“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves” (Genesis 3:7).
Even for non-Christians, the story of the fall and Adam and Eve’s shame is a familiar one: ashamed of their nakedness, the two seek to clothe themselves. Adam and Eve covered their nakedness not because their bodies became evil, but, in part, because of the lust which entered the world through their original sin. As Pope Saint John Paul II explains, “Man is ashamed of his body because of lust” and “… together with the lust of the body, shame was born.”
While the body God created remained good, Adam and Eve could no longer live in what John Paul II called “original nakedness.” Clothing themselves, or practicing modesty, was how they responded.
Unfortunately, our culture today has largely lost its appreciation for the practice of modesty. Modesty is not simply a product of a particular time period or a set of antiquated and oppressive norms; rather, it is a virtue which we must seek to cultivate. As the Catechism explains, “Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness.”
There are two main reasons why we should dress modestly: out of love for others and out of love for ourselves.
It is regrettable yet undeniable that, in a world where pornography use is rampant and in which sex is viewed not as a gift but as a means of entertainment, we can frequently fall prey to viewing others as objects for sexual gratification rather than as persons made in the image of God. This objectification is at the heart of lust.
Our Lord warns us sternly against the sin of lust, saying, “Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Saint Alphonsus Liguori referred to sexual sins as “hell’s widest gate,” and Our Lady at Fatima affirmed that “more souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”
Despite our knowledge of the gravity of the sin of lust, we often fail to recognize how our decision to wear revealing clothing may potentially provoke others to this sin. I anticipate some readers will object to this point. After all, are we really responsible if someone chooses to lust after us? Scripture and the Church tell us that we are.
The Catechism defines the sin of scandal as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.” The section continues, “The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death.”
“Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion,” the Catechism adds.
Christ himself is clear in his condemnation of behavior that leads others into sin. He warns us sternly against causing “one of these little ones to sin,” (Luke 17:2). As Catholic theologian Andrew Swafford notes, the phrase “little ones” refers not only to children, but also to those who are less spiritually mature. In this case, the “little one” in question is the man or woman who is tempted to lust by another’s immodest dress.
Moreover, Cain, when asked by God , “Where is your brother Abel?” provides a similar excuse to ours, answering, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9).
Notre Dame Professor of Theology John Cavadini addressed this theme in a written statement to the Rover, saying, “It’s true that people, men in particular, are responsible for their own emotions and passions. … However, to embrace an ethic of chastity means to embrace an ethic of respect for the embodied personal dignity of oneself and others.”
Cavadini continued, “[Embracing an ethic of chastity] means to participate in the creation of a shared culture of such respect. This means in part not to dress in a way that you know invites disrespect from others because that is a failure to respect oneself and one’s commitment to a culture where chastity becomes a public, shared virtue.”
As Cavadini alludes to, even if we choose not to dress modestly for the sake of other’s souls, we should at least do so for our own sake. When one lusts after another, not only does the one who lusts commit sin, but the one lusted after is used in an inhumane way. Lust not only divorces sexual pleasure from its intended end, but it also objectifies and demeans. In the words of Pope Francis, “[Lust] plunders, it robs, it consumes in haste, it does not want to listen to the other but only to its own need and pleasure.”
Some readers may still object, arguing that what is considered “modest” is primarily a product of cultural and societal standards. Therefore, in order to dress modestly one should simply abide by the prevailing local customs.
A version of this argument is given by St. Alphonsus Liguori in his work Moral Theology. St. Alphonsus argues that “even superfluous ornamentation,” so long as it is in accord with “local custom” and is not “directed to provoking lust” is permissible, even though in other instances this superfluous ornamentation would be a mortal sin (Moral Theology, Book 2, Treatise 3, On Charity, Chapter 2. 55). Therefore, one might argue that, even though the clothing worn today would have been rejected by previous generations, custom now allows it.
While this argument may be applicable to customs such as length of dresses, it cannot be used to abrogate a minimal standard for modest dress. As Venerable Pope Pius XII stated, “… the so-called relativity of fashions with respect to times, places, persons, and education is not a valid reason to renounce a priori a moral judgment on this or that fashion which, for the time being, violates the limits of normal decency.”
“… [N]o matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin,” Pius XII concludes.
Lastly, we should avoid falling into the trap of believing that the virtue of modesty only applies to women. While it is certainly true that men are more prone to lust than women are and that, as Professor Cavadini explains, “Cultural standards [of modesty] are generally stricter for women,” men too are responsible for dressing in a manner that helps to keep others from sin and preserves their own dignity. As Cavadini concludes, “Standards [of modesty] are not non-existent for men, and observing these standards means resisting the temptation for a man to turn his body into a continual bid for sex and little else.”
At a university dedicated to Our Lady, we should seek to imitate her virtues, especially the steadfast purity of her Immaculate Heart.
Andrew Blake is a junior studying political science and PLS. He can be reached at ablake5@nd.edu.