I would encourage everyone to consider that when it comes to important moral issues, we ought to draw from ORIGINAL sources. Modern publishing houses who retypset things are not necessarily reliable, and neither is retypeset information from blogposts.
This is not about assuming people are being willfully deceitful (although I would not discount this in our age of modernism and Jєωιѕн deceit especially), but it is simply a fact that many things floating around on the internet are inaccurate.
I also do not take as seriously a publishing house that is in union with the Novus Ordo in any way. I cannot express the amount of times I have gone to the original source that was cited for different things pertaining to the Faith or morals, even in articles written by clergy, and it was either not there or inaccurate in some way. I am certainly not a scholar, but it is not difficult for any traditional Catholic adult to find original books on archive, or similar sources, that either verify or disprove what others claim.
Now, I do not wish to trigger a thousand negative doubts in others, I am not saying we should never trust anything unless we have the original manuscript in front of us. What I am saying, however, is for very serious and controvercial things, it is prudent to consult original sources whenever possible.
Concerning modesty, I have posted original scans of docuмents, which I will give again here.
The original Mary-like standards were addressed to Mother Superiors who ran schools for GIRLS, not WOMEN. This is key to keep in mind, because research I have done in Catholic newspaper archives reveals that there is a standard for girls, and a more strict standard for grown women.
Previously, I was unaware of this information. It is difficult for us to imagine, since we are far removed from a society where modesty was very much a part of the culture. Modesty rules were, for the most part, unwritten. Doubtless, people of the old days would be astonished at how ignorant us moderns are.
We can find instruction in the family of St. Thérèse of Lisieux. I reference her family since they were a universally holy family, living in times similar to ours in many ways. As little girls, the children's skirts were higher; always past the knees, but higher than the ankles. When the girls were fully grown (around 16 was considered fully-grown back then), skirts covered the ankles. It was a mark of modest womanhood when the skirts extended to the ankles, and this was a universal rule for everyone.
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES
Marie and Pauline, sisters of St. Thérèse, as little girls, with their bloomers, stockings and shorter skirts:
Pauline in elementary school, with her longer skirt (yet still above the ankle) and stockings:
Pauline as a young woman, with her ankle-length skirt:
The following was said of Louis Martin, the father of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, a man of God who was a true saint according to her:
“He would never tolerate, either for himself or for anyone in the house, a careless appearance, or any lack of modesty in dress. We should not have dared, in his presence, to have had short-sleeved dresses, only just to the elbow. What would he say of the world today?” — The Father of the Little Flower, published in 1955. p. 48
Source: https://archive.org/details/fatheroflittlefl0000gene/page/48/mode/2up?q=sleeved
I would find it very sad if anyone here called this venerable father and husband, who raised five religious sisters that all became saintly, a Pharisee.
The Mary-like Standards for girls, originally found in a letter written to Mother Superiors who ran young girl's schools:
We remind you that dress which leaves the base of the neck uncovered for more than two fingers cannot be considered modest, one that does not cover the arm at least up to the elbow and one that does not go down a little lower than the knee. Equally, the dress of transparent fabric is not modest, or the stocking that perfectly imitates the colour of the flesh so much as to make one believe that the leg is naked.Source:
https://archive.org/details/circolare-alle-superiore-degli-istituti-religiosi-femminili/page/n1/mode/2upIt is a legitimate question to wonder if "to the elbow" means to the beginning of the elbow, or to the end of the elbow.
Thankfully, a Cardinal Maffi, who wrote his Pastoral Letter on modesty in obedience to the rules for modesty given by Pope Pius XI, brings clarity to this question:
"1. Women and girls who present themselves in transparent dresses, or in dresses lower than two or three fingers or centimetres at the neck, with sleeves above the elbow, or dresses not descending to the ankle for women, or below the knee for girls, will not be admitted to the Sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion— nor allowed to be godmothers at Baptism and Confirmation, nor receive particular blessings."2. Equally, little girls not dressed in clothes at least below the knees, sleeves below the elbow, or with neck too low, will not be admitted to First Communion or Confirmation."Source: https://www.thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=TCT19251001-01.2.99&srpos=2&dliv=none&e=------192-en-20--1--txt-txIN-%22Cardinal+Maffi%22----1925----
Another cleric gives further clarity (Bishop of Belleville, Ill., June 15th, 1933):
The Bishop declares that “a dress is not considered proper for Church unless it covers the arms entirely, or at last reaches slightly below the elbow.”Source: https://www.thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=CTR19330615-01.2.134&srpos=4&dliv=none&e=------193-en-20--1--txt-txIN-Belleville----1933----
Poll
