Monday, November 19, 2018

The Disregarded Virtue



 It's a sight that is now commonplace. On Saturday nights and Sundays (especially during the summer), I'll see men and women dressed shamefully. The men look like slobs with t-shirts, old worn out sneakers, and tight pants. In many cases the t-shirts have lewd messages. The women are dressed either just like the men, with the tight pants and t-shirts with bad messages, or they resemble "ladies of the evening" by wearing hot pants and see-through blouses. Their destination? Not a bar or a beach, but a Vatican II sect Novus Bogus "mass."  The virtue of modesty has disappeared from our society, and the Vatican II sect couldn't care less, as they embrace immodesty in their own churches. The last time I had the misfortune of passively attending their abomination of a service (circa 2004), I witnessed the "priest" giving "communion" to a young woman about 20 years old who was dressed so shamefully, I can't believe her parents let her out of the house looking like that, let alone go to church.

In this post, I will present the teaching of the Church on the virtue of modesty, and its necessity both in and out of Church. Let me say at the outset that both men and women need to dress modestly. It is also my hope that this post will squash the exaggerated claims of certain Traditionalists who needlessly castigate properly attired ladies with false claims of "immodesty" which only serves to drive people away from the One True Church.

Church Teaching on Modesty
 According to theologian Prummer, modesty is "...that virtue which moderates all the internal and external movements and appearance of a person within the bounds and limits proper to his state in life, intellectual ability, and wealth. There are four virtues included under modesty: humility, studiousness, modesty in external behavior, and modesty in dress." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 238). I will limit discussion to modesty in dress. The Blessed Mother warned at Fatima, "...certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." Our Lady knew what was coming; an assault by Satan on purity. Why? Our Lady also said that more souls go to Hell for "sins of the flesh" (i.e., sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments) than for any other reason. 

True, this is a private revelation which no one is bound to believe, but I personally accept it because it not only comports with Church teaching on the gravity of such sins, it is prophetic insofar as we have a sex-saturated world that has forgotten God. Sex, in all forms, no matter how perverse, is thriving in a world where (by a conservative estimate) at least 15% of all websites are pornographic, with some estimates at 34%. I say this is a "conservative estimate" because researchers will differ as to what, exactly, constitutes "porn." Some consider websites with scantily clad  models not to be pornographic even if they are practically nude. Sex for the God-ordained purpose of procreation within marriage is scorned, as once Catholic countries have free access to all forms of contraception, and murdering babies by abortion is legal.  

Modesty is necessary to keep lust in check. Since the Fall of our First Parents, concupiscence (a disordered inclination to sense pleasures against the direction of reason), must be fought. Today's fashions have surrendered to evil. 

The Beginning of Immodesty

 Fashions in the Christian West began to change dramatically in the wake of World War I. A fallen away Catholic, Gabrielle Chanel (better known by her nickname "Coco"), introduced certain fashions for women that were quite risque for the time. She introduced "bobbed hair," and a "boyish look" for women. (The perfume "Chanel No. 5" was named for her). Most shockingly, she introduced bathing suits for women made with long sleeves, and it extended past the knees covered by a long skirt. Sounds innocent enough, but it caused quite a stir, and was considered scandalous by decent people. According to one source:

 When Chanel opened her first shop in Paris many of her sportswear-inspired pieces were made of jersey.
At the time Chanel’s choice of fabric was a shock to her satin and silk inclined clientele as jersey was the material of choice for men’s underwear. The ever entrepreneurial designer, however, favored the fabric because it was inexpensive and draped well. The result was clothing that suited her customers’ increasingly fast paced lifestyle. (See https://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/coco-chanel-was-the-original-jersey-girl/news-story/805ae884ab158711852cf19ee817ceed; Emphasis mine). The "fast pace" was accompanied by immoral standards regarding dress, sex, and the use of alcohol/drugs.

She followed up by introducing another fashion; women wearing trousers like men:

Various women had tried to introduce the concept of trousers for women at times, with bloomers being briefly worn in the late 19th century, but it was Chanel who was first able to get women into trousers in 1929. The look was still considered shocking, and only wealthy women whose status in society was unquestioned, could get away with it. Even then, trousers were only worn during sporting events - only a star like Marlene Dietrich could get away with something like a trouser suit for evening in the 1930s. But another star, Katharine Hepburn, embraced trousers and showed they could be glamorous and sophisticated and the stage was set for another revolution, as if Coco Chanel designs hadn't already revolutionized fashion!
(See https://womens-fashion.lovetoknow.com/Coco_Chanel_Designs). This was the beginning of tighter and tighter pants/jeans.

The "bomb" of indecency was dropped in 1946, when French designer Louis Reard came out with the bikini.

However, the name "bikini" was coined by Louis Reard, and it actually refers to Bikini Atoll, where atomic bomb testing took place. He decided for this name because he hoped that the swimsuit would cause the same reaction as when people for the first time saw the rising mushroom clouds of atomic bombs. (See https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/10/28/the-bikini-swimsuit-was-named-after-islands-the-us-used-for-nuclear-testing/; Emphasis mine).

Once the Great Apostasy began, immodesty grew in leaps and bounds. It wasn't long before men started sporting long hair and tight jeans, and women's clothing became more undignified and revealing. It is not unusual to see women getting married in church wearing sleeveless, open-backed, short "dresses" that leave little to the imagination.

The Church Attempted to Stop Immodesty
Prior to the Great Apostasy, the Church spoke out against the rising tide of immodest (and immoral) apparel. 

In 1930, Pope Pius XI approved the following decree:

By virtue of the supreme apostolate which he wields over the Universal Church by Divine Will, our Most Holy Father Pope Pius XI has never ceased to inculcate, both verbally and by his writings, the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. xi,9-10), namely, "Women ... adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety ... and professing godliness with good works."

Very often, when occasion arose, the same Supreme Pontiff condemned emphatically the immodest fashion of dress adopted by Catholic women and girls -- which fashion not only offends the dignity of women and against her adornment, but conduces to the temporal ruin of the women and girls, and, what is still worse, to their eternal ruin, miserably dragging down others in their fall. It is not surprising, therefore, that all Bishops and other ordinaries, as is the duty of ministers of Christ, should in their own dioceses have unanimously opposed their depraved licentiousness and promiscuity of manners, often bearing with fortitude the derision and mockery leveled against them for this cause.

Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, while cordially commending the action of the Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely uprooted from human society.

In order to facilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by the mandate of the Most Holy Father, has decreed as follows:


 Exhortation to Those in Authority

1. The parish priest, and especially the preacher, when occasion arises, should, according to the words of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iv, 2), insist, argue exhort and command that feminine garb be based on modesty and womanly ornament be a defense of virtue. Let them likewise admonish parents to cause their daughters to cease wearing indecorous dress.

2. Parents, conscious of their grave obligations toward the education, especially religious and moral, to their offspring, should see to it that their daughters are solidly instructed, from earliest childhood, in Christian doctrine; and they themselves should assiduously inculcate in their souls, by word and example, love for the virtues of modesty and chastity; and since their family should follow the example of the Holy Family, they must rule in such a manner that all its members, reared within the walls of the home, should find reason and incentive to love and preserve modesty.

3. Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.

4. Superioresses and teachers in schools for girls must do their utmost to instill love of modesty in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dress modestly.

5. Said Superioresses and teachers must not receive in their colleges and schools immodestly dressed girls, and should not even make an exception in the case of mothers of pupils. If, after being admitted, girls persist in dressing immodestly, such pupils should be dismissed.

6. Nuns, in compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious, must not receive in their colleges, schools, oratories or recreation grounds, or, if once admitted, tolerate girls who are not dressed with Christian modesty; said Nuns, in addition, should do their utmost so that love for holy chastity and Christian modesty may become deeply rooted in the hearts of their pupils.

7. It is desirable that pious organizations of women be founded, which by their counsel, example and propaganda should combat the wearing of apparel unsuited to Christian modesty, and should promote purity of customs and modesty of dress.

8. In the pious associations of women those who dress immodestly should not be admitted to membership; but if, perchance, they are received, and after having been admitted, fall again into their error, they should be dismissed forthwith.

9. Maidens and women dressed immodestly are to be debarred from Holy Communion and from acting as sponsors at the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation; further, if the offense be extreme, they may even be forbidden to enter the church.

(signed) Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect
Congregation of the Council
Rome, January 12, 1930

In 1946, the Catholic Bishops of Canada issued a decree warning men to wear shirts, even to the beach:
"Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very scanty bathing suits. They thus commit offenses against the virtue of modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor."

In 1959, Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, wrote:
"O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future distress, peril and ill-restrained shame that you prepare for your sons and daughters by imprudently accustoming them to live barely clothed, and permitting them to lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves, and of the harm done to the little ones entrusted to you by Heaven to be reared in a Christian dignity and culture."

Finally, the Vatican declared in 1956,"...in order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women ... 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 material are improper ..." The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII, as recounted in Standards of Decency [1956].

Why is Modesty So Important?

 So far, the Church's definition of modesty has been presented, the history of modern day immodesty in attire set forth, and the True Church's reaction to this immodesty--prior to the Great Apostasy-- has been given. Now, below are the reasons why this virtue of modesty in dress is so important.

1. It is sinful to entice others to sin. Immodesty in dress (of either sex) can engender impure thoughts and desires. To woman who object, "Men need to control themselves," they deny the effects of fallen human nature which is inclined to sin. "But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured." --(St. James 1:14-15). To men who claim modesty "varies according to custom," Pope Pius XII on November 8, 1957, in an address to The Latin Union of High Fashion, stated, " . . . no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger; style must never be a proximate occasion of sin." (See https://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-295.shtml: Emphasis mine). God commands us to be modest in dress. Compare Wojtyla ("St" John Paul II) who, on May 8, 1984, allowed a bare-breasted woman to come up and "present the gifts" in Papua New Guinea. There was good reason missionaries of the True Church made the so-called "noble savages" give up many of their customs. 

2. As Traditionalists, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost. We have God indwelling in our soul if in the state of sanctifying grace, and should we lose it (God forbid) we still have a baptismal character. We expect our Churches to be adorned with proper respect for God; shouldn't the same hold true for our bodies? We have a duty under the Fifth Commandment to take reasonable good care of our bodies. Even if not Christian, the body was God's creation, and human life is not to be disrespected. Is God glorified by tattoos, piercings, and shameful clothing? If you are a woman ask yourself, "Would the Blessed Mother wear this?" If you're a man, ask, "Would St. Joseph, or his Divine Foster Son, wear these clothes?" 

3. You don't want to attract disreputable people and give a bad image of yourself. In law school we were told, "Dress like a slob, don't expect to get a job." Very true. I knew a federal judge who would refuse to listen to a male lawyer in court if didn't wear a suit complete with tie, vest, and jacket. "The law demands respect," he would intone. As a former teacher, I would dress in a suit to be a good role model for my students. Education majors who interviewed while dressed casually were not hired in the 1980s here in NYC. If men dress immodestly, they shouldn't expect a professional job, or a woman of good character to enter their life. They will be treated like bums. Women who dress like whores should not be surprised when men look at them and treat them that way. You will attract low-class men who will not be good husbands or fathers.

4. Proper attire affects the way we think and behave. A Vatican II sect neighbor of mine once asked me many years ago as I was leaving for Mass, "Why do you get so dressed up just to go to Church?" It was summer, and he was wearing a t-shirt with a brand name beer on it, shorts, and sandals. I looked at him and asked, "If you had to attend the funeral of a relative or friend, would you go dressed as you are now?" He laughed, "Of course not!" I asked why. "You have to pay your last respects to the deceased." Then I let him have it. "I understand. So you believe dressing properly and seriously demonstrates respect to the loved one who died. If that's true--and it is--shouldn't you show even more respect when meeting, praying to, and receiving Jesus Christ Himself at Holy Communion when in His Church?" He turned red-faced, excused himself, and never brought up the subject again. The Vatican II sect merely pays lip service to the Real Presence (which they no longer have anyway), so they don't care how their congregants dress. If they truly believed Christ Himself was present, would they dress as they do? We carry ourselves differently, both in and out of Church, depending on our mode of attire.

A note of caution. It is not the business of laymen and laywomen to be the "clothing police" at church. A friend of mine who is a Traditionalist, had his wife leave the Church for the Vatican II sect after some busybody came up to her and told her that her dress "should be longer." (It was fine the way it was and not too short, except in this other woman's imagination). The clergy will enforce standards of decency. Do not attempt to enforce those standards as if you had authority, and don't go beyond what the theologians and popes taught before Vatican II when speaking about modesty to others. 

Conclusion

 Modest behavior respects the boundaries of intimacy that are embedded in our natures by the natural law and the principles of proper behavior put forth in Divine Revelation. Part of being accepted and desirable for a marriage partner, according to the underlying messages from many fashion magazines and media stars, lies in clothing, especially revealing clothing. The opposite is true. When we dress modestly we keep our thoughts, and the thoughts of others, pure. We show respect for both our bodies as Christians, and to our Churches where God resides. We give a good self-image and don't attract disreputable people. Lastly, we obey God's Law and we should always think and behave as He commands. Modesty has been called the "disregarded virtue of our age." Disregard modesty, and you do so to the detriment of society and jeopardize the salvation your soul.  


57 comments:

  1. Excellent article. I liked your story and answer to the Novus ordo man asking you why you dressed up so much for church even in the summer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against dressing up, but one thing that bothers me is when I've gone into trad chapels particularly in the northern states and get the impression that outsiders (like myself) aren't welcome because they aren't dressed the same as the people who go there (I dress modestly, just not with a suit coat and tie). Sedevacantist bishops and priests who came from the "Northeast nine" seem to be more strict and insistent than CMRI chapels although both have dress codes to ward off people who would abuse it by being too casual. It seems like the hard line mentality comes from the SSPX mentality. While I'm all for dressing up, I'm also all for dressing modestly in other ways so long as it's within reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems reasonable to me. If a person truly feels they are dressed appropriately for a meeting with Christ Himself, and the standards for decency as set forth by the Magisterium are met, that should be ok.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but why would you go meet the author Life itsef in anything but a suit and tie? Mass is the most important meeting of your life. You should dress as if you believed it were so.

      Delete
    3. Tom,
      I agree, but if local custom is MODEST and considered proper attire for important events, it should be OK. In most places, that’s a suit, tie and jacket, but not universally.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Side note, I had an in law from a generation older than mine, attend my wedding in shorts. Dress is simply not a matter of modesty, it also is a sign of respect. So while it is never appropriate to dress immodesty, modest casual dress can also be offensive depending on the occasion. I understand the point of this article is modesty, but clothing for Mass must meet a higher standard than just modest.

      Delete
    5. Tom,
      Well put. I must agree.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. On week day Masses in trad chapels people usually wear their work clothes or possibly something less formal. Is that wrong Tom A.? It is the Mass and You come before the King of all things. To make an issue out of this is like making an issue out of assigned seating. For example the Church used to "desire" men to sit on one side while women on the other and I know of a Trad priest who is gung ho about that. Guess what? Nobody puts it into practice or even very few agree with the priest and therefore he has hardly any followers because of his excessive "desire" for that. St. Francis and his brothers came to Pope Innocent III in raggedy habits and from what I've read was frowned upon by the cardinals because they like you and many others "think" things have to be a certain way. They were modest and praised by the pope for showing us their example that we should not be attached to things of this world. So one could make an argument that dressing up looks worldly but of course the cultural thing is to dress up out of respect, which of course is fine because it falls under modesty. My point is Trads need to get a grip, bear wrongs patiently (if there is anything) and be a little more worried about what the Church teaches than petty things like that.

      Delete
    7. @anonymous5:28
      I never fail to learn from my readers! Thank you for commenting. I’d have to say that after taking these comments into consideration, we should all be able to agree that:

      1. One must always dress modestly as the Church teaches

      2. A person should not have exaggerated ideas of modesty that go beyond Church teaching

      3. As a general rule, people should dress their very best for Mass, but without it becoming an obsession or an occasion of vanity

      4. There are times when people cannot dress their very best (e.g. going to Mass after working a difficult manual labor job) and as long as they are dressed modestly there shouldn’t be any problems

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Thank you Intriobo. I couldn't agree more and I hope Tom A. would agree as well. Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless you as my friend

      Delete
    9. @Tom A. A “suit and tie” only fits depending on local custom. They wouldn’t have been the standards for thousands of years and dressing now how people used to dress would also be considered immodest. What is considered modest dress changes with local culture. Obviously there are inherent limits so I am not saying whatever culture does means it is good. Suit and tie is good, but tux is not typically appropriate for Mass even though it is technically “more” formal but wearing it every Sunday would look ridiculous. I am not disagreeing with wearing a suit and tie (I do), but just trying to say the line is not necessarily as rigid as anything “less” is automatically bad.

      Delete
    10. Yes I would agree that a tux is not an appropriate outfit to wear to meet a superior and clean work attire is appropriate if one is going or coming from work. I would disagree, however, that daily mass lowers the dress standards.

      Delete
  2. Perfect. This text gave me more strength to dress more modestly at home and at the gym. As soon as I get a job, I'll check my wardrobe. Pray for me!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Back in the early to mid 1960’s, I remember the women dressing up on Sunday to see if they could out do each other. They would dress in their finest, wearing hats and heels and it became a fashion show. It was sick. Sunday Mass became a fashion parade of women trying to out do one another. I don’t know what you exactly call what they were doing, but it sure wasn’t being modest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      That, unfortunately, has the insidious name of “vanity.” Sad.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. In medio stat virtus. (The motto I try to aspire to with God’s Grace).

      Delete
    3. Joann,
      By the grace of God, I try to live that motto as well! Happy Thanksgiving!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo,
      Would you explain the difference between pride and vanity? Thanks!!

      Delete
    5. Joann,
      Pride, When not sinful and really a misnomer for confidence, is when we feel good about ourselves, confident, and productive, yet we realize that we are completely dependent upon God and acknowledge all we have is because of Him. Sinful pride, properly so-called, involves egotism and arrogance, thinking oneself superior to others, and God is banished expressly or implicitly.

      Vanity is inordinate self-admiration Of a person’s appearance or deeds. It is a form of sinful pride. Put another way, Pride is what we think of ourselves. Vanity is what we would have others think. Hence, the elaborate fancy dresses of some women, or expensive cars driven by men. They enjoy trying to make others envious, and God has no place in this activity.

      Hope this helped!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      Thanks! I grew up in a very vain family. Everything was centered around looks. However, one person in my family was not vain, my paternal Grandmother. She was a very devout Catholic and would walk 1 mile to Mass everyday (1950’s and 60’s). The happiest memories of my childhood was being with her whenever I could and she would take me along to Mass. She was very modest and very humble. I believe it is through her prayers that I found my way home to the Faith at the age of 60 yrs! My Mother left the Church to follow Billy Graham and Oral Roberts when I was very young and her Mother, my maternal Grandmother left the Church and went the way of Jehovah Witnesses. It is because of my Paternal Grandmother, her example of humility and modesty, that stuck with me as being the true Faith. I may have lost my way, especially after my paternal Grandmother’s death, but God’s Grace prevailed through my Grandmother’s example and prayers that lead me home to the True Church.

      Delete
    7. Joann,
      A beautiful and edifying story of your grandmother. It is also a powerful testimony of how God works through the humble who practice the Faith. You were indeed blessed to have known her!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo - The amount of both women and men with Tattoos seems to be ever increasing. What do you think is the reason behind all the Tattoos? I find Tattoos disgusting and can’t fathom why people do this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It’s more disrespect of the human body.Tattos are ugly both for men and women.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Tattoos are also a sign of pagan civilization.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    3. @Andrew - I have often thought that Tattoos had something to do with paganism. The culture we live in gets more paganized with each passing year. The increasing amount of Tattoos seen is confirmation of it, unfortunately.

      Delete
    4. In general I don’t like any tattoos but what about religious Tattoos? I have seen some that look very edifying.

      Delete
  5. Did the church ever officially decide if dead infants,miscarried babies,and aborted babies live in Limbo for eternity or is this a majority opinion of theologians?
    -Andrew
    P.S. Excellent post you did a great job this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Thank you for the kind words. As to your query on Limbo, it is not a Dogma Of The Faith, but the denial of Limbo leads to many theological issues. Ratzinger denied Limbo as part of his Universalism in regard to salvation.

      For a more in-depth explanation please see my post:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/04/aborting-limbo.html?m=1

      Are you a heretic if you deny Limbo? No. However, you must then consign the unbaptized infants to a place in Hell with the least suffering. To put them in Heaven would be a denial of the existence and effects of Original Sin.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Denying Limbo would be like denying the Assumption in 1949 before its formal by Pope Pius XII in 1950. Would it have been heresy? No; but how would you explain the 4th decade of the Third Glorious Mysteries and the Holy Day of Obligation on August 15th the world over and for centuries. Even though denying Limbo may not be heresy, it certainly is very wrong; millions of unbaptized babies and the unborn will be there all the same.

      Delete
    3. @anonymous1:32
      I agree with you that Limbo exists, and I fully accept it. However, it is not analogous to the Assumption of Mary. The Assumption was unanimously taught by the approved theologians and you also rightly point to the practice of the Church (Rosary,Mass, etc). It was at least a teaching proximate to the Faith (sententia fidei proxima), which is generally regarded by theologians as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church. The denial of such a teaching would be a mortal sin against the Faith (See theologian Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma").

      The teaching regarding Limbo is not anywhere near the certainty of the Assumption in 1949. The doctrine went through many developments, and the only two points I see as consistently taught and agreed upon by the theologians prior to Vatican II was that the souls of the unbaptized unborn (a) do not suffer the poena sensus (pain of sense--or fire) and (b) Satan and his demons cannot torment them.

      That being said, I agree with you on Limbo, but I can't say that those who hold other opinions not condemned by the Church are in mortal sin.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Introibo:
    Why don´t you place a seeker on your blog so it is easier to look for content?
    It think this may help people who read old articles
    For Greater Glory of God
    Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      I’m not tech savvy my friend! I have no time to do more than I already do, trying to find someone to help without giving away my identity. What works very well is typing the full name of my blog then a colon followed by key words. For example, looking to see any article I wrote on Limbo, you would type in a Google search as “Introibo Ad Altare Dei blogspot: Limbo.” Almost always you will get the articles in your search!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes, that has worked with me. Thank you for your response.

      Delete
  7. Speaking of tattoos, I discovered quite by accident online, that there is a company called Save Your Ink, which after death will preserve your tattoos for your “loved ones”, meaning they will cut off the chunk of skin the tat is on, preserve it, and put it in a frame so it can be hung on a wall. Now this is just sick!!!! Just diabolical! So now you can disrespect your body both while living and now even when you are dead! PS Great article! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words! What you described is so sick, pagan, and repulsive, there’s nothing more to be said.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. Introibo - I have often wondered if Tattoos have something to do with the mark of the beast. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It might! Or at least a forerunner of such. The mark might be a computer chip implanted under the skin—-and hidden by a tatto maybe?

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. Introibo,

    I have heard there were at least sets of guidelines in the US pre-VII. One approved in the 1950's allowed sleeveless dresses as long as they had a substantial strap. The Mary like standards of modesty, and another approved standard required 3 quarter length sleeves. I don’t have a reference I can link to.

    Do you feel that differences are mostly due to slightly differing local customs or that these are rough guidelines not meant to be taken to the mm in precision.

    Why are the modesty standards in paintings, statues, etc different? The Catholic Church has had this type of art all around for hundreds of years. To me this means there must be a degree of local custom, context, and other elements I do not fully understand. (For example I can’t reconcile why it is wrong for a women to show her shoulder, but ok for nude paintings in art)


    -Jeff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff,
      Naked bodies have a long history in sacred art; bu the Renaissance artists used four different types of nudity to symbolize four states of humanity.

      First there is nuditas naturalis, representing the natural state of humanity before the Fall, often depicted in scenes connected to Eden or Paradise.

      Then there is nuditas temporalis, depicting poverty, sometimes voluntary in nature, and the reliance of humanity on God for all that we receive.

      Third there is nuditas virtualis, symbolizing purity and innocence. Depictions of “the penitent Magdalene,” for example, often show her naked, clothed only in her hair, as a symbol of the soul’s return to innocence after repentance.

      Last of all there is nuditas criminalis, representing the horror of lustful passions and vanity.

      A real woman’s shoulder being exposed is more likely to arouse the passions than art with a purpose. The Church’s standards are according to the majority and not deviants who would be aroused by the works of Michelangelo (or e.g., shoes).

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  10. Introibo - Shortly after I found the Faith, I was talking on the phone with another Traditionalist who I barely knew. I told them I had to hang up as I had an appointment for a manicure. They got irate with me over the manicure and I asked them what the problem was. They responded that it was “vain”.

    Another time I was accused of dying my hair. I told the person that I have never dyed my hair, that it is naturally black, and they accused me of lying!! (My Father’s hair never turned gray either). What would be wrong with hair dye anyhow? Some of these things that Traditionalists seem obsessed with are ridiculous in my opinion. Being in the State of Grace is of the most importance to me. Thanks be to God he looks at and sees the heart!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      You give an excellent example of what goes wrong when people go beyond what the Magisterium teaches. Theologians McHugh and Callan teach that it is not sinful to desire that other’s approve of one’s appearance and dress (See “Moral Theology” 2:563).

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a manicure or a woman coloring her hair (if you did such in the future).

      I agree the most important thing is to always be in the state of grace!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. I apologise to ask you this question as it's not related to blog entry.
    Can incense be used during Holy Mass according the 1945 Missal if there IS NOT any singing nor choir?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My friend,
      According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Of 1910, 9:717, it states:
      “This high Mass is the norm. It is only in the complete rite with deacon and subdeacon that the ceremonies can be understood. Thus, the rubrics of the Ordinary of the Mass always suppose that the Mass is high. Low Mass, said by a priest with one servant alone, is a shortened and simplified form of the same thing. Its ritual can be explained only by reference to high Mass. (…)
      A sung Mass (Missa Cantata) is a modern compromise. It is really a low Mass, since the essence of high Mass is not the music but the deacon and subdeacon. Only in churches which have no ordained person except one priest, and in which high Mass is thus impossible, is it allowed to celebrate the Mass (on Sundays and feasts) with most of the adornment borrowed from high Mass, with singing and (generally) with incense. The sacred Congregation of Rites has on several occasions (9 June 1884; 7 December, 1888) forbidden the use of incense at a Missa Cantata; nevertheless, exceptions have been made for several dioceses, and the custom of using it is generally tolerated. “

      According to rubrician O’Connell, the use of incense during a Missa Cantata was new under Roncalli which seems to suggest that there is no incense pre-1962 at any Mass without singing unless special permission was granted.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Just a clarification, the Vatican Standard, which you note was issued in 1956, was actually issued at least after September 24, 1928, but the first half of the quotation "in order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women" apparently comes from the August 23, 1928 letter from the Sacred Congregation for Religious (translated by the late Fr. John Rubba, O.P.). Obviously, this line predates the Vatican standard by a month.

    At least from scanned sources, we have no evidence of the original documents of these norms except for the January 1930 decree "De Inhonesto Feminarum Vestiendi More," which you quote from. There is no evidence of Cdl. Santos's pastoral letter, nor that anyone has properly translated and reported the 1946 Canadian pastoral letter (which can be found in its original here, pp. 239-240, https://ia800308.us.archive.org/19/items/mandementslettre17glis/mandementslettre17glis.pdf). I don't speak/read French and can only guess my way through the letter. That 1946 letter has certainly been misreported on multiple traditionalist websites. It would be worth the time for someone who can read French to translate it for our benefit.

    I document some of these matters in more detail in my comments here: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html

    The full, original Latin text of the 1930 norms, with cross references to the AAS as well as other English translations, can be found here: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-pius-xi-instruction-de-inhonesto.html

    Hope this helps. The only reason I have done this research is because modern/liberal-leaning critics of traditionalists have pointed out the fact that the common citations for these norms are all botched, which is true. They then dismiss the norms as fabricated, which obviously doesn't logically follow. We need to get the citations straight for the record and for the good cause.

    Otherwise a very useful post on the need for modesty!

    ReplyDelete
  13. What is "servile work" - the work you can do any day unless it is a Holy day of obligation?
    For Greater Glory of God
    Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poni,
      According to Theologian Jone, servile work is “ occupation primarily performed by corporal powers and for material gain” (See Moral Theology pg. 121). The Sunday rest requires abstinence from all servile work unless there is an excusing reason.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Eg., gardening, carpenter work, mechanics, fishing or hunting, manufacture, building...
      Thank you for your response.
      For Greater Glory of God,
      Long Life Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

      Delete
    3. Is it correct that shopping is generally prohibited under pain of sin on Sunday? Is it OK to go to the store to get the one item that you need? This requires others to perform labor. What about to buy a brownie or something at a Church bake sale to raise funds?

      Is it permissible to do taxes, calculate and write checks or online payments for personal household bills on a Sunday?

      Is it permissible to sort papers or magazines on a Sunday?

      Is it permissible to do schoolwork, such as a research paper or dissertation, on a Sunday? What about if this is done commercially?

      Is it permissible to do paperwork or office work on a Sunday?

      Is it permissible to eat out on a Sunday? This requires others to perform labor.

      Is it permissible to travel, such as in a bus or an airplane and to stay in a hotel on a Sunday, since it requires others to do labor?

      Is it permissible to exercise and lift weights on a Sunday? (I believe the answer is yes since it pertains to maintenance of the body.)

      Delete
    4. @poni,
      The general principle I quoted from theologian Jone. He also states “necessity excuses from Sunday rest.” (See “Moral Theology” pg. 122). In every one of your hypotheticals if it is necessary, you are excused. Hence, a poor person who needs to work at a hotel on Sunday commits no sin. Neither does a traveler since the use of transportation is required on Sunday. We need police and hospitals to be on duty for Sundays. If you apply the question, “Is this action necessary or can it wait?” You will almost always get the right answer. If in doubt, ask a Traditionalist priest about a specific situation.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. What about if it is not a necessity? Are any/all of those things inherently wrong to be done on a Sunday or a Holy Day if not done for necessity?

      Delete
    6. Poni,
      As a GENERAL RULE anything that requires manual labor and/or pecuniary interests should not be performed on Sunday, unless necessary or of a de minimus nature. For example, sorting newspapers and taking out the trash on Sunday would not be sinful.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. Great article.

    Question, until I have the money, I have no other pants except tight jeans. That and shorts that don't/just reach the knee. Is it acceptable to wear those pants?

    Another question, after seeing the comments above. There are a lot of *non-religious* paintings of nude Venuses/nymphs by a lot of artists throughout history. They have a history of causing shock. Their intentions are very doubtful. Are they all really acceptable? What's the border between innocent nude art and pornographic art? For example, the painting La Maja desnuda, whose nude has a straightforward and unashamed gaze of the model towards the viewer, which upset ecclesiastical authorities. How about those other paintings? Also for religious art, there was a case where a painting of the nude St. Sebastian was removed from a church because it had bad effects on the women. What do Church standards say on it? Are those women deviants?

    According to TIA, nude religious art was only "tolerated" by the Church, and that Renaissance era in general was immodest. Nude religious art is not to be preferred. Is it true?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:22
      1. Do you dress like that for work? I'm sure you could find a cheap pair of pants on Amazon that would be modest. If you must go out and that's all you have until modest pants arrive, you must keep your interactions in public to a BARE minimum (pun intended)!

      2. I'm unaware of any theologians who teach that Renaissance era art was "tolerated"? If you have citations I'd need to check them to see what was claimed.

      3. As a general rule things that are directly concerned with God are more excellent than things only indirectly concerned with Him, so religious art is, in that sense more excellent than non-religious art.

      4. Without more background information, I can't say whether the women upset by the painting were deviants.


      god Bless,

      ---introibo

      Delete
    2. Thanks. (Just to clarify, uniform work is different). You're right, I was reading this https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B366_Talmud.html (later part). It sounded authentic, but you're right, there's no citations to theologians.

      Nevertheless, many cardinals were in outrage at what the pope was allowing at the Sistine Chapel. Later popes ordered adding draperies to be added to the nude figures. Further campaigns of overpainting, often "less discreet or respectful", followed in later reigns, and "the threat of total destruction re-surfaced in the pontificates of Pius V, Gregory XIII, and probably again of Clement VIII. If it wasn't indecent, why were the changes done?

      Thanks and God bless.

      Delete
    3. @anon9:19
      The short answer is for reasons of practicality. In certain Traditionalist Chapels, dress codes go far in excess of what is necessary because many laymen are overreacting to the public indecency in today's fashions. Some priests are old and just don't want to endure constant arguments, so it's better (so they reason) to let them have a more stringent code which is acceptable yet unnecessary. Some claim Padre Pio used a more stringent dress code which was unnecessary but he felt warranted by so many lax standards.

      Likewise, rather than have people scandalized in a time when they were not even educated enough to understand, it was better to simply allow a stricter standard.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Many thanks. God bless too.

      Delete