proper to chastity.

As an advance sentinel, pudency alerts a man from the time he acquires the use of reason, even before he learns the notion of chastity and its object, and remains with him all his life demanding that certain acts [the sexual relations of spouses in marriage], ‘per se’  honest because they were divinely established [for procreation], be protected by a discreet veil and quiet reservation, to confer to them the respect due to the dignity of their elevated end.

It is fair, therefore, that pudency, as the depositary of such precious gifts, ask for itself a preponderant authority over any other tendency or caprice and that it preside over the determination of the ways of dressing.

MORE PRINCIPLES BY POPE PIUS XII
The Church does not reprove or condemn a fashion when it is intended to be a fair decorum and adornment of the body. However, she never fails to warn the faithful against its easy deviations. This positive attitude of the Church derives from higher motives than the merely aesthetic and hedonist ends defended by a new paganism.

She knows and teaches that the human body, a masterpiece of God in the visible world at the service of the soul, was elevated by the Divine Redeemer to be a temple and instrument of the Holy Ghost, and must be respected as such.

Its beauty, therefore, should not be exalted as an end per se and still less as in a way that degrades that acquired dignity.

In point of fact, it is indisputable that, besides an honest fashion, there is another immoral one, which is a cause of disturbance – if not a stimulus to evil – to tranquil spirits.

It is always difficult to set out universal rules for the boundaries between honesty and immorality, since the moral evaluation of clothing relies on many factors. However, the alleged relativity of fashion regarding different times, places, persons and formations is not a valid reason ‘a priori’  not to issue a moral judgment about this or that fashion that transgresses the boundaries of a normal modesty.

Modesty, almost of itself, immediately sounds an alert to the presence of indecency and seduction, materialism and luxury – or even just frivolity. If the architects of the immoral fashions are skillful in disguising perversion by mixing it with an ensemble of honest aesthetic elements, still more skillful and quick is human sensuality to discover it and feel its fascination.

One who has sensitivity to discern the insidious character of evil should not be censured, as if this were an effect of an inner depravity: on the contrary, such sensitivity is a sign of purity of spirit and vigilance over the passions.

No matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of fashion may be, when a danger is noticed, there is always an absolute norm to be maintained after having heard the admonition of conscience: FASHION MUST NEVER BE A NEAR OCCASION OF SIN.

ADDITIONAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES BY POPE PIUS XII
To achieve this goal [of being a faithful interpreter of civil and Christian tradition], some principles are useful to apply to the problem of fashion, from which some concrete norms can be deduced.

The first principle is TO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF FASHION’S INFLUENCE EITHER FOR GOOD OR FOR EVIL. The language of dressing, as we have already noted, is all the more efficient the more it is understood by everyone. Society speaks, as it were, through the dresses it wears. With clothing it reveals its secret aspirations and it utilizes dress, at least in part, either to build its own future or to destroy it.

But, given the coherence that must exist between the doctrine a Catholic professes and his external behavior, the Catholic – be he fashion designer or the client – should not underestimate the dangers and spiritual ruin sown by immoral fashions, especially the public ones.

He should remember the elevated purity the Redeemer demands from His disciples, even regarding gazes and thoughts. He also should remember the severity shown by God toward those who commit public scandal.

That strong Scripture passage of Isaias comes to mind in which he presages the shame destined to the holy city of Sion for the impurity of its daughters. (cf. Is 3:16-24) And another passage where the Italian Poet [Dante] expresses with fiery words his indignation for the rampant impurity in the city. (Divine Comedy, Purgatory, 23, 94-108)

PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE TRIUMPH OF OUR LADY’S IMMACULATE HEART
The former ‘Marylike Modesty Crusade’ Director, Rev. Father Bernard Kunkel makes the following observation. How can we expect Mary’s triumph and world peace in an unchastened human society? And how can the reign of purity be established as long as these “certain fashions” continue to fan furiously the flame of passion in the hearts of men? Is it not evident from Our Lady’s messages at Fatima that modesty in feminine attire is a prerequisite for Her triumph and for world peace?
Let us use our God-given faculty of reasoning. Our Lady tells us “Men must cease offending God….” In the next breath, as it were, she reminds us that one way in which God is offended “very much” is by those “certain fashions.” The conclusion should be plain. These semi-nude fashions retard Mary’s triumph, and are one of the chief causes bringing the world to the brink of annihilation.
Our Lady further revealed that “More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh, than for any other reason.” Who can count the millions of mortal sins of the flesh that are daily occasioned by immodest attire, such as evil thoughts and desires, touches, impure embracing, kissing, raping, etc. How can the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumph as long as “more souls go to Hell” through shameless fashions?
THE MARY-LIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS
It was from Pope Pius XI’s universal standard that an American priest, Fr. Bernard A. Kunkel, developed “The Marylike Standards For Modesty In Dress.”  Fr. Kunkel’s idea was to use Mary as the model of modesty and the Pope’s standard as a concrete guide, and thus with his “Marylike Standards,” women could be sure of pleasing God.

Fr. Kunkel’s ‘Marylike Standards’ were submitted to the discretion of the Church, and, as a result, on December 8, 1944 with full ecclesiastical approval, the “Marylike Modesty Crusade” was born.  For a full quarter century (until his death in 1969) Fr. Kunkel led this Crusade, preaching that the universal standard of Pius XI was binding on all Catholic women and offering his Marylike Crusade to assist them in embracing it.  Though, for the most part, the Catholic hierarchy in the United States ignored the Papal standard, Fr. Kunkel courageously spread the Church’s teaching on modesty throughout the dioceses of the United States and beyond.  On two separate occasions Pope Pius XII imparted his Apostolic Blessing upon the Crusade.  In his blessing he called the Crusade a “laudable movement for modesty in dress and behavior,” and extended that blessing “to all who further”  it.

THE MARY-LIKE STARDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS (Pre-Vatican II)

  1. “Marylike” means modesty without compromise – “like Mary,” Christ’s pure and spotless Mother.
  2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.
  3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed “two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat” and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.
  4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics – laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. – unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.
  5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
  6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
  7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
  8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a “sense of modesty.” A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.
    STANDARDS FOR MEN
    Saint Paul says that women should appear “in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety” (I Tim. 2:9).
    And although, as already mentioned, this is more important for women, Saint Francis de Sales commenting on this passage does not hesitate to remark that “the same may be said of men.” 
    Yes, men also must dress with proper Christian dignity.  How overly casual they have become.  It is not acceptable for Christian men to go about their daily business in sportswear or other scanty clothing that covers the body little more than the clothing of savages.  Remember that missionaries throughout Church history in converting these savages, taught them to cover themselves according to Christian decency.
    Although the Church has not provided a universal standard for men’s clothing, still, some guidelines can be found.  In May 1946, the Canadian Bishops directed these words on modesty to men:
    “Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very scanty bathing suits.  They thus commit offences against the virtue of modesty.  They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor.”

STANDARDS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Finally, with regards to our precious young souls, the Church teaches that even small children should be instructed in the practice of properly covering and adorning the body.  In this way, by the time they reach puberty their sense of modesty will have become very acute, and the observance of modesty an ordinary part of their daily lives.  In reality, then, there should exist little if any difference between the way adults and children observe modesty.  Looking at pictures of the three Fatima children, we find good examples.
They are but young children tending sheep, yet see how they are fully dressed, the boy like a male and the girls like females.  And the youngest among them, Jacinta, gives us this beautiful example in her final illness.  At only ten years old she had to undergo an operation at the insistence of her doctors.  Though the anesthesia of those days “by no means took away her pain,” it is said that she “suffered more from the humiliation of having to expose her body…than from the physical pain.”
The 1930 Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council decreed, in part, the following:
“Parents, conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religious and moral, of their offspring, should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example, love for the virtues of modesty and purity, and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty. … Let parents never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.”
Later, that great champion of Christian modesty, Pope Pius XII, gave these strong admonitions to parents:
“Woe to those fathers and mothers lacking in energy and prudence, who cede to the caprices of their children and surrender that paternal authority written on the brow of man and wife as a reflection of the divine Majesty.”
“…O Christian mothers (and fathers), if only you knew the future of distress and peril, of shame ill-restrained, that you prepare for your sons and daughters in imprudently accustoming them to live hardly clothed and in making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and of the harm done to the little ones whom Heaven entrusted to your care, to be reared in Christian dignity and culture.”
CONCLUSION
Let us listen to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s pleas for “prayers and sacrifices.” There can be no doubt that one of the sacrifices that is very acceptable to Our Lady is the sacrifice required to become ever more Marylike ourselves; and to promote energetically in others the “Marylike Way of Life” which will restore Marylike chastity and modesty to the world. This will hasten true world peace, which is promised ONLY  through the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

AVE  MARIA!
Father Joseph Poisson

P.S. If you would like to be added to our subscription list, please reply to the general email below with your phone number, contact information, and what major city you are near as well.
(Ourladyofmtcarmelusa@gmail.com)

Consecration of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel to Immaculate Heart of Mary
http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Consecration-to-Immaculate-Heart-by-Our-Lady-of-Mt.-Carmel-SSPX-Marian-Corps.pdf

Featured Sermon
Given By His Excellency Bishop Pfeiffer

Consecration of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel to Immaculate Heart of Mary
http://ourladyofmountcarmelusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Consecration-to-Immaculate-Heart-by-Our-Lady-of-Mt.-Carmel-SSPX-Marian-Corps.pdf

Posted in Newsletters and tagged , ,