CathInfo.com

Attached is the original letter in Italian which describes the standards of modesty given by the Vicar of Pope Pius XI in 1928. I have seen women on the internet remarking that these standards apply to religious women and not to all women in general. This is absurd on the face of it, because all nuns have full length dresses that cover everything, along with a veil, and the standards below are not so strict.

A simple reading of the letter reveals that the Vicar of Pope Pius XI was addressing religious superiors (Mothers) of Religious Institutes. He was instructing these female superiors on the standards of modesty they have a responsibility to enforce on the girls (laywomen) who attend schools run by these religious institutes. I have bolded when he outlines the rules for modesty.

This is the full letter in English:

Circular to the Superiors of Female Religious Institutes

Rev. Mother Superior,

It is certainly well known to you too that all good people deplore the immodesty of dress which nowadays is becoming more and more widespread among women, and how against this serious abuse several times, and even on solemn occasions, the Holy Father has raised his apostolic voice.

The very serious words, full of meaning and warning, with which on the 15th of last August, promulgating the Decree on the heroic virtues of the Ven. Paola Frassinetti, His Holiness, in the Consistorial Hall denounced, once again, the danger which, due to the seductive charm of vanity, threatens many unwary souls, who even profess to belong to the flock of Jesus Christ and his Church.

In this regard, it is painful to note that the deplored evil also tends to creep in among young girls who attend, as external students, some schools run by nuns and some festive congregations that are part of female religious institutes.

To face the danger which, as it spreads and spreads, becomes increasingly serious, the Sacred Congregation of Religious, by mandate of the Holy Father, has issued the following injunctions:


A) From now on, young girls who do not observe the rules of modesty and Christian decency in dressing will no longer be admitted to all schools, colleges, recreation centres, festive congregations and workshops directed by religious women.

B) The same Superiors will have to exercise strict supervision over this and immediately exclude from the schools and works of their institutes those students who do not comply with these requirements.

C) They will not allow themselves to be overcome in this by any human concern either for material interests or for the distinction of the social level of the families to which the pupils belong, even putting up with the possibility that the number of pupils may decrease.

D) Furthermore, in carrying out their educational work, the Sisters will endeavour to gently and strongly inculcate in their students the love and taste for holy modesty, the index and guardian of the purity and gentle adornment of women.



It will be Our care that these venerated provisions of the Holy Father are exactly and fully observed in His Rome. And to this end we will designate people we trust who, at the appropriate time and without notice, visit the schools, laboratories and festive congregations, and then report if the deplored abuses occur there.

So that in all female religious institutes there is uniformity in judging the cases in which the provisions of the Sacred Congregation of Religious referred to above must be applied, 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.

We are confident that you and the staff dependent on you will take every care to carry out the superior provisions, just as we hope that the young girls of Rome will give the example of Christian modesty and obedience to the orders of the Vicar of Jesus. And with this confidence We bless you, your collaborators and those who attend the Institute directed by you.

From the Vicariate, 24 September 1928


Note that women are not considered modest if they allow their legs to be bare or even appear bare with skin-coloured stockings, and the sleeves above the elbow are not considered decent. People have claimed that quarter sleeves were permitted as a dispensation in the 1950s due to "market conditions", but I have never seen anyone who has been able to prove from an original copy, who gave this dispensation, and for whom. Most traditional women let their bare legs be seen as well, and I do not know where this custom comes from.

Interesting, so even if the dress can be slightly below the knee, the rest of the leg (calf etc) needs to be covered with a stocking if I am reading this implication correct?

Yes.

I think that here's one example that's contrary to what they described, but perhaps visually replace the pants with some thicker stockings, or sock-like looking things.  I blotted out a bit of immodesty (bare upper arms and a bit of exposed chest on the left one).


So, these are interesting cases.  So, the dress is certainly above the knees in each case, but ... the legs beneath the bottom of the dress are covered with material that does NOT resemble skin so that it might appear to someone on first inspection that the legs are bare above the knee.

Pants are generally immodest simply due to being masculine and contrary to nature, but these types of outfits, I don't consider them masculine, due to the dress, but then the dress is above the knee, which BY ITSELF would be considered immodest IF what appeared below the above-the-knee-bottom of the dress were bare leg or what would appear to be bare leg due to skin-colored stockings.  But in this case, due to the color it's quite obvious that there's no exposed bare leg.

I have never heard of any standard of modesty which held that the lower leg beneath the knee couldn't be even exposed skin, much less skin-colored stocking.  You'd essentially be claiming that all women had to wear either ankle- / street- length dresses and/or would be required to wear non-skin-covered stocks below the knee even.  I've just never seen that kind of radical interpretation of the norms for Christian modesty.

That's also why they put in the transparent dress, right, where "OK, my dress is beneath the knees, so modest, right?" ... well, not if you can largely see through it, eh?  Similarly, this is the converse where, the skirt is above the knees, but then the part of the leg that's expose at the knee and above is also covered, even if the dress itself doesn't extend down that far.

I would find both of the above entirely acceptable (from a modesty perspective, even if not from a fashion perspective) despite the bottom of the dress being above the knees.