Catholic
Candle
note:
Genuine
conservatives and uncompromising Traditional Catholics are extremely
rare. Most people who consider themselves conservative, traditional,
or uncompromising, are really only “conserving” the less extreme
liberalism or decadence from a few decades ago when things were not
as bad as they are now. But whatever the intentions and self-image
of these people are, objectively they are not
really
and
fully
conservatives.
They are only comparatively less liberal or less decadent than the
society around them.
One
aspect of being Traditional Catholic is to hold the traditional
standard of feminine modesty. The article below addresses modest
sleeves for women and girls. This
is only one condition required for fulfilling the Catholic standard
of Marylike
modesty.
This
article is a companion article to these other Catholic
Candle
articles about Marylike
modesty:
A
Defense of the Traditional Catholic Standard
We
live in a pagan world. Most Catholic women and girls adopt some
version of the evil fashions they see all around them. Dressing like
a faithful and informed Catholic involves many things. One of these
for women and girls is feminine modesty in sleeves.
But
before considering that issue, let us first inquire whether this
subject is one that only women and girls need to know about.
Is
it Important for Men and Boys (as well as Women and Girls) to Know
the Catholic Standard for Feminine Modesty?
Both
sexes should care about feminine modesty and know the standards of
Catholic modesty. It is obvious that a woman should understand
and live the Catholic standard of modesty so that she can please God,
edify her neighbor, be a good example to other women and girls, teach
her daughters, and avoid sin.
But
there are five reasons why men (and boys) should also know these
standards:
1. It
is important for men and boys to know the standards of female modesty
because they have a duty to avert their eyes from women’s and
girl’s attire which does not comply with such modesty standards.
This
is obvious. A crucial reason why women and girls have standards
of modesty (and must not “wear whatever they want to”) is because
there are men
and boys who will look at them.
Women
must cover
up for
the sake of the men. This is common decency and is a minimum
charity that they owe to their (male) neighbors. Women would be
callously disregarding the salvation of men (and themselves) if women
dressed without concern for the temptations their attire would cause
in men.
This
is like the fact that a person must not wildly swing a butcher knife
“whenever he wants to” without regard for the risk of injuring
those around him. In fact, immodesty can be more dangerous than
a butcher knife because immodesty can kill the soul whereas a butcher
knife can only kill the body.
Of
course, it is also true that men must dress modestly for the sake of
the women too. This is part of men’s minimum charity toward
their (female) neighbors. However, there are three reasons that
female immodesty is a greater problem:
➢ Women
are the more beautiful sex and so are more attractive;
➢ Men
are more prone than women are to sins of impurity by looking impurely
at the opposite sex, as is evident by the fact that the filthy
practice of viewing pornography is a sin which is far more frequently
committed by men rather than by women; and
➢ Both
men and women are more inclined to dilute modesty standards for
females than for males. This is because women have a stronger
focus on pleasing men by their (i.e.,
women’s) appearance, and men have less of a focus on pleasing women
by their own (i.e.,
the men’s) appearance but have a greater tendency to be
pleased by
women’s appearance (than are women focused on and pleased by men’s
appearance). Here are three signs that this is true:
first,
women desire (and usually have) a far larger wardrobe and wear far
more jewelry than men do;
second, women
take many other pains to look attractive for men, such as wearing
makeup, getting their hair curled or permed, etc.,
and
third,
men’s clothes and shoes are more practical and serviceable.
By contrast, women’s clothes and shoes are much more likely to be
less comfortable because they are designed more to please men rather
than for comfort. (For example, women’s shoes are usually
designed more to make a woman’s foot look smaller than for her
comfort.)
2. It
is important for an unmarried man who is called to the married
vocation (and not to the life of a consecrated religious) to have
prominently featured in his “blue print” of the future spouse he
seeks, that she possess and love this great treasure of the Catholic
standard of holy modesty.
This man himself would need to understand the standard of feminine
modesty in order to assess whether a potential future spouse follows
and loves this standard;
3. It
is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine
modesty so that he can give moral support and defend the modesty of
good women against scoffers, mockers, and other enemies of Our Lord.
(For example, women and girls who take modesty seriously are often
made to feel prudish and isolated, especially by other women who have
a more liberal dress code.) Men should be gallant and
gentlemanly. They should defend women, especially good women
who are living the standards of modesty and other virtues;
4. It
is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine
modesty because he will be ultimately responsible for guiding his
wife and daughters (when God sends to him his own family) and he will
be ultimately responsible for this standard being implemented in his
own home and family;
and
5. It
is important for a man to know the Catholic standard of feminine
modesty so he can love this beautiful virtue and admire and
appreciate the Marylike
women and girls who practice it.
Brief
Reminder: Because of Original Sin, We Are Prone to Evil, Especially
to Sins of the Flesh
Our
nature is wounded by original sin:
-
Our
intellect is darkened;
-
Our
will is weakened;
-
Our
passions are unruly and rebellious; and
-
We
are inclined to evil.
But
our duty and our happiness require that we be pure and modest in
thought, word, and deed. Impure deeds, words, and thoughts lead to
Hell:
-
Impure
deeds lead to Hell:
Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor the
effeminate … shall possess the
kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians.
6:9-10;
-
Impure
words lead to Hell:
But
fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much
as be named among you, as becometh saints: or obscenity,
or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose;
Ephesians,
5:3-4;
The
tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is placed among
our members, which defileth the whole body …. St.
James,
3:6;
Whosoever
shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed
adultery with her in his heart. St.
Matthew’s Gospel,
5:28.
External
words and actions are the fruit of internal thoughts and desires:
The
things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and
… from the heart come forth … adulteries, fornications …. St.
Matthew’s Gospel,
15:18-19.
Plainly,
women are the more beautiful sex. But the Church recognizes that the
body, though good, is not the highest good; and a body that is
shamelessly unregulated by virtue and reason is notoriously bad.
Satan
especially promotes impurity because he knows impurity is such an
effective tool for damning souls. Our Lady warned at Fatima
that “more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than
for any other reason.”
Therefore,
modesty requires that we do everything we reasonably can to avoid
whatever inflames our passions or the passions of others, and so
makes it harder to avoid sins against the holy virtue of purity. A
person is potentially the murderer of another person’s soul by
failing to guard against inflaming his passions.
Modesty
requires great care related to thoughts, words, and deeds. These
deeds include concealing the body instead of unduly emphasizing it or
revealing it.
Dangers
Regarding Impurity Are Different for Men and Women
Men
and women are different and possess different tendencies towards
impurity. Men are more easily led into sins against purity
through their sense of sight. For this reason, modesty for men
chiefly requires custody of their eyes as the guard of purity.
By
contrast, women are more tempted in matters of impurity through
vanity by seeking to attract the eyes of men by excessive exposure of
their (viz.,
the women’s) bodies. Thus, it is in the “nature” of women
that they are more interested in being admired by men for their
appearance rather than admiring men’s appearance. Also, as
noted above, men are more interested in the appearance of women than
they are interested in women admiring their (viz.,
the men’s) appearance.
Of
course, this does not mean that men should be unconcerned with the
modesty of their own dress or that women should be unconcerned with
custody of their own eyes. But the stronger, typical tendencies
are for men to encounter dangers against purity because of looking at
women, and women to encounter dangers against purity by the way they
seek to attract men’s eyes by their appearance. These
different tendencies of the two sexes are why men are the usual
consumers of pornography and women are the usual subjects of
pornography.
Further,
because God made woman the more beautiful and attractive sex, He made
women’s bodies more sensual. Thus, the virtue of modesty
requires that this greater attractiveness be concealed with womanly
attire, which takes Nature into account. So, women must wear
clothes that cover up more – including sleeves of proper length and
that are otherwise modest.
The
Catholic Standard Ordered by Pope Pius XI:
Pope
Pius XI ordered the following standard to be published:
We
remind all concerned that a garment cannot be considered modest if it
leaves the base of the neck exposed by more than two finger-widths;
if it fails to cover
the arm at least as far as the elbow;
or if it does not extend slightly below the knee.
Likewise, a garment made of transparent fabric is not considered
modest, nor are stockings that so perfectly mimic the color of the
skin as to create the illusion that the leg is bare.
Although
Pope Pius XI’s standard refers to multiple aspects of feminine
modesty, the present article focuses on the virtue of modesty
requiring feminine sleeves to extend at least to the elbow.
Feminine
Modesty Pertains to Sleeves in Six Ways.
Sleeves
must:
-
Be
long enough;
-
Not
be made of a flesh-colored material (i.e.,
a color creating the illusion of bare skin);
-
Not
be made of transparent or “see-through” material;
-
Not
be too tight;
-
Not
be made of a fabric that is too supple or clingy; and
-
Not
allow a “line of sight” up a woman’s or a girl’s arm inside
her sleeve, above her elbow.
Below,
we discuss each of these requirements for modest sleeves.
1.
Sleeves Must Not Be Too Short
Pope
Pius XI’s standard explicitly requires that a woman’s or a girl’s
sleeve must “cover the arm at least as far as the elbow”.
Obviously,
a sleeve which is too short is one way that a sleeve can be immodest,
viz.,
by exposing a woman’s or a girl’s upper arm.
2.
Sleeves Must Not Be Made of a Flesh-Colored Material
(i.e.,
a Color Creating the Illusion of Bare Skin)
Pope
Pius XI’s standard warns about the immodesty of garments which
“mimic
the color of the skin [so] as to create the illusion that the leg is
bare”.
Although this is said in the context of immodest stockings, this
same problem plainly occurs whenever any garment is similar enough to
the color of the woman’s or girl’s skin that there is an illusion
of improper exposure of any part of her body which must be covered.
3.
Sleeves Must Not Be Made of Transparent or “See-
Through”
Material
Pope
Pius XI’s standard includes the warning that “a
garment made of transparent fabric is not considered modest”.
This
is obvious. Clothes are supposed to conceal certain parts of the
body. However, transparent fabrics, laces, nets, organdy, nylons,
etc.
do not do this sufficiently, as Pope Pius XI warns.
There
is nothing inherently wrong with laces, nets, organdy, and nylons.
They can add to the beauty and charm of feminine clothing. Such
fabrics, however, should be considered as mere ornaments –
additions to already-modest
clothing. Thus, such fabrics should be placed on top of another
fabric which is modest.
4.
Sleeves Must Not Be Too Tight
Clothes
are immodest if they are too tight. This is obvious. Clothes are
supposed to conceal certain parts of the body. However, if sleeves
are too tight or form-fitting, they do not sufficiently conceal the
woman’s or girl’s upper arm, which must remain concealed to be
modest.
-
Sleeves
Must Not Be Made of a Fabric Which is Too Supple or Clingy
Just
like sleeves which are too tight reveal too much of the shape and
contours of a woman’s or girl’s body, likewise sleeves made out
of a fabric which is too supple or clingy has this same defect: it
does not sufficiently conceal the female form.
Just
as paint is not suitable to be used as clothing/covering – even if
it is completely opaque – because it is too conforming to the shape
of the body, likewise fabric is immodest and inappropriate if it is
too supple and conforms too much to the shape of the body.
6.
Sleeves Must Not Allow a “Line of Sight” Up a Woman’s or a
Girl’s Arm Above Her Elbow
Another
aspect of feminine modesty is to not allow a “line of sight”
inside a woman’s or a girl’s sleeve to expose to view her upper
arm (or another part of her body which should not be exposed to view)
when she lifts or extends her arm.
As
shown above, a woman’s or girl’s sleeves should be loose-fitting
– not too tight. But it is also important to avoid a
“line-of-sight” up the sleeve. One way to do this is for the
loose-fitting sleeve to have a fitted cuff which could have a button
or a tuck at the end of the sleeve.
Feminine
Modesty Applies to Young
Girls as well as Older Girls and Women
The
standard ordered by Pope Pius XI was explicitly stated to apply to
“young girls”
(as well as to older girls and to women).
Proper manners of conduct and dress should start when a child is
very young. It is important to begin to train children early and to
start instilling habits of modesty in them, as well as to give good
example (i.e.,
reinforce good habits in others who see those children).
Just
as children can be taught even before they can speak, not to touch
objects that their parents decide are “off-limits”, and not to
“scream bloody murder” to get attention, likewise children can be
taught how to dress and act modestly.
In
reality, then, there should exist little if any difference between
the way adults and children practice the virtue of modesty. The
pictures of the three young children of Fatima illustrate this fact.
Modesty
Standards Apply In All
Activities – There is No “Sports or Swimming Exception”!
Modesty
standards (including regarding modest sleeves) do not change based on
the activities in which the woman or girl is engaged. Catholic
modesty does not have an exception for swimming or athletic pursuits.
The same standard of modesty must be practiced at all times and in
all places
since human nature is always the same and subject to the same
temptations.
For
example, Pope Pius XI stated that it is better for girls and women to
not
even attend
athletic events but, if they are forced to attend, then they must do
so dressed
completely modestly.
Here are his words:
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.
This
is obvious. How blunted and ruined would a girl’s or woman’s
sense of modesty be if it were somehow acceptable for her to expose
herself as long as she was engaged in certain activities! For
example, it would be irrational to consider it acceptable for a girl
or woman to be seen in a swimming suit as long as there is a pool or
lake located nearby!
The
same applies to other sports such as volleyball, tennis, running,
horseback riding, and so on. In all such activities, females must
take extra care to ensure their dress as well as all their bodily
movements and postures will not violate Catholic modesty.
Six
Additional Considerations Regarding the Catholic Standard of Modesty
Please
note the following six consequences that flow directly from the above
Catholic requirements of Marylike
modesty:
-
This
standard is not declared to be the ideal, but rather is the minimum
to avoid sin.
It certainly shows a spirit contrary to the love of God and to the
love of virtue for any Catholic to try to “get as close as
possible to sin without crossing the line into sin”. Thus, a
Marylike
spirit of modesty would not aim merely at these minimum modesty
requirements as if they were the ideal.
-
Parents,
especially fathers, have a duty to guide the women and girls under
their care and enforce this Catholic standard of modesty. Here is
one way in which Pope Pius XI declared the responsibility of parents
for the modesty of their children:
Let
parents
never
permit
their daughters to don immodest garb.
-
Parents,
especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to
comply with this Marylike
sleeve standard (and all other aspects of modesty), but to love
modesty.
Mothers can do this especially by their own example.
-
Faithful
and informed Catholics must avoid the scandal of complimenting or
praising the appearance of anyone who is immodestly dressed.
-
Just
as women and girls must wear modest sleeves, this same modesty
standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues,
whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.
Obviously, it would be illogical for a woman to carefully dress
modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on
her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets
on her refrigerator, etc.).
For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a
Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.
-
If
we somehow come into possession of immodest garments (such as
garments with immodest sleeves), we should not give them away or
donate them, because then we would become an accomplice or accessory
to someone else’s sin of wearing them.
Objections
Which Might Be Raised
One
could suppose that there are six objections which could be made to
the Catholic standard set forth above:
-
Standards
have changed – laxer, modern modesty standards now apply. (This
objection is closely related to the excuse that “everyone does
it”.)
-
The
standard given by Pope Pius XI is too extreme, too strict, or
exaggerated.
-
“If
anyone has a problem with the way I dress, he must have a dirty
mind.”
-
Sleeves
which fail Pope Pius XI’s standard for modesty are “no big deal”
and “I’m used to them”.
-
“But
where I live it gets so hot in the summer! So, I need to wear
sleeves which
fail Pope Pius XI’s standard for modesty in order to
stay cool.”
-
“I
cannot find clothing which fulfills Pope Pius XI’s requirements.
So I just do the best I can, and God will understand.”
Below,
we examine each of these objections.
-
Modesty
Standards have Changed – Laxer, Modern Modesty Standards Now
Apply.
We
live in pagan times. Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by
saying that this standard of Marylike
modesty is old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where the
requirements of modesty are weaker.
Here
is one way that Pope Pius XII warns about allowing our modesty
standards to weaken as society becomes more decadent:
[A]
garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a
decadent or already-corrupt society, but according to the aspirations
of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public
attire.
So
we should not take our cues regarding modesty from our godless,
degenerate society which uses false, lax, modern modesty standards.
Our Lady warned at Fatima about these immodest fashions of our times.
Here are here words:
Certain
fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very
much.
A
variation of this claim (that modesty standards have weakened) is:
Do
you know how badly the girls are dressing now? So even just my
wearing a dress is good enough!
This
false claim is the sin of moral relativism! It is the heresy of
Situation
Ethics.
This error states that what is right and wrong changes based on the
current conditions and what other people do. When others dress badly
enough, this can allow me to change my own standards of modesty. But
the truth is that modesty never changes because human nature never
changes.
Here
is how Pope Pius XII condemned this pernicious method of making
decisions:
The
distinctive mark of this morality [i.e.,
Situation
Ethics]
is that it is in fact in no way based on universal moral laws, for
instance, on the Ten Commandments, but
on the real and concrete conditions or circumstances in which one
must act,
and according to which the individual
conscience has
to judge and choose. This state of things is unique and valid only
once for each human action. This is why the supporters of this
ethics affirm that the
decision of one’s conscience cannot be commanded by universal
ideas, principles, and laws ….”
But
at the Particular Judgment of each person, God will not “ask” how
many people around us committed sin. Rather, He will “ask” us
why we
sinned.
-
The
Standard Given by Pope Pius XI is Too Extreme, Too Strict, or
Exaggerated.
Calling
Pope Pius XI’s modesty standard “extreme” implies that the
objector is unreceptive to the Catholic Standard of modesty (and not
wanting to be different from the world). But we should make all
efforts to please God, ignoring the sinful standards of the persons
around us who are on the road to hell. As Pope Pius XII taught:
“Our
Savior demands of us above all that we never consent to any sin, even
internally, and that we steadfastly
remove far from us anything that can even slightly tarnish the
beautiful virtue of purity. In this matter no diligence, no severity
can be considered exaggerated.”
Let
us understand that the world will always say that God’s friends are
“extreme” in their practice of virtue and in their filial fear of
offending Him.
-
“If
Anyone has a Problem with the Way I Dress, He Must Have a Dirty
Mind.”
Another
rationalization of a girl’s or woman’s immodesty (and attempt to
deny culpability for the sins she causes in others by the way she
dresses), is to say that if someone else is concerned about the way
she dresses, it shows that there is a problem with that other
person, not with herself. But the truth is just the opposite!
Sensitivity
to someone else’s failure to dress modestly is a good
sign in that sensitive person. Here is how Pope Pius XII teaches
this truth:
Greater
sensitivity to this warning against the snares of evil [of
immodesty], far from being grounds for criticizing those who possess
it, as though it were a sign of interior depravity, is actually a
mark of an upright soul and of watchfulness over the passions.
A
person with a “dirty mind” is callous to the filth in his mind
and is unaffected by additional filth entering it. But a man with a
clean heart and mind is disturbed at the entrance of immodesty
through the windows of his eyes, in a way which resembles the
perturbation of a housewife at the prospect of a person wearing muddy
shoes while walking on the clean white carpet in her home.
-
Sleeves
which Fail Pope Pius XI’s Standard for Modesty are “No Big Deal”
and “I’m Used to Them”.
A
woman or girl could say that wearing a sleeveless garment (or a
garment with inadequate and immodest sleeves) is “no big deal”
and that “I’m used to it”.
But
such an excuse merely shows that she has become used to sin and is
contaminated by some moral taint. Here is Pope Pius XII’s
warning against this excuse:
The
most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify
immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere. One of these resurrects
the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are
accustomed to”, in order to brand as old-fashioned the rebellion of
honest people against fashions which are too bold…
We
must take great care to not
allow ourselves to become used to the immodesty that we see all
around us. Instead, we should reflect that “more
people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other
reason.”
One
important way to develop a stronger sense of modesty (and to avoid
becoming callous to the sin of immodesty) is to avoid as much as
possible the frequent exposure to the immodesty of others.
-
“But
where I live it gets so hot in the summer! So in
order to
stay cool, I need to wear sleeves which
fail Pope Pius XI’s standard for modesty.”
Hot
weather is not a new phenomenon and summer is not a new invention.
Throughout the history of mankind, women have dressed modestly, in
womanly clothes, and stayed cool enough, even if the weather gave
them the opportunity to practice patience and to offer up some
discomfort.
We
should reflect that our neighbor’s spiritual good is more important
than our bodily comfort. Therefore, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches,
“as regards the welfare of the soul we ought to love our neighbor
more than our own body.”
Even
if we were to suppose that offering up the heat of summer out of love
of God were somehow “heroic”, then this is a tiny bit of
“heroism” that God expects us to practice.
-
“I
cannot find clothing which fulfills Pope Pius XI’s requirements.
So I just do the best I can, and God will understand.”
At
the heart of this excuse is the false claim that God fails to provide
a way to avoid every sin. The
truth is that God always provides a way to be virtuous and do the
right thing in every circumstance.
Of course, we may have to make more effort. We may have to give up
certain pleasures or make certain sacrifices. But He will aid us.
In
the case of finding modest clothing, it can be done if a woman/girl
truly
puts virtue (especially modesty and charity) above all else.
First,
a woman or girl can wear a long sleeve blouse either with the sleeves
down to her wrists or rolled up to her elbows.
Second,
altering a blouse (to cut off long sleeves and hem them) does not
require
advanced seamstress skills, but only the basics. But, even if one
does not know the basics of sewing (and plenty of women do not
because they were never taught), then let them prioritize learning
those essentials over other matters. There are free videos available
teaching the basics such as hems, cuffs, extending sleeves, and so
on.
If
one has no computer, then public libraries can provide books on the
subject or obtain books through an interlibrary loan. It is
generally quite easy to obtain free or very affordable fabric on
which to practice sewing. Also, one can ask older, experienced women
for help.
But
if for whatever reason a woman cannot learn the basics of sewing, let
her make the sacrifice of buying a few modest outfits and wearing
them more frequently (regardless of what other people might think
about the lack of variety), rather than sacrificing modesty for the
sake of variety in her clothing.
Question:
Was the Catholic Standard for Modest Sleeves Relaxed to Allow
Quarter-Length Sleeves – that is, Sleeves Extending Only Half Way
Between the Arm Pit and the Elbow?
In
articles published about modesty, it is common for authors to first
quote Pope Pius XI’s standard that feminine modesty requires
sleeves to extend to the elbow at a minimum. But then, often, these
authors add the following 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 modesty in dressing.
Question:
Is it true that this loosening of the modest sleeve standard is
really
allowed?
Below,
we consider this question, considering that this standard
is said to be loosened:
-
“with
Ecclesiastical Approval”;
-
“temporarily”;
and
-
“because
of impossible market conditions”.
1.
Was the Standard for Modest Sleeves Loosened with
“Ecclesiastical
Approval”?
If
Pope Pius XI’s modesty standard was overridden by “ecclesiastical
authority”, who
is this authority that could change the standard given by the pope
himself?
In
all of the many modesty articles we have read, no ecclesiastical
authority is ever identified
as the source of this loosening of the modesty standard of Catholic
female sleeve length. Catholic
Candle
carefully researched this question and sought the origin of that
loosening of the minimum sleeve-length standard.
A
number of articles published in the last fifty years asserted
that Fr. Bernard A. Kunkel is the origin of the loosening of this
Catholic standard. (Fr. Kunkel was a priest in the diocese of
Belleville, Illinois, in the middle of the 1900s who founded a
well-publicized worldwide crusade for Marylike
modesty.) But Catholic
Candle
could not locate any proof for the claim that Fr. Kunkel was, in
fact, the origin of that looser standard.
In
Fr. Kunkel’s own publications on modesty he does state
that there is this loosening of the sleeve-length standard “with
Ecclesiastical Approval”. But he does not disclose who
that ecclesiastical authority is that approved the dispensation.
Catholic
Candle
diligently searched and was unable to find anyone earlier than Fr.
Kunkel who claimed there to be a dispensation from Pope Pius XI’s
minimum feminine modesty standard for sleeves.
Based
on Catholic
Candle’s
research, we tentatively
believe that Fr. Kunkel received the permission from his own
diocese’s ordinary, Bishop Henry Althoff, to publish this loosened
minimum sleeve standard. Bishop Althoff supported Fr. Kunkel’s
work and approved of his modesty crusade, including Fr. Kunkel’s
booklet which was called The
Marylike Modesty Handbook of the Purity Crusade of Mary Immaculate.
Fr.
Kunkel’s principal booklet was published on December 8, 1944, with
the Nihil
Obstat,
by Leonard A. Bauer, S.T.D., with the approval of Bishop Althoff.
This “Nihil
Obstat”
declares on behalf of the bishop that there is nothing in this
publication regarding Marylike
modesty which is contrary to the Catholic Faith. So, apparently, Fr.
Kunkel (likely, after discussing the matter with his bishop), stated
that he had “ecclesiastical approval” – likely from his own
bishop – to “temporarily” loosen the standard for sleeve-length
modesty.
What
Would Be the Effect of Bishop Althoff Approving the Loosening of the
Sleeve-Length Modesty Standard?
Whereas
the pope has authority and jurisdiction over all Catholics worldwide,
a bishop only has authority and only has the power to bind
and loose
those Catholics in his own diocese. Bishop Althoff was the bishop of
Belleville, Illinois.
Further,
even in his own diocese, a bishop does not have the authority to
change the rulings of the pope in all
things. But in those matters on which the bishop does
have the authority to modify the pope’s rulings, that modification
applies only for his own diocese. Thus, it would seem that Bishop
Althoff of Belleville did not
have the authority to loosen the standard of modesty for persons
outside of his diocese – even assuming that he had this authority
for his own flock.
This
Loosening of the Sleeve-Length Modesty Standard was Purportedly Done
“Temporarily” More than 80 Years Ago!
Even
if Bishop Althoff had authority to loosen the modesty standard for
his own diocese, that occurred in 1944 – when Fr. Kunkel published
this “approval” of the loosened standard. But this loosening was
stated to be “temporary”. It is now more than 80 years later.
Is that “temporary” measure still in effect? Did Bishop Althoff
intend this “temporary” loosening to continue more than 80 years
later?
What
is Implied by the Statement that the Loosened Modesty Standard Is
“Because of Impossible Market Conditions”?
This
purported justification for the loosened modesty standard is
puzzling. The reference to “market conditions” seems to imply
that women’s and girls’ garments with modest sleeves could not be
purchased or were “impossible” to find for sale.
It
would seem that, if it were hard to find blouses with elbow-length
sleeves, it would be sensible for women and girls to sew their own
blouses or to cut off full-length sleeves at the elbow (and hem them,
as needed).
This
puzzle is all-the-more
bewildering because Fr. Kunkel’s note (quoted above) states that
this loosening of the modesty standard extends “until
Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in
dressing”.
So,
which is it?
If
it is the second of these, then is this statement acknowledging that
the standard was loosened because “Chistian womanhood” ceased to
follow the proper standard and no longer dressed modestly? If so,
since
when
does the Catholic Church change Her moral standards on anything
because
Catholics do not obey? Again, Fr. Kunkel’s note is puzzling!
Can
a Minimum Modesty Standard be Further Reduced?
Pope
Pius XI gave a modesty standard which is a minimum to avoid sin. It
seems dubious that a minimum standard of modesty could be reduced to
less than that minimum. In other words, isn’t
a minimum, a minimum?
A minimum standard does not disappear simply because a decadent
society ignores this standard (as Pope Pius XII points out above).
The
“Bottomline” About Fr. Kunkel’s and Bishop Althoff’s
Temporary Loosening of the Modesty Standard
Although
we assume all good intentions on the part of Fr. Kunkel and Bishop
Althoff (who were apparently responsible for the claim that the
modesty standard was “temporarily” loosened), it seems doubtful
that this loosening ever applied anywhere outside of the diocese of
Belleville, Illinois. Further, it seems even more certain that this
loosened standard does not apply outside of Belleville now, 80 years
later.
So
it seems that prudent Catholics should simply follow the standard
issued by Pope Pius XI.
Conclusion
of this Article
Feminine
Modesty Pertains to Sleeves in Six Ways. Sleeves must:
-
Be
long enough;
-
Not
be made of a flesh-colored material (i.e.,
a color creating the illusion of bare skin);
-
Not
be made of transparent or “see-through” material;
-
Not
be too tight;
-
Not
be made of a fabric that is too supple or clingy; and
-
Not
allow a “line of sight” up a woman’s or a girl’s arm inside
her sleeve, above her elbow.
We
live in pagan times. Just as a living organism only stays alive
(i.e.,
remains a living
plant or animal), if it resists the corrupting influences (e.g.,
of bacteria) which are all around it, likewise we must protect the
life of our souls (which live the life of grace) by resisting the
moral corruption of sin all around us.
Let
us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that the standard of
Marylike
modesty is too old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where
the requirements of modesty are weaker.
It
is Catholic
Common Sense that
we should not adopt the dress or other practices of the anti-Christ
revolution (including immodesty) no matter how many other people do
so in our decadent times.
Let
us live our Catholic Faith! We need to devote ourselves to
restoring all things in Christ! One important aspect of this is
for women to dress modestly.
Catholic
feminine modesty is a beautiful ornament of a good woman or girl.
All of us – men and women – should love and appreciate this
virtue!
Let
women and girls love to always dress with Marylike
modesty, including modest sleeves!
Let
men and boys appreciate, admire, and defend women and girls who dress
modestly!
45.