Quando Roma loquetur?
This happy birthday day for the city of Rome was marked by a concert which was attended by the Mayor, the Italian President, and the Supreme Pontiff. The CWNews report gives some indication as to the pontiff's remarks on the occasion. Apparently, his remarks didn't include some basic pointers about modesty in dress, which speak to such things as see-through garments and necklines diving towards the stomach. Was this soprano (Laura Aikin) also involved in singing the "Ave Verum"?Pace my dear Ambrosius' recent post, why does the pontiff say things like the following, that the city of Rome should be "a beacon of civilization and of spirituality for the whole world"? A beacon of civilization, yes, of course, as it has been in the past - but "of spirituality"? A beacon of salvation for the entire world, yes, but a beacon of "spirituality"?
I suppose that I shouldn't go too far on the CWNews report before I can read the whole of what he said. I hope that it sounds better when taken in toto. I get frustrated, though, with the sugar-coated language; just tell it like it is. The history of Rome is inextricably bound up witht the fact that it is the see of Peter, the home of the Vicar of Christ. When will Rome tell us again who she is, that no man can be indifferent to her on his "spiritual" journey?
go to main page
by Iosephus @ 4/21/2006 07:27:00 PM
104 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
104 Comments:
Aren't women supposed to wear mantillas in the presence of His Holiness? And black dresses unless they are Catholic queens, in which case they can wear white? If I am to believe wikipedia, even Hillary Clinton wore a mantilla in the presence of the Pope.
Then again, this post leads to an obvious question -- if the woman's dress is so objectionable, is it objectionable to reproduce it for our eyes on this website? I've often thought this when seeing the photos that accompany the Cornell American's articles that "expose" (what an ironically appropriate verb) modern trends in indecency. Or shall we excuse this photo on the basis of its oblique angle?
Our good FSSP priest has told the congregation on several occassions he will refuse communion to any woman dressed immodestly.
He's a celibate male. And, the souls of the altar boys are at stake.
"I don't want to see any Catholic cleavage," he told the congregation.
Tobias, that thought crossed my mind when I was making the post: so if the dress is objectionable, is it decent to post the picture?
I sure hope that it will not be a near occasion for anyone - and if it is, we'll take it down. : ) If you view the full size picture, she's not exactly a babe.
Mayhaps our Lord has vouchsafed special graces to the Supreme Pontiff and his Cardinal Vicar so that they might attend concerts at which the female performers are dressed secularly and not as for a papal audience. But I wouldn't put money on that one.
Scholastic the Anonymous said. . .
I’d offer Joe Six pack my condolence, for a time we had an FSSP priest, Fr. Gordon, who would chastise women at the communion rail, but since Joe’s rather prurient, I suspect he’s happy as a clam. All ended well for us since Fr. Salgado rid us of Fr. Gordon because he was so disruptive to the parish with his bizarre understanding of modesty.
Which brings me to my reason for posting, after reading the previous posts, I was wondering if the following images linked to in the “Gallery of Maria Lactans” are considered modest by those reading this:
http://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html
Of course I think the linked to images are modest.
Fr. Joseph Ganssle OFM, a friend of mine, once said that he baptized many a woman’s breast while serving in the jungles of Brazil, a nice example of recognizing the beauty of women according to their nature. Compare that experience in the jungles of Brazil to my wife’s experience as a La Leche League leader where it was not uncommon for husbands to be jealous of the nursing babe, with the husband wanting to claim the wife’s breasts as his own exclusive property. The first is an example of God’s natural order, while the second is the disorder of men foisted on one of God’s most beautiful creations, the nursing bond of a mother and babe.
Scholastic, please stop and think before starting another round of red herrings like you did on the last string of posts, the one concerning pornography. You have no idea what types of dress either Joe or his priest meant by "immodest," so you cannot fault his standards here. Furthermore, the modesty of women's dress in public and breast-feeding (and the artistic portrayal thereof) are two separate issues, and if you don't understand that then you are more confused than you allege Joe Six Pack is.
Scholastic, thanks for that link, to that Fisheaters' gallery. That's a great collection of images.
What I'm wondering is, why was this Franciscan friend of yours baptizing women's breasts? I'm not even sure if I understand what you're describing. I recall being at Clara's baptism in the old rite last year, and I don't remember breasts whether modestly or immodestly bared.
I think I remember that there is supposed to be some kind of signing of the cross on the chest, but even so, I don't see how this connects to baptism there as a proper recognition of female beauty.
I'm just wondering.
Modern Liberalism gives repeated evidence of a morbid fear of crusades against immodest fashions. It stubbornly adheres to the oft-repeated, and oft-condemned principle that Christian modesty in dress is regulated by “customs and styles of time, place and circumstances.” Just as stubbornly does it ignore, or refuse to heed, authoritative statements or decrees which contradict its pet sophisms and which insist that it is the Church, and not society, to which Christ has entrusted the principles governing Christian modesty.
Thus it happened that the “Crusade Against Immodest Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious,” ordered by Pope Pius XI on August 23, 1928, was all but completely ignored in the United States, even by our Catholic press. The letter containing the order was sent to all Ordinaries of Italy through the Sacred Congregation of Religious, and was made known to the world through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930 (vol. 22, pp. 26-28). Yet, to this day, very few Catholics have even heard of this document; and scarcely anyone seems to know its gravely-worded contents. For two decades we have been looking in vain for an English translation. At last we have one. It was made recently by the well-known Father John Rubba, O.P., from the Italian as it appeared in Commentarium Pro Religiosis (vol. 9, 1928, pp. 414-415). We are most happy to publish Father Rubba’s translation.
1928 Letter to the Congregation for Religious
To The Ordinaries of Italy: regarding the crusade against immodest fashions, especially in schools directed by women Religious.
Circular. Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir, well known to you are the grave words of condemnation which the Holy Father spoke, on several occasions, with apostolic authority, against the immodest fashion of women’s dress which prevails today to the detriment of good breeding.
Suffice it to recall the very grave words, charged with grief and admonition, with which in the discourse of August 15th current, in the consistorial chamber, promulgating the decree on the heroic virtues of Venerable Paola Frassinetti, His Holiness denounced once again the danger which, by its seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls, who profess to belong to the flock of Jesus Christ and to His Holy Church.
It is painful to point out in this regard that the deplorable custom tends to insinuate itself among young girls who frequent, as extern pupils, some of the schools directed by Sisters and Sunday-school classes which are held in female religious institutions.
In order to confront a danger which, by spreading, becomes ever more grave, this Sacred Congregation, by order of the Holy Father, calls upon the Ordinaries of Italy so that they may communicate to the superiors of the houses of female religious in their respective dioceses the following injunctions of this Sacred Congregation, confirmed by His Holiness in audience this day:
a) In all schools, academies, recreation centers, Sunday schools, and laboratories directed by female religious, not to be admitted from now on are those girls who do not observe in their attire the rules of modesty and Christian decency.
b) To this end, the superiors themselves will be obliged to exercise a close supervision and exclude peremptorily from the schools and projects of their institutions those pupils who do not conform to these prescriptions.
c) They must not be influenced in this by any human respect, either for material considerations or by reason of the social prestige and of the families of their pupils, even though the student body should diminish in number.
d) Furthermore, the Sisters, in fulfillment of their educational pursuits, must endeavor to inculcate sweetly and strongly in their pupils the love and relish for holy modesty, the sign and guardian of purity and delicate adornment of womankind.
Your Reverence will be vigilant that these injunctions be exactly observed and that there be perfect conformity of conduct among all the institutes of female religious in the diocese.
You will severely call to task whoever should fail in this, and should any abuse be prolonged, you will notify this Sacred Congregation.
With deepest esteem, I remain,
Devotedly yours,
G. Cardinal Laurenti, Prefect
Sacred Congregation for Religious
Vincent La Puma, Secretary
Rome, August 23, 1928
Liberalism’s Excuse for Ignoring Letter
The excuse usually given for ignoring the Pope’s modesty crusade was, that it was not directed to the United States, but to Italy. A strange attitude, indeed, after Pope Pius XI had spoken to the world (as had Pope Benedict XV previously) “grave words of condemnation ... on several occasions, with apostolic authority, against immodest fashion of women’s dress which prevails today to the detriment of good breeding ...”; and in view of the fact that perhaps nowhere in the world were Catholic women and girls dressing more scandalously than in the United States, and therefore nowhere was the Pope’s Crusade more urgently needed than in our own nation.
But by 1928 Liberalism was already in control of Catholic thinking. And Liberalism could see no need for the Pope’s Modesty Crusade. It kept insisting that “custom” determines what is modest and what is immodest in attire -- even when these shameless customs were introduced for profits by heathen commercialism in a de-Christianized society -- all the warnings of the Vicars of Christ to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yet, the good faith of Liberalism fell under serious suspicion when it persisted in ignoring the 1928 Letter even after the Holy See made it official also for the United States less than 17 months later. For on January 12, 1930 the Pope directed the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a strongly-worded Letter on Christian Modesty to the whole world, which required of “Nuns compliance with the Letter dated August 23, 1928, by the Sacred Congregation of Religious.” [see no. 6 below] This 1930 letter was even more emphatic; gave more detailed directives; and imposed the obligation of combating the immodest fashions and promoting modesty on all persons in authority -- Bishops and other ordinaries, parish priests, parents, Superioresses and teachers in schools. This letter reads as follows:
1930 Letter of the Congregation of the Council
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.
Donato Cardinal Sbaretti, Prefect
Congregation of the Council
Rome, January 12, 1930
“Conspiracy of Silence”
This important letter may be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis of 1930 (vol. 22, pp. 26-28). It also appeared in Canon Law Digest (1, pp. 212-214), and undoubtedly in many other papers in the United States. The Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein of St. Louis deserves much credit for circulating an English translation of this letter so widely and so perseveringly over a period of many years. Unfortunately, American Liberalism, which so loudly prates about its loyalty to the Holy See, succeeded in shoving the Pope’s modesty Crusade into oblivion by its “conspiracy of silence,” and by its summary rejection of any set of standards for modesty in dress.
What! No Standards?
But where do you find the Marylike standards in either of these letters? The Liberals ask with an air of triumph, thus implying, if not claiming outright, that these standards are not authentic. But after many years of research, these standards are now full authenticated as having been issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pius XI in Rome, in these words:
“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 ...”
Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, quotes these standards as “The Church’s stand concerning modesty in dress” in his Pastoral of December 6, 1959. He attributes them to Pope Pius XI Himself, and gives the exact date of issuance, September 24, 1928. The Marylike Crusade codified these standards, making only a small (ecclesiastically approved) temporary concession because of impossible market conditions in the United States. This modified form has been officially adopted by the entire Philippine Hierarchy.
The quick action of issuing the standards only 31 days after the Pope launched the Modesty Crusade show the great importance attached to the standards. You simply cannot promote modesty in dress without standards. Those who reject standards usually see no need for a Modesty Crusade. Or did you ever see any of them zealously promoting Christian modesty in dress? Hardly, they are too intent on calling those persons “prudes” who try to be conscientious in following the guidance of the Church; too busy trying to prove that modesty is what a paganized society, “custom,” says it is. In issuing standards, Rome lit the torch and held it aloft, but the Liberals quickly blew it out.
“In order that uniformity of understanding prevail” is the key to the question of standards. Without “uniformity” only confusion can result. And confusion defeats the entire purpose of the Modesty Crusade.
Both letters from the Holy See postulate some set of standards. Let us take some examples from the 1930 letter. How can parents possibly carry out number 3 in the absence of standards? Let conscientious parents try to object to a suit prescribed by a gym instructor, and see what happens!
Again, a teacher trying to carry out numbers 5 and 6 dismisses from school a girl who “persists in dressing immodestly,” or she bars from the school or its premises an immodestly dressed mother wishing to visit her daughter. Woe to that teacher if her case is brought to a Superioress or a Pastor who does not subscribe to standards of modesty in dress! “Liberty of conscience” is immediately invoked, and that poor teacher is “put in the doghouse.” Lack of “uniformity” nullifies all her efforts. (Many Sisters have complained of this.)
Further, how can the “pious associations” of number 8 possibly operate without a “uniform” standard? Try it!
Finally, in the absence of standards, “uniformity”, how would a pastor fare who would try to enforce no. 9?
Truly absurd and ridiculous is the claim of some that standards of modesty in dress are not essential for the Modesty Crusade. This fact is fully verified by the experience of the Marylike Crusade. Marching confidently under Mary’s glorious banner, we call these standards the Marylike Standards because we know that “Mary approves what the Church approves.”
Reprinted from the Marylike Crusader, Nov-Dec 1963.
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
Tobias petrus writes: “Scholastic, please stop and think before starting another round of red herrings like you did on the last string of posts, the one concerning pornography.”
Your memory is bit off. I didn’t begin a “round of red herrings”, I came in to defend Victoria against unjust accusations. The red herrings were the by others who persisted in their unfounded accusations.
_______________
Tobias petrus writes: “You have no idea what types of dress either Joe or his priest meant by "immodest," so you cannot fault his standards here.”
I do have a pretty good ‘idea’ what Joe’s standards are. from the previous comments he has made. And as you notice, I made inquiry to obtain an even better ‘idea’.
______________________
Tobias petrus writes : “the modesty of women's dress in public and breast-feeding (and the artistic portrayal thereof) are two separate issues, and if you don't understand that then you are more confused than you allege Joe Six Pack is.”
I understand the distinction quite well, but as you will notice by observing the women in traditionalist parishes draping themselves with blankets to where some women have the appearance of tents, most do not make the distinction.
Further, I chose breast-feeding because it is natural and because it is where common ground might possibly be found, or found with a bit of effort, in order to further the discussion in a positive direction.
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
Josephus writes : “What I'm wondering is, why was this Franciscan friend of yours baptizing women's breasts?”
Fr. Joseph didn’t literally baptize the breasts, the mothers nursed their babies during the baptism..
Scholastic, there is nothing wrong with women covering themselves with blankets while breastfeeding. It seems to be quite prudent, and prevents distraction. I would not want them to do so without a blanket unless they did so in some more or less private cry room. What they do at home is none of my business. I know from Chronicles what a crusader you are for breastfeeding, and for children as old as three. Fine -- but please respect those of us who just don't want to see it. If it's such a private act, then keep it within a little bit of privacy. And what's so wrong about a blanket? Sheez, of all the things to get worked up about.
Victoria was wrong. I disagreed with her then, I disagree with her now. Not all of the counterarguments were effective, but that happens. No, my memory is not defective.
Scholastic, methinks you are being silly. Do you really think that a few overdraped tents, as you say, is anywhere near as much of a problem as the blatantly immodest dress everywhere else? And if you really think that there is a problem with the Church's traditional stance on modesty, and that traditionalists are bunch of crazy prudes, come out and say it, don't just talk about life in the frontier. Nobody is going to deny a little undue prurience here or there, or that some policies are not exactly appropriate for the mission territories, or that some traditionalists have a mistaken conception of modesty more appropriate for the wretched Mohammedan, but here you're either missing the mountain for the molehill, or just trying to start a fight, which I can't really tolerate.
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
Tobias petrus writes: “If it's such a private act, then keep it within a little bit of privacy. And what's so wrong about a blanket?”
Since any given effect has an underlying cause, what is the underlying cause to women using a blanket while nursing? If the use of blankets while nursing is modesty, than either modesty varies from culture to culture because the paintings I linked to are sans blankets, or else the use of blankets is not modesty per se, but a false understanding of modesty.
But even if it varies from culture to culture, variation is within a limit since there is an objective exemplar or standard which would be the universal we know as modesty. And so if we take the paintings which are sans blankets as modest behavior while nursing, then the question is, does the use of blankets also fall within modesty per se?
Breast feeding is hereby banned from being discussed further on this thread or on any other. If there is ANY more comment dealing with breast feeding, I will delete it and shut down comments on this thread.
You have all been warned.
Thank you, Ambrosius, for your most judicious decision.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scholastic
"I’d offer Joe Six pack my condolence, for a time we had an FSSP priest, Fr. Gordon, who would chastise women at the communion rail, but since Joe’s rather prurient, I suspect he’s happy as a clam. All ended well for us since Fr. Salgado rid us of Fr. Gordon because he was so disruptive to the parish with his bizarre understanding of modesty."
Poor Fr. Gordon, who was just doing his duty before God for the salvation of his soul and the souls in his care. (If we don't get to heaven, neither does he if it's because of neglect on his part). I doubt he has a "bizarre understanding of modesty", but is rather fraternally correcting according to the teachings of the Church on this matter as was thoroughly stated in JSP's post.
Including the duty to withhold Holy Communion from those immodestly dressed. Just because the modernist church caves to societal norms doesn't mean we're excused from the instruction and guidelines that were set forth previously. These standards are TIMELESS.
In case the "Mary-like Standards for Modesty in Dress" got lost in the rest of JSP's post, here they are again:
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breath 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.”
The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s Mother.
Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching well below the knees. (Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modest in dress).
Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two fingers below the neckline in front and in back, and a corresponding two fingers on the shoulders.
Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics – laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. – unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
So there you have it.
As for JSP being "happy as a clam" about Fr. warning girls and women about being denied communion for immodest attire - SO ARE MANY WIVES AND MOTHERS THERE!!!
Keep in mind that when we are receiving communion, we are kneeling and Fr. & altar boy are standing. If women's tops do not have a high enough neckline, Fr.& the boys have a downward, more visible view of their "chest" than one might have from straight on. Trust me, there are LOTS of mothers that don't want their sons having to look down into cleavage as they hold the patten. Neither do their sons who then are trying to avert their eyes at the same time. THEY JUST SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT AT HOLY MASS OF ALL PLACES!!!!!
Mrs. JSP
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
iacobus writes: “Do you really think that a few overdraped tents, as you say, is anywhere near as much of a problem as the blatantly immodest dress everywhere else?”
Scrupulosity is no less a vice because its opposite extreme from virtue is more prevalent.
_________________________
Ambrosius writes : “Breast feeding is hereby banned from being discussed further on this thread”
Hmmm? Well. Being ever the optimist I am in my ever vigilant search for common ground, let me approach the subject this way in hopes of better results:
Since any given effect has an underlying cause, what is the underlying cause to Fr. Gordon’s insisting on a women’s neckline being above the collarbone, (nlatcb)? If ncltcb is modesty, than either modesty varies from culture to culture because the paintings I linked to in many instances also depict Mary with neckline below the collarbone, or else the insistence of nlatcb is not modesty per se, but a false understanding of modesty.
But even if it varies from culture to culture, variation is within a limit since there is an objective exemplar or standard which would be the universal we know as modesty. And so if we take the paintings which are in most instances sans nlatcb as modest behavior, then the question is, does the insistence of nlatcb also fall within modesty per se?
Or let’s take elbows which Fr. Flood in Omaha insisted on sleeves covering the elbow. Not that Fr. Flood is alone as this blog indicates, to wit : “shirt sleeves should be 2 inches below the elbow (I call this 3/4 sleeves” http://mariancastle.blogspot.com/2005/12/battleground-for-good-fruits-of-spirit.html
And so the question is, is not covering the elbows a lack of modesty in dress?
Although how she squares the above rule with these swim suites is beyond me. http://www.wholesomewear.com/skirted-b.html
We must remember as St. John Vianney, our Patron Saint of parish Priests, stated regarding lust/impurity:
"No sins, my children, ruin and destroy a soul so quickly as this shameful sin; it snatches us out of the hands of the good God and hurls us like a stone into an abyss of mire and corruption."
"That we may understand how horrible and detestible is this sin, which the demons make us commit, but which they do not commit themselves..."
"...this crime is so common in the world, that it is enough to make one tremble..."
"By only looking at a person, we know if he is pure. His eyes have an air of candor and modesty which leads you to the good God. Some people, on the contrary, look quite inflamed with passion...Satan places himself in their eyes to make others fall and to lead them to evil. Those who have lost their purity are like a piece of cloth stained with oil; you may wash and dry it, and the stain always appears again: So it requires a miracle to cleanse the impure soul."
Additionally, he adds regarding temptation:
"We are all inclined to sin, my children; we are idle, greedy, sensual, given to pleasures of the flesh. We want to know everything, to learn everything, to see everything; we must watch over our mind, over our heart, and over our senses, for these are the gates by which the devil penetrates. See, he prowls round us incessantly; his only occupation in this world is to seek companions for himself. All our life he will lay snares for us, he will try to make us yield to temptations; we must, on our side, do all we can to defeat and resist him. We can do nothing by ourselves, my children; but we can do everything with the help of the good God..."
"We shall fall like the rest, my children, if we do not avoid temptations, if, when we cannot avoid them, we do not fight generously, with the help of the good God..."
Scrupulosity is no less a vice because its opposite extreme from virtue is more prevalent.
Did I say it was less of vice? Who do you think you are accusing people of scrupulosity for being just a tad bit more covered than you'd like? They may be wrong, why, they might even be doing serious harm by looking like circus tents or however else you'd like to make fun of them, but that gives you no excuse to play judge.
And this whole line of argument - taking exceptions to general and useful rules and asking us whether they are immodest or not is pretty absurd. How about you, dear Scholastic the Anonymous, if you are indeed possessed of more understanding of the virtues than the Holy Pontiffs, sketch out the dictates of modesty in a clear-cut way that we can all understand?
The opposite of scrupulosity is of course not virtue. It is an indifference to sin.
Scrupulosity and indifference to sin, however, are sin.
Scrupulosity is a neurosis of being convinced that things are sinful that aren't. It stems from factors such as inordinate pride in oneself or a neurosis; or so I understand.
Modesty is simply a description of a pure soul (or a soul desiring purity) that is vigilant to present themselves as not a potential object of temptation...to everyone.
Immodesty is a sin.
I think it's pretty safe to state that purity and modesty are so interelated that you can make a judgement on one's purity by their dress. Of course some people are simply misinformed. But that is a strange exception.
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
Johnboy316,
St. John Vianney also said that babies should not be naked so as to not offend their guardian angels. As we are all aware, the Christ child is often depicted in art without clothing, is such a state of dress offensive to the angels? Did Adam offend his guardian angel prior to the fall? Will there be clothing in heaven, since clothing is an effect of fallen nature and the concupiscible appetite’s inordinate relation to the will?
Of course not to all questions. So how is it possible for the guardian angels to be offended in such manner? They’re not offended.
Scholastic,
Most, if not all, of your "arguments" are not applicable to what we are discussing.
If you were to reorient your ideas to that of an appropriate application, then fine and dandy...
Unfortunately, as has been noted, your "arguments" are not applicable to such circumstances you allege.
For instance, you state true statements that the human body is not per se "objectively sinful". Yes, it is good and many times beautiful. However, to reinforce this idea with the topic of modesty is not an applicable argument. Just because a body is beautiful does not mean that it may be viewed. We are first and foremost not necessarily "beautiful bodies" but temples of God. Thus, actual or supernatural beauty is ordered toward the virtue of purity. Our sexual faculties are not ordered toward natural beauty. They are actually ordered toward the supernatural. We are comprised of body and soul.
Furthermore, the supernatural power of ones sexuality is made manifest within the order of marriage. Therefore, it is prudent to refrain from presenting oneself (no pun intended) in a matter that does not permit others to enjoy your sexual faculties. They are not theirs to enjoy, but to give completely to their spouse.
Additionally, I recall reading of St. John Vianney's comment about making sure kids were dressed and not running around naked.
I'll look for the quote and post it if I find it.
"There are mothers who have so little religion or, if you like, or so ignorant that if they want to show off their baby to some neighboring mothers, they will show it to them naked. Others, when they are putting on diapers, will leave the babies, for a long period of time, uncovered before everyone. Now even if there is no one present at all, you should not do this. Should you not respect the presence of their Guardian Angels? It is the same thing when you are feeding them. Should any Christian mother allow her breasts to remain exposed? And even if they are covered, should she not turn aside to some place where there is no one else? Then there are others who, under the pretext of being foster-nurses, are continually only half-covered. This is very disgusting. It is enough to make even the pagans blush. People are compelled to to avoid their company in order not to expose themselves to evil thoughts." --St. John Vianney
"But, you will say to me, even if everyone is around, we must feed our children and change their diapers when they cry!
And I shall tell you that when they cry, you ought to do everything you possibly can to quieten them but that it is a far better thing to let them cry than to offend God. Alas! How many mothers are the cause of evil glances, of bad thoughts, of immodest touches! Tell me, are these the Christian mothers who should be so reserved? Oh dear God! What judgement should they expect? Others are so cruel they let their children run around for the whole morning, during the summer, only half-dressed. Tell me, unhappy people, would it not be better for you to take your places among the savage beasts? Alas! As far as your religion is concerned, you have none. As for your duties, have you ever known what they were? That you have not, you give proof every day. Ah, poor children, how unfortunate you are to belong to such parents."--St. John Vianney
It appears the whole issue the "Patron Saint of Parish Priests" has over immodesty is more or less due to a certain manifestation of irreverence and disrespect for the dignity of the human person that is evidently applicable in the cases he describes.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I stated: "Therefore, it is prudent to refrain from presenting oneself (no pun intended) in a matter that does not permit others to enjoy your sexual faculties."
Change it to:
"Therefore, it is prudent to refrain from presenting oneself (no pun intended) in a matter that permits others to enjoy your sexual faculties."
John Boy, I love those quotations! I'm glad that you were able to find them.
Scholastic the Anonymous said . . .
Iacobus writes: “that gives you no excuse to play judge. . .
. . . this whole line of argument - taking exceptions to general and useful rules and asking us whether they are immodest or not is pretty absurd. How about you, dear Scholastic the Anonymous, if you are indeed possessed of more understanding of the virtues than the Holy Pontiffs, sketch out the dictates of modesty in a clear-cut way that we can all understand?
I gave three examples of dress, (four including the common dress of infants), which are considered immodest by some American traditionalists, but which were not seen as immodest if we take tradition as our guide as the paintings I linked to indicate. Thus those traditionalist who insist on necklines above the collarbone, sleeves below elbows and the unmentionable subject, are clearly acting scrupulously because they are insisting that certain forms of behavior must be adhered to, irregardless to culture. Because as shown above, such an insistence on dress is contrary to traditional norms of what was considered most dress.
correction, the last sentence should read:
Because as shown above, such an insistence on dress is contrary to traditional norms of what was considered modest dress.
Scholastic, Maria lactens pictures are not examples providing exceptions to the two fingers and collarbone rule. If they were exceptions, they would justify women walking around with at least one breat hanging in the air as instances of modest dress.
Further, it's not clear that they should be taken as justifying the behavior of individual women while breastfeeding, if they cannot modestly cover the process. It's the Madonna and Child - it is art, there is symbolism involved, and what's depicted is meant to convey certain ideas.
To see a bare-breasted woman feeding her child is not art - it may be real life - but that doesn't mean it's modest or the best thing to do.
How do you propose to answer St. John Marie Baptiste Vianney? (I'm just curious.) He's no mean authority on matters moral, having been a slave to the confessional and a saint of austerity rivaling the Desert Fathers.
Also, Scholastic the Anonymous, please use the "other" option, and put in some name or other, rather than continuing to post using the Anonymous option. I don't get why people do that. Don't they have that option on their screens? You don't have to register on blogger, you just call yourself whatever you like for that one comment.
Scholastic,
A painting is not the norm for living.
I do, however, disagree with the whole "judge condemnation" that is a poor rebuttal on Iacobus' part.
Just because Michaelangelo (spelling?) painted nude people to portray man's only thing he'll take to the last judgement that matters (that is, his self); it does not mean folks should merit going around naked.
Of course I didn't check out the artwork on the Virgin Mary and Jesus, which I assume is one artwork you point out. We must remember that the artist's rendering is not that people should go around breast-feeding in public. It's most likely because he wanted to show Mary's unique relationship to God as His Mother, and Jesus' humble dependence on Mary, His mother on earth.
Josephus, writes : “Maria lactens pictures are not examples providing exceptions to the two fingers and collarbone rule. If they were exceptions, they would justify women walking around with at least one breat hanging in the air as instances of modest dress.”
Try extrapolation. What would be the state of dress if the unmentionable was not occuring? Clearly the dress in many of the painting would show the collarbone which some traditionalists, including Fr. Gordon, consider to be immodest.
___________________
Josephus writes : “Further, it's not clear that they should be taken as justifying the behavior of individual women while breastfeeding, if they cannot modestly cover the process. It's the Madonna and Child - it is art, there is symbolism involved, and what's depicted is meant to convey certain ideas.”
The linked to paintings indicate what was considered appropriate to the Virgin Mary.
Don't wait for Scholastic to square his views with St. John Vianney or the host of Supreme Pontiffs quoted.
He has a luciferian love for reason that cannot be penetrated by the many statements from saints and popes.
Johnboy, I'm glad you hold me to higher standard! And, by the way, those St. John Vianney lines you found are awesome!
Josephus writes: “How do you propose to answer St. John Marie Baptiste Vianney? (I'm just curious.) He's no mean authority on matters moral, having been a slave to the confessional and a saint of austerity rivaling the Desert Fathers.”
Johnboy’s first quote of St. John Vianney said nothing in particular, and his following quotes only substantiated my prior comments. For those who follow his quoted advice, blessed are the barren.
_________________
Johnboy writes: “The opposite of scrupulosity is of course not virtue. It is an indifference to sin.”
It’s a habit no matter how you slice it with modernist nonsense.
Scholastic,
St. John Vianney's quotes are clear that your examples of immodesty (as I would put it) are occasions for sin and/or disrespectful to one's sexuality and dignity.
True...he does not give a lengthy discussion to elaborate why it is innappropriate other than the "beasts do the same" with regards to walking around naked and that breast feeding in public is a potential occasion for sin to many people.
As for scrupulosity, you seemed to imply that modest people are scrupulous. However, I would note that your downfall in this particular discussion is that modesty is a virtue. Immodesty is not a virtue. Thus, no one who is modest per se is always scrupulous. Remember scrupulosity is a separate sin. If anything I would say the sin here is potentially on the other end...that is your indifference to immodesty, a sin.
Yes, someone may be modest and also scrupulous; for example if one views wearing no socks as being immodest and a always a mortal sin. However, the sin of scrupulosity (really an inordinate focus on one's self) has only to do with modesty insofar as it depicts certain actions related to modesty as sins that aren't.
"Although how she squares the above rule with these swim suites is beyond me. http://www.wholesomewear.com/skirted-b.html "
Read the note in the perentheses:
"Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching well below the knees. (Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modest in dress). "
Mrs. JSP & mother and 2 sisters (age 29 & 7) have swimsuits from wholesomewear.com. My daughter has one from Little Touch of Elegance...they're cuter.
Johnboy writes : “True...he does not give a lengthy discussion to elaborate why it is innappropriate other than the "beasts do the same" with regards to walking around naked and that breast feeding in public is a potential occasion for sin to many people.”
Since this subject was previously banned, I cannot respond.
____________________
Johnboy wirtes : “you seemed to imply that modest people are scrupulous. “
No, what is modesty is up for discussion. I explained in a previous post why certain acts by particular people are scrupulous because they mistake the particulars of a culture for a universal.
So far the discussion has been limited to the particulars as a means of coming to know the universal. With the particulars in dispute because while there is a universal, the application of it is according to prudence and so it is very easy to misunderstand the particulars in coming to a better understanding of the universal.
The Catholic Faith is most natural, which is why St. Augustine writes that the virtuous man is most happy because he acting according to his nature. Society is the same way, and for the same reason. Those who act most naturally will in turn also be acting most Catholic. Fallen nature is not a change of nature.
Man’s nature is the same but suffers a disorder. Prudence dictates that the disorder be taken into account in the governance of our acts, but to deny that which is natural is a further disordering.
Mrs Joe Six Pack writes: “because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval”
Nice excuse, but no dice. Full body wetsuits meeting the requirements are readily available for the underneath garment. And I’m sure this prairie muffin seamstress would be glad to provide the outer garment.
http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/index.html
As Mrs. Rachel Lynde in Anne of Green Gables says: “You're never safe from surprise until you're dead.” And so while I thought I was on safe ground for the most part, (there are always those who insist the sky is some other colour on a clear blue day), with my bringing up sleeves below the elbows as modest dress. Perhaps it is best to look at modesty according to its end.
If the end of modesty in dress is to moderate the senses in regard to pleasures which are most natural to us, then it is necessary that there be an occasion which requires moderation, and moderation within prudential reason. Which prudential reasoning abhors the liberal argument if it saves one life, then let there be tyranny to save that one life, because such thinking is contrary to acting for the greater good.
So that while few are in doubt, and it is rather obvious, that lap dancing with the bar maids at the local pub is immoderate because it doesn’t direct the senses according to reason, but directs them otherwise. It can be doubted, and it is not quite so obvious, that a women’s visible elbows likewise direct the senses contrary to reason.
In fact, is there any proof that there is a sufficient number of men so moved by women’s uncovered elbows so as to constitute covering the elbows as a form of moderation? More than that, I wonder is there even a single man in the US who would be stimulated by a women’s uncovered elbows? And if there is not stimulation, then why should a women’s elbows be covered since the end of modesty is the tempering of the senses, and the senses in this instance of dress are not in need of tempering?
Further,
Within limits, culture teaches the senses what is stimulating to them. The sense of touch recognizes heat in relation to the heat it is currently stimulated by, so likewise with the other senses.
With that in mind, it’s imprudent to form our children so that they are stimulated by modes of dress which are the cultural norm because they will be exposed to those modes of dress and thus it puts them unnecessarily in temptation.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scholastic brings up an interesting point with regard to moral tyranny. Should we impose moral standards in prudential matters in an attempt to save one soul from committing sin? For example, are we to forbid gambling altogether because one man gambled himself and his family into bankrupcy and in order to prevent others from doing the same?
Also, it's good to remember that the saints can be, and often are, wrong in their prudential judgments. Holiness does not guarantee infallibility. No one is obliged in faith to agree with them on prudential issues.
Doubt the prudential judgment of St. John Vianney?
How about all the late 19th and 20th Century supreme pontiffs then? Should we disregard their codes for modest dress too?
It's a modernist tendency to equate all human weakness and sins as equal in some way.
Our Sacred Tradition is clear (and Our Lady of Fatima confirms this) that most souls are lost through sins of the 6th and 9th Commandments.
I'd encourage everyone to read this sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice:
http://www.christorchaos.com/TheLittleNumberofThoseWhoareSaved.html
It's a very sobering read.
St. Leonard states that it is easier for a soul to maintain its innocence than to persevere in penance. Meaning that once innocence is lost, through mortal sins against purity and chastity, it's almost impossible (save a moral miracle) to save one's soul. Holding on to the innocence from childhood is the surest way of getting to heaven.
Before you scoff at this as some ultra-rigorist notion, St. Leonard quotes this directly from St. Augustine, a man who probably knew a thing or two about these issues of innocence, purity, penance and eternal salvation.
Catholic men can not as easily fall into mortal sin through gambling as they can through sins against chastity.
Further mortally sinning through gambling, does far less eternal damage to the soul than sins against purity.
St. Augustine describes the soul that has committed mortal sins against chastity and purity as a rag that has been soaked in oil. You can wash and wash the rag, but the stain from the oil will remain. Heroic acts of penance and a moral miracle from God are required to return such a soul to its original state.
Our Lord confirms all this directly several times throughout the Gospel.
Unless we become like a child, we cannot enter heaven. A child is innocent. We are expected to maintain, or regain this innocence prior to our Judgments.
Christ says that the Kingdom of Heaven is made up of such as these [children]. There are no crass, worldly souls in heaven. Either you maintain or regain your childhood innocence or you go to hell. It's that simple.
St. Leonard states on the day of St. Bernard of Clairveaux's death, some 60,000 souls also died and were judged. Two souls (Bernard’s and another saint's) went to heaven; three souls went to purgatory; and the rest went to Hell. The path is long and narrow!
All this being said, it is possible to maintain innocence through out one's life. It takes extraordinary perseverance on the part of parents: homeschooling, throwing out the TV, etc. But it is possible. Once a soul reaches the age of confirmation and early adulthood, it is much easier to police himself in these matters.
However, how much easier would this task be if we lived in a thoroughly Catholic society that assisted us in our working out of our salvation (or at the very least did not work against us!)
Taking on the attitude of Scholastic, gives the modernists, freemasons, and all the other libertines in power of us more power to keep doing what they're doing... leading souls straight to hell.
Scholastic said: With that in mind, it’s imprudent to form our children so that they are stimulated by modes of dress which are the cultural norm because they will be exposed to those modes of dress and thus it puts them unnecessarily in temptation.
Scholastic, more caution here, please! You must not be a man, 'cause I don't care how often I have seen skimpy female dress, it can still very much be an occasion of sin for me.
Also your quotation from "Anne of Green Gables" further takes away your manly bona fides; you certainly must be a woman.
Ambrosius writes : “You must not be a man, 'cause I don't care how often I have seen skimpy female dress, it can still very much be an occasion of sin for me.”
Please note my qualification : “within limits” which qualifies all that follows. While a man may have difficulty recognizing a slight variation in temperature, it doesn’t follow that he will not recognize a larger variation such as a skimpy dress.
_____________
Btw Joe, I am a man, I also have three daughter and a wife who just the other night quoted the quote I used. And while I may have found in my youth no greater pleasure than an annihilating block or tackle, except perhaps a subject more close to home in this thread, never the less, I also enjoy good character development in a novel.
addendum, “within limits” refers to the post ambrosius quotes from.
And Joe, the innitial character development in Anne Green Gables is as good as I’ve ever read at blending development into a storyline with perfect humor. P.G.Wodehouse never did better.
Joe Six Pack writes: “St. Leonard states on the day of St. Bernard of Clairveaux's death, some 60,000 souls also died and were judged. Two souls (Bernard’s and another saint's) went to heaven; three souls went to purgatory; and the rest went to Hell. The path is long and narrow!”
So if we extrapolate as you did, a person has a 1/12000th chance of not going to hell, which is virtually the same as saying it's impossible. From which follows: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that virtually all men will go to hell? Such comments are little better than universalism, which leads people to embrace Calvinism as merciful.
A little holy fear of God's just punishments is better than your smug, self-assured, cocky version of Catholicism.
Read the whole sermon.
Here it is:
The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved: The Last Judgment
Introduction
Thanks be to God, the number of the Redeemer's disciples is not so small that the wickedness of the Scribes and Pharisees is able to triumph over them. Although they strove to calumniate innocence and to deceive the crowd with their treacherous sophistries by discrediting the doctrine and character of Our Lord, finding spots even in the Sun, many still recognized Him as the true Messiah, and, unafraid of either chastisements or threats, openly joined His cause.
Did all those who followed Christ follow Him even unto glory? Oh, this is where I revere the profound mystery and silently adore the abysses of the divine decrees, rather than rashly deciding on such a great point! The subject I will be treating today is a very grave one; it has caused even the pillars of the Church to tremble, filled the greatest Saints with terror and populated the deserts with anchorites.
The point of this instruction is to decide whether the number of Christians who are saved is greater or less than the number of Christians who are damned; it will, I hope, produce in you a salutary (beneficial) fear of the judgments of God.
Brothers, because of the love I have for you, I wish I were able to reassure you with the prospect of eternal happiness by saying to each of you: You are certain to go to paradise; the greater number of Christians is saved, so you also will be saved. But how can I give you this sweet assurance if you revolt against God's decrees as though you were your own worst enemies? I observe in God a sincere desire to save you, but I find in you a decided inclination to be damned. So what will I be doing today if I speak clearly? I will be displeasing to you. But if I do not speak, I will be displeasing to God.
Therefore, I will divide this subject into two points. In the first one, to fill you with dread, I will let the theologians and Fathers of the Church decide on the matter and declare that the greater number of Christian adults are damned; and, in silent adoration of that terrible mystery, I will keep my own sentiments to myself.
In the second point I will attempt to defend the goodness of God versus the godless, by proving to you that those who are damned are damned by their own malice, because they wanted to be damned.
So then, here are two very important truths. If the first truth frightens you, do not hold it against me, as though I wanted to make the road of heaven narrower for you, for I want to be neutral in this matter; rather, hold it against the theologians and Fathers of the Church who will engrave this truth in your heart by the force of reason. If you are disillusioned by the second truth, give thanks to God over it, for He wants only one thing: that you give your hearts totally to Him. Finally, if you oblige me to tell you clearly what I think, I will do so for your consolation.
The Teaching of the Fathers of the Church
It is not vain curiosity but salutary precaution to proclaim from the height of the pulpit certain truths which serve wonderfully to contain the indolence (apathy) of libertines, who are always talking about the mercy of God and about how easy it is to convert, who live plunged in all sorts of sins and are soundly sleeping on the road to hell. To disillusion them and waken them from their torpor (apathy), today let us examine this great question: Is the number of Christians who are saved greater than the number of Christians who are damned?
Pious souls, you may leave; this sermon is not for you. Its sole purpose is to contain the pride of libertines who cast the holy fear of God out of their heart and join forces with the devil who, according to the sentiment of Eusebius, damns souls by reassuring them. To resolve this doubt, let us put the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, on one side; on the other, the most learned theologians and erudite historians; and let us put the Bible in the middle for all to see. Now listen not to what I will say to you -- for I have already told you that I do not want to speak for myself or decide on the matter -- but listen to what these great minds have to tell you, they who are beacons in the Church of God to give light to others so that they will not miss the road to heaven. In this manner, guided by the triple light of faith, authority and reason, we will be able to resolve this grave matter with certainty.
Note well that there is no question here of the human race taken as a whole, nor of all Catholics taken without distinction, but only of Catholic adults, who have free choice and are thus capable of cooperating in the great matter of their salvation.
First let us consult the theologians recognized as examining things most carefully and as not exaggerating in their teaching: let us listen to two learned cardinals, (Saints)Cajetan and Bellarmine. They teach that the greater number of Christian adults are damned, and if I had the time to point out the reasons upon which they base themselves, you would be convinced of it yourselves. But I will limit myself here to quoting Suarez. After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent study of the matter, he wrote, "The most common sentiment which is held is that, among Christians, there are more damned souls than predestined souls."
Add the authority of the Greek and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon Stylites, and that after this revelation, it was to secure his salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness for everyone.
Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are saved in comparison to those who are damned." The most terrifying, however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely one who is worthy of indulgence." (pardon/absolution)
The Words of Holy Scripture
But why seek out the opinions of the Fathers and theologians, when Holy Scripture settles the question so clearly? Look into the Old and New Testaments, and you will find a multitude of figures, symbols and words that clearly point out this truth: very few are saved.
In the time of Noah, the entire human race was submerged by the Deluge, and only eight people were saved in the Ark. Saint Peter says, "This ark was the figure of the Church," while Saint Augustine adds, "And these eight people who were saved signify that very few Christians are saved, because there are very few who sincerely renounce the world, and those who renounce it only in words do not belong to the mystery represented by that ark."
The Bible also tells us that only two Hebrews out of two million entered the Promised Land after going out of Egypt, and that only four escaped the fire of Sodom and the other burning cities that perished with it.
All of this means that the number of the damned who will be cast into fire like straw is far greater than that of the saved, whom the heavenly Father will one day gather into His barns like precious wheat.
I would not finish if I had to point out all the figures by which Holy Scripture confirms this truth; let us content ourselves with listening to the living oracle of Incarnate Wisdom. What did Our Lord answer the curious man in the Gospel who asked Him, "Lord, is it only a few to be saved?" Did He keep silence? Did He answer haltingly? Did He conceal His thought for fear of frightening the crowd? No. Questioned by only one, He addresses all of those present. He says to them:
"You ask Me if there are only few who are saved?" Here is My answer: "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able."
Who is speaking here? It is the Son of God, Eternal Truth, who on another occasion says even more clearly, "Many are called, but few are chosen." He does not say that all are called and that out of all men, few are chosen, but that many are called; which means, as Saint Gregory explains, that out of all men, many are called to the True Faith, but out of them few are saved. Brothers, these are the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Are they clear? They are true. Tell me now if it is possible for you to have faith in your heart and not tremble.
Salvation in the Various States of Life
But oh, I see that by speaking in this manner of all in general, I am missing my point. So let us apply this truth to various states (of life), and you will understand that you must either throw away reason, experience and the common sense of the faithful, or confess that the greater number of Catholics is damned.
Is there any state (of life) in the world more favorable to innocence in which salvation seems easier and of which people have a higher idea than that of priests, the lieutenants of God? At first glance, who would not think that most of them are not only good but even perfect; yet I am horror-struck when I hear Saint Jerome declaring that although the world is full of priests, barely one in a hundred is living in a manner in conformity with (his) state (Ordination); when I hear a servant of God attesting that he has learned by revelation that the number of priests who fall into hell each day is so great that it seemed impossible to him that there be any left on earth; when I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, "I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater."
Look higher still, and see the prelates (Bishops) of the Holy Church, pastors who have the charge of souls. Is the number of those who are saved among them greater than the number of those who are damned? Listen to Cantimpre'; he will relate an event to you, and you may draw the conclusions. There was a synod being held in Paris, and a great number of prelates and pastors who had the charge of souls were in attendance; the king and princes also came to add luster to that assembly by their presence. A famous preacher was invited to preach. While he was preparing his sermon, a horrible demon appeared to him and said, "Lay your books aside. If you want to give a sermon that will be useful to these princes and prelates, content yourself with telling them on our part, 'We the princes of darkness thank you, princes, prelates, and pastors of souls, that due to your negligence, the greater number of the faithful are damned; also, we are saving a reward for you for this favor, when you shall be with us in Hell.'"
Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, "Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell."
Our chronicles relate an even more dreadful happening. One of our brothers, well-known for his doctrine and holiness, was preaching in Germany. He represented the ugliness of the sin of impurity so forcefully that a woman fell dead of sorrow in front of everyone. Then, coming back to life, she said, "When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned."
O abyss of the judgments of God! Out of thirty thousand, only five were saved! And out of sixty thousand, only three went to heaven! You sinners who are listening to me, in what category will you be numbered?... What do you say?... What do you think?...
I see almost all of you lowering your heads, filled with astonishment and horror. But let us lay our stupor aside, and instead of flattering ourselves, let us try to draw some profit from our fear.
Is it not true that there are two roads which lead to heaven: innocence and repentance? Now, if I show you that very few take either one of these two roads, as rational people you will conclude that very few are saved. And to mention proofs: in what age, employment or condition will you find that the number of the wicked is not a hundred times greater than that of the good, and about which one might say, "The good are so rare and the wicked are so great in number"? We could say of our times (and our times - 2006 A.D.!) what Salvianus said of his: it is easier to find a countless multitude of sinners immersed in all sorts of iniquities than a few innocent men. How many servants are totally honest and faithful in their duties? How many merchants are fair and equitable in their commerce; how many craftsmen exact and truthful; how many salesmen disinterested and sincere? How many men of law do not forsake equity? How many soldiers do not tread upon innocence; how many masters do not unjustly withhold the salary of those who serve them, or do not seek to dominate their inferiors? Everywhere, the good are rare and the wicked great in number. Who does not know that today there is so much libertinage among mature men, liberty among young girls, vanity among women, licentiousness in the nobility, corruption in the middle class, dissolution in the people, impudence among the poor, that one could say what David said of his times: "All alike have gone astray... there is not even one who does good, not even one."
Go into street and square, into palace and house, into city and countryside, into tribunal and court of law, and even into the temple of God. Where will you find virtue? "Alas!" cries Salvianus, "except for a very little number who flee evil, what is the assembly of Christians if not a sink of vice?" All that we can find everywhere is selfishness, ambition, gluttony, and luxury. Is not the greater portion of men defiled by the vice of impurity, and is not Saint John right in saying, "The whole world . . .is seated in wickedness?" I am not the one who is telling you; reason obliges you to believe that out of those who are living so badly, very few are saved.
But you will say: Can penance not profitably repair the loss of innocence? That is true, I admit. But I also know that penance is so difficult in practice, we have lost the habit so completely, and it is so badly abused by sinners, that this alone should suffice to convince you that very few are saved by that path. Oh, how steep, narrow, thorny, horrible to behold and hard to climb it is! Everywhere we look, we see traces of blood and things that recall sad memories. Many weaken at the very sight of it.(penance). Many retreat at the very start. Many fall from weariness in the middle, and many give up wretchedly at the end. And how few are they who persevere in it till death! Saint Ambrose says it is easier to find men who have kept their innocence than to find any who have done fitting penance.
If you consider the Sacrament of Penance, there are so many distorted confessions, so many studied excuses, so many deceitful repentances, so many false promises, so many ineffective resolutions, so many invalid absolutions! Would you regard as valid the confession of someone who accuses himself of sins of impurity and still holds to the occasion of them? Or someone who accuses himself of obvious injustices with no intention of making any reparation whatsoever for them? Or someone who falls again into the same iniquities right after going to confession? Oh, horrible abuses of such a great Sacrament!
One confesses to avoid excommunication, another to make a reputation as a penitent. One rids himself of his sins to calm his remorse, another conceals them out of shame. One accuses them imperfectly out of malice, another discloses them out of habit. One does not have the true end of the Sacrament in mind, another is lacking the necessary sorrow, and still another firm purpose (of amendment). Poor confessors, what efforts you make to bring the greater number of penitents to these resolutions and acts, without which confession is a sacrilege, absolution a condemnation and penance an illusion?
Where are they now, those who believe that the number of the saved among Christians is greater than that of the damned and who, to authorize their opinion, reason thus: the greater portion of Catholic adults die in their beds armed with the Sacraments of the Church, therefore most adult Catholics are saved? Oh, what fine reasoning! You must say exactly the opposite. Most Catholic adults confess badly at death, therefore most of them are damned.
I say "all the more certain," because a dying person who has not confessed well when he was in good health will have an even harder time doing so when he is in bed with a heavy heart, an unsteady head, a muddled mind; when he is opposed in many ways by still-living objects, by still-fresh occasions, by adopted habits, and above all by devils who are seeking every means to cast him into hell. Now, if you add to all these false penitents all the other sinners who die unexpectedly in sin, due to the doctors' ignorance or by their relatives' fault, who die from poisoning or from being buried in earthquakes, or from a stroke, or from a fall, or on the battlefield, in a fight, caught in a trap, struck by lightning, burned or drowned, are you not obliged to conclude that most Christian adults are damned? That is the reasoning of Saint Chrysostom.This Saint says that most Christians are walking on the road to hell throughout their life. Why, then, are you so surprised that the greater number goes to hell? To come to a door, you must take the road that leads there. What have you to answer such a powerful reason?
The answer, you will tell me, is that the mercy of God is great. Yes, for those who fear Him, says the Prophet; but great is His justice for the one who does not fear Him, and it condemns all obstinate sinners.
So you will say to me: Well then, who is Paradise for, if not for Christians? It is for Christians, of course, but for those who do not dishonor their character and who live as Christians.
Moreover, if to the number of Christian adults who die in the grace of God, you add the countless host of children who die after baptism and before reaching the age of reason, you will not be surprised that Saint John the Apostle, speaking of those who are saved, says, "I saw a great multitude which no man could number."
And this is what deceives those who pretend that the number of the saved among Catholics is greater than that of the damned... If to that number, you add the adults who have kept the robe of innocence, or who after having defiled it, have washed it in the tears of penance, it is certain that the greater number is saved; and that explains the words of Saint John, "I saw a great multitude," and these other words of Our Lord, "Many will come from the east and from the west, and will feast with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven," and the other figures usually cited in favor of that opinion. But if you are talking about Christian adults, experience, reason, authority, propriety and Scripture all agree in proving that the greater number is damned. Do not believe that because of this, paradise is empty; on the contrary, it is a very populous kingdom. And if the damned are "as numerous as the sand in the sea," the saved are "as numerous at the stars of heaven," that is, both the one and the other are countless, although in very different proportions.
One day Saint John Chrysostom, preaching in the cathedral in Constantinople and considering these proportions, could not help but shudder in horror and ask, "Out of this great number of people, how many do you think will be saved?" And, not waiting for an answer, he added, "Among so many thousands of people, we would not find a hundred who are saved, and I even doubt for the one hundred." What a dreadful thing! The great Saint believed that out of so many people, barely one hundred would be saved; and even then, he was not sure of that number.
What will happen to you who are listening to me? Great God, I cannot think of it without shuddering! Brothers, the problem of salvation is a very difficult thing; for according to the maxims of the theologians, when an end demands great efforts, few only attain it.
Heaven or Hell.
That is why Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, after weighing all the reasons pro and con in his immense erudition, finally concludes that the greater number of Catholic adults are damned. He says, "Because eternal beatitude surpasses the natural state, especially since it has been deprived of original grace, it is the little number that are saved."
So then, remove the blindfold from your eyes that is blinding you with self-love, that is keeping you from believing such an obvious truth by giving you very false ideas concerning the justice of God, "Just Father, the world has not known Thee," said Our Lord Jesus Christ. He does not say "Almighty Father, most good and merciful Father." He says "just Father," so we may understand that out of all the attributes of God, none is less known than His justice, because men refuse to believe what they are afraid to undergo.
Therefore, REMOVE THE BLINDFOLD that is covering your eyes and say tearfully: Alas! the greater number of Catholics, the greater number of those who live here, perhaps even those who are in this assembly, will be damned! What subject could be more deserving of your tears? King Xerxes, standing on a hill looking at his army of one hundred thousand soldiers in battle array, and considering that out of all of them there would be not one man alive in a hundred years, was unable to hold back his tears. Have we not more reason to weep upon thinking that out of so many Catholics, the greater number will be damned? Should this thought not make our eyes pour forth rivers of tears, or at least produce in our heart the sentiment of compassion felt by an Augustinian Brother, Venerable Marcellus of St. Dominic? One day as he was meditating on the eternal pains, the Lord showed him how many souls were going to hell at that moment and had him see a very broad road on which twenty-two thousand reprobates were running toward the abyss, colliding into one another. The servant of God was stupefied at the sight and exclaimed, "Oh, what a number! What a number! And still more are coming. O Jesus! O Jesus! What madness!" Let me repeat with Jeremiah, "Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? And I will weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people."
Poor souls! How can you run so hastily toward hell? For mercy's sake, stop and listen to me for a moment! Either you understand what it means to be saved and to be damned for all eternity, or you do not. If you understand and in spite of that, you do not decide to change your life today, make a good confession and trample upon the world, in a word, make your every effort to be counted among the littler number of those who are saved, I say that you do not have the Faith. You are more excusable if you do not understand it, for then one must say that you are out of your mind. To be saved for all eternity, to be damned for all eternity, and to not make your every effort to avoid the one and make sure of the other, is something inconceivable.
The Goodness of God
Perhaps you do not yet believe the terrible truths I have just taught you. But it is the most highly-considered theologians, the most illustrious Fathers who have spoken to you through me. So then, how can you resist reasons supported by so many examples and words of Scripture? If you still hesitate in spite of that, and if your mind is inclined to the opposite opinion, does that very consideration not suffice to make you tremble? Oh, it shows that you do not care very much for your salvation! In this important matter, a sensible man is struck more strongly by the slightest doubt of the risk he runs than by the evidence of total ruin in other affairs in which the soul is not involved. One of our brothers, Blessed Giles, was in the habit of saying that if only one man were going to be damned, he would do all he could to make sure he was not that man.
So what must we do, we who know that the greater number is going to be damned, and not only out of all Catholics? What must we do? Take the resolution to belong to the little number of those who are saved.
You say: If Christ wanted to damn me, then why did He create me? Silence, rash tongue! God did not create anyone to damn him; but whoever is damned, is damned because he wants to be. Therefore, I will now strive to defend the goodness of my God and acquit it of all blame: that will be the subject of the second point.
Before going on, let us gather on one side all the books and all the heresies of Luther and Calvin, and on the other side the books and heresies of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, and let us burn them. Some destroy grace, others freedom, and all are filled with errors; so let us cast them into the fire. All the damned bear upon their brow the oracle of the Prophet Osee, "Thy damnation comes from thee," so that they may understand that whoever is damned, is damned by his own malice and because he wants to be damned.
First let us take these two undeniable truths as a basis: "God wants all men to be saved," "All are in need of the grace of God." Now, if I show you that God wants to save all men, and that for this purpose He gives all of them His grace and all the other necessary means of obtaining that sublime end, you will be obliged to agree that whoever is damned must impute it to his own malice, and that if the greater number of Christians are damned, it is because they want to be. "Thy damnation comes from thee; thy help is only in Me."
God Desires All Men to Be Saved
In a hundred places in Holy Scripture, God tells us that it is truly His desire to save all men. "Is it My will that a sinner should die, and not that he should be converted from his ways and live?... I live, saith the Lord God. I desire not the death of the sinner. Be converted and live."
When someone wants something very much, it is said that he is dying with desire; it is a hyperbole. But God has wanted and still wants our salvation so much that He died of desire, and He suffered death to give us life. This will to save all men is therefore not an affected, superficial and apparent will in God; it is a real, effective, and beneficial will; for He provides us with all the means most proper for us to be saved. He does not give them to us so we will not obtain it; He gives them to us with a sincere will, with the intention that they may obtain their effect. And if they do not obtain it, He shows Himself afflicted and offended over it. He commands even the damned to use them in order to be saved; He exhorts them to it; He obliges them to it; and if they do not do it, they sin. Therefore, they may do it and thus be saved.
Far more, because God sees that we could not even make use of His grace without His help, He gives us other aids; and if they sometimes remain ineffective, it is our fault; for with these same aids, one may abuse them and be damned with them, and another may do right and be saved; he might even be saved with less powerful aids. Yes, it can happen that we abuse a greater grace and are damned, whereas another cooperates with a lesser grace and is saved.
Saint Augustine exclaims, "If, therefore, someone turns aside from justice, he is carried by his free will, led by his concupiscence, deceived by his own persuasion." But for those who do not understand theology, here is what I have to say to them: God is so good that when He sees a sinner running to his ruin, He runs after him, calls him, entreats and accompanies him even to the gates of hell; what will He not do to convert him? He sends him good inspirations and holy thoughts, and if he does not profit from them, He becomes angry and indignant, He pursues him. Will He strike him? No. He beats at the air and forgives him. But the sinner is not converted yet. God sends him a mortal illness. It is certainly all over for him. No, brothers, God heals him; the sinner becomes obstinate in evil, and God in His mercy looks for another way; He gives him another year, and when that year is over, He grants him yet another.
But if the sinner still wants to cast himself into hell in spite of all that, what does God do? Does He abandon him? No. He takes him by the hand; and while he has one foot in hell and the other outside, He still preaches to him, He implores him not to abuse His graces. Now I ask you, if that man is damned, is it not true that he is damned against the Will of God and because he wants to be damned? Come and ask me now: If God wanted to damn me, then why did He create me?
Ungrateful sinner, learn today that if you are damned, it is not God who is to blame, but you and your self-will. To persuade yourself of this, go down even to the depths of the abyss, and there I will bring you one of those wretched damned souls burning in hell, so that he may explain this truth to you. Here is one now: "Tell me, who are you?" "I am a poor idolater, born in an unknown land; I never heard of heaven or hell, nor of what I am suffering now." "Poor wretch! Go away, you are not the one I am looking for." Another one is coming; there he is. "Who are you?" "I am a schismatic from the ends of Tartary; I always lived in an uncivilized state, barely knowing that there is a God." "You are not the one I want; return to hell." Here is another. "And who are you?" "I am a poor heretic from the North. I was born under the Pole and never saw either the light of the sun or the light of faith." "It is not you that I am looking for either, return to Hell." Brothers, my heart is broken upon seeing these wretches who never even knew the True Faith among the damned. Even so, know that the sentence of condemnation was pronounced against them and they were told, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They were damned because they wanted to be. They received so many aids from God to be saved! We do not know what they were, but they know them well, and now they cry out, "O Lord, Thou art just... and Thy judgments are equitable."
Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience, which never failed to warn them of the good they should do and the evil they should avoid. So it is their conscience that accused them at the Tribunal of God, and it tells them constantly in hell, "Thy damnation comes from thee." They do not know what to answer and are obliged to confess that they are deserving of their fate.
Now if these infidels have no excuse, will there be any for a Catholic who had so many Sacraments, so many sermons, so many aids at his disposal? How will he dare to say, "If God was going to damn me, then why did He create me?" How will he dare to speak in this manner, when God gives him so many aids to be saved? So let us finish confounding him.
You who are suffering in the abyss, answer me! Are there any Catholics among you? "There certainly are!" How many? Let one of them come here! "That is impossible, they are too far down, and to have them come up would turn all of hell upside down; it would be easier to stop one of them as he is falling in."
So then, I am speaking to you who live in the habit of mortal sin, in hatred, in the mire of the vice of impurity, and who are getting closer to hell each day. Stop, and turn around; it is Jesus who calls you and who, with His wounds, as with so many eloquent voices, cries to you, "My son, if you are damned, you have only yourself to blame: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.' Lift up your eyes and see all the graces with which I have enriched you to insure your eternal salvation. I could have had you born in a forest in Barbary; that is what I did to many others, but I had you born in the Catholic Faith; I had you raised by such a good father, such an excellent mother, with the purest instructions and teachings. If you are damned in spite of that, whose fault will it be? Your own, My son, your own: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.'
"I could have cast you into hell after the first mortal sin you committed, without waiting for the second: I did it to so many others, but I was patient with you, I waited for you for many long years. I am still waiting for you today in Penance (confession). If you are damned in spite of all that, whose fault is it? Your own, My son, your own: "Thy damnation comes from thee." You know how many have died before your very eyes and were damned: that was a warning for you. You know how many others I set back on the right path to give you the good example. Do you remember what that excellent confessor told you? I am the one who had him say it. Did he not enjoin you to change your life, to make a good confession? I am the One who inspired him. Remember that sermon that touched your heart? I am the One who led you there. And what has happened between you and Me in the secret of your heart, ...that you can never forget.
"Those interior inspirations, that clear knowledge, that constant remorse of conscience, would you dare to deny them? All of these were so many aids of My grace, because I wanted to save you. I refused to give them to many others, and I gave them to you because I loved you tenderly. My son, My son, if I spoke to them as tenderly as I am speaking to you today, how many others souls return to the right path! And you... you turn your back on Me. Listen to what I am going to tell you, for these are My last words: You have cost Me My blood; if you want to be damned in spite of the blood I shed for you, do not blame Me, you have only yourself to accuse; and throughout all eternity, do not forget that if you are damned in spite of Me, you are damned because you want to be damned: 'Thy damnation comes from thee.' "
O my good Jesus, the very stones would split on hearing such sweet words, such tender expressions. Is there anyone here who wants to be damned, with so many graces and aids? If there is one, let him listen to me, and then let him resist if he can.
Baronius relates that after Julian the Apostate's infamous apostasy, he conceived such great hatred against Holy Baptism that day and night, he sought a way in which he might erase his own. To that purpose he had a bath of goat's blood prepared and placed himself in it, wanting this impure blood of a victim consecrated to Venus to erase the sacred character of Baptism from his soul. Such behavior seems abominable to you, but if Julian's plan had been able to succeed, it is certain that he would be suffering much less in hell.
Sinners, the advice I want to give you will no doubt seem strange to you; but if you understand it well, it is, on the contrary, inspired by tender compassion toward you. I implore you on my knees, by the blood of Christ and by the Heart of Mary, change your life, come back to the road that leads to heaven, and do all you can to belong to the little number of those who are saved.
If, instead of this, you want to continue walking on the road that leads to hell, at least find a way to erase your baptism. Woe to you if you take the Holy Name of Jesus Christ and the sacred character of the Christian engraved upon your soul(through Baptism) into hell! Your chastisement will be all the greater. So do what I advise you to do: if you do not want to convert, go this very day and ask your pastor to erase your name from the baptismal register, so that there may not remain any remembrance of your ever having been a Christian; implore your Guardian Angel to erase from his book of graces the inspirations and aids he has given you on orders from God, for woe to you if he recalls them! Tell Our Lord to take back His faith, His baptism, His Sacraments.
You are horror-struck at such a thought? Well then, cast yourself at the feet of Jesus Christ and say to Him, with tearful eyes and contrite heart: "Lord, I confess that up till now I have not lived as a Christian. I am not worthy to be numbered among Your elect. I recognize that I deserve to be damned; but Your mercy is great and, full of confidence in Your grace, I say to You that I want to save my soul, even if I have to sacrifice my fortune, my honor, my very life, as long as I am saved. If I have been unfaithful up to now, I repent, I deplore, I detest my infidelity, I ask You humbly to forgive me for it. Forgive me, good Jesus, and strengthen me also, that I may be saved. I ask You not for wealth, honor or prosperity; I ask you for one thing only, to save my soul."
And You, O Jesus! What do You say? O Good Shepherd, see the stray sheep who returns to You; embrace this repentant sinner, bless his sighs and tears, or rather bless these people who are so well disposed and who want nothing but their salvation. Brothers, at the feet of Our Lord, let us protest that we want to save our soul, cost what it may. Let us all say to Him with tearful eyes, "Good Jesus, I want to save my soul," O blessed tears, O blessed sighs!
Brothers, I want to send all of you away comforted today. So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be. And if it is true that few are saved, it is because there are few who live well.
As for the rest, compare these two opinions: the first one states that the greater number of Catholics are condemned; the second one, on the contrary, pretends that the greater number of Catholics are saved. Imagine an Angel sent by God to confirm the first opinion, coming to tell you that not only are most Catholics damned, but that of all this assembly present here, one alone will be saved. If you obey the Commandments of God, if you detest the corruption of this world, if you embrace the Cross of Jesus Christ in a spirit of penance, you will be that one alone who is saved.
Now imagine the same Angel returning to you and confirming the second opinion. He tells you that not only are the greater portion of Catholics saved, but that out of all this gathering, one alone will be damned and all the others saved. If after that, you continue your usuries, your vengeances, your criminal deeds, your impurities, then you will be that one alone who is damned. What is the use of knowing whether few or many are saved? Saint Peter says to us, "Strive by good works to make your election sure."
When Saint Thomas Aquinas's sister asked him what she must do to go to heaven, he said, "You will be saved if you want to be." I say the same thing to you, and here is proof of my declaration. No one is damned unless he commits mortal sin: that is of faith (doctrine). And no one commits mortal sin unless he wants to: that is an undeniable theological proposition. Therefore, no one goes to hell unless he wants to; the consequence is obvious. Does that not suffice to comfort you? Weep over past sins, make a good confession, sin no more in the future, and you will all be saved. Why torment yourself so? For it is certain that you have to commit mortal sin to go to hell, and that to commit mortal sin you must want to, and that consequently no one goes to hell unless he wants to. That is not just an opinion, it is an undeniable and very comforting truth; may God give you to understand it, and may He bless you. Amen.
Mother of Mercy, pray for us.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Joe Six pack,
I didn’t read your post, and will not do so, I don’t read long pasted articles which can be linked to.
The Church does not speak on the relative number of the elect versus the number of the damned; and the only consistency among the wise is that the number of the elect is less than the damned, which St. Augustine argues is fitting.
Among the Fathers and Doctors, St. John Chrysostom is perhaps the least optimistic, but he's radically optimistic compared to your zealous 1/12000. A number which causes despair.
You can read what you like.
I offered it for the benefit of any of the readers out there who may be misled by your liberalism.
Scholastic,
JSP has a wife & daughter who love Anne of Green Gables.
I don't think he's read the books, but he's seen the movies! :)
Further musing on your zealous 1/12000 which ratio would be even more radical sans St. Bernard, but let us take the more obtainable number. Given that ratio, what are the odds that Joe Six packs makes it? Let’s be generous and say 1/6000, and how about Mr. Joe Six pack? 1/3000 , and daughter six pack? 1/3000. So what are the odds that all three make it? 5.4 to the 10? You have a better chance of winning the power ball. And the losers are just a wee bit worse off than being out some pocket change.
Those kind of odds approach the limit of universalism of the damned. It’s is also a rather fitting universalism since the requirements on modesty likewise lead to despair.
"In fact, is there any proof that there is a sufficient number of men so moved by women’s uncovered elbows so as to constitute covering the elbows as a form of moderation? More than that, I wonder is there even a single man in the US who would be stimulated by a women’s uncovered elbows? And if there is not stimulation, then why should a women’s elbows be covered since the end of modesty is the tempering of the senses, and the senses in this instance of dress are not in need of tempering?
... it’s imprudent to form our children so that they are stimulated by modes of dress which are the cultural norm because they will be exposed to those modes of dress and thus it puts them unnecessarily in temptation."
"Scholastic" gets it. The confusing thing about the modesty question is that it's actually not a simple but a dual-faceted issue. At the foundation are certain immutable principles pertaining to the wounds of Original Sin which are universal to the human condition. A simple survey of history, especially as relating to fashion, however, reveals a second and decidedly relative element to the question, in which one's sensibilities are formed in close context with the culture (or indeed the subculture) in which one finds himself.
And, yes, despite the insistence of certain firebrand "trads" who insist on using Papal decrees and Saints' sermons as weapons in their unrelenting crusade of self-righteousness, there is something to be said for preserving one's sanity by not adopting such an extreme mindset about issues such as this as to induce oneself to see a near occasion of sin at literally every turn. It's certainly not the ideal to learn to become somewhat oblivious to things that, in a more Christian age, were rightly protested, but given the utter indocility of postmodern man to grace, we must somehow learn to survive with some kind of joyful equilibrium in even an environment such as this.
The "little house on the prairie" trads, and their spokesmen like the ever-increasingly shrill Thomas Droleskey, seem radically incapable of such equilibrium.
I actually agree with Propagandist and with part of what Scholastic says regarding the delicacy of developing modesty in practice. In this as in so many things, what needs to be instilled is a habit of modest dress -- a recognition that the clothes can both be becoming and not be occasions of sin. Not to say, of course, that some guidelines can't be helpful -- some people need bright line rules, as you would both no doubt aver.
But all this still don't mean I -- and, I 'spect, Scholastic and Propagandist -- wouldn't be ashamed if it were my or their daughter showing off her cleavage to the Holy Father, tho'.
Well, I'm just curious: if we are to argue that women's sleeves need to go to the elbow, what shall we say of the picture accompanying the post "Missa Aqua Sapientiae"? Do the people who defend the standard of "sleeves at least to the elbow" really object to that picture? That goes to consistency.
Ambrosius writes: “But all this still don't mean I -- and, I 'spect, Scholastic and Propagandist -- wouldn't be ashamed if it were my or their daughter showing off her cleavage to the Holy Father, tho'.”
That’s an interesting question. To begin with the women in question is letting it hang out a bit more than is common. But, I highly doubt that the women in question is “showing off her cleavage to the Holy Father”. While it may have been her intent to show off her cleavage, (although that is strictly speculative), it's rather far fetched to impute her intention was directed towards the Holy Father.
But let’s look at it this way:
Is Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” immodest?
Or is Berrettini da Cortona’s “The Birth of the Virgin” immodest?
http://members.aol.com/jocatholic/mary4.jpg
http://members.aol.com/jocatholic/mary4.jpg
Let's remember Scholastic originally was supporting clothing that showed some of a woman's breast. The degree of a woman's breast exposed in these
http://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html
is acceptable to him for women's apparel.
He's jumped on the "sleeves to the elbows" as a means of lampooning traditionalists and attempting to eliminate any discussion on clothing standards.
Remember, he's never proposed his own standards.
He's just very willing to show total disregard for about 6 modern popes and several dozen saints.
And he, and now Ambrosius and several others are all advancing some sort of cultural relativist argument for modesty in clothing.
Modesty standards don't come from the culture; they don't come from what causes 99% of a particular culture's group of men to sin; they don't come from any of that.
Modesty standards come from God.
Pre-Christian Guamanians walked around totally naked. That was there culture. The modern liberal will say that they didn't obsess about the naked body. Did the Catholic missionaries allow them to stay in that condition?
No.
There's a universal norm for Catholics, established by God, modeled by Mary and the saints, and annunciated and clarified by the popes, saints, and bishops.
Lastly, modest dress has nothing to do with Little House on the Prairie. I wouldn't let my wife and daughter leave the house looking like they just stepped off of the set of a 19th Century pioneer movie.
Here again you throw more red herrings at the argument.
Sometimes I wonder where you people come up with these things.
Come to see our traditional parish: modest clothes can be very beautiful and modern-looking.
Your launching of red herrings (like the breast feeding issue, and your Little House on the Prairie comment) and your ferocity and passion in this debate against *traditionalist* Catholic modest that is frightening.
Regarding your mathematically analysis of St. Leonard's sermon, reading it didn't make me dispair.
It is a sobering article and it is good to read such things from time to time.
Reading it just motivated me to redouble my efforts and it was an appropriate read for Divine Mercy Sunday.
Most of us suffer from a lack of zeal and holy fear. You apparently resist such things.
I highly doubt that the women in question is “showing off her cleavage to the Holy Father”. While it may have been her intent to show off her cleavage, (although that is strictly speculative), it's rather far fetched to impute her intention was directed towards the Holy Father.
I'm not letting you off so easy, Schol. The whole point of modesty in dress is that you come prepared, as it were, to meet anyone -- you wear clothes that you would not be ashamed to be found in by the pontiff himself! I'm sure she did not aim to show off her cleavage to the Holy Father, but neither (apparently) did it occur to her that this was a likely possibility, nor did she (it seems) think it worthy of preparing for that eventuality. Why can't you just think in just a little bit of nuance and admit that I / we have a point here, huh? Or are your daughters running around in sports bras and you're thinking, "well, I think they just intend to see women today, so it's okay"??
JSP,
I agree with you on both modesty and the numbers game. As I've said before, this program of asking "Is this modest?" over and over again is pretty ridiculous, and adds nothing to the discussion, especially in the absence of any constructive thoughts about standards for modesty. What's even sillier is when these examples aren't even real people in real situations, they are works of art!
I know its on a sketchy website, and of perhaps dubious translation and authority, but my favorite modern piece on the subject is that of Pope Pius XII, and you can find it here.
Joe Six pack writes: “Let's remember Scholastic originally was supporting clothing that showed some of a woman's breast. The degree of a woman's breast exposed in these
http://www.fisheaters.com/marialactans.html
is acceptable to him for women's apparel.”
He's jumped on the "sleeves to the elbows" as a means of lampooning traditionalists and attempting to eliminate any discussion on clothing standards.”
Please let me remind you, I was banned from a certain subject and changed my arguments to fit the new guideline. And because of that ban cannot comment further on why the rest that you write is also in error
Iacobus, thank you for posting what Pope Pius XII wrote regarding the question of fashion. I had never read it before. I just now skimmed it quickly, and I want to read it again, carefully, later, but it appears to be excellent and the thing I most like about it is that it comes from a common sense level and (correct me if I'm wrong) does not dictate the particulars in inches of covering, etc. but conveys the rationale for determining what is or isn't appropriate in terms of dress and why or why not. The "standards" become an internal mindset with the understanding derived from this pontiff's teaching.
Scholastic,
The subject of breast-feeding itself was banned because I didn't want this to turn into a referendum on how much coverage is too much for women occupied in that way. But you can address most of Joe Six Pack's other comments without trespassing on that ground. So don't wuss out, man.
Also, regarding culture relativism or judging clothing modesty based on what causes the majority of men to become inordinately aroused, in our particular culture we've become so inured to what generations ago would have sent Christian men blushing, casting their eyes downward, does that mean that we should adjust our standards accordingly?
Because 99% of American men can pass a Victoria's Secret storefront without even batting an eyelash (because they are so inured to what they are seeing and anything less than outright pornography will not excite their passions), does this mean it's acceptable for women to walk around in lingerie?
Your whole relativist argument falls apart.
A little common sense is all that is needed here. While out shopping with my girls last week I went into a teen store which sold underwear as clothing. OK, that doesn't work. Next door, however, was a store in which I was able to find them absolutely adorable sundresses. These are cute, flattering, feminine and perfectly modest in spite of spaghetti staps. We bought crocheted cardigan/jackets to wear over them in church and ... presto! they can be attractively dressed in fashionable outfits without any fuss at all.
Sorry, but I checked out the modest clothing link and these women/girls look more like a German panzer division than [young] ladies. Is it really so hard to find the happy medium?
Those website are being used by folks on this blog to attack any appeal for traditional modesty.
My family is able to find modest, fashionable clothing at Dillards, and almost any other major retailer.
The clothing options are not as plentiful as we'd like, but to suggest that one cannot look fashionable and still dress in accordance with traditional clothing norms is simply wrong.
But I'll fall for your red herring arguments anyway. So what if you look like an 19th Century "prairie muffin" (as Scholastic derides) or like a Panzertrupper (as Anon 9 derides)?
Does that fact that your version of Catholicism seems to fit in so nicely with our culture give you a moments pause?
Saint Anthony of the Desert put it this way:
Men will surrender to the spirit of the age. They will say that if they had lived in our day, Faith would be simple and easy. But in their day, they will say, things are complex; the Church must be brought up to date and made meaningful to the day's problems. When the Church and the World are one, then those days are at hand. Because our Divine Master placed a barrier between His things and the things of the world.
JSP, sometimes I think you're John the Baptist of the End Times.
You are right about many things. Too bad most of our priests don't preach with the same passion and conviction.
And that's no red herring...
So what if you look like an 19th Century "prairie muffin" (as Scholastic derides) or like a Panzertrupper (as Anon 9 derides)?
There is no problem at all with people choosing to dress this way. The problem begins when they want to impose their personal tastes on the rest of the Catholic world and damn those who do not fall in line. As someone said earlier, this is tyranny.
Ambrosius,
“Why can't you just think in just a little bit of nuance and admit that I / we have a point here, huh? Or are your daughters running around in sports bras and you're thinking, "well, I think they just intend to see women today, so it's okay"??”
Sports bra? Not quite. I’d never let my daughter out of her room in one. Not that I need to worry about it since. : If my oldest daughter, who is 15 years, had a sundress she’d insist on a turtle neck underneath it in the sweltering August heat. The girls her own age, including the Catholic homeschoolers and traditionalists, think she’s far too square, but the old ladies at daily mass adore her. So I doubt I’ll be seeing too much cleavage in her future since that’s not her.
I also would not be surprised if that same 15 year old daughter chose to nurse her babies while they were being baptized. Breastfeeding is not a state of dress, it’s an understanding of God’s creation.
And as for my 5 and 3 year old daughters, they look adorable in sundresses, but sports bras are bit out of their league. And I’d be shocked if either one ever desired to wear one since that isn’t the culture they are raised in.
The reason I originally brought up breastfeeding is because it shows in sharp relief how far removed we are from God’s intended natural state. We live in a culture which turns molehills into mountains of the imagination. Women’s breasts have been taken completely out of proportion to their natural dimensions, literally, which signifies a warped cultural understanding and obsession. A warped cultural understanding and obsession which carries over into the Catholic culture and is signified by the disordered act of women covering themselves like tents when nursing. Nursing is not sexual in the least, but is treated as if it did have a sexual dimension.
As Aristotle writes in book 5 of the politics, to all things there is a natural limit, and just as the polis has a natural limit, so likewise are there natural limits in dress. And within those limits there is variation just as there is variation of size to the state. Just as subsidiarity which governs the state doesn’t dictate the particulars, but is a guideline which is in accord with man’s nature, so likewise with modest dress, the tempering of the senses is according to man’s nature. Does da Vinci’s Mona Lisa fall within those natural limits? Much has been written on the Mona Lisa, I don’t recall immodest ever being ascribed to it which is perhaps telling.
Anon9, said "There is no problem at all with people choosing to dress this way. The problem begins when they want to impose their personal tastes on the rest of the Catholic world and damn those who do not fall in line. As someone said earlier, this is tyranny."
God will be the judge, none of us. But it seems that you are the one advocating for "personal taste," against the point of view of the Church which God established to give us direction.
Anon9,
Perish the thought, Catholicism should never be tyranny.
Go ahead and burn your bra.
You've come along way, baby.
(along way from Mary, that is)
Scholastic has been very patient, so I don't mind his treading slightly into the verbotten breastfeeding terrain. But please, no one engage him on that point?
I still think, though, Schol., that referencing works of art is a bit misleading -- what you'd like to see your daughter go out of the house wearing of a morning is rather different than your expectation for an idealized, or stylized, or even realistic-for-artistic-reasons form in a museum or gallery.
How, btw, do you guarantee that your daughters 'culture' will be such that they won't want to mimick the broader culture around them and gallavant about in sports bras? We know you aren't advocating a flee to the praries, so will you just make sure they know they're not in the same culture as the hundreds of girls I see (and avert my eyes from) zooming about, skimpily clad, in Ithaca, NY? I'm curious -- if not guidelines, then culture. Yes, that's great. How do you propose fixing the culture sans guidelines? And until the culture is fixed, do you really think it so inadvisable to provide guidelines to young people who want to know what is right to do? I guess I found the argument in the book, A Return to Modesty, pretty convincing, and one of Ms. Shalitt's most constant tropes was that it does, in fact, help for adults and persons-in-authority to take the lead and say "this is ok; this crosses the line." There's hardly anyone doing that today! And thus it would be nice if some authority figures, like Bishops or priests, would do their share of being the "bad guys" so that parents aren't left swinging in the wind.
I don't normally reference Protestant materials, but this is an excellent talk on modesty delivered by a pastor's wife, for those who might be interested.
Schol,
Your continued use of art as a justification for immodest dress is idiotic.
Great pieces of art show complete nudity too, does that mean we can walk around completely nude?
Art is not a standard for human conduct.
Do you use the Rape of the Sabine Women to justify rape and pillage?
Also you state:
"Further,
Within limits, culture teaches the senses what is stimulating to them. The sense of touch recognizes heat in relation to the heat it is currently stimulated by, so likewise with the other senses.
With that in mind, it’s imprudent to form our children so that they are stimulated by modes of dress which are the cultural norm because they will be exposed to those modes of dress and thus it puts them unnecessarily in temptation."
This is pure liberal claptrap and further example that you have serious problems at the basic levels of Catholic faith and morals.
But you are in plenty of ignoble (if not good) company.
"The first step towards vice is to shroud innocent actions in mystery, and whoever likes to conceal something sooner or later has reason to conceal it."
Jean Jacques Rousseau
You and Jean Jacques are enlightened brothers, it seems.
Continuing waging your battle against the Cross, if you will.
You certainly have been thoroughly warned.
Sorry for the bad link. That should be:
http://www.biblebb.com/
files/ModestyMatters.htm
Any part of a woman's body can potentially be provocative to men, most especially the face and hair. Serious Muslims will tell you that that's why women must wear burkas, so that both their faces and their entire bodily shapes are concealed. How would the Six Packs respond to that, I wonder?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I respond by following in Holy Mother Church and following the explicit guidance from the likes of Pius XI, Pius XII, and Padre Pio.
This isn't about "the six packs" opinions.
You are going up against the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church.
Women are beautiful and an expression of God's goodness and beauty.
Catholic modesty frames the beauty of woman in dignity and respect.
Mohammedan false-modesty hides women from view.
"On the road to Cairo one may see twenty groups [of Mohammedans] exactly like that of the Holy Family in the pictures of the Flight into Egypt; with only one difference. The man is riding on the ass." Chesterton
A Catholic woman can dress perfectly modestly, looking beautiful and stylish, and not come across looking like a Muslim in a burkha.
To even suggest the burkha analogy again shows how warped and out of touch with Catholic tradition many of you are.
Go ahead and fight against your own Church and Her reasonable time-honored traditions. And when our society reaches the boiling point of sexual saturation, and former Christians start turning to Mohammedanism and it's clear guidelines and "respect" toward woman, you'll have yourselves to thank.
I second those people who have noted that art is not a guide for dress. I have an analogy -- depictions of the Crucifixion and of martyrdoms. Many people rightly complain about young children's over-exposure to scenes of violence, mutilation, corpses, etc., in public entertainment and the media. Children should not be desensitized to violence. However, we proudly display crucifixes in our homes and pictures of saints with swords through their heads (St. Peter Martyr), arrows through their chests (St. Sebastian), and holding their own gouged-out eyes on a platter (St. Lucy). A friend of mine from childhood was a Jehovah's Witness (*sic*; now he's gone on to be some sort of leftist homosexual advocate: please pray for him, as he needs it). He was physically repulsed by the crucifix in our house, not only because he was indoctrinated in an evil cult, but just because of the torture it depicts. And none of us would have any pictures of stripped, mutilated, tortured, executed people in our houses except for Our Lord and the saints. We take liberties with the usual rules of decorum because of the importance of these deaths and what they represent. I dare say that the same rule applies to some of the paintings of Our Lord as an Infant and of Our Lady -- we need to be reminded of their humanity, the "earthiness" of their lives in this world, in order to recall that they lived pure lives *in the flesh,* better even than Adam and Eve would have in the Garden had they not fallen. We can't blame our bodies for our sinfulness -- Our Lord and Lady had bodies fashioned from clay, too, and by divine grace they did not sin -- what's our excuse? As for us, well, we are already far too aware of our own base "earthiness," and for us it actually does conflict with purity due to concupiscence. So, no, we can't use these works of art as standards for our own dress or decorum -- these works of art are not designed in order to be models for fallen men and women's dress. (That's rather like a soldier in Iraq thinking he should fight naked because Michelangelo's David and the Dying Gaul are both nude.)
Having consulted the dictionary, I see that "earthiness" has both good and bad meanings. Please don't take it in the bad meaning for Our Lord and Lady in my post, but take it as at least ambivalent for wretched, fallen worms like us.
“The most famous painting of a mother is probably that by Whistler. Once, when complimented on its beauty, he answered: "You know how it is; one tries to make one's mother as nice as possible."” Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/marys-book1.htm
Why should we expect less of artist’s depictions of Mary the Mother of Jesus? Why should we expect artists to portray Mary in any manner than as pure?
Manet’s Le dejeuner sur l’herbe was rejected by the salon because it was scandalous because of its context. The history of art is a history of context, if we desire to understand the art we must know the context, and in knowing the context, we can also know the culture it was painted in. A knowledge which also gives incite to what was understood to be decorous.
Further, the portrayal of women in art is a window to the soul of a culture in the manner that the eyes are the window to the soul of a man.
If we look at sculpture we see that the classical period portrayed women’s platonic perfection, and medieval art portrayed women’s transcendent beauty. And if we look at modern cultural portrayals of women what do we see? We see either a whore, or an impossible to obtain sex object, or grotesque deformities such as Matisse’s “Carmelina 1903" or Hopper’s “A Woman in the Sun”
Yes, Scholastic, I agree with your last post. Is it just additional commentary, or a particular response to someone?
insight, not incite.
Tobias petras,
It was directed at those who said that art cannot be used to known previous cultures and their understanding of what was considered modest.
Ah, everything is so clear now.
Why didn't you provide that quotation from Art Appreciation 101 right from the start of this debate? It would have cleared everything up and saved us so much time.
Scholastic, you're not answering anyone. Of course art is a window to period culture - no one could deny such a thing!
What I want to know is why you think you can denounce so many Christians as scrupulous and disordered without giving any time to answering the teaching of such a recent Pontiff as Pius XII? When the Pope gives explicit standards, or Cardinal Siri for that matter, barely 60 years ago, we expect someone to soberly address his concerns before they start railing about traditionalists, who seek nothing more than to follow his and all the various Apostolic successors' advice on these matters in our darker age, when such things are lent nary a whisper by the heirarchy. Stop throwing up this smoke about elbows, and quarter cut sleeves, and Muhammadens! Stop this nonsense (which it is) about artwork, which the same Pontiffs who set these standards which you seem to resent certainly appreciated! That gallery of Maria Lactans is certainly not some explosive find, burst out into the open to reveal the fatheadedness of dark-minded Saints and overwrought traditionalists alike!
And in deference to Ambrosius' will, I shant talk of your clear obsession with BLEEP!-feeding. There are things natural that you seem to neglect - for one, natural shame!
Well said, Antediluvian.
I'm a burkha man myself, so I won't step into this debate other than with the occasional heckle or cheer. ; )
Antediluvian,
The problem is that what is being asked for are hard and fast rules which deal with each particular when there aren’t any such rules because we are dealing with contingent matters, not necessary matters. What there are is guidelines, guidelines which are formed using prudential judgement.
Tobias petras in an earlier post pointed out a photo and asked if the girls in it were immodestly dressed because they didn’t have covered elbows, if their dress is modest, than what are we to make of the stipulation that elbows must be covered? Obviously the stipulation is within a limited context and is not to be taken universally. I used art through the ages to show that clothing as a means to an end varies. While ancient Minoan dress may be deemed universally inappropriate because it is outside the limits, the same appears to not be true of the chiton or the peplos which would have been worn by the virgin martyrs in the canon of the mass.
As a friend of mine, who has two daughters in the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist, once commented on raising children, “I look for results”. That is, he looks to the end, the means to the end are instrumental to the end. How we raise one child may not work for another child because personalities are not the same in all children. The same is true with clothing. They are a means to an end. Clothing which may be necessary for tempering the senses in one culture, may be ineffective or impractical in another.
As I wrote before, the means are not without limit, and so the question is, how do we come to know those limits? Our own culture should teach us, but since we are without a Catholic culture, we must look elsewhere.
not edited, read at your own risk
Scholastic:
It's Tobias Petrus, not "petras." (That's to give glory to my patron saint, not to me.)
I appreciate the patient response, Scholastic. The problem is that you are approaching the issue exactly like an apologist for evil modern fashions, whether you would like to appear so or not.
The thing which really gets tiresome is your attack on, shall we say, the "upper end" of modesty, which some might call Mary-like standards(your referenced artwork notwithstanding). In that article Iacobus links to, Pius XII mentions not abandoning the high moral level that Christianity has developed. This is what it appears you are doing: attacking that edifice which Catholic culture has worked at many an age - like making fun of the austere habits of some nuns.
It seems to me that there is certainly room for your daughter's sundresses, or, as much as they might incite wretching, those majestic and ponderous tents under the wider umbrella of sensible modesty. I don't think the people at this blog are the sort of be draped or be damned types, and even if those people actually exist, they are very rare. Then again, some things, like shorts and mini-skirts on women, or tanktops, or bikinis, or casual dress in Church, are things I hope we can all agree need to go. But even then, such issues should be approached with prudence. I just wish we could stop wasting time and focus on the real problem: women in pants! :] Just kidding...
But, within the previously defined limits of discussion, if you are taking a swipe at more than this, and saying that anyone who ever thought that a longer sleeve is probably better than a short, or that below the knee is better than above, or that its better not to see much below the neck in public(or should we not go there?), is some sort of scrupulous cretin who deserves to be mocked and corrected, than I still do have a bone to pick with you. Unless you want to break 100 comments, friend?
As to women in pants (yes, I know it was a joke!): our very sensible pastor once said, "It depends on the woman, and it depends on the pants".
Which is, as I read it, the jist of Scholastic's argument: it depends!
Ambrosius asks: “I'm curious -- if not guidelines, then culture. Yes, that's great. How do you propose fixing the culture sans guidelines? And until the culture is fixed, do you really think it so inadvisable to provide guidelines to young people who want to know what is right to do”
I’m a bit surprised that you think that I was proposing that there not be guidelines after I had just made a correlation with subsidiarity which is a guideline grounded in man’s nature. Similarly, the guidelines for dress are grounded in man’s nature which is fallen.
Further, I haven’t argued that there shouldn’t be particular guidelines, what I have argued is that those guidelines should be grounded in what is proper to modesty, which is concerned with contingent matter and not necessary matter. When I stated previously that I wouldn’t be let my daughter out of her room wearing a sports bra, I was comparing the sports bra to a preconceived universal principle. and found the sports bra did not measure up to that preconceived standard.
Just as the natural law is intellectually distinct but inseparable from man’s nature and is intrinsic to each individual man, so likewise are guidelines intellectually distinct but inseparable from culture and are intrinsic to a given society. Culture is the form which causes a society to be a unity. And since a Catholic culture doesn’t exist, there isn’t a formative principle, which is why people cast about searching for formation in the form of guidelines which are not sufficiently local to a given society. Which is why we have people proposing without proper cause that elbows should be covered.
Because of a lack of formation via a Catholic culture, traditionalist are little better than cafeteria Catholics in their latching onto anything without understanding. The same is true of the FSSP where the lack of formation concerning modesty is quite telling.
The pope provided guidelines, which you stand in judgment over as the moral arbiter of what is culturally or prudentially required, and so you reject those guidelines.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
No one came on here supporting the covering of women's elbows.
This discussion started over the showing of cleavage in public, and in front of the Holy Father no less.
You took umbrage with me and others for thinking that this style of dress is immodest.
And you attacked a hardworking FSSP priest for requiring women to not have breasts exposed at Church.
Then you go into a smoke screen maneuver of using breast feeding, art appreciation babble, and finally a some cultural relativist crap.
So, because we don't live in a Catholic culture, that gives you the right to run around and cause confusion among well-meaning Catholics as to what is indeed proper dress for men and women?
You've added nothing to this discussion besides smoke and confusion.
Suggesting there's no guidelines because we don't have a true Catholic culture or even properly formed priests, is another attempt at a smoke screen.
The "universal principles" (as you call them) of modesty are clear enough to give us a detailed guide of what is acceptable and not.
In no time or place has the following been acceptable in a Catholic culture, and as such are universally rejected:
1) cleavage
2) short-shorts
3) transparent blouses
4) tight fitting clothes
The priest you were chastising (for simply caring about his duty of pastoring souls) was trying to enforce these universal standards, not covering of elbows.
You are a trouble-maker.
And you should think long and hard about making reparation against your calumny against that holy FSSP priest.
Good bye.
Joe six pack writes: “No one came on here supporting the covering of women's elbows.”
You’re correct, after rereading Mrs. Joe six pack I stand corrected. It’s to the elbows. A slight distinction, but a distinction nevertheless. So let my previous comments be amended to read : sleeves to the elbows.
Mrs Joe six pack wites on April 22 2:29pm: “In case the "Mary-like Standards for Modesty in Dress" got lost in the rest of JSP's post, here they are again:
“A dress cannot be called decent which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows“
This thread has been killed.
<< Home