Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty  (Read 58 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« on: Yesterday at 11:22:56 PM »
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.

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 11:35:42 PM »


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?


Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #2 on: Today at 12:09:20 AM »
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.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #3 on: Today at 02:17:29 AM »
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?

So ... I don't read it that way.  Seeing as it comes after transparent dress, I think what it's saying is that covering the leg with a material that makes it LOOK uncovered qualifes to meet the standard if being covered down to the knee.  I imagine it's referring to, say, wearing a shorter skirt above the knees, but then wearing flesh-colored stockings and claiming "I'm covered down past my knee, see! ... with these [flesh-colored] stockings.  It's a corollary to transparent dress, meaning either a transparent dress or flesh-colored dress, or dress + stocking hybrid.  NOW ... I think where something MIGHT work would be if a lady had a shorter skirt, above the knees, but then wore stockins that were basically pant-like.  While the DRESS per see didn't go beneath the knee, it's augmented by obvious clothing.  I actually would consider that acceptable, where you met the standard both of being feminine (it's not like the stocking is pants) but also of covering up below the knees.  I will try to find some pictures of what I think it's talking about.