Christian modesty does not allow girls and women
to appear in salacious and
revealing apparel, flaunting their legs and nudity.

The flames of fury

By William C. Van Breda

n A mysterious wound in the side of humanity or rather at the very source of its life is what Bernanos calls the instinct of lust in man. He forewarns his readers, however, not to confuse lust with the desire of love that unites the sexes: this would be confusing a tumor with the very organ that it devours, a tumor whose very deformity horribly reproduces the shape.1

St. Anselm had once a vision of a large host of people frolicking in the tempestuous waters of a rather murky pool. Their merriment came to a swift end when all were swallowed up by a sudden violent wave and drawn into the fatal depths of the filthy whirlpool. The Lord then manifested to the saint that those dark and dirty waters represented the sins of the flesh in which so many are indulging. They are however abruptly cast into the abyss of hell when they least expect. The Seers of Fatima experienced a similar revelation when they were told that great multitudes suffer the pains of hell because of their sins of the flesh.

On New Year's day 1387, King Charles Le Mauvais (the Bad) of Navarre was killed in flames suffering an excruciating and agonizing death. He was at that time, bedridden and believed to be stricken with advanced leprosy. The attending nurse had an accident with a candle; the king's bed sheets, drenched in brandy, immediately went up in a blazing fire. Such was the woeful end of a lifetime of licentious and voluptuous dissipation.

Chastity-so called because it chastises lust and concupiscence (St. Thomas, II - II, q 151, a 1)-is generally regarded the most unpopular of virtues as lust kindles an unappeasable appetite which sinful man will not have taken away from him.2 As a virtue however, chastity extends far beyond controlling lust: it engenders an exalted reverence for the mysteries of the sacrament of marriage and consecrated virginity. This reverence is supernatural and religious in nature.3 Chastity may not be the most important of Christian moral virtues, but it constitutes the necessary condition for a sound spiritual life and a sacred destiny for divine worship. Throughout history nevertheless, and especially in our present era, promiscuity has rather been the fashion: the chaste are usually considered outsiders.4 In our society the current drift is most certainly in favor of lust and perversion. In this respect the thinking that is advanced conceals the squalor and ugliness of licentious sex.

The courts and rock-bottom

Indeed lust is something fierce and startling, full of menace and ecstasy. The perplexing craving of this instinct grows more intense and violent through indulgence and gratification. As was mentioned, lust is a wound in the side of humanity: with regard to sex, all men are indeed born unbalanced. Both Bernanos and Chesterton hint at a mysterious link of lust to madness and hold that man only reaches sanity when he attains sanctity.5 Therefore, when a man inflames this violent instinct in others, such an individual must be a vicious villain.6 In the present permissive climate, however, salacious slime and smut are not only tolerated but even defended and advanced. The contemporary pornographer enjoys the same rights and privileges as the author of genuine literature.

The judiciaries apparently are to a large extent responsible for the current dismal licentious environment. The Courts seem to have forgotten the wisdom of Roman Law expressed in the adage: summum ius summa iniuria, supreme justice constitutes supreme injustice. It should be obvious, e.g., that political freedom, so as to protect the liberty of the citizens, demands certain checks and curbs. Thus, a nation could not allow the presence of political movements advancing the idea of dictatorship. If there are no restraints and restrictions, we invite tyranny and conjure the specter of totalitarian oppression. Where the necessary caution was disregarded, millions of people were slaughtered in extermination camps by savage and brutal tyrants. We simply do not have the freedom to abolish freedom.

A nation likewise has the duty to safeguard the moral fiber of its people. Even though the media establishment denounces censorship, which is portrayed as unbearable nuisance and insufferable injustice, some constitutional articulation and some censorial discipline seems to be needed and called for. It is precisely here that the courts have lost their common sense by tolerating extreme freedom and unrestricted license.

For a nation to enjoy freedom of speech, political liberty, religious freedom, there is no need whatsoever to give the merchants of filth and trash a free hand. It seems that our generation in its overt sensual euphoria has reached dissolute rock-bottom.

The safeguard

It is maintained sometimes that modern art is to a great extent repellent: it presents with pride music that is discordant, buildings that are unsightly and paintings that are a chaos.7 The various forms of art, whether architecture, sculpture, literature, music, painting, manifest as we know the aesthetic and moral beliefs of a certain historical period.8 As the mercurial fashions of human attire are a form of art too, an era of history reveals through its apparel the cultural refinement of the people. The ugly industrial revolution of last century, e.g., manifested itself also in its ugly clothes.9 Up to the nineteenth century it was customary to portray Our Lord and his disciples in scenes of the Sacred Scriptures in the garments of the artists' time. But not so in modern times! The artists realize that the new pervading fashions of trousers and derbies are not only funny, but downright undignified and unsightly. The saddest thing is that in our days women too fell for those silly fashions and are appearing now in trousers and shorts. Future students of fashions will be rather negative and damnatory in their judgment of our century.

A few years ago Father Regis Scanlon wrote rather extensively on the subject of women's fashions.10 At the beginning of his essay he points out to his readers to be aware of the diversity in the physiological constitution between men and women, of the difference in their sexual structure and sensibilities. He explains that in the question of attire the virtue of modesty as a delicate reserve is an indispensable natural bulwark and an effective rampart of chastity. This virtue is indeed chastity's vigilant protectress and guardian.11 As his essay is dealing with Christian modesty and in particular with women's fashions, he states that the current fashions are not only repulsive and demeaning but in many instances plainly suggestive and immodest.

Christian modesty simply does not allow girls and women to appear in salacious and revealing apparel, flaunting their legs and nudity. Even some Catholics however perceive this virtue with profound scorn. In this context Fr. Scanlon also refutes the common argument that "passions are not aroused by things we are accustomed to." It is also asserted sometimes naively and even maliciously that all the so-called immodesty is only "in the eye of the beholder," which is nothing but another misuse of Hamlet's fallacious statement "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."12 Christians, especially Catholics, realize that salacious behavior and seductive attire constitute serious scandal: the real motive here is appeal to sinful lust which is held a grave sin.

Reference should be made also to the present judicature and administration of justice. It is rather obvious that any licentious harassment and any sexual wrongdoing ought to be punished, and that especially the heinous crime of rape should be dealt with severely. The laws and the courts however appear to be somewhat inequitable and discriminatory in that those inflaming the fury of lust in others, i.e., the purveyors of filth and smut, who are raking in huge profits, go scot-free. Once lust is aroused and kindled, a man becomes a monstrous menace to any woman. Not every man possesses the necessary self-control and a mature virtue.

One of four

A new expression has been coined recently, i.e., mediarchy, which stands for rule by the media establishment. The media, especially television, carry substantial weight in shaping the moral thinking of their viewers and listeners, influencing public opinion, furthering erotic fashions, promoting unholy policies. In a posthumous article-his very last essay-C.S. Lewis takes strong exception to the brutality of the pervading notion that man has an inalienable right to sexual happiness. It is the idea of a so-called phallic religion of total sexual adjustment as it is furthered by certain modern psychologists and advanced by the media.13 In the discussion about abortion, e.g., the media have been supporting the pro-choice policies, and certainly have not been in defense of the pro-life stand.

On the issue of homosexuality they favor the idea that homosexuality is just another sexual orientation and is therefore to be tolerated and be considered normal. Certain scientists, however, of proven scholarship and integrity, labeled a conspiracy the idea that homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore irreversible.14 Even though the etiology in this field is a rather difficult matter, there is no shred of evidence that homosexuality is innate and genetic.15 Actually both Dr. Jeffrey Satinover and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi have been successful in helping men overcome their affliction.16 If a child, moreover, is reared in a permissive sensual environment, homosexuality becomes for such a child a threatening possibility.

The sin of impurity against nature is one of the so-called four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. When all is said and done, we indeed come to realize that lust disenchants the entire universe as the horror of its perversion is the very spice of man's craving.17 There seems to be in man moreover some kind of a mystical itch to pervert others which is the strangest secret of hell.18 To no surprise, surrender to our lustful desires leads to many evils: to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment and everything that is the reverse of health, good humor and frankness.19 Lust is a fury. Therefore we can't talk about this fury the way we discuss traffic or sports, exactly because it is lust and a fury. Chastity however is not something impossible: only this virtue will give us joy and freedom. God's grace is always sufficient (2 Cor. 12:9). We must try and try again.

Saintly paragons

For us it is not the red flame of lust but rather the bright fire of virtue, of grace and chastity that should kindle our hearts and souls. There always have been devout men and women who consecrated body and soul to the Lord and excelled as true virgins (Rev. 14:4 ). St. Ambrose composed a beautiful hymn to the Virgin St. Agnes, which found its way into the Breviary on the feast of the saint, 21 January. She, moreover, is one of the very few saints who enjoy the distinctive honor to be invoked in the Canon of Mass. About her martyrdom there is a magnificent and inspiring legend extant. She, a very young girl, had pledged herself to her Lord Jesus Christ as she explained to those who sought her hand. One of her suitors angrily denounced her as a Christian, and she then was exposed to various threats and torments. However, she remained steadfast in those harrowing circumstances even when she was brought to a house of ill-repute and exposed to the rudeness of malicious and profligate youths. Her Lord always remained the defender and protector of her virtue. When one lecher tried to touch her, he was struck with total blindness. In the end she was beheaded and became as a virgin martyr widely venerated as the patroness of holy purity.

There is a line of saints who, as a string of precious pearls, are throughout history of profound eminence as the Lord's virgins. We know, e.g., St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Aloysius, St. Dominic Savio, and also St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maria Goretti, Alexandrina da Costa; furthermore, where the demands of chastity are different for the married, we find St. Joseph, son of Jacob, St. Frances of Rome, Bl. Anne-Marie Taigi and Catherine de Hueck who as a waitress in a New York gin-mill kept her virtue; and so many others.20

The Blessed Virgin, Mary most holy, once said to St. Bridget: "If any of my children are in danger of yielding to temptation, I shall come to their aid, as they call upon me." Thanks to the Virgin! n

1 Georges Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1974, p. 96.

2 C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, Macmillan, NY, 1976, p. 70.

3 Cf. Bernard Haring, C.s.s.R, The Law of Christ Vol. III, The Newman Press, Westminster, MD, 1966 p. 286.

4 C.S.L., The Weight of Glory, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1977, p. 59.

5 G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1960, p. 116.

6 G.K.C., The Common Man, Sheed and Ward, NY, 1950, pp. 122 sq.

7 Hilaire Belloc, Essays of a Catholic, Tan Books, IL, 1992, p. 12.

8 Cf. Kenneth Clark, Civilisation, Harper and Row, NY, 1969, passim.

9 Cf. G.K.C., Chaucer, Pellegrini and Cudahy, NY, 1932 , pp. 57-60; also: All is Grist, Dodd, Mead and Co., NY, 1932, p. 139.

10 Regis Scanlon, "Women's Fashions and Christian Modesty" Homiletic and Pastoral Review, November 1988.

11 Cf. Bernard Haring, C.s.s.R., op. cit. Vol II (1963) pp. 473 sq. Vol III, p. 307.

12 Cf. G.K.C. All is Grist, p. 215, p. 238.

13 C.S.L., "We have no right to happiness," Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 21-28, 1963.

14 Cf. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1994.

15 Cf. Rev. John Miller, "Homosexuality, What, How?," Newsletter of Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, May 1994.

16 Cf. Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality-A New Clinical Approach, Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1991.

17 C.S.L., That Hideous Strength, Macmillan, NY, 1977, p. 268.

18 G.K.C., The Common Man, p. 127.

19 Cf. C.S.L., Mere Christianity, Macmillan, NY, 1977, p. 93.

20 Cf. Bl. Josemaria Escriva, "Marriage a Christian Vocation," Lay Witness, June 1996.