|
Ecclesiasticus
(Sirach) 19:26-27: "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."
I Timothy 2:9-10: "In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning
themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or
pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness,
with good works."
Modesty, like
continence, humility, and meekness, is annexed to the cardinal virtue Temperance
(Wisdom 8:7) and has the reining in of human passions as its goal. Modesty
aims to conform the exterior of man -- his clothing, way of talking, his
bearing -- to the interior sense of humility that all Christians should have.
Now, because he lives in fallen nature, man is to be clothed. It is more
than a matter of our need of protection from the elements as the very first
book of the Bible reveals:
Genesis 3:6-7,
13-21
And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and
delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and
gave to her husband, who did eat... And the eyes of them both were opened:
and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves,
and made themselves aprons... And the Lord God said to the woman: Why
hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did
eat. And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing,
thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast
shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will
put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall
crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. To the woman also
He said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt
thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and
he shall have dominion over thee. And to Adam He said: Because thou hast
hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I
commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work:
with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herbs of
the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return
to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust
thou shalt return. And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she
was the mother of all the living. And the Lord God made for Adam and his
wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
God made Adam and
Eve perfect and perfectly harmonious -- with Himself and with each other.
Then they sinned and saw themselves as they then were -- fallen, separated
from God and from each other. Having lost the grace with which they were
created, they began to retreat into their own egos and blame each other,
even God, for their sins: "the serpent deceived me," "the woman you sent
deceived me," etc. The original harmony of the Garden broken, Adam and Eve
no longer completed the other perfectly per God's design, but were now in
felt need of each other, a need they tried to fill by grasping the other
through their concupiscence and brokenness. Their relationship was now tainted,
and shame filled them as their nakedness came to be a sign of their
incompleteness and vulnerability, and an inducement to lust. Sensing their
isolation from each other and from God, they covered themselves with
quickly-fashioned aprons. Then God Himself clothed them, replacing
those fig leaf aprons with tunics (tunicas in the Vulgate,
ktnvt in the Hebrew).
Our bodies are
holy gifts to be revealed and given to another person only in
marriage
Given all the talk about the shame of immodesty, one might get the impression
that the Church sees the body as a "bad" thing, and that we cover ourselves
because we are ugly. But this is not the case! Adam and Eve didn't cover
themselves because they were created "bad" or "ugly"; they covered themselves
because, through the Fall, they no longer reflected what God made them to
be: perfect complements of one another and the perfect image of their Creator.
In covering themselves, they attempted to recover the dignity
that they'd lost.
Pope Pius XII wrote in the address mentioned above:
The Church, on
the contrary, does not censure or condemn styles when they are meant for
the proper decorum and ornamentation of the body, but She never fails to
warn the faithful against being easily led astray by them.
This positive attitude of the Church derives from reasons far higher than
the mere aesthetic or hedonistic considerations which have been assumed by
a renewed paganism. The Church knows and teaches that the human body,
which is God's masterpiece in the visible world, and which has been placed
at the service of the soul, was elevated by the Divine Redeemer to the
rank of a temple and an instrument of the Holy Spirit, and as such must
be respected. The body's beauty must therefore not be exalted as an
end in itself, much less in such guise as will defile the dignity
it has been endowed with.
No, the body is
not an evil thing (though it is quite prone to evil and must be ruled by
the head); it is "God's masterpiece in the visible world," elevated by the
Christ -- Who Himself took on human flesh -- and made a temple at
Baptism. Further, Jesus raised marriage to the level of a Sacrament, restoring
it to what it was "in the beginning" (Matthew 19:8). In marriage, the man
and woman can stand before each other naked, with no shame at all, just as
Adam and Eve did "in the beginning." Outside of that marriage covenant and
the "Eden" of holy matrimony, however, revealing the body immodestly is shameful
and leads to a lust that doesn't honor the other in all ways as a
person, but degrades him or her as an object. Only in marriage, where
the spouse is a total gift -- body and soul -- to the other,
is there no shame in revealing the vulnerability of our incompleteness.
An analogy: the very word "modesty" comes from the Latin modus, which
means limit; clothing limits accessibility to that should only be given in
marriage. Now, think of fire: is fire "bad"? No, fire warms us, cooks our
food, enchants us with its beauty, and so on; but an uncontrolled fire,
a fire without limit, destroys. It is the same with the body (and sex): modesty
sets limits on the unveiling of what is good so that it does not destroy.
To be immodest is to eradicate those limits and to give to the world that
to which it has no right but belongs to one's spouse alone. It is to profane
what should be treated as holy and to cheapen the gift of oneself.
The soul and body are one
In the article on veiling, I note that the things
that are considered holy are veiled, e.g., the ciborium, the tabernacle,
the Holy of Holies, etc. We must regain the Christian view that our bodies
are worthy of such veiling. Resist what our post-"Enlightenment" culture
tries to tell us, and don't believe that our bodies are commodities to be
displayed and bought and sold. That view rests on the lie of dualism which
sees our bodies are something apart from who "we" are. But we are not "souls
with bodies" or "bodies with souls"; we are a unity of soul and body, a unity
that must be treated as a unity.
The soul is created at the moment of our conception, and even after death
this profound link between body and soul remains (which is why Christians
value relics of the Saints). At the Last Judgement,
our bodies will be resurrected and, if we die in a state of grace, glorified.
We cannot treat our bodies as "things" that we "own"; they are a fundamental
part of who we are. Accordingly, our exterior should reflect the soul, and
a Christian's soul calls for his to be body adorned in a Christian manner,
with modesty, dignity, and holiness in mind.
For the woman, reflecting her human dignity entails understanding how her
humanity is uniquely feminine. Dr. Alice von Hildebrand speaks well of this
and recalls the fourth chapter of Solomon's Canticle of Canticles when she
wrote:
...there is something
extraordinarily great and mysterious about femininity. And why do I say it
is so great and so mysterious? Because you all know that every little girl
that is born, is born with a seal, so to speak, protecting the mystery of
her femininity, which is the womb. There is a seal and if you understand,
a seal always indicates something which is sacred. The seal, which doesn’t
exist in the male body, is profoundly symbolic and says this belongs to God
in a special way. This is a sphere which is so beautiful and so profound
that it cannot be touched upon, except with God’s permission, in a Catholic
marriage.
When a girl or young woman is permitted to give the keys of this mysterious
domain, this closed garden, to her husband-to-be, she says: "Up until now
I have kept this garden virginal, now God has given me the keys and is allowing
me to give them to you and I know that you will penetrate into it, with trembling
reverence and gratitude". The moment that a woman is embraced by her husband
and a few hours afterwards she conceives, in this very moment, something
absolutely amazing happens which once again illuminates the greatness of
femininity. Neither husband nor wife can create a human soul. God alone can.
Of course there is the male seed and there is the female egg. These are material
realities that God has put into the bodies and when they are united, an amazing
thing happens. God creates a new human soul, totally new, which never existed
before. Where? In the mystery of the female body. This is where the soul
is conceived. It has nothing to do with the husband. The husband is out of
the game at this point and the very moment that God creates a soul he implies
that there is a special contact between God and the female body, so to speak,
touching it in creating it. Once again, what an extraordinary privilege.
We are not radically isolated individuals, but a part of a community --
a community with which we communicate
We've all heard people who, when confronted with calls for modesty, love
to go on about their "rights." "I have a right to dress any way I want, and
only have to please myself! Don't judge! You think I dress like a slut, but
that doesn't make me one!"
Well, the exercising of one's political "rights" has consequences. People
have political "rights" to do a lot of things that are unwise. One has a
"right" never to bathe, too, but has no "right" to expect others to think
one smells like roses. It would obviously be a logical fallacy to state as
a proof that one who dresses like a slut necessarily sells her body for profit;
but a woman who dresses that way is just as obviously dressing as someone
who does.
The fact is, we are judged by our appearances -- sometimes too harshly ("her
skirt is 1/2 inch too short!"), sometimes for evil reasons ("look at her
clothes; she obviously has no money!"), and sometimes for ridiculous standards
that a person has no control over ("her nose is too big!"), sometimes by
people who haven't removed the beam from their own eye. Appearance is often
held to be the only thing of value, in a woman especially -- an attitude
that causes great suffering to women who don't look like the models in magazines
(no one looks like that, by the way; airbrushing, soft lights, surgery, and
make-up lie). And some women can be completely catty, turning "looking good"
into a huge competition, and dishing dirt on other women's looks in order
to put them down.
Nonetheless, the things we do have control over can rightfully be deemed
to be expressive of who we are. The Jerry Springer people who admonish
the audience with an upturned palm and a "don't judge!" when the latter laughs
at their circus freak attire really need to ask themselves what they are
trying to tell the world by dressing like circus freaks in the first place.
If you don't want the world to think of you and treat you like a circus freak,
or a slut, or what have you, then don't dress in a way that invites it.
The way we dress is simply a part of how we communicate to the world. Of
all the people in the world, the Catholic should know this
intuitively. We worship using gesture and posture and a million things that
are not based on word alone, such as bells and incense and art. This strange
"disconnect" between the verbal and non-verbal on which our modern culture
expects us to base our ways of being and seeing is simply not human and not
rooted in the Truth of the body-soul unity mentioned above.
What many modern fashions tend to communicate
Fashions today
often tend to be about putting out the message, "I am sexy! Look at me! Want
me! Look how 'hot' I am!" Now, a person can look as "hot" as she wants for
his or her spouse (so intimates St. Thomas
Aquinas), but for a person to want to induce lust in strangers is --
well, it's evil. Our Lord said that "whosoever shall look on a woman to lust
after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew
5:28) -- and adultery is a mortal sin. Why would a person want to tempt a
another to mortal sin?
James 1:14-15
But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.
Then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin,
when it is completed, begetteth death.
Think about it.
Imagine, say, that you have a profound weakness for chocolate but are giving
it up for Lent. Then imagine that almost every person of the opposite sex
you see is carrying boxes of chocolate just to tease you with, that every
time you turn on the television you see luscious chocolate presented in the
most sensual way. On every other billboard you pass and every magazine you
see, there is that chocolate in full-color glossy print, photographed precisely
to tempt you. This is life for many in our sex-saturated culture. Don't add
to the problem; keep the words of St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347 - 407) in
mind:
You carry your
snare everywhere and spread your net in all places. You allege that you never
invite others to sin. You did not indeed, by your words, but you have done
so by your dress and deportment and much more effectively than you could
by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be
innocent? Tell me whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish?
Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal portion?
You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink
and you are more criminal than those who poison the body; you murder not
the body but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you
urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish
vanity and pride.
And, though she
writes humorously, consider the reality behind the words of Caitlin Moran,
who wrote in the U.K.'s Times:
On top of that,
being sexy is often counterproductive. As soon as a woman makes herself sexy,
she instantly makes all the men in the room more stupid and all the women
more tetchy. That sounds like the kind of curse a bad fairy bestows on birth,
rather than a task that makes upper-leg waxing worthwhile.
Catholics appreciate
beauty (or should anyway)
Just because a
Catholic shouldn't dress "sexy" for strangers doesn't mean that we should
look ugly and boring! Clothing with brilliant color and texture, wonderfully
cut, accessorized and worn by a nicely groomed person -- this is a good thing!
How modesty and beauty are reflected in our clothing is a matter of personal
taste and ethnic identity. With regard to female fashions, you will find
some women dressed in clothes with a modern Western cut, all in the latest
colors and with the latest accessories. You will find others in beautiful
historical styles -- e.g., drop-waist and cloche hat 1920s styles;
sumptuously-colored fabrics shaped into Victorian skirts; or clothes that
are considered fashionably "retro," such as what Jacqueline Kennedy might
have worn. Others prefer a more "Bohemian," peasant, "Gypsy," "Goth," or
ethnic look (think of some of the beautiful outfits Stevie Nicks used to
wear). And what is more beautiful than those gorgeous saris worn by Indian
women? Some modest Christian women in the Middle East might look more like
Muslims than typical Western Christians. Still other modest women like a
"preppy," "tweedy" look such as what the Princess of Wales would have worn
when she was still Lady Diana, an upper-crust English schoolteacher. Some
look really hard to find clothes from the latest designers that fit all the
right criteria for modesty, and talented women might make their own patterns,
with their own styles.
The point is that
there is no need to believe that we all have to look like cookie-cutter,
calico-laden "Little House on the Prairie refugees" with "Peter Pan collars"
and tent-like skirts (Christ, spare us!). No! It is good to dress attractively!
Proverbs 31:22 speaks of the "valiant woman" as being attired in "tapestry,
fine linen, and purple." Psalm 45 speaks of the "the Queen" in "gilded clothing."
Apocalypse 21:2 speaks of the Church as a bride "adorned for her husband."
Queen Esther, a type of Our Lady, is described as an "exceeding fair" woman
whose "incredible beauty made her appear agreeable and amiable in the eyes
of all" (Esther 2:15). Pope Pius XII wrote in an address to the Latin Union
of High Fashion that the "penchant for the adornment of one's own person
clearly derives from nature, and is therefore legitimate."
No, there is nothing wrong with adorning oneself and being attractive! As
we Italians would say, it is good to "fare una bella figura!" -- to "make
a good showing" by making things beautiful! Why allow something to be
unattractive when it could just as easily or with little effort be lovely?
(this Italian attitude goes to everything -- one's home, clothes, dinner
table, etc.!)
For women: reclaim the feminine if that reflects who you are!
Indeed, clothing
should not only be comfortable, suitable to the task, and modest, but there
is also nothing wrong with a girly-type woman wanting to look feminine relative
to the culture in which she finds herself (assuming the culture in question
has reasonable views of feminity). Know, though, that this is not a call
to unreasonably exaggerate the differences between the sexes, to do the fashion
equivalent of bringing back fainting couches, or for women to feign stupidity
and an unnatural fragility; rather, it's a call for girly-type women to be
more genuine and to dress in a manner more consistent with their inner
beings -- and more likely to help them fulfill their deepest desires,
which aren't one-night-stands, but respect and a beautiful family life. When
women go about consciously acting "like men," dressing "like men," training
their emotions to be more "cool like a man's," quashing their fertility so
they can be promiscuous "like men," and so on, all because they think that
the way it is done "like women" isn't good enough, they are being male
impersonators and untrue to themselves.
The "masculine"
has for too long been seen as the standard of desired behavior; in the name
of radical "feminism," all that is feminine has been treated as
unimportant. The typical natural, womanly desires -- to be respected, and,
for most, to be mothers, to stay home and raise our children, to care for
a home and a husband -- have been scoffed at as evidence of "Cinderella
complexes" or simple weakness. Catholic women and the naturally virtuous,
traditional women of false religions (may they come to Jesus) must not accept
such a state of affairs!
We are not all the same, of course, and there are great overlaps in masculine
and feminine behaviors. Some women are called to marriage, others to the
religious life, and others to virginity, with or without a secular career,
like the brilliant Maria Gaetana Agnesi (A.D. 1718-1799), whom Pope Benedict
XIV appointed as the Chairwoman of higher mathematics at the University of
Bologna in A.D. 1750. Some women are natural so-called "tomboys" and others
are the frilly sort. We have role models as diverse as the perfectly maternal
Blessed Virgin; the fiery St. Joan of Arc; the lyrical St. Hildegaard von
Bingen; the philosophical St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross; the artistic
St. Catherine of Bologna; the mystical St. Teresa of Avila; the feisty St.
Catherine of Siena; the industrious St. Frances Cabrini; the bookish St.
Catherine of Alexandria; the domestic St. Martha; the been-around, penitent
St. Mary Magdalen; and the child-like St. Thérèse of Lisieux
-- among many others! We can model ourselves after any or all of these types
of women, but we are, thank God, not men and never will be.
Which brings
us to the controversy of controversies: women and pants
Because pants had been, historically, in the West, a male article
of clothing, you will find that some traditional Catholic women in
the West never wear pants, or only wear them when working in the yard, riding
horses, skiing, or some such. Given the History of Western dress and the
desire on the part of some traditionalists for a more apparent distinction
in the sexes' visual styles, many men tend to treat women with more deference
when women dress in a way considered by them to be feminine in a given culture.
On the other hand with regard to pants, it is a fact that pants-wearing for
women has been an accepted practice for some years in the West, and pants
are now made and sold for women and are, therefore "women's clothing" (to
those men who disagree, I challenge them to go buy a pair of pants for themselves
from the women's department of the nearest store). It is to each woman
to prayerfully discern how to dress, and when and where. And it is to others
to refrain from harsh judgments against those who might have come to different
conclusions (or who simply can't find or afford a wardrobe they themselves
think would be more fitting); it's very unwise to make the shunning of pants
the sine qua non of orthodoxy. In fact, Pope St. Nicholas I, way back
in A.D. 866, wrote to the newly Christianized Bulgarians, the females of
whom wore pants, and said, "For whether you or your women wear or do not
wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase
of your virtue." 1
The temporal benefits of dressing modestly
There are everyday benefits to dressing modestly, too, especially for women.
Consider this: who is free and who is in bondage -- the woman who sees herself
as part of a "chosen generation, a kingly priesthood" (I Peter 2:9) and dresses
modestly to reflect that fact, or a woman who:
-
starves herself
to a size 4 so she can fit into those midriff-bearing Britney Spears-style
tops;
-
stuffs her breasts
into Wonder bras so they'll look good in those plunging necklines;
-
has to worry about
what's "hanging out" every time she bends over or sits down or stands up
or reaches for something;
-
is totally
uncomfortable, a-l-l d-a-y l-o-n-g, who feels stuffed after eating a cup
of yogurt, because her clothes are just too tight;
-
feels compelled
to work out 2 hours a day so she can wear bikinis;
-
has liposuction
because she feels "too fat" to wear what Christina Aguilera is wearing;
-
has a "butt-lift"
so her backside can better fill a pair of "low-rider" jeans;
-
has to buy a new
wardrobe every new "fashion season";
-
gets breast implants
so the boys will look at her;
-
has surgery on
her toes so she can fit into those "Sex and the City" pointy-toed stilletos
-- and then suffers with every step she takes when wearing them?
For all the supposed
"liberation" and sense of "empowerment" dressing like hookers is supposed
to give us, in truth it turns us into a nation of obsessive, shallow, suffering
anorexics who attract men who like hookers!
Will dressing sexy get you attention? Sure it will (and walking around
an A.A. meeting with a case of beer will get you attention, too; there's
no great trick in appealing to the weakness of others). But the attention
gotten is that of those who are either not Christian at all, or who are weak
and prone to sins of the flesh. Is that the kind of attention you
truly want? Is someone who wants you because you look "hot" the kind
of person you want to marry? Is he/she the kind of person you'd trust in
a marriage -- to not commit adultery, to not leave you when you get a wrinkle
or gain a few pounds? Is he/she the kind of person you want to even be
the parent of your children? Is he/she the kind of person you want to grow
old with?
On all levels -- the theological, the sociological, the psychological, even
in terms of simple comfort -- dressing modestly is the smart thing to do.
If you are called to the religious life or virginal singlehood, your path
is easy to see. If you are called to marriage, dress now for the kind of
person you want to marry; dress as the kind of person your ideal spouse would
want for a mate, and keep the gift of yourself holy for that person alone.
If you are already married, dress as you and your spouse want behind closed
doors, but keep that gift for him or her alone.
A mental checklist for girls and women
to consider when trying on clothes
Men have it easy
when trying to find modest clothes, but here is a general rule of thumb for
women:
-
Stand straight
and ask yourself: Does the outfit cover my upper legs? Is the neckline decent?
Are there any gaps or puckers over the breast area to indicate the top is
too tight? If the top has buttons, is there any puckering so that my breasts
might be visible from the side? Is the outfit too sheer so that one can see
too much through the fabric?
-
Walk a few
steps and ask yourself: If there is any kind of slit, does walking reveal
too much? Is the outfit loose enough to walk comfortably in?
-
Sit down
and ask yourself: Are my legs still covered? Am I still decent when I cross
and uncross my legs? Am I able to sit comfortably?
-
Bend over
at the waist as if you're picking a flower. Ask yourself: does the neckline
of the outfit droop to expose too much of my chest? If I wear such an outfit
anyway, would I remember to hold the fabric close to my chest when I bend
over? Am I decent from behind? Am I able to bend over comfortably?
-
Stretch
your hands up over your head as if you're reaching for something on a tall
shelf. Ask yourself: Are my belly or legs exposed? Can I reach comfortably?
-
Look at
the overall picture in the mirror. Ask yourself: If I saw a woman walking
toward me dressed as I am, what would I say her clothes are saying about
her? Is she immodest? Unappreciative of beauty?
Footnotes:
1 Excerpt from "The Responses of Pope St. Nicholas
I to the Questions of the Bulgars" (Letter 99), Chapter LVIIII, A.D. 866:
"We consider what
you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the
exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of
the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except
Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have
put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith
and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity,
namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you
diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest
we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books,
pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use
them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the
old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior
custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether
you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your
salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.
"Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should
be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the
flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which
the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they
felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a
fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are
spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with
the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2]
And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God's gift,
we could say many more."
|
|
