[Question:]{.underline} Are pants still immodest dress for women?
[Answer:]{.underline} The question arises because of the changing conditions of modern society. It would seem that women`s wearing of pants has now become so accepted that it is not only unavoidable, but even no longer a cause of scandal as it once was. Moreover, it would seem that pants in our present day give much more protection, security, and warmth to a woman, and that in fact they protect her from looking strange, bizarre, outlandish, as the members of Mennonite sects, Muslims, or other fanatical groups might do. It would seem, moreover, that it is of the nature of modesty not to show off and not to stand out in one’s manner of dress, and that in fact, given the change in our present customs of dress, the wearing of pants best fits in so as not to make oneself noticed. Does not, in fact, St. Thomas Aquinas himself say that modesty of dress must be judged by comparison with the custom of the persons with whom a woman lives (Summa IIa, IIae, q.169, a.1)? Could a woman who is a nurse, or a bus driver, or a factory worker be considered immodest if she followed the example of all the other women and wore pants to work?
Moreover, since loose-fitting pants could not be considered an attraction to sins of sensuality, and certainly much less so than a shorter dress, how could they be considered immodest? Surely, also, it is argued, the focus on such an exterior question as dress, and the condemning of all those who wear pants as sinners, creates a pharisaical and judgmental mentality not far different from the mindset of the Pharisees, whose hypocrisy Our Divine Savior excoriated so vehemently. The attitude of condemnation of women for such an external detail, so characteristic of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, can surely not be a part of Catholicism, which seeks the salvation of souls.
WHAT IS MODESTY?
The answer to these delicate questions lies in the understanding of the true nature of modesty, a virtue that everybody ought to strive to practice. This virtue is that part of the virtue of temperance which controls those tendencies that are less difficult to control than concupiscence. This is a virtue that everybody ought to practice, since, as St. Thomas Aquinas affirms, “it is necessary that the life of man be regulated according to virtues with respect to all things” (ibid., q.160, a.1) and not only with respect to those things which are most difficult. We tend to regard modesty as only directed towards exterior dress, but in fact this is only the fourth kind of modesty according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Before it comes humility, which regulates the desire for excellence; curiosity, which regulates the desire for knowledge; and the control of one’s bodily actions and manner. After examining all four kinds of modesty, he concludes that modesty concerns not just exterior but also interior actions, whose control is manifested by certain exterior signs (ibid., q.160, a.2 & ad 1), and that this applies to modesty of dress just as much as to the other forms of modesty.
But you might ask, as does St. Thomas, what interior virtue could possibly be exercised in the way we dress. His answer to this objection is fundamental to understanding the importance of the way we dress for our interior life. “Exterior dress of this kind is a certain manifestation of man’s state. That is why excess and defect and the mean in such things can be reduced to the virtue of truthfulness, which the Philosopher [Aristotle] teaches deals with the deeds and words by which something concerning man’s state is signified” (ibid., q.169, a.1 ad 3). The way we dress must consequently correspond to who we are, and to our place in society. It is the expression of our identity, and if a person does not have the due mean in exterior dress, he consequently will fail in truthfulness. An older person cannot dress as a child, nor a business man as a carpenter, nor a sick person as a physician. Clearly, also, a woman who dresses as a man fails in truthfulness. If she is forced to do so by necessity this could hardly be considered as a denial of her femininity, but if she would do so voluntarily, then this exterior dress would reflect an interior disorder, a failure to fully understand and accept who she is in God’s plan.
WOMEN`S PANTS = MEN`S DRESS
It is this aspect of the wearing of pants that Cardinal Siri considered to be the gravest in his Notification on the subject of June 12, 1960.
The wearing of men’s dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women…In truth the motive impelling women to wear men`s dress is always that of imitating, nay of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent. This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being “like a man.” Secondly ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears demands, imposes, and modifies that person’s gestures, attitudes, and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside. Then let us add that woman wearing man’s dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clearly to be seen.
The Cardinal goes on to establish that women’s wearing of trousers tends to vitiate their relations with men, one of the major signs of diversity being eliminated. This in turn undermines the respect which is due to a woman, and makes her weaker and subject to abuse. Likewise is harmed “the instinct of dignity and decorum” with which children ought to treat their mothers.
The major objection to this teaching is that times have changed and that now the wearing of pants is so common for women that it can no longer be considered as man’s dress at all. The response to this objection can be found in the body of the article of St. Thomas Aquinas quoted above (ibid., q.169, a.1). He points out that the vice is not in the exterior clothes themselves, but in the disordered use of them. This disorder can be with respect to the custom of the persons with whom a person lives. Thus it would be disorder, and untruthful to her womanly dignity, for a Catholic girl to wear trousers in a Catholic home in which all the other women wore dresses or skirts, or for a Catholic woman to attend church or a parish function in which the other women were dressed in skirts.
However, this is not the only disorder that can exist. There can also be a disorder of immodesty, he states, in the intention of the person who uses clothes, whether or not he do so according to the custom of those who surround him---that is, regardless of the custom. This disorder in intention can be either by excess, as those who show too much solicitude for the way they dress or those who dress out of vanity. However, it can also be a disorder of intention by defect, when, out of negligence, a person does not pay sufficient attention to dressing as he ought. This is the disorder of the woman who intentionally wears pants when she is not obliged to do so, which disorder exists regardless of whether or not everybody else in a store, or a party, or a work place, or a family wears pants. A woman who knows in herself that dress must express who she is, and what she thinks of herself, and in particular of that special dignity and role in society that belongs to her as a woman, shows this disorder of intention when, overcome by human respect, or the contrary custom of women around her, she does not dress in a feminine way. It is because she is not true to herself that she not wear dresses or skirts.
DRESS STANDARDS NOT ALL RELATIVE
The common opinion is that the whole question of dress is entirely relative to the society in which we live, and that consequently standards can change, and have changed, with time. They say that the Church simply teaches the necessity of dressing modestly, without defining what actually is modest. It is true that Sacred Scripture limits itself to giving the principle: “I wish women to be decently dressed, adorning themselves with modesty and dignity, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good works such as become women professing godliness” (I Tim 2:9,10). It is also true that the Church limits itself in general to an exhortation to modesty, as opposed to the uncovering of the body that is now so common: “We all know that especially in this season of summer there are commonly exposed to view sights which cannot but offend the eyes and shock the souls of persons who have not lowered or entirely abandoned their sense of Christian virtue and human modesty. An unworthy and immodest style of dress has come into vogue…[which] exposes especially the souls of young people, who are easily tempted to evil, to the gravest danger of losing that innocence which is the greatest and loveliest ornament of mind and body” (Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on Immodesty of Dress, August 15, 1954).
Note that in this letter, the question of whether the style is the modern fashion or in vogue is not considered relevant. Clothing which uncovers the body is immoral in itself because it provokes to sins of concupiscence. That there are objective standards for such modesty which the Church has determined, and which do not depend essentially on custom, culture, history or practice, is also indicated by the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council of January 12, 1930, under mandate of Pope Pius XI, which stated: “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 knee. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.”
Moreover, Pope Pius XII clearly condemned the idea that the standards of modesty are purely subjective, on November 8, 1957, in an address to the Congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion:
The strange opinion which attributes the sense of modesty to one type of education or another, and even considers modesty a conceptual deformation of innocent reality, a false product of civilization, a stimulus to dishonesty, and source of hypocrisy, is not supported by any valid reason. On the contrary, it finds explicit condemnation in the resulting repugnance with which they are viewed who dare to adopt this point of view as a way of life. Thus the soundness of common sense manifest in universal usage is confirmed.
There are consequently objective standards for dress when it comes to that which provokes concupiscence, and which is consequently an occasion for mortal sin. It is true that the Church has made no such official declaration concerning the wearing of pants by women, and this precisely because it is not in general an occasion of mortal sin and does not incite to concupiscence---unless, perhaps, the pants are skin tight. However, if there are objective standards in that domain of modesty that pertains to temperance properly speaking, why would there not be an objective standard in domains of lesser gravity, in which a woman wears pants on account of social pressure or reasons of so-called facility, such as warmth, comfort, and freedom of movement for activities in which the wearing of skirts or dresses is not at all impossible?
That there are, indeed, such objective standards is confirmed by the general awareness of those Catholics, whose sense of modesty has not been perverted by the carelessness and rebellious spirit of the modern world. These women are fully aware that the wearing of pants is not appropriate for Church, or for formal occasions, because they know that they are not fitting for a woman. This is a clear sign that there is an objective standard that only overexposure to the modern world can destroy. If such women do wear pants when they go shopping, to college, to entertainments and public places, it is that they are constantly pushed in that direction by social pressures---that is, by human respect.
Such objective standards of modesty need not be outlandish or extreme. If it is certainly possible for women who lack the virtue of modesty to dress in an extreme manner, thus showing off, it does not at all follow that all wearing of skirts and dresses by women is outlandish, excessive, or extreme. Here it is the testimony of common sense which enables a clear discernment, but the judgment of common sense by women who are advanced in the practice of the virtue of modesty. The judgment of the world, which has perverted the very notion of the role of women, cannot at all be relied on. Yet this being said, there is no reasonable person who would maintain that a woman who wears a long skirt or dress would be outlandish or extreme, provided that the dress be practical and not show-off, and that the activity for which she is wearing it is compatible with such dress. If dresses are not common place as they once were, they are still regularly seen in public places, nor do they excite astonishment---just respect.
IS THE REFUSAL OF PANTS PHARISAICAL?
It is commonly said of women who refuse to wear pants that they are puritanical, judgmental, critical, holier-than-thou, and that they quite simply do not fit into modern society. In this respect, it is important not to fall into excess, especially given that we are dealing with a lesser part of the virtue of temperance. Cardinal Siri understood this well, so that in advising priests in his above-mentioned Notification, he made it quite clear that this is not a case of serious sin, nor one of condemning those who do not understand the principles behind women not wearing pants, and that we must not be fanatical about it:
They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule. They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions. They, the priests, know that the line they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive.
Being firm and strong on principle is consequently not imagining sins, nor condemning other women of grave fault, not being insulting to those who do not understand, nor even excluding the occasional circumstances in which it is necessary for women to wear pants (e.g., horse riding or skiing), all of which would be fanaticism. It is a question of the direction to be given to souls of good intention, who truly long to live the virtue of modesty to the full, who desire their dress to reflect their soul, and who desire to do all in their power to overcome the obstacles to the wearing of skirts, for example in such professions as nursing, in which formerly only dresses were worn (and so it is possible), but in which now nearly exclusively women wear pants.
MODESTY DRAWS
The attractiveness of the virtue of modesty cannot be underestimated. If all the virtues draw souls to the practice of the Catholic Faith, it is especially those interior virtues that are manifest exteriorly, of which one of the most clearly visible is modesty. The willful effort to mortify the tendency to manifest oneself, either by one’s own excellence, or by one’s own knowledge, or by one’s actions, or as in this case by one’s dress, is a great testimony to the reasonable submission to God which is the living of the Gospel and to which St. Paul invites us: “I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God---your spiritual service. And be not conformed to this world…” (Rm 12:1). This is the modesty of women who refuse to wear pants, that they might thereby profess with complete truthfulness that their bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost, “for holy is the temple of God, and this temple you are” (I Cor 3:17).
The noted Thomist, Father Walter Farrell, who admits that St. Thomas Aquinas is much more human than some of the Fathers in his approach to questions of modesty, expresses this drawing power of the virtue of modesty in a sublime manner:
Modesty is a kind of miracle to the sophisticate; it does to the heart what a miracle does to the eyes and to the mind. It focuses the heart, startlingly, on things long dreamed of, a focus that makes the rest of the world disappear for just an instant…modesty is a realization and a statement [of what men would like to be, because that is what men were meant to be]{.underline}…In a sense modesty is innocent. Its goals are clean, windswept goals of virtue, goals whose reflection gives a calm, clear quiet to a face…It is not ignorant. Rather it is very wise, very learned in human things. It is saturated with rationality; contact with it is as refreshing as the deep, eager breaths of sea-air by a man coming from the heat of an inland city. It gives us a sense of freshness, of cleanness, as though we had just been scrubbed inside and out…It seems particularly fitting that the virtue which is appreciative of beauty should have the details of human dress under its wings. In other words, the regulation of dress is not in the name of shame alone; but also in the name of [dignity and of beauty]{.underline}. (Companion to the Summa, III, pp. 473, 474, 483)
The whole question of women wearing pants has consequently been asked the wrong way around, entirely back to front, as if it were a question of compelling women to accept some exterior burden or constraint, or of forcing them to be in some way inferior or subordinate, or of restraining their freedom, or of inducing them to keep double standards, or of binding them to keep some out of date Victorian law that has no application to the present time in which we live, or of telling them that they are horrible sinners if they do not comply.
The correct question a woman must ask herself is of a womanly dignity and beauty, and of truthfulness in expressing that dignity and beauty to the best of her ability. It is an invitation to practice virtue; it is a counsel of perfection; it is an interior compelling to the truthfulness that conforms her outward appearance to the inner reality of her soul, of her identity. If she values the state of sanctifying grace, if she values all that God has done for her, if she wants to express her constant gratitude for the grace of being a woman, if she desires to follow in some little way her divine model, the Mother of God, she will delight in wearing dresses and skirts, and this whenever she possibly can, in public or in private, at home or at work, with family as with strangers, when surrounded by modest women or when alone in a crowd of immodest persons. Nor will she listen to the Sibyls of doom, who will tell her that she has lost contact with people, isolated herself, become out of date, out of fashion, or eccentric. To the contrary, she will long to express that beauty she loves so much, which is ultimately God, and the goodness of the order that He wonderfully established in His creation and more wonderfully perfected by the Redemption. By so doing, she will draw respect for herself and attention to God, in the admiration of whose beauty she lives.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.