Newsletter #56 – Our Lady of Mount Carmel USA

Dear Friends and Benefactors, 06/23/2020

Concerning the topic of modesty, one might begin with the following quotation from G.K. Chesterton: “unless we live as we believe, we’ll end up believing as we live.” Pope Pius XII once said: “The purity of souls living the supernatural life of grace is not preserved and will never be preserved without combat.” This spiritual combat against immodesty, was totally neglected by the Second Vatican Council, and has practically been silenced by the clergy of the novus ordo church over the last 60 years. Nevertheless, we have traditional sources to fall back on, and keep out of sin, especially mortal sin. What should become quite clear in reviewing these reliable sources, is that modesty is for all ages, and for both sexes. Also, modesty is more than what kind of clothing one wears. For example, when Saint Paul says that women should appear “in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety” (1Tim. 2:9), Saint Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, commenting on this passage does not hesitate to remark that “the same may be said of men.” Dr. Horvat explains that Christendom has always been understood as a projection of the Catholic principles into every aspect of the temporal sphere. Therefore, it becomes established to the degree that the principles of Catholic Doctrine also shape the customs and ways of being of the people. This obviously includes the clothing of a man. 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. They will wear dignified clothing befitting their office and station in life not only at Mass, but wherever they go. This is what one notes in the dress of former times. It is necessary for today’s man to understand and respect the principle that underlies the idea that clothing should reflect the proper diversity of situation and class that exists in all well-ordered societies, instead of unconsciously adopting the revolutionary styles of our days that stress comfort and ease. It would help for a man to analyze carefully how much the Revolution in customs has infiltrated his daily ambience, and perhaps his own wardrobe and bearing, so that he can begin to counter this insidious affront to good Catholic customs. This will demand from modern man a great self-discipline, a great love of grandeur and hierarchy, a great love of seriousness, and most of all, a great love of God. The result, as history has shown, will be well worth it. He will have the respect of his family and society, and more important, a respect for himself. He will also know that by his clothing, bearing and way of being, at all times, he gives glory to God.

I. PADRE PIO (“Prophet of the People”, Dorothy M. Gaudiose)

Women received especially rough treatment from Padre Pio because of current fashions. He had always been a merciless enemy of feminine vanity. “Vanity,” he said, “is the son of pride, and is even more malignant than its mother. Have you ever seen a field of ripe corn? Some ears are tall; others are bent to the ground. Try taking the tallest, the proudest ones, and you will see that they are empty; but it you take the smallest, the humblest ones, they are laden with seeds. From this you can see that vanity is empty.”
Padre Pio wouldn’t tolerate low-necked dresses or short, tight skirts, and he forbade his spiritual daughters to wear transparent stockings. Each year his severity increased. He stubbornly dismissed them from his confessional, even before they set foot inside, if he judged them to be improperly dressed. On some mornings he drove away one after another, until he ended up hearing very few confessions.
His brothers observed these drastic purges with a certain uneasiness and decided to fasten a sign on the church door: “By Padre Pio’s explicit wish, women must enter his confessional wearing skirts at least eight inches below the knees. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them for the confessional.”
The last warning was not without effect. There was a furtive exchange of skirts, blouses, and raincoats, that took place at the last moment in the half-lit church to remedy any failings.
The women made their adjustments, but perhaps not exactly enough. Padre Pio continued to send some away before giving them a chance to confess. He would glower at them, and grumble, “Go and get dressed.” And sometimes he added, “Clowns!” He spared no one… persons he saw for the first time, or his long-time spiritual daughters. Often the skirts were decidedly many inches below the knees, but not sufficiently long for his moral severity.
As the years began to weigh on Padre Pio, his daily hours in the confessional were limited to four, equally divided between men and women. In addition to being dressed properly, they had to know the Italian language, even though he could somehow understand people speaking another language. But he knew Italian, Latin, and very little French, consistently refusing to hear confessions except in Italian or Latin.
Sometimes when Padre Pio refused to absolve his penitents and closed the small confessional door in their faces, the people would reproach him asking why he acted this way. “Don’t you know,” he asked, “what pain it costs me to shut the door on anyone? The Lord has forced me to do so. I do not call anyone, nor do I refuse anyone either. There is Someone else Who calls and refuses them. I am His useless tool.”
Even the men had rules to follow. They were not permitted to enter the church with three-quarter length sleeves. Boys as well as men had to wear long trousers at church, if they didn’t want to be shown out of the church, that is. But women in short skirts were his prime targets. Padre Pio’s citadel was perhaps the only place in the world where the fashions of the 1930s still ruled in the 1960s.

OUR LADY OF FATIMA
The sins of the world are too great! The sins which lead most souls to hell are sins of the flesh! Certain fashions are going 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.
CARDINAL VICAR OF POPE PIUS XI (1928)
The Universal Standard
“In order that uniformity in understanding prevail… we recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”
ARCHBISHOP ALBERT G. MEYER OF MILWAUKEE
(Addressing the 1956 meeting of the Archdiocesan Confraternity of Christian Mothers)

The first teaching of our faith is that the law of chastity is imposed on every human being. It binds him in public and in private, in marriage and outside of marriage, in youth and in old age. It is one of the serious laws that God has made, which means that it is one on which the salvation of our soul depends.
It is most important to remember that the same law of chastity equally forbids the unchaste thought and the unchaste desire. The words of Christ in this regard are crystal clear: “I say to you that anyone who even looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt. 5:28).
The second teaching of our Faith which we ask you to recall here is the doctrine of original sin. Every human being, except the Immaculate Mother of God, has through original sin inherited a tainted nature, which manifests itself more intensively perhaps in inclinations to unchastity than in any other way. The resulting battle with concupiscence is not limited to a given age or state of life; it must be waged by all at all times.
It is fashionable to deny original sin. But to the Catholic, the doctrine of original sin is fundamental for the true understanding of the whole economy of grace and salvation. The denial of original sin ultimately leads to a denial of Christ and the purpose of His Incarnation and Redemption. The denial of original sin leads to a completely false appraisal of the meaning of life.
Such a tragic denial, for example, underlies much of the theory of some progressivist educators. And such a tragic denial is implicit in much of the ostrich-like approach to the very real connection between modesty and chastity, between unchaste thoughts and unchaste deeds, between the unchaste picture or book or dress or film and these unchaste thoughts, desires and deed. It is the teaching of our Faith that through original sin man’s nature has been wounded, although not totally corrupted. The wound in our nature is universally experienced through the struggle in which we have to control our imagination and our passions.
Imagination by itself, we know is simply a picture-making power. It certainly is of real use to the intellect of man, but because of original sin, it plays a part in the mind’s affairs totally out of proportion to its merits, and has passed far beyond the condition of a useful servant.
Hence, to feed the imagination with all sorts of pictures that serve to excite the passions in man’s bodily nature is obviously against God’s plans and God’s will. Such pictures tend to make the passions rebel against the control of the intellect and will, and to draw the will itself away from conformity to God’s will. That is sin. Original sin and its consequence in our fallen nature impose upon us the obligation of keeping the imagination in proper subordination to the intellect and the will.
The third teaching of our holy Faith is that this weakness of human nature, which is the result of original sin, can only be met by following the natural counsels of prudence and right reason, and by using the plentiful means of supernatural graces that have been provided for us by our Divine Savior. The world uses neither.
Prudence tells us that we must reasonably avoid whatever tends to make the imagination rebellious to the intellect and will, and to draw both of these away from God. Prudence is a dictate of the natural law. Prudence sees the intimate and necessary connection between the thought and the deed, between the sensory impression of the imagination and the thought and desire.
Therefore, the prudence that sees the virtue of chastity as a desirable and necessary good, also sees that certain things must be avoided to assist the will in the pursuit of that good. The world does not use prudence in the matter of chastity, because it provides a constant flow of incentives to lust, completely heedless of the intimate and necessary connection between modesty and chastity, and indeed often denying the sin of unchastity itself …
The world does not heed the admonition of Christ (Mt. 18:8-9) because it denies the reality of the sin of scandal, and because it ignores or despises the supernatural means for preserving chastity and the helps which come though the Sacraments and prayer.
Modesty Is the Guardian of Chastity.
This brings us to a consideration of the virtue of modesty in the general scheme of virtues, and more especially as it relates to the virtue of chastity.
The virtue of modesty, in general, may be described as that virtue that prompts us to be decorous, proper and reserved in the way we dress, stand, walk, sit – in general, in the way we behave exteriorly. The virtue of modesty bears a relation to other virtues besides that of chastity, especially to the virtue of humility.
In a special way, manner, however, the virtue of modesty is particularly regarded as the guardian of chastity in thought, word and action.
St. Thomas says that it is the virtue by which we rightly regulate our conduct in respect to those things that can lead to impure thoughts, desire and actions, in ourselves and in others. He says that, while chastity deals with the regulation of difficult things, powerful passions and strong desires for pleasure, modesty deals with the regulation of easy things, the remote and proximate occasions and conditions that lead to unholy desires. Thus, we see that modesty is a virtue allied to the virtue of temperance, or the general habit of self-restraint. …
It is this virtue of modesty, in its relation to chastity, which prompted the Holy Father (Pope Pius XII) to write in his Encyclical on Holy Virginity:
“Educators of the young would render a more valuable and useful service if they would inculcate in youthful minds the precepts of Christian modesty, which is so important of the preservation of perfect chastity and which is truly called the prudence of chastity. For, modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun.. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex. … He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions.”
Modesty and Clothing.
With regard to clothing, modesty requires especially two things: first, care that one does not make chastity difficult for oneself or for others by one’s own modes of dress; second, a prudent but firm and courageous resistance to the styles and customs that are a danger to chastity, no matter how popular or widespread, or adopted by others.
In setting down these two general principles, there is no thought on our part to attempt to define details. In general, that form of dress may be said to be immodest which serves to arouse the lust of men, or which serves as a scandal, that is, a stumbling block to the practice of virtue.
With an honest respect for the innate sense of shame with which every human being is endowed, and with ordinary knowledge of human nature tainted by the effects of original sin, one can with fair accuracy determine what is immodest and what is immodest in given circumstances…
Here, then is also a call to parents to lead the way in encouraging their growing children not to make any compromise with immodest beach and summer wear, no matter how many thousands make use of such; with immodest evening gowns, though such may be seen in the most fashionable social gatherings; with immodest styles of dress that have been a feature of so much of the television entertainment almost from the beginning; with picture magazines that exploit nudity and suggestiveness in every issue; with dangerous associations, readings, shows.

CARDINAL GIUSEPPE SIRI (June 12, 1960, Genoa)
To the Reverend Clergy, all the teaching Sisters, my beloved sons of Catholic Action, and educators who truly want to follow Catholic Doctrine,
I. The first signs of our late arriving Spring indicate a certain increase this year in the use of men’s clothing by women and girls, even mothers of families.
Up until 1959, in Genoa such dress usually meant that the person was a tourist, but now there seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing, at least on pleasure trips, to wear men’s clothing (trousers).
The spreading of this behavior obliges us to seriously address this subject and we ask those to whom this Notification is directed to give this problem all the attention it deserves, as is proper for persons who are conscious that they must stand responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment on the matter of women who wear men’s dress. In fact, our considerations here bear only on the moral aspect.
First, with regard to covering the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers cannot be said to constitute in itself a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern skirts.
Second, for clothing to be modest, however, it must not only cover the body but also should not cling too tightly to the body. It is certain that some women’s clothing today fits more closely to the body than trousers, but the latter can also be tight fitting – and in fact generally are so. Therefore, wearing such tight fitting clothing causes us no less concern than exposing the body. Thus it is that the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is one aspect of the problem that must not be left out of a general judgment on the topic, even if it should also not be artificially exaggerated.
II. There is, however, another aspect of women wearing trousers that seems much graver to us
The wearing of men’s dress by women primarily affects the woman herself, first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women. Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes. Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered.
Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women
In truth, the motive that impels women to wear the clothing of men is not always to imitate him, but rather to compete with the man who is considered stronger, less encumbered and more independent. This motivation shows clearly that masculine dress is a visible support to bring about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man.’ Further, since the existence of man, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines and modifies the gestures, attitudes and conduct of a person. Thus, just by its wearing, the clothing comes to impose a particular state of spirit in the person.
Permit us to add that a woman who always wears the clothing of men more or less indicates that she is reacting to her femininity as if it were inferior, when in fact it is only different. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident.
These reasons, added to many others, are sufficient to warn us of how mistaken is the thinking of women who wear men’s dress.
Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the two sexes
In fact, as relations between the two sexes unfold with time’s passing, an instinct of mutual attraction becomes predominant. The essential base of this attraction is a difference between the two sexes that is made possible only by the fact that one complements the other. If, then, this difference becomes less marked because one of its major external signs is eliminated, and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, then a fundamental factor in the relation changes.
The problem goes even further. Chronologically, the mutual attraction between the sexes is naturally preceded by that sense of shame that restrains the rising of the primary instincts, imposes respect for one another, and tends to elevate the mutual esteem and a salutary fear to a higher level regarding those instincts, which otherwise would push forward to uncontrolled acts. To change the clothing – which by its difference reveals and maintains the limits of nature and its natural defenses – levels such distinctions and helps to diminish the vital defenses of the sense of shame.
At the very least it obstructs that sense. And when this sense of shame is absent because of some obstacle or impediment, then the relations between men and women degrade into pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.
Experience teaches us that when the woman is de-feminized, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.
Masculine clothing harms the dignity of the mother in the eyes of her children
A child has an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of his mother. Studies on the first internal crisis of children when they awake to the life around them, even before they reach adolescence, show how important their mothers are to them. Children are very sensitive at this age. Adults normally leave all this behind them and no longer think about it. But we should remember the strict demands that children instinctively make on their mothers, and the profound and even terrible reactions roused in them by observing bad behavior on the part of their mothers. At this age and by these first dramas of infancy and youth many of the later roads they will take in life are marked, not always for the good.
The child may not know the definition of immodesty, frivolity and infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sense to recognize them when they occur. Further, he suffers from them and is bitterly wounded of soul because of them.
III. We should think seriously about the importance of everything said so far, even if the appearance of the woman wearing masculine clothing does not immediately produce the same harm as that caused by a grave immodesty.
The change in the feminine psychology causes a fundamental and – in the long run – irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society. True, the effects of wearing unsuitable clothing are not seen in the short term. But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously lowered and perverted.
If the feminine psychology is changed, is there some change in the reciprocity between husband and wife? Or is a true education of the children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so interwoven with imponderable factors in which the mother’s intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those first years? What can these women give their children when they have worn trousers for so long that their self-esteem is determined more by their competition with men than by their function as women?
We ask ourselves why it is that since the beginning of man’s existence – or rather, since he became civilized – has mankind in all epochs and places been irresistibly led to differentiate and divide the functions of the sexes? Do we not have here a strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law higher than man?
In summary, wherever women wear men’s clothing, this should be considered a long-term factor of a disintegration of the human order.
IV. The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that each person in a position of responsibility should feel a sense of danger – in the true and proper meaning of the word – a strong and decisive danger.
We direct a grave warning to parish priests, to priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of associations, to religious brothers, to nuns, and especially to teaching sisters.
We ask that they become clearly conscious of the problem so that an action will follow. This consciousness is what is important. It will suggest the action appropriate for each time. But it should not counsel us to give in to an inevitable change, as if we were confronting a natural evolution of mankind.
Man comes and goes, and God has left much room for the coming and going of the free will. But the substantial lines of nature and the no less substantial lines of Eternal Law have certainly never changed, are not changing now, and will not change in the future. There are boundaries that one can transgress if he so desires, but doing so ends in death. An empty philosophy [Freudian psychoanalysis] can allow one to ridicule and trivialize those boundaries, but they constitute an alliance of objective facts and the natural order that chastises anyone who steps beyond them. History has clearly taught – with impressive proofs of the life and death of nations – that the response to all these violators of this ‘structure of man’ always ends – sooner or later – in a catastrophe.
Since the dialectic of Hegel, we have been taught what amounts to nothing more than fables, and from hearing them so often, many persons end up by conforming to them, even if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, continued on their imperturbable way, cutting to pieces those simpletons who, without any grounds, believed in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.
The consequences of such violations are not a new ‘structure of man,’ but disorders, a harmful instability of every kind, the frightening dryness of human souls, a devastating increase in the number of human beings abandoned by society, left to live their declining years in boredom, sadness and rejection. In this shipwreck of eternal moral norms one finds destroyed families, cold homes, lives cut short before their time, the old persons cast aside, our youth choosing to be degenerate and – at the end of the line – souls in despair and even taking their own lives. All this human wreckage is testimony to the fact that the ‘line of God’ does not cede way nor admit of any adaptation to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers!
V. We have said that those to whom this Notification is addressed are asked to become seriously alarmed at the problem before them.
They know what they should say, starting with the little girls on their mother’s lap. They know that without exaggerating the matter or becoming fanatical, they will need to place strict limits on how far they can tolerate women dressing like men as a general rule.
They know that they must not be so weak as to reach the point of turning a blind eye to a custom that is slipping downhill and undermining morality in all the institutions.
Priests know that they should take a strong and decisive line in the confessional, while not affirming that a woman dressing like a man is automatically a grave fault.
Everyone should be thinking of the need to have a united line of action, reinforced on all sides by the cooperation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, in order to create a true dam that will hold back the flood.
Those of you who are responsible for souls in any capacity should realize how useful it is to have men of letters and in the media as allies in this campaign. The position taken by the fashion design houses and the clothing industry is crucially important in this matter. Artistic sense, refinement and good taste can unite to find adequate and at the same time dignified solutions to the question of the clothing for women if she must ride a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work. What is important is to preserve modesty while maintaining the perennial sense of femininity, that femininity which, more than anything else, all children will always continue to associate with what their mothers mean to them.
We do not deny that modern life confronts us with problems and demands unknown to our grandparents. But we affirm that there are values with more need of being protected than fleeting experiences, and that every intelligent person will always have enough good sense and good taste to find acceptable and dignified solutions to the problems that rise.
Moved by charity, we are fighting against the degradation of man, against the attack on those differences upon which the complementarities between man and woman rely.
When we see a woman wearing trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of how it will be when all women have become masculinized. No one will gain by helping to bring about a future age of indistinctness, ambiguity, imperfection and, if we may say so, monstrosities.
This letter of ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for educators, for Catholic associations. Let them do their duty, and not be sentinels caught sleeping at their posts while evil entered the gates.
POPE PIUS XII
(Allocution to the girls of Catholic Action of May 22, 1941).
“Beyond fashion and its demands, there are higher and more pressing laws, principles superior to fashion, and unchangeable, which under no circumstances can be sacrificed to the whim of pleasure or fancy, and before which must bow the fleeting omnipotence of fashion. These principles have been proclaimed by God, by the Church, by the Saints, by reason, by Christian morality… As St. Thomas of Aquinas teaches, the good of our soul must take precedence over that of our body, and to the good of our body we must prefer the good of the soul of our neighbor.”

(On the Apostolate of Girls in the Renewal of Society,
Speech to the Italian Feminine Youth of April 24, 1943)
Moral purity must proceed from faith, if it is a living faith. Youth must be formed to think always in a holy way of the mystery of new life and its natural sources, remembering that it is a work of the Creator and recalling that, just as Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament, so also by taking life in the womb of the Blessed Virgin He sanctified motherhood and conferred on it such a high dignity.
From this you may deduce how the attitude of the Catholic youth should be strong, active and constant against publications and movies in which one finds only bold sensuality, a web of violations of conjugal fidelity, equivocal language, and openly licentious scenes. To oppose these manifestations, which at least in many cases also transgress the provident laws of the State, there is always one powerful weapon: absolute abstention. If you direct toward this end your work and apostolate among youth, your zeal and prudence, a great victory will crown your labor and efforts favoring the supremacy and sanctity of marriage, and hence also the well-being of your country!
Therefore, form young Catholic women in that sublime and holy dignity which is so clear and powerful a safeguard of physical and spiritual integrity. This virtuous and indomitable valor and pride constitute a great glory for the one who does not allow herself to be reduced to slavery. It enriches the moral vigor of the woman who gives herself intact only to her spouse for the founding of a family, or else to God. It proclaims as her mark of glory her vocation to the supernatural life and to eternity, just as St. Paul wrote to the early Christians: “You have been bought at a great price. Glorify God and bear Him in your body” (1 Cor 6:20).
How great is the dignity and liberty of the woman who does not allow herself to be enslaved, even by fashion! This is a delicate but urgent subject, in which your unceasing action permits us to hope for beneficial gains. Your zeal against immodest forms of dress and behavior, however, must not content itself with reproving, but also with edifying, by showing in practice how a young woman can in her dress and deportment harmonize the higher laws of virtue and the norms of hygiene and elegance.

(Allocution to the International Congress of High Fashion, November 8, 1957)
Why Must Dress Protect Chastity?
In the general permissivist atmosphere of our neo-pagan society, almost everyone – including Catholics – has lost the notion of why modesty and chastity must orient civilized peoples. Consequently, it became lamentably common to see women of different ages dressed in immoral and provocative ways attending ceremonies, not excluding the Holy Mass. Without a blush on their cheeks they even approach to receive Communion, which nonetheless demands a person be in state of grace. We verify, thus, that these people have lost the notion of sin.
Trying to help restore this precious sense of sin, which is the compass for the practice of virtue and the salvation of souls, today we begin to reproduce some general principles about fashion taken from the doctrine of the Church.
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…
Independent of the use of dress to hide physical imperfections, youth asks from dress that it highlight the splendor that sings of the joyful springtime of life, and favor – following the norms of modesty – the necessary psychological presuppositions of forming new families [that is, young ladies can wear modest dresses that attract young men in order to marry them].
Mature persons, in their turn, look for an appropriate dress to surround themselves with an aura of dignity, seriousness and serene joy.
In any situation where one seeks to stress the moral beauty of the person, the form of dress must be such that it almost eclipses physical beauty in an austere shadow of modesty that moves attention away from the senses and, instead, concentrates the sight on the spirit. …
Dress can express joy and mourning, authority and power, pride and simplicity, wealth and poverty, the sacred and the profane. The soundness of its expressive forms relies on the traditions and culture of this or that people, while its mutability should be as slow and stable as the institutions, characteristics and sentiments that the fashions interpret…
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 skilfull in disguising perversion by mixing it with an ensemble of honest aesthetic elements, still more skilfull 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 depravatity: 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…
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 page of Isaiah comes to mind in which he presages the shame destined to the holy city of Zion 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)…
The most insidious sophisms, which are often repeated to justify immodesty, seem to be the same everywhere. One of them is found in the old saying: “ab assuetis non fit passio” (what is habitual does not raise passions), which is repeated to overcome the sound rebellion of honest men and women against styles that are too bold.
Perhaps it will serve well to demonstrate how this old saying applied to this case is incorrect. We have already spoken of the absolute limits that must be maintained in the relativizing of fashion; now we address the lack of foundation of yet another false opinion, which affirms that modesty no longer matters in the modern epoch, already liberated from the useless and prejudiced scruples of past times.
Certainly, there are different degrees of public morality according to the times, nature and conditions of civilization of each people. But, this does not invalidate the duty we have to strive for the ideal of perfection, nor is it sufficient reason to renounce the moral heights already attained, which manifest themselves precisely in a higher sensitivity of consciences to evil and its trappings.
The battle for the predominance of spirit over matter in dress –
Embrace your Union (Latin Union of High Fashion), then, with joyful spirit, in this battle that seeks to defend the public customs of your homeland with ever greater morality, worthy of its Catholic traditions.
It is no coincidence that we call your work to moralize fashion a “battle,” like any other endeavor that aims to restore the predominance of spirit over matter.
To consider some examples, there are isolated but significant episodes of the difficult and perennial struggle that should animate anyone who is called to liberty by the Spirit of God; a battle whose opposing forces are accurately described by the Apostle of the Gentiles: “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, for these are contrary one to the other: so that you cannot do the things you would.” (Gal 5:17)
By enumerating, therefore, the works of the flesh as a dismal part of the inheritance of original sin, it sets out impurity as the opposite of the fruit of the Spirit, which is modesty. Strive [for modesty], therefore, generously and confidently, never letting yourself be surprised by a timidity that made the few but heroic armies of the great Judas Maccabeus cry out: “How can we, with so few, fight against so great a multitude?” (I Macc 3:17) Let us be encouraged by the response of that great warrior of God and the fatherland: “The success of the battle does not depend on the number of soldiers, but on the strength that comes from Heaven.” (I Macc 3:19).

SAINT JOHN BAPTIST DE LA SALLE
(Excerpts from his book “The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility” – This manual, intended for men, should remind them as heads of families to set the good example and instruct their children properly instead of leaving courtesy to the women)

It is surprising that most Christian men look upon decorum and politeness as merely human and worldly qualities and do not think of raising their minds to any higher views by considering them as virtues that have reference to God, to their neighbor and to themselves. This illustrates very well how little true Christianity is found in the world and how few among those who live in the world are guided by the Spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 5:10).
Still, it is this Spirit alone that ought to inspire all our actions, making them holy and agreeable to God. This is an obligation St. Paul points out to us when he tells us in the person of the early Christians that because we must live by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, we must also act in all things by that Spirit (Gal 5:25).
According to the same Apostle, because all our actions have to be holy, there are none that should not be done through purely Christian motives. Thus, all our external actions, which are the only ones that can be guided by the rules of decorum, must always, through faith, possess and display the characteristics of virtue.
This is something to which fathers and mothers should pay attention while educating their children. It is likewise something about which teachers, entrusted with the instruction of these children, should be especially concerned.
Parents and teachers should never fail, while teaching children the rules of decorum, to remind them that they have to observe these only through purely Catholic motives, which concern the glory of God and one’s own salvation.
Parents and teachers should avoid telling the children in their care that, if they fail to act in a certain way, people will blame them, will not have any respect for them, or will ridicule them. Such remarks can only inspire children with the spirit of the world and turn them away from the spirit of the Gospel.
Rather, when they wish to train children in practices pertaining to bodily care and simple modesty, they should lead them carefully to be motivated by the presence of God, as St. Paul does when he makes the same point with the faithful of his time, saying that their modesty ought to be known to all, because the Lord is near to them. In other words, children should do these things out of respect for God, in whose presence they are.
When teaching children and training them to observe the practices of decorum that refer to their neighbor, teachers must urge them to show others the signs of consideration, honor and respect appropriate to members of Our Lord Jesus Christ and living temples of God, enlivened by the Holy Spirit.
In the same way, St. Peter exhorts the early faithful to love their brethren and to pay to all the honor due to them, thereby showing themselves true servants of God and making known in this way that they honor God in the person of their neighbor. If all Catholics make it a practice to display goodwill, esteem and respect for others from considerations of this kind only and from motives of this nature, they will sanctify all their actions and make it possible to distinguish, as it should be, between Catholic decorum and civility and what is merely worldly or almost pagan.
Thus, they will live like true Christians, for their exterior behavior will be conformable to that of Christ and will correspond with their Catholic profession. They will thereby show themselves to be different from infidels and from those who are Christians only in name, as Tertullian remarks when he says that in his time people could know and recognize Christians by their exterior conduct and their modesty.
Catholic decorum is, then, that wise and well-regulated conduct that governs what we do and say. It arises from sentiments of modesty, respect, union and charity toward our neighbor. It leads us to give due regard to proper times and places and to the people with whom we have to deal. Decorum practiced toward our neighbor is properly called civility. …
Different forms of decorum.
What should observed in the presence of the King or in the royal apartments should not be done elsewhere, because the respect we must have for the person of the King demands that certain signs of reverence be shown when in his palace that would be out of place in a private home. We should act in our own home differently from the way we act in the homes of others, and so too in homes of people whom we know as opposed to those whom we scarcely know.
Because politeness expects us to have and to show special respect for certain people that we do not owe to others and because it would also violate decorum to show the same kind of respect to everyone. Whenever we meet or converse with a person of some social standing, we must pay attention to his rank, dealing with and treating him according to what the rank calls for.
We should likewise consider ourselves and who we are, for whoever is inferior to others is obliged to show submission to those who are superiors, whether by birth, by official position or by social rank. We should pay them much greater respect than we would to someone who is our equal.
A peasant, for example, must show more respect for his lord than would a working man who does not depend upon that same lord. Similarly, a working man should show greater respect for a lord than would a gentleman who happens to be visiting that lord.
Decorum in Dressing & Undressing.
It was sin that created the need for us to dress and It was sin that created the need for us to dress and to cover our body with clothing. This is why, because we carry with us at all times the condition of sinners, we must never appear not only without clothing but also without being fully dressed. This is required both by decency and by the law of God.
Many people take the liberty of wearing their night clothes while they are at home, often without other clothing or sometimes just with slippers. Although it seems that as long as you do not go outside, you can do practically anything in this attire, it is too casual to be used for any length of time.
It is against decorum to put on your night clothes as soon as you have come back home, in order to be comfortable, and to let yourself be seen dressed like this. It is only elderly or infirm people who can be permitted to act in this way. It would even be a sign of lack of respect if you would receive someone, who is not your inferior, for a visit while you are attired in this way.
It is even more unbecoming for you to go without stockings in the presence of anyone or to wear only a nightshirt or a simple undergarment. …
It is most appropriate that you acquire the habit of never speaking to anyone, except to your servants, until you are fully dressed in your ordinary clothes; this is how a prudent, disciplined person who knows how to behave would act.
It is also a matter of refinement to dress promptly and to put on first the articles of clothing that cover the body most completely, so as to keep hidden the parts that nature forbids us to show. Always do this out of respect for the majesty of God, which you must keep constantly before your eyes.
There are some women who need two or three hours, and sometimes the entire morning, to get dressed. One could say of them with justice that their body is their God and that the time they use in ornamenting it is time they rob from the One who is their only living and true God. This also robs time from the care they must take of their families and children, something they ought to regard as one of the duties required of them by their state of life.
They certainly cannot act in this way without violating God’s laws.
It is uncivilized and rude for you to undress in the presence of others. … Nor is it appropriate for you in the presence of others to take off your shoes or to lift up your feet to warm them more easily by the fire. There are people who seek their own ease by doing these things, but such ways of acting have nothing to do with decorum. …
Just as refinement requires that when you dress, you put on first the articles of clothing that cover most of the body, it is also a sign of decorum, when you undress, to take off the same articles last, so that you cannot be seen without being decently attired.
While undressing, place your clothes neatly on either a chair or some other place that is clean and where you can easily find them again the next morning without having to hunt for them.
Faults against Decorum Committed through Talk.
To speak without consideration means to speak without discretion, without control, and without paying attention to what you say. The Wise Man warns us that to avoid this defect, we must be very attentive to our words, so that we do not dishonor our soul (Eccl. 20:8).
In fact, no one has esteem for a person who speaks indiscreetly. For this reason, you ought to be on guard, according to the advice of the same Wise Man, against being too quick with your words (Eccl 4:34). For the reason why you speak inappropriately and without control is that you often say things without having thought seriously about them. …
If you wish to speak with discretion and prudence, you must never speak before thinking carefully about what you intend to say. You do not have to reveal all that is on your mind, and in many things you must act as if you were ignorant (Eccl 32:12).
The Wise Man adds that if you are well-informed about something you wish to talk about or someone else is talking about, you may speak or give answer appropriately; otherwise, you ought to keep your hand over your mouth (5:14). This means that you must keep silent, lest you be surprised into an indiscreet word or fall into embarrassment.
To speak prudently, consider whether it is the proper time to speak or to remain silent. It is imprudent and thoughtless for you not to pay attention to the right time for speaking and instead to talk when you are prompted by just the mere desire to talk. It is necessary, according to St. Paul, that you make sure that every word you utter be so saturated with grace and seasoned with the salt of wisdom that you never utter a single word without realizing why and how you are saying it (Col 4:6).
Finally, as the Wise Man recommends, you need to learn before you speak. Therefore, never discuss a topic without knowing a great deal about it, so that you will say what you have to say so wisely and so appropriately that you will make yourself more highly esteemed because of your words (Eccl 18: 18–19; 20:29).
When someone has said or done something that is out of place and you notice that this person spoke without reflecting and is already aware of it and embarrassed when he thinks of himself and of what he said, you ought to pretend to have noticed nothing. If he excuses himself, it would be prudent and charitable for you to interpret the incident in a favorable light.
Never poke fun at someone who proposed something a little unreasonable, and still less ought you to treat him with disdain, for it may be that you did not correctly understand what he had in mind.
Finally, it is never proper for an polited person to embarrass anyone. It is prudent, when someone is using insulting language, for you not to reply in kind and not to undertake to defend yourself. It is better to pretend that you take the whole thing as a joke, and if someone else comes to your defense, you ought to show that you are not upset by what was said. It is characteristic of a truly wise person never to be upset by anything.
To let us know in a few words who the people are who speak with wisdom and prudence and who those are who speak imprudently, the Wise Man gives us this admirable rule: The hearts of fools are in their mouths, and the mouths of the wise are in their hearts (Eccl 21:29). This means that those who lack good sense let everyone know by the proliferation and the thoughtlessness of their words whatever they have in their heart, but those who have common sense and self-discipline are so reserved and circumspect in speaking that they say only what they want to say and what is proper for people to know.
When you are with people older than you or with the very elderly, it is a matter of decorum to speak little and to listen a great deal. You ought to act in the same way in the company of important people. This advice that the Wise Man gives you is most appropriate indeed (Eccl 32:13).
It is also a matter of refinement that a child, when in the company of people to whom he must show respect, speaks only when he is invited to speak (Eccl 32:10–13).
You must be very careful not to reveal secrets to one and all. This is a piece of advice given by the Wise Man that would be quite imprudent to ignore. Before revealing a secret to anyone, you must make sure who is the person to whom you intend to tell the secret, whether he is able to keep the secret, and whether he will indeed do so.
Those who have nothing to relate except gossip and frivolous, silly stories and those who affect introductions so long that no one else can speak would do much better to keep quiet. It is far better to gain a reputation for being a person of few words than to bore people with nonsense and stupidities or always to have something to say.

Faults against Decorum Regarding Charity Owed to Your Neighbor.
Civility is so demanding in what refers to your neighbor that it does not permit you to scandalize anyone in any way and never allows you to speak ill of anyone. This is also something that St. James warns the early Christians to be contrary to God’s law, when he tells them that whoever slanders his brother slanders the law (James 4:11).
It is, then, very rude to be forever finding fault with what others do. If you do not wish to say anything good about them, you should say nothing. The Wise Man declares that when you hear slander, you must hedge your ears with thorns, and he adds that you must keep so far away from slander that you never hear an evil tongue (Eccl 28:28).
Nor does he allow you to report to people the tales that someone else has related about them, and he warns you not to acquire the reputation of talebearer, because, as he says, the talebearer will be hated by everyone (Eccl 19:7, 10; 5:16; 21:31). Thus, according to the same Wise Man’s counsel, if you have heard something unfavorable about your neighbor, you must, if you wish to act with decorum, let the story be buried in your own heart (Eccl 19:10). …
Also, it is most improper to call attention to the physical defect of anyone; this shows that you are mean and poorly brought up. It is also rude to make comparisons between the person to whom you are speaking and someone else, so as to bring out some defect or misfortune that happened to that other person, saying, for example, “He was as drunk as you were the other day”; “So-and-so got a slap or a bloody nose as bad as the one you got a few days ago”; “So-and-so fell into a mud puddle like the one you fell into the other day,” or, “So-and-so has hair as red as yours.”
To talk this way is to offer a grave insult to the one to whom you are speaking. Nor ought you to refer to obvious defects or blemishes on a person’s face or to ask how they got there. It is also quite rude, as well as a great fault against charity toward your neighbor, to remind someone of events in which he did not do well or to say things that can disturb or embarrass the person you are speaking to, such as “You got into an ugly mess a few days ago” or “The other day you were grossly insulted.” …
An insult is most shocking to decorum as well as to charity. Our Lord very expressly condemns it in the Gospel. Such words must never be found on the lips of a Catholic, for they are extremely improper for anyone who has the least claim to being a well-educated person. You must never insult anyone, and you are never permitted either to say or to do anything that might lead to such conduct.
Another fault, no less contrary to propriety and to the respect you owe your neighbor, is mockery, making fun of someone over a defect or a weakness or mimicking him by gestures. There is not much difference between such mockery and an outright insult, except that by insulting people, you attack them flagrantly, with no attempt at concealment.
Such mockery is entirely unworthy of a wellborn person. Because it goes against propriety and hurts your neighbor, you are never to make fun of anyone, living or dead.
If it is not permissible for you to make fun of a person because of some weakness or defect, it is even less so to make fun of his natural and involuntary handicaps. It shows a slovenly and mean spirit for you to make fun of someone, for example, because he has only one eye, is crippled or is humpbacked. Surely the person who suffers from these defects did not cause them.
It is also entirely improper for you to poke fun at someone because of a misfortune or a disgrace that has overtaken him. You wound him deeply by making fun of him in his tragedy. However, if you are the butt of sarcasm because of one of your defects, always take it in good part, and do not show exteriorly that it bothers you. It is a mark of refinement, as well as a sign of piety, not to let yourself be disturbed by what others say about you, however disagreeable, offensive or insulting it might be.
There is another type of joking that is allowed and which, far from being contrary to the rules of refinement and decorum, adds spice to conversation and brings honor to the person who employs it. This joking is part of witty, spirited repartee, which deals with something agreeable without wounding anyone or offending courtesy.
Such fun is very innocent and can make a conversation much more interesting. However, take care that it does not occur too frequently and that you know how to handle your wit. If you tend to be somewhat clumsy when attempting to be witty, you should abstain from this sort of thing entirely, because people might laugh at you, and this sort of joking, now so pointless, uninspired and uninteresting, would not achieve the end you intended, namely, to amuse others and to get them to join in the fun.

Decorum in Discussing, Interrupting & Responding.
St. Paul warns his disciple, St. Timothy, not to waste time in disputes over words (2 Tim 2:14); nothing is more contrary to the rules of decorum. Thus, as the Apostle would have it, you must avoid all foolish and useless questions, because they only give rise to disputes (2 Tim 2:22).
If you wish to prevent a dispute, you must do away with its occasions. Indeed, St. Paul tells you that you ought not to argue, because as a servant of God, you must not be contentious (2 Tim 2:24).
When you are in company, you must be on your guard not to contradict the statements made by others and not to propose anything capable of stirring up controversy. If others put forward anything that either is not true or seems inappropriate, you may simply express your opinion with so much deference that those who think differently will not take offense. If someone contradicts what you have said, you ought to show that you willingly submit your view to his, unless it is altogether contrary to Catholic maxims and the rules of the Gospel.
Then you would be obliged to defend what you have advanced. This you must do, however, in so refined and reserved a manner that the person you are contradicting, far from taking offense, will willingly listen to your reasons and accept them, unless he is entirely stubborn and unreasonable. A soft word, the Wise Man says, wins many friends and mollifies enemies (Eccl 6:5).
If you happen to be with a person who readily contradicts what others say, decorum requires that you be reluctant to express your opinions on any subject, for, as the Wise Man says so truly, promptness in arguing lights the fires of anger (Eccl 6:28: 12f). Great talkers are usually prone to defend their positions with the greatest stubbornness, so you must, following the advice of the same Wise Man, never argue with a voluble person, lest you fuel his fire (Eccl 6:8:1-4).
You must, above all, be careful, as the Wise Man further counsels, never to contradict the word of truth in any way (Eccl 6: 4:30). If you are not well versed in a given subject, prefer to keep quiet and to listen to others.
When you are engaged in a conversation in which an argument develops, as ordinarily happens in academic circles, you must listen attentively to what the others say. If you are asked or urged to speak, you may then give your opinion on the topic under discussion, but if you do not understand the matter, do not be ashamed to excuse yourself.
If you believe that the opinion you have set forth is correct, you must defend it, but this ought to be done with such moderation that the person arguing against you may yield without embarrassment. If the reasons the others adduce show that you are wrong, you must not stubbornly continue upholding a lost cause. With good grace be the first to admit that you are wrong. This is the best way to emerge from the discussion with honor. When you are in a discussion like this, you must not be determined to win at all costs. It is enough to set forth your ideas and to back them up with solid reasons. …
It is not in keeping with decorum for you to contradict anyone, unless he is much beneath you in rank and says something inappropriate and you are obliged because of the consequences to affirm the contrary of what he has said. If so, do this in such a mild and courteous way that the one who is corrected may be forced, as it were, to be grateful to you.
It is quite uncivil for you to interrupt a speaker by asking, for instance, “Who is that?” “Who said so?” “Who did that?” Such an interruption is even more impolite when the speaker is using innuendo.
It is also a very shocking offense against civility to interrupt someone who is telling a story and to try to tell it better yourself. When someone has begun to tell a story, it is no less rude to say that you know all about it or that you know exactly what the speaker wants to say. If the narrator does not tell the story well, it would be mocking him and giving him reason to feel seriously offended if you smiled as though to show that it was not as he says.
It is disgraceful to declare openly: “I bet it did not happen like that.” Such a manner of speaking is entirely rude and improper and would be used only by a person poorly brought up. If it happens in the course of a conversation that someone makes a mistake, you have no right to call his attention to it, for example, if he mistakes one man or one town for another. You must wait until the speaker catches the error himself and corrects it.
If he brings up the subject in another connection, you may point out the mistake to him; otherwise, he might be embarrassed. However, if it is a question of something that you must make clear for the sake of someone else, you may point out what the facts are, provided that you do so in a very courteous manner and very circumspectly.
Pay close attention to what the other person is saying, so that he is not obliged to repeat it. It would be very impolite to say, “What are you saying, sir? I did not hear you,” or something similar.
When a speaker has difficulty finding the right words or hesitates, it is entirely contrary to respect and to propriety for you to suggest words or to add the words the speaker has not pronounced properly. You must wait until asked to do this.
You must not take it upon yourself to reprimand anyone, unless you are obliged to do so or the matter is important. It is a serious fault to set yourself up as critic and public censor. …
However, when you are advised or reproved by another, it is a matter of decorum to receive the admonition graciously and to show much gratitude. The more gratitude you show, the more you will act like a true Catholic and the more highly you will be regarded.
If it happens that someone insults you, it would be acting like a prudent person not to be offended by it. Far from wanting to defend yourself, say nothing at all. It is a sign of a mean and slovenly spirit if you cannot endure an insult; a Catholic ought not to show any resentment or even experience any.

SAINT JEAN MARIE VIANNEY (Sermon – Be Religious or be Damned!)

There is always the person who says to me: “What harm can there be in enjoying oneself for awhile? I do no wrong to anyone; I do not want to be religious or to become a religious! If I do not go to dances, I will be living in the world like someone dead!”
My good friend, you are wrong. Either you will be religious or you will be damned. What is a religious person? This is nothing other than a person who fulfills his duties as a Christian. You say that I shall achieve nothing by talking to you about dances and that you will indulge neither more nor less in them. You are wrong again. In ignoring or despising the instructions of your pastor, you draw down upon yourself fresh chastisements from God, and I, on my side, will achieve quite a lot by fulfilling my duties. At the hour of my death, God will ask me not if you have fulfilled your duties but if I have taught you what you must do in order to fulfill them. You say, too, that I shall never break down your resistance to the point of making you believe that there is harm in amusing yourself for a little while in dancing? You do not wish to believe that there is any harm in it? Well, that is your affair. As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient for me to tell you in such a way as will insure that doing this I am doing all that I should do. That should not irritate you: your pastor is doing his duty. But, you will say, the Commandments of God do not forbid dancing, nor does Holy Scripture, either. Perhaps you have not examined them very closely. Follow me for a moment and you will see that there is not a Commandment of God which dancing does not cause to be transgressed, nor a Sacrament which it does not cause to be profaned.
You know as well as I do that these kinds of follies and wild extravagances are not ordinarily indulged in, but on Sundays and feast days. What, then, will a young girl or a boy do who have decided to go to the dance? What love will they have for God? Their minds will be wholly occupied with their preparations to attract the people with whom they hope to be mixing. Let us suppose that they say their prayers–how will they say them? Alas, only God knows that! Besides, what love for God can be felt by anyone who is thinking and breathing nothing but the love of pleasures and creatures? You will admit that it is impossible to please God and the world. That can never be.
God forbids swearing. Alas! What quarrels, what swearing, what blasphemies are uttered as a result of the jealousy that arises between these young people when they are at such gatherings! Have you not often had disputes or fights there? Who could count the crimes that are committed at these diabolical gatherings? The Third Commandment commands us to sanctify the holy day of Sunday. Can anyone really believe that a boy who has passed several hours with a girl, whose heart is like a furnace, is really thus satisfying this precept? St. Augustine has good reason to say that men would be better to work their land and girls to carry on with their spinning than to go dancing; the evil would be less. The Fourth Commandment of God commands children to honor their parents. These young people who frequent the dances, do they have the respect and the submission to their parents’ wishes which they should have? No, they certainly do not; they cause them utmost worry and distress between the way they disregard their parents’ wishes and the way they put their money to bad use, while sometimes even taunting them with their old-fashioned outlook and ways. What sorrow should not such parents feel, that is, if their faith is not yet extinct, at seeing their children given over to such pleasures or, to speak more plainly, to such licentious ways? These children are no longer Heaven-bent, but are fattening for Hell. Let us suppose that the parents have not yet lost the Faith. . . . Alas! I dare not go any further! . . . What blind parents! . . . What lost children! . . .
Is there any place, any time, any occasion wherein so many sins of impurity are committed at the dancehalls and their sequels? Is it not in these gatherings that people are most violently prompted against the holy virtue of purity? Where else but there are the senses so strongly urged towards pleasurable excitement? If we go a little more closely into this, should we not almost die of horror at the sight of so many crimes which are committed? Is it not at these gatherings that the Devil so furiously kindles the fire of impurity in the hearts of the young people in order to annihilate in them the grace of Baptism? Is it not there that Hell enslaves as many souls as it wishes? If, in spite of the absence of occasions and the aids of prayer, a Christian has so much difficulty in preserving purity of heart, how could he possibly preserve that virtue in the midst of so many sources which are capable of breaking it down?
“Look,” says St. John Chrysostom, “at this worldly and flighty young woman, or rather at this flaming brand of diabolical fire who by her beauty and her flamboyant attire lights in the heart of that young man the fire of concupiscence. Do you not see them, one as much as the other, seeking to charm one another by their airs and graces and all sorts of tricks and wiles? Count up, unfortunate sinner, if you can, the number of your bad thoughts, of your evil desires and your sinful actions. Is it not there that you heard those airs that please the ears, that inflame and burn hearts and make of these assemblies furnaces of shamelessness?”
Is it not there, my dear brethren, that the boys and the girls drink at the fountain of crime, which very soon, like a torrent or a river bursting its banks, will inundate, ruin, and poison all its surroundings? Go on, shameless fathers and mothers, go on into Hell, where the fury of God awaits you, you and all the good actions you have done in letting your children run such risks. Go on, they will not be long in joining you, for you have outlined the road plainly for them. Go and count the number of years that your boys and girls have lost, go before your Judge to give an account of your lives, and you will see that your pastor had reason to forbid these kinds of diabolical pleasures! . . .
Ah, you say, you are making more of it than there really is!
I say too much about it? Very well, then. Listen. Did the Holy Fathers of the Church say too much about it? St. Ephraim tells us that dancing is the perdition of girls and women, the blinding of men, the grief of angels, and the joy of the devils. Dear God, can anyone really have their eyes bewitched to such an extent that they will still want to believe that there is no harm in it, while all the time it is the rope by which the Devil pulls the most souls into Hell? . . . Go on, poor parents, blind and lost, go on and scorn what your pastor is telling you! Go on! Continue the way you are going! Listen to everything and profit nothing by it! There is no harm in it? Tell me, then, what did you renounce on the day of your Baptism? Or on what conditions was Baptism given to you? Was it not on the condition of your taking a vow in the face of Heaven and earth, in the presence of Jesus Christ upon the altar, that you would renounce Satan and all his works and pomps, for the whole of your lives–or in other words that you would renounce sin and the pleasures and vanities of the world?
Was it not because you promised that you would be willing to follow in the steps of a crucified God? Well then, is this not truly to violate those promises made at your Baptism and to profane this Sacrament of mercy? Do you not also profane the Sacrament of Confirmation, in exchanging the Cross of Jesus Christ, which you have received, for vain and showy dress, in being ashamed of that Cross, which should be your glory and your happiness?
St. Augustine tells us that those who go to dances truly renounce Jesus Christ in order to give themselves to the Devil. What a horrible thing that is! To drive out Jesus Christ after having received Him in your hearts! “Today,” says St. Ephraim, “they unite themselves to Jesus Christ and tomorrow to the Devil.” Alas! What a Judas is that person who, after receiving our Lord, goes then to sell Him to Satan in these gatherings, where he will be reuniting himself with everything that is most vicious! And when it comes to the Sacrament of Penance, what a contradiction in such a life! A Christian, who after one single sin should spend the rest of his life in repentance, thinks only of giving himself up to all these worldly pleasures! A great many profane the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by making indecent movements with the feet, the hands and the whole body, which one day must be sanctified by the holy oils. Is not the Sacrament of Holy Order insulted by the contempt with which the instructions of the pastor are considered? But when we come to the Sacrament of Matrimony, alas! What infidelities are not contemplated in these assemblies? It seems then that everything is admissible. How blind must anyone be who thinks there is no harm in it . . .
The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle forbids dancing, even at weddings. And St. Charles Borromeo, the Archbishop of Milan, says that three years of penance were given to someone who had danced and that if he went back to it, he was threatened with excommunication. If there were no harm in it, then were the Holy Fathers and the Church mistaken? But who tells you that there is no harm in it? It can only be a libertine, or a flighty and worldly girl, who are trying to smother their remorse of conscience as best they can. Well, there are priests, you say, who do not speak about it in confession or who, without permitting it, do not refuse absolution for it. Ah! I do not know whether there are priests who are so blind, but I am sure that those who go looking for easygoing priests are going looking for a passport which will lead them to Hell. For my own part, if I went dancing, I should not want to receive absolution not having a real determination not to go back to dancing.
Listen to St. Augustine and you will see if dancing is a good action. He tells us that “dancing is the ruin of souls, a reversal of all decency, a shameful spectacle, a public profession of crime.” St. Ephraim calls it “the ruin of good morals and the nourishment of vice.” St. John Chrysostom: “A school of public unchastity.” Tertullian: “The temple of Venus, the consistory of shamelessness, and the citadel of all the depravities.” “Here is a girl who dances,” says St. Ambrose, “but she is the daughter of an adulteress because a Christian woman would teach her daughter modesty, a proper sense of shame, and not dancing!”
Alas! How many young people are there who since they have been going to dances do not frequent the Sacraments, or do so only to profane them! How many poor souls there are who have lost therein their religion and their faith! How many will never open their eyes to their unhappy state except when they are falling into Hell!

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

Posted in Newsletters and tagged Father Joseph Poisson, June Newsletter