Aspiring to Look Like the "Town Tramp"

In a 2009 interview with 60 Minutes' Morley Safer, the "Jolene" hitmaker revealed the woman she was "most impressed with" when she was younger was "the town tramp" — a local woman from her Tennessee hometown.

"This woman had the yellow peroxide hair," she said. "She had the red nails, the red lipstick, the beautiful eyes, the high heels, short skirt, and I thought she was the prettiest thing I'd ever seen. And whoever I was with said, 'Oh, she ain't nothing but trash.' And I make the joke, and I would say, 'Well, that's what I'm going to be when I grow up.' Meaning, that's how I want to look."

Parton echoed that sentiment in a separate interview with Gayle King, saying the town tramp inspired her trademark look. (Dolly Parton's Plastic Surgery: All The Procedures She Confirmed.)

No, the purpose of this commentary is not to beat up on the late Dolly Parton Dean, who has faced her Particular Judgment when she died on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, the Feast of Pope Saint Zephyrinus.

Rather, the purpose of this commentary is point out that Mrs. Dolly Parton Dean’s desire, stated in her own words in at least two interviews,  to look like the “town tramp” is yet another sad commentary on the state of various subcultures within the United States of America that, because of the Protestant Revolution, wherein most women know nothing about Our Lady as the model of Christian femininity and thus do not know much, if anything but aspiring to dress modestly and to deport oneself with a dignity befitting a redeemed child of the living God, the Most Holy Trinity.

Lacking the holy example of the August Queen of Heaven, she who is the very Mother of God and Our Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, many mothers in the United States of America model their daughters after the plaster saints of the world, and Dolly Parton Dean was one of those plasters whose desire to look like the “town tramp” inspired several generations of young American women to model themselves after her own very unnatural look that is meant to highlight a sensuality unbefitting Christian dignity and thus serves as an incentive for many sins of thought, word, and action against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Mind you, the late Loretta Lynn was a Catholic and she dressed very modestly and I am sure that there are some young women attracted to what is called “country music” who have been inspired by Loretta Lynn’s style of dress, which though inspired by that worn by the late Patsy Cline, was nevertheless becomingly modest. This was not the case with Dolly Parton Dean.

Mind you, I am imputing no ill will to the late Mrs. Dean, who was famously devoted to her late husband, Carl Dean, and much money to various charities, but the fact that she did not know any better than to aspire to look like the “town tramp speaks volumes about the diabolical manner in which the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic environment in which we live has malformed people into accepting and even celebrating the ugly and sinful as beautiful and good. Young Dolly Parton made a choice, and she grew up to live by choice for the rest of her life.

Not only that, sadly, but Dolly Parton Dean spoke publicly about maintaining the look of the “town tramp” by having plastic surgeon to “counteract” the effects of aging that are, after all, caused by the ravages of Original Sin on the human body:

One of the earliest detailed accounts of the musician's plastic surgery came during a 2003 interview with Larry King. When asked why she had been so open about her cosmetic procedures, she explained that she did not want to "lie about it," especially because people often asked her about the work she had done.

"I would say if I — you know, if I see something sagging, dragging or bagging, I'm going to go have the stuff tucked or plucked," Dolly revealed.

She also confirmed having facelift, eye surgery, collagen in her lips, Botox, liposuction and excess-skin removal during the sit-down before addressing the longstanding attention around her [chest]. (Dolly Parton's Plastic Surgery: All The Procedures She Confirmed.)

Dolly Parton Dean could not accept effects of aging as she believe she had to “maintain” her “trademark look” even though all the plastic surgeries she had managed to do was to turn whatever natural facial beauty she had in her youth into a grotesque caricature of what an elderly woman looks like when she defies God’s plan for her life, which includes aging, and violates the Fifth Commandment to have one’s own bodily mutilated by means of voluntary cosmetic plastic surgery. Mind you, therapeutic plastic surgery to treat injuries caused by accidents or fires and like are not sinful, but to undergo cosmetic plastic surgery to defy God’s plan and to deceive one’s adoring public is always sinful in the objective order of things and shows that Mrs. Dean, despite all her dedication to what is called “Gospel” music had as little understanding of the Scriptural admonitions against her vanity as do most other Protestants:

Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, before the time of affliction come, and the years draw nigh of which thou shalt say: They please me not:  2 Before the sun, and the light, and the moon, and the stars be darkened, and the clouds return after the rain:  3 When the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall stagger, and the grinders shall be idle in a small number, and they that look through the holes shall be darkened:  4 And they shall shut the doors in the street, when the grinder's voice shall be low, and they shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of music shall grow deaf.  5 And they shall fear high things, and they shall be afraid in the way, the almond tree shall flourish, the locust shall be made fat, and the caper tree shall be destroyed: because man shall go into the house of his eternity, and the mourners shall go round about in the street.

 6 Before the silver cord be broken, and the golden fillet shrink back, and the pitcher be crushed at the fountain, and the wheel be broken upon the cistern,  7 And the dust return into its earth, from whence it was, and the spirit return to God, who gave it.  8 Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes, and all things are vanity. 9 And whereas Ecclesiastes was very wise, he taught the people, and declared the things that he had done: and seeking out, he set forth many parables.  10 He sought profitable words, and wrote words most right, and full of truth.

 11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd.  12 More than these, my son, require not. Of making many books there is no end: and much study is an affliction of the flesh.  13 Let us all hear together the conclusion of the discourse. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is all man:  14 And all things that are done, God will bring into judgment for every error, whether it be good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12: 1-14.)

The world as we know it is passing away, and it is physical beauty, which fades over time, that matters to God but the modest adornment of a soul that is in a state of Sanctifying Grace as prophesied as follows in the Book of Proverbs:

  10 Who shall find a valiant woman? far and from the uttermost coasts is the price of her 

 11 The heart of her husband trusteth in her, and he shall have no need of spoils.  12 She will render him good, and not evil, all the days of her life.  13 She hath sought wool and flax, and hath wrought by the counsel of her hands.  14 She is like the merchant's ship, she bringeth her bread from afar.  15 And she hath risen in the night, and given a prey to her household, and victuals to her maidens.

 16 She hath considered a field, and bought it: with the fruit of her hands she hath planted a vineyard.  17 She hath girded her loins with strength, and hath strengthened her arm.  18 She hath tasted and seen that her traffic is good: her lamp shall not be put out in the night.  19 She hath put out her hand to strong things, and her fingers have taken hold of the spindle.  20 She hath opened her hand to the needy, and stretched out her hands to the poor.

 21 She shall not fear for her house in the cold of snow: for all her domestics are clothed with double garments.  22 She hath made for herself clothing of tapestry: fine linen, and purple is her covering.  23 Her husband is honourable in the gates, when he sitteth among the senators of the land.  24 She made fine linen, and sold it, and delivered a girdle to the Chanaanite.  25 Strength and beauty are her clothing, and she shall laugh in the latter day.

 26 She hath opened her mouth to wisdom, and the law of clemency is on her tongue.  27 She hath looked well to the paths of her house, and hath not eaten her bread idle.  28 Her children rose up, and called her blessed: her husband, and he praised her.  29 Many daughters have gathered together riches: thou hast surpassed them all.  30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: the woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands: and let her works praise her in the gates. (Proverbs 10: 10-31.)

Moreover, Dolly Parton Dean, driven by the ignorance of Protestant sentimentality and Judeo-Masonic naturalism, was an enthusiastic supporter of sodomites and the sodomite agenda despite the clear condemnations of sodomy contained in Sacred Scripture: including in the Epistle of Saint Jude that seems to have fallen by the wayside in most Protestant sects even though it is accepted as one of the inspired books of the New Testament:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

In Protestantism, of course, it is relatively easy to consider oneself a “believer” even though one knows next-to-nothing about the only source of Divine Revelation that Protestantism accepts, namely, Sacred Scripture, and the late Mrs. Dolly Parton Dean’s support of sodomite behavior and her encouragement of women to get plastic surgery when they begin to “sag” and “bag” showed her to be a poster woman of the actual lived ignorance of Holy Writ possessed by most Protestants.

No woman, of course, was more valiant that Our Lady, and how tragic it is that most American women will live and die without knowing her, loving her, and attempting to imitate her heavenly virtues while seeking after secular “role models” who are used, usually without their even knowing it and while thinking themselves to be selflessly virtuous, by the devil himself to tempt others into sinning in preparation for a tragic reunion of the temptress and the tempted in hell for all eternity.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants us to have hearts are that given to Him wholly through His Catholic Church as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, which means that, as recorded in the Gospel read at Holy Mass yesterday, the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon. We must make a choice, a choice that has eternal consequences, something that Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., highlighted in one of his three sermons for the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost:

No man can serve two masters.” Matt. 9.

Either to the right or to the left. This shall one day be the sentence of the divine Judge. The one or other will befall every one of us; and the decision will depend upon the life we have led on earth, whether we have served God or the world; that is, whether we were replenished with the Spirit of God, and by Him enlightened and strengthened to know and accomplish the Divine will, and to provide for that which is to come after death, and which will endure for all eternity; or whether, on the contrary, the spirit of the world had taken possession of our hearts and inflamed us with the desire to live as honored and as happy as possible during our brief sojourn on this earth, unconcerned whether we were accomplishing the will of God or not.

Either the Spirit of the Holy Ghost enkindles our hearts, and urges us to walk in the way of the Lord, with determination, strength and fidelity, or the spirit of the world possesses our hearts, and we serve the world; that is to say, we seek that which the world displays and promises; we let it persuade us that the service of man is of greater importance than the service of God, that we ought to feel greater dread of offending man than God; we live, so that we expose ourselves to its dangers, and, as the Apostle threatens, of perishing with the world.

I will prove to you today what a disgrace and folly it is to serve the world and her maxims, instead of serving God.

Mary, mother of God, spouse of the Holy Ghost, pray for us, that the Holy Spirit may destroy in us the spirit of the world, and that, as thy children, we may serve God and be saved! I speak in the holy name of Jesus, to the greater honor of God!

I said, it is either the Spirit of God which reigns in our hearts, and induces us to enter the service of God, strengthening and encouraging us therein; or it is the spirit of the world, which impels us to serve the world and live in compliance with its principles. But woe to us, if we serve it and acknowledge it as our master!

What I understand by the world, and the spirit of the world, I have intimated in my introduction.

The world, taken in this sense, is that portion of mankind whose desires are all concentrated on the possessions, honors and enjoyments of this life. These children, servants, slaves of the world, look upon religion as a secondary matter; they do not trouble themselves about it in the least, but imagine and say that all religions are one and the same; the first and most important care is happiness in this life, come what may in the next!

To the world, in this sense, belong those also who, with their lips, profess the doctrines of faith, but by their lives deny them and side with the scoffers of religion, and infidels who do not believe in a life to come, and will not admit of any other than the one here below.

In this signification did Christ say of the world: “The world is full of wickedness.” In this sense did Christ speak of the world when He said: “Father, I pray Thee, but not for the world.” Of this world it is written: “Who sides with it, shall perish!”

And yet what a number, even of the children of the Church, follow the world, and labor in her service, instead of the service of God. How foolish and deluded these worldlings are is apparent, when we reflect, on the one hand, upon the qualities of God, which particularly induce us, and encourage and strengthen us in serving Him as our Lord and Master; and, on the other hand, compare them with the opposite qualities which characterize the world and its service.

I say: Let us serve God; He is of Himself an infinite and most glorious Being the Creator, Preserver, and Ruler of the earth.

What is the world? The world in itself, taken in its broadest sense, includes all things in nature; it is nothing of itself; was nothing from all eternity; and does not exist of itself, but through God, without whose support it would at any moment fall back into its original nonentity.

And what are all those, of whom I have before spoken, who are living in this world and for this world? What are they, all these sinners, even if every one of them be adorned with a royal diadem? They are all nothing of themselves; they have come into existence in disgrace with God, owing to the fall of our first parents. And in what a miserable state are they, owing to the countless actual sins which they have committed during their life ! They are beings whose souls were created according to the image of God, but who, by their willful, actual sins, have stamped it with the likeness of Satan, the father of sin. As to their bodies, they may justly be compared to a mass of putrid matter.

And what is all their exterior power and glory and possessions? vanishing smoke,–a bauble, which glitters today and disappears tomorrow! They are beings who, with us, will soon appear at the judgment seat of God, and, as slaves of Satan, will be condemned to eternal perdition! And is it possible that we could resolve to serve the world in preference to God? What an ignominy!

But God in His glory is, at the same time, infinite holiness and goodness. Let us serve Him. What is the world which, on the other hand, seeks to draw us away from God, and advises us to follow her? The world, whose banner bears the inscription: Concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life–she is a sink, a filth, and a rankness!

Could we but view the frightful sins which the worldling commits daily and hourly! Could we but see the loathsomeness of the vices of pride, vanity, covetousness, envy, anger, gluttony, and lust to which the worldling is addicted, we would blush with same!

And how frequently does it not happen that persons, whom we have considered just and virtuous, are stripped of their mask by some unexpected occurrence, and they appear steeped in abominable vices! And should we serve such a world? No; if we look upon her, covered with the filth of sin, we will answer her with determination and indignation: Filthy world, depart!– I will follow my God; for He is perfect holiness, and His true servants and children are noble and holy.

God is, moreover, infinite goodness; He is our constant Benefactor, bestowing His benefits from the moment of our conception. He grants a reward, even on this earth; for He requites even a good thought with that feeling of peace and love which gives us a foretaste of the sweetness of the Lord’s service even in this world; He will finally reward us in the life to come, when we will receive an eternal, incalculable recompense for every good thought and desire, for every good work performed in His service.

The world, on the contrary, is naught but selfishness and egotism; she loves but self, and all other things merely for the sake of self. She does not possess that goodness which loves to share with others; on the contrary, she seeks to accumulate all she can for herself, and those who serve her are requited poorly and wretchedly. “The world’s reward is ingratitude,” says an old proverb.

A proof of this are the cares and difficulties which harass a person whilst endeavoring to earn his daily bread. How often he is at a loss! How frequently he is disappointed in his expectations, defrauded of his rights, injured in his possessions, or deprived of them altogether, just because he served the world and her followers!

And suppose this were not the case, but that the sinner could possess and enjoy all in this world,– the wounded conscience would not permit him to enjoy it peacefully. Holy Scripture and experience teach us that “there is no rest for the wicked.”

Oh, how dreadful the pangs of a guilty conscience! But even if this were not the case, still what a void the human heart experiences amid the possessions and enjoyment of all created objects and pleasures! This caused Solomon to exclaim: “Vanity of vanities!” And why? St. Augustine replies: “Thou hast, O Lord, created this heart for Thee, and it rests not until it rests in Thee.”

And if the worldling would really feel happy and contented in his possession, how soon–how very soon– will death deprive him of all, and then what awaits him in eternity?

For the little which the world has given him for his fidelity in her service, if thereby he has grievously offended God, she will prepare for him, for every sin ful thought, every desire, and every deed,–for every sinful enjoyment in her service,–eternal sufferings!

Beloved in Christ, when we reflect upon the character of the world, and upon the consequences of serving her, her persuasions lose their power of drawing us away from God; and yet we can scarcely comprehend how it is possible that, nevertheless, so many persons, even children of the Church, do not live in the service of God, but in that of the world,–the vain, wretched, sinful, selfish, deceptive, and transitory world, and in this manner expose themselves to the danger of perishing with her!

Therefore, children of the Church, reflect continually upon that, of which my sermon of today reminds you; examine your conscience daily in regard to it, and say to yourself: Should I serve such a deceitful world, and prefer her to my God? No–never!–Amen! (Father Francis X. Weninger, Sermon for the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, 1882.)

Such truths are not part of the conciliar religion, obviously, and thus it is that at least some women feel free to attend the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty dressed more in the manner of Dolly Parton Dean than Our Lady. This is only logical as the conciliar religion is, by the admission of one of the “Second” Vatican Council’s leading periti (experts), Joseph Alois Ratzinger, “an official reconciliation” with the “new principles” inaugurated in 1789. The Novus Ordo religion celebrates the world; Catholics such as Father Francis X. Weninger warned against the world and its concupiscence.

The late Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., provided a history of how immodesty became popularized after World War II and a very good commentary about how to combat it:

The avowed enemies of God are rejoicing--temporarily--at having brought about an almost total collapse of the virtue of modesty among once virtuous Christian womanhood, while those commissioned by God to teach and uphold this angelic virtue insist on cowardly silence and indifference about it and on gutless permissiveness in manner of dress everywhere.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of supposedly "good" people remain as if without a conscience, being morally blind and insensitive as to what has really happened to a God-given virtue that was once a distinctive trademark of theirs. This type of blindness seems to go hand in hand with a brazen contempt and a sassy resentfulness towards any attempt to revive and restore the missing sense of modesty.

The fact stands out clearly that the immodest fashions of this unchaste generation still offend Our Lord "very much," as Our Lady foretold it through the angelic little Jacinta.

Anyone who still cares about God's virtue of modesty, which He has made shine with such heavenly beauty in the Immaculate Virgin Mary, cannot forget how Our Lord suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane when He foresaw so many sinners, including the immodest and the impure, remaining unrepentant. And the sight of so many immodest creatures displaying crude flesh, like animals, brings vividly before our mind's eye the frightful vision of Our Divine Savior being mercilessly scourged at the pillar. We need not strain ourselves in trying to picture this scene, for we can plainly see the immodest, with their unchaste displays of flesh and figure, continually scourging Our Lord. And we can see them crowning Him with thorns and nailing Him to the Cross all over again.

And look what sorrow the immodest and the impure are causing their Sorrowful and Immaculate Mother, whom God has presented to them as the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity!

But it has not all happened by accident. Satan planned it this way. As he has done with such evil movements as Communism and Socialism and Freemasonry, so also has he planned out a program of gradual, not sudden, destruction of the sense of modesty and purity. A mere look at the past 50 years or more shows us very plainly how gradually it was all done, first by apparently innocent abbreviations of garments and by slight revelations of bare flesh and by subtle little displays of the figure, and then, as protests died down, by more and more abbreviations and displays--until the crude immodesty of our day became a shocking reality.

Many living today have seen it all happen before their very eyes. They have lived through it and, if they have managed to retain their God-given moral sense, they find the barbarian immodesty of the this day intolerable and they look upon it as a sin crying to Heaven for the vengeance that must inevitably come if sinners continue to refuse to amend their ways.

Perhaps some 50 years ago or more, a publication known as The Frenchwoman presented the following satanic program for the destruction of the virtue of modesty: "Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus, the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated: first, feet and legs naked, then upturned sleeves; afterwards, the upper part of the chest; then, the back... n summer, they will go around almost naked."

Even if such a daring statement of the powers of darkness had never come to light--though "enlightened" liberals have tried to keep it in the dark--we would still know that it had to be planned that way and could not have happened by accident. And we would also know that such a program for immodesty could not have originated anywhere but in the dungeons of hell and in the mind of Satan.

The program of gradualism intended to lead eventually to the crude immodesty that we know so painfully well today was evidently drawn up, or at least made known, some time during the Fatima years, possibly a little before or after the 1917 Apparitions of Our Lady. (Maybe some well-informed person can provide a precise date.) Bearing this in mind, we can easily conclude that it was no accident that Our Lady insisted so strongly on modesty in her Fatima Message. She knew well of the evil program that would endanger so many immortal souls, and she came to Fatima to warn souls and to save them from the evil awaiting them.

As Sister Lucy has said, one of the things that Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. And still better known, though disregarded, is Jacinta's prophecy: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much"--that little liked prophecy that leaves immodestly dressed "pious" women and girls callous and insensitive and cold.

Just as Our Lady was commissioned by God to oppose the rise of Russian Communism and all the other evils named in the Fatima Message, with God's own program of sanctification and salvation, so was part of her mission to warn souls of the dangers of immodesty and impurity that were to increase the unbelievable proportions in the years to come, and to turn them to modesty and and purity and amendment of life.

In connection with the timeliness of Our Lady's message of modesty in 1917, just when Satan's program of gradual nakedness was being put into effect, we must also mention the timeliness of the message of modesty of Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). It is fairly well known how dynamic were his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, in promoting modesty of dress, but it is not as well known that Pope Benedict XV was before them a strenuous defender and promoter of modesty at a time when we might imagine it was not so much of a problem.

We cannot believe that the statements of Our Lady of Fatima and those of Pope Benedict XV on modesty were disconnected or were merely a matter of coincidence. We can only believe that both Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy Father of that time were inspired and guided by God Himself to speak out on modesty in dress, so as to counteract the wicked program of gradual nudism that was being inspired and guided by hell's father of iniquity.

Let us quote an important statement of Pope Benedict XV--by no means his only one--so that we may see how immodesty in dress had already begun to cause moral ruin among women and girls of his day. In an Encyclical Letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921) commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order, Pope Benedict wrote as follows: 

"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."

If we did not know that a Pope wrote this in 1921, we would surely think it was written, or should have been written by someone, in 1972!

After thus deploring the immodesty of his day, the Holy Father exhorted women with these words: 

"In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals." 

Whose message, do you suppose, have women and girls accepted: the message of modesty of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Holy Father or, the message of immodesty of Lucifer?

Who has recommend to them short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift--the sense of modesty--so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God's gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

And, mind you, these have been "good" and "pious" women who have done this to their children! They have been the "Lord, Lord" type who have duly said their prayers, which all are obliged to do, but who have not done "the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven" (Mt. 7. 21) by obeying His law of modesty. (Emphases added.) (Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., The Remnant, 1972.)

This is even truer now than it was fifty-four years ago, which is why the late Father Louis J. Campbell, who was ordained as a priest for the Order of Saint Augustine in Canada on September 3, 1961, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius X, and spent the last twenty-two years of his life as the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, had to preach on the subject modesty almost ever summer, including in a sermon he gave in 2012:

“When she is good, she is very, very good, but…”

One event in the history of the world gives human life its purpose and meaning – the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, on the hill of Calvary, in which He poured out His Precious Blood to take away the sins of the world. In this only perfect and acceptable Sacrifice to God the Father, He was both Priest and Victim, offering up His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity on the altar of the Cross. It is this same offering which is made present for us in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which He first celebrated with His Apostles at the Last Supper, and which we celebrate whenever the true Mass is offered on our altars.

This Acceptable Sacrifice of the Son of God was an act of perfect obedience and submission to the will of the Father, even unto death on the Cross. It is therefore the perfect model for us of the obedience and the acceptance of the Father’s will that is required of every human being who wishes to live in a right relationship with God.

As St. Augustine comments, “Peace is the tranquility of order.” God tells us in His holy Word what that right order is. There is a structure and an order of obedience that unites all things under God, and without which there is chaos. Christ Himself is in obedience to His Father. If there was anything about Him that stood out, it was His obedience.

We can be related to God only according to the order that He wills. When we break that order then we create disunity, confusion and chaos, which do not reflect the nature of God. But there will be no peace where there is lack of the order intended by God. Everything created must be in its proper relationship with everything else, and all things must be rightly ordered to God through obedience and submission to His holy will. A world which has denied God and His Divine Son, Jesus Christ, can expect to be constantly at war. Our Lord, understanding the ways of the world as no other, said that there would be “wars and rumors of wars” (Mt.24:6).

There is a natural order of things which is willed by God. We once accepted that natural order and lived in a patriarchal society based on the Fatherhood of God and the Christian family, in which the father represents God. But the patriarchal structure of society is now crumbling, and a matriarchal system threatens to take its place, which would disintegrate in disorder and chaos.

Women and men represent God in different ways. A woman cannot well represent the fatherhood and authority of God. Women better represent the love and care of God for His people. Their leadership and sphere of influence should be mostly the spiritual. The most powerful woman in the history of the world was, is, the Blessed Virgin Mary, but she was no feminist, and her power, far greater than any earthly power, is spiritual. Some of the saints, like St. Monica, St. Bridget of Sweden, and St. Margaret of Scotland, had a great spiritual influence on their husbands, and numbered saints among their children.

But under normal circumstances women do not have the gift, the charism, that is necessary to play the role of societal leadership, except in a collaborative situation with men. If they are out of obedience to God’s plan, then they lack the grace to fulfill it. There are exceptions, of course, and God sometimes calls particular women to act or speak for Him, like St. Joan of Arc, or St. Catherine of Siena. But today the rise of aggressive feminism threatens to destroy God’s intended order. It is the devil’s trump card. Think of how he used Eve.

It is not an insult to women to expect them to be obedient to their husbands. A structure of authority and obedience exists for everyone. This is the way that women who are married fulfill their obligation to be obedient to God. Her husband must be obedient too, owing obedience to his employers, to governmental authorities at all levels, as well as to his local pastor, the bishop, the true pope, and ultimately to God. Unmarried women must also be in a state of obedience to God through a human authority structure. Children, of course, must be obedient to their parents and to others whom God has placed over them.

But the whole structure of human society is today under attack. The family is a prime target, so what better way to destroy the traditional family than through the woman. Women’s fashions have reached a point of being highly offensive and indecent, and the children are introduced to this from an early age. In many families today it is very difficult for children, both girls and boys, to learn what is expected of them. Disobedience is not corrected, and the example they need is not given them in matters of dress, language, and general behavior. They are allowed to view programs and videos that are deadly poison for the soul. It is no wonder that girls learn to dress and behave like the latest outrageous incarnation of Madonna or Lady Gaga.

The model many women look to today is not the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints, and the noble women of history, but the Earth Goddess, and the goddess Diana, with her bow and arrow. In the 70s women were already singing with Helen Reddy, “I am woman! I am invincible!” Today the practice of witchcraft, especially among young girls, is spreading rapidly as a result of the popularity of books and movies like the Harry Potter series.

The rise of feminism affects not only secular society, but the Church as well. Many communities of sisters are in full revolt against Church authority and teaching, even on such matters as abortion, gay rights, and the ordination of women. Many of them, for all intents and purposes, have given up the Catholic Faith and are following the spiritual practices of other religions. We have not seen the end of it.

St. Paul tells us that in the end all things will be subject to God the Father through Jesus Christ:

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made to live. But each in his own turn, Christ as the first-fruits, then they who are Christ’s, who have believed, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he does away with all sovereignty, authority and power. For he must reign, until ‘he has put all his enemies under his feet.’ And the last enemy to be destroyed will be death, for ‘he has put all things under his feet.’… And when all things are made subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subject to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all” (1Cor.15:22-26;28). (Father Louis J. Campbell, Sermon on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, July 1, 2012.)

Finally, although appended in its entirety below, Pope Pius XII noted the following an allocution he gave on November 8, 1957, to the Latin Union of High Fashion:

Equally obvious, as the origin and purpose of clothing, is the natural requirement of decency, understood either in the wider sense, which includes proper consideration for the sensitivity of others to objects that are unsightly, or, above all, as a defense of moral honesty and a shield against disordered sensuality.

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.

Natural decency in its strictly moral sense, whatever its origin may be, is founded on the innate and more or less conscious tendency of every person to defend his personal physical good from the indiscriminate desires of others so that he may reserve it, with prudent choice of circumstances, to those wise purposes of the Creator which He Himself has placed under the protective cover of chastity and modesty.

This second virtue, modesty -the very word 'modesty comes from modus, a measure or limit-probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity.

Modesty makes man hear its warning, like a forward sentinel, from the moment he acquires the use of reason, even before he learns the full meaning and purpose of chastity. It accompanies him throughout his entire life and demands that certain acts, which are good in themselves because they are divinely established, should be protected by a discreet veil of shadow and the reserve of silence, in order to confer on them the respect owed the dignity of their great purpose. It is therefore just that modesty, as the depository of such precious possessions, should claim for itself an authority prevailing over every other tendency and every caprice, and should preside over the determination of fashions in clothing. November 8, 1957, As found at: Moral Problems in Fashion Design by Pope Pius XII.)

It is no wonder that the late Dolly Parton Dean did not know this as most Catholics in the world today do not know this, and, as far as is known publicly no Catholic within the conciliar structures sough to admonish Mrs. Dean, a self-professed feminist, by the way, about her immodesty nor to exhort her to convert to the true Faith before she died. This is the greatest tragedy of all and yet another tragic commentary on how the conciliar revolutionaries are content to let non-Catholics die in their false beliefs and thus face the consequences for their actions before Christ the King without the benefit of the Sacraments nor the intercession of Our Lady, who feels from the immodest and indecent as children of perdition even though they did not think of them as such until they saw their lives reflected in light of the Divine Justice of Our Just Judge, Christ the King.

Pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary daily in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world and to pray for the conversion of all those who model their lives after the lost and confused plaster saints of world that has rejected her Divine Son’s Social Kingship over men and their nations and thus find themselves under the reign of the adversary even though they do not realize that this is so.

On the Feast of Saint Raymond Nonnatus

Today, Monday, August 31, 2026, is the Feast  of Saint Raymond Nonnatus, who had his lips pierced and sealed by a fire-branded lock that was put there by the Mohammedans, so that he could no longer preach so effectively with Our Lady’s help to ransom Catholics from their slavery to these bloodthirsty monsters and to effect the conversion of Mohammedans themselves.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s account of Saint Raymond’s life is a very good way to demonstrate the inviolability of the seal of the confessional even if a priest has to undergo capture, torture, and even execution:

August closes as it began, with a feast of deliverance; as though that were the divine seal set by Eternal Wisdom upon this month—the month when holy Church makes the works and ways of Divine Wisdom the special object of her contemplation.

Upon the fall of our first parents and their expulsion from Paradise, the Word and Wisdom of God, that is, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, began the great work of our deliverance—that magnificent work of human Redemption which, by an all-gracious, eternal degree of the three Divine Persons, was to be wrought out by the Son of God in our flesh. And as that blessed Savior, in his infinite wisdom, made spontaneous choice of sorrows, of sufferings, and of death on a cross as the best means of our redemption, so has he always allotted to his best loved friends the kind of life which he had deliberately chosen for himself, that is, the way of the Cross. And the nearest and dearest to him were those who were predestined, like his Blessed Mother, the Mater Dolorosa, to have the honor of being most like himself—the Man of Sorrows. Hence the toils and trials of the greatest Saints; hence the great deliverances wrought by them, and their heroic victories over the world and over the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

On the feasts of St. Raymund of Pegnafort and St. Peter Nolasco, we saw something of the origin of the illustrious Order, of which Raymund Nonnatus added such glory. Soon the august foundress herself, Our Lady of Mercy, will come in person to receive the expression of the world’s gratitude for so many benefits. The following Legend recounts the peculiar merits of our Saint of today.

Raymund, surnamed Nonnatus, on account of his having been brought into the world in an unusual manner after the death of his mother, was of a pious and noble family of Portelli in Catalonia. From his very infancy he showed signs of his future holiness; for, despising childish amusements and the attractions of the world, he applied himself to the practice of piety so that all wondered at his virtues, which far surpassed his age. As he grew older he began his studies; but after a short time he returned at his father’s command to live in the country. He frequently visited the chapel of St. Nicholas, built near Portelli, in order to venerate in it a holy image of the Mother of God, which is still more honored by the faithful. There he would pour out his prayers, begging God’s holy Mother to adopt him for her son and to deign to teach him the way of salvation and the science of the saints.

The most benign Virgin heard his prayer, and gave him to understand that it would greatly please her if he entered the Religious Order lately founded by her inspiration, under the name of the Order of “Ransom, or of Mercy for the redemption of captives.” Upon this Raymund at once set out for Barcelona, there to embrace that institute so full of brotherly charity. Thus enrolled in the army of holy religion, he persevered in perpetual virginity, which he had already consecrated to the Blessed Virgin. He excelled also in every other virtue most especially in charity towards those Christians who were living in misery, as slaves of the pagans. He was sent to Africa to redeem them, and freed many from slavery. But when he had exhausted his money, rather than abandon others who were in danger of losing their faith, he gave himself up to the barbarians as a pledge for their ransom. Burning with a most ardent desire for the salvation of souls, he converted several Mahometans to Christ by his preaching. On this account he was thrown into a close prison and after many tortures his lips were pierced through and fastened together with an iron padlock, which cruel martyrdom he endured for a long time.

This and his other noble deeds spread the fame of his sanctity far and near, so that Gregory IX determined to enroll him in the august college of the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. When raised to that dignity the man of God shrank from all pomp and clung always to religious humility. On his way to Rome, as soon as he reached Cardona, he was attacked by his last illness, and earnestly begged to be strengthened by the Sacraments of the Church. As his illness grew worse and the priest delayed to come, Angels appeared, clothed in the religious habit of his Order, and refreshed him with the saving Viaticum. Having received It he gave thanks to God, and passed to our Lord on the last Sunday of August in the year 1240. Contentions arose concerning the place where he should be buried; his coffin was therefore placed upon a blind mule and by the will of God it was taken to the chapel of St. Nicholas, that it might be buried in that place where he had first begun a more perfect life. A convent of his Order was built in the spot, and there famous for many signs and miracles he is honored by the concourse of all the faithful of Catalonia, who come there to fulfill their vows.

To what a length, O illustrious Saint, didst thou follow the counsel of the Wise man! The bands of Wisdom, says he, are a healthful binding. And, not satisfied with putting thy feet into her fetters and thy neck into her chains, in the joy of thy love thou didst offer thy lips to the dreadful padlock, not mentioned by the son of Sirach. But what a reward is thine, now that this Wisdom of the Father, whose twofold precept of charity thou didst so fully carry out, inebriates thee with the torrent of eternal delights, adorning thy brow with the glory and grace which radiate from her own beauty! We would fain be forever with thee near that throne of light; teach us, then, how to walk in this world by the beautiful ways and peaceable paths of Wisdom. Deliver our souls, if they be still captive in sin; break the chains of our self-love, and give us instead those blessed bands of Wisdom which are humility, abnegation, self-forgetfulness, love of our brethren for God’s sake, love of God for his own sake. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

Imitating the example of Saint Raymond Nonnatus, therefore, may we beg—yes, as in beg!—Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Immaculate Heart to which this month of August has been dedicated to remain steadfast in defense of the truths of the Holy Faith at all times, including the truth about the Virtue of Modesty and the necessity of not following the world and its fashions.

We must also pray to Saint Raymond Nonnatus to beg of Our Lady of Ransom for us so we can be converted from our own sins and tepidity to scale the heights of sanctity by relying tenderly upon her maternal patronage at all times.

Vivat Christus Rex.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for now, and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Raymond Nonnatus, pray for us.

Appendix

Pope Pius XII's November 8, 1957, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion

Beloved sons and daughters, promoters and associates of the 'Latin Union of High Fashion, We heartily extend to you Our paternal welcome.

You have seen fit to come here to give Us testimony of your filial devotion and, at the same time, to seek heaven's favor on your Union. >From its very inception you placed it under the auspices of Him Whose glory must be the end of every human activity, even of those that are apparently profane, according to the precept of the Apostle of the Gentiles: 'Whether you eat or drink, or do anything else, do all for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10, 31).

A delicate and complex problem

You propose to examine from the Christian point of view and with Christian intent a problem which is as delicate as it is complex. Its moral aspects cannot be ignored. It is a constant object of attention and anxiety for those whose task it is, by reason of their duties in the family, in society, and in the Church, to preserve souls from the snares of corruption and to protect the whole community from moral decadence: the problem of fashions, especially women's fashions.

It is right and proper that your generous intentions should receive Our gratitude and that of the Church, and that your Union, born of and inspired by a sound religious and civic sense, should receive Our fervent wishes for the achievement, through the enlightened self-discipline of fashion designers, of the twofold aim expressed in your statutes: to improve the moral condition of this important sector of public life, and to help raise fashions to the level of an instrument and expression of well-intentioned civility.

Since We wish to encourage such a praiseworthy enterprise, We have willingly consented to your request that We set out Our thoughts to you, particularly on the proper formulation of the problem and, most important of all, its moral aspects. We shall also make some practical suggestions which may guarantee to the Union a well-accepted authority in this highly controversial field.

I

General Aspects of Fashions

Following that counsel of ancient wisdom which finds in the purposes of things both the ultimate criterion for every theoretical evaluation and the certainty of moral principles, it will be useful to recall those aims which man has always established for himself where his clothing is concerned.

Three reasons for clothing :

Without doubt he obeys the familiar requirements of hygiene, decency, and adornment. These are three necessities so deeply rooted in nature that they cannot be disregarded or contradicted without provoking hostility and prejudice. They are as necessary today as they were yesterday; they are found among almost every people; they can be seen at every stage of the wide scale in which the natural necessity of clothing is historically and ethnologically manifested.

It is important to note the strict and close interdependence that binds these three necessities, despite the fact that they derive from three different sources. The first is derived from man's physical nature; the second from his spiritual nature; the third from his psychological and artistic nature.

. . . hygiene

The hygienic requirements of clothing concern mostly the climate, its variations, and other external factors, as possible causes of discomfort or illness. It follows from the above-mentioned interdependence that hygienic reasons, or, rather, pretexts-cannot serve to justify a deplorable license, especially in public, aside from exceptional cases of proven necessity. But even in these cases, every well-bred soul would be unable to avoid the distress of an involuntary feeling of confusion, outwardly expressed by natural blushing.

In the same way, a manner of dressing which is harmful to health -and there are no few examples of this in the history of style-cannot be considered legitimate on the pretext of beauty. On the other hand, the common rules of decency must give way to the needs of a medical cure which, although it may seem to violate them, actually respects them when all due moral precautions are employed.

. . . decency

Equally obvious, as the origin and purpose of clothing, is the natural requirement of decency, understood either in the wider sense, which includes proper consideration for the sensitivity of others to objects that are unsightly, or, above all, as a defense of moral honesty and a shield against disordered sensuality.

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.

Natural decency in its strictly moral sense, whatever its origin may be, is founded on the innate and more or less conscious tendency of every person to defend his personal physical good from the indiscriminate desires of others so that he may reserve it, with prudent choice of circumstances, to those wise purposes of the Creator which He Himself has placed under the protective cover of chastity and modesty.

This second virtue, modesty -the very word 'modesty comes from modus, a measure or limit-probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity.

Modesty makes man hear its warning, like a forward sentinel, from the moment he acquires the use of reason, even before he learns the full meaning and purpose of chastity. It accompanies him throughout his entire life and demands that certain acts, which are good in themselves because they are divinely established, should be protected by a discreet veil of shadow and the reserve of silence, in order to confer on them the respect owed the dignity of their great purpose. It is therefore just that modesty, as the depository of such precious possessions, should claim for itself an authority prevailing over every other tendency and every caprice, and should preside over the determination of fashions in clothing.

. . . and adornment

And here we arrive at the third purpose of clothing, from which fashions draw their origin more directly, and which responds to the innate need, more greatly felt by woman, to enhance the beauty and dignity of the person with the same means that are suitable to satisfy the other two purposes.

In order to avoid restricting the scope of this third requirement to mere physical beauty, and, even more, to avoid associating fashion with lust for seduction as its first and only reason, the term adornment is preferable to beautification.

T his penchant for the adornment of one's own person clearly derives from nature, and is therefore legitimate. Over and above the function of clothing which hides physical imperfections, youth asks for clothing which has an attractiveness and splendor that sing the happy themes of the spring of life, and which facilitates, in harmony with the rules of modesty, the psychological prerequisites necessary for the formation of new families. At the same time, those of mature age seek to obtain from appropriate clothing an aura of dignity, seriousness, and serene happiness.

In those cases in which the aim is to enhance the moral beauty of the person the style of the clothes will be such as almost to eclipse physical beauty in the austere shadow of concealment, to distract the attention of the senses, and concentrate reflection on the spirit.

The language of clothing

Considered under this wider aspect, clothing has its own multiform and efficacious language. At times it is a spontaneous and faithful interpretation of sentiments and habits; at other times it is conventional, affected, and therefore hardly sincere.

Clothing expresses joy and sorrow, authority and power, pride and simplicity, wealth and poverty, the sacred and the profane. The specific form of this expression depends on the traditions and the culture of a particular people; it changes all the more slowly as the institutions, characters, and sentiments that the styles interpret are the more stable.

The nature of 'fashion

Fashion-an ancient art of uncertain origins, which is made complex by the psychological and social factors it involves-applies itself expressly to the enhancement of physical beauty. At present, fashion has achieved an indisputable importance in public life, whether as an aesthetic expression of customs, or as an interpretation of public demand and a focal point of substantial economic interests.

A profound observation of the phenomena of fashions will reveal that they are not only extravagant in their form, but are also the meeting point of such different psychological and moral factors as taste for beauty, thirst for novelty, affirmation of the personality, intolerance of monotony, no less than luxury, ambition and vanity.

Fashion is actually elegance, conditioned, however, by constant change in such a way that its own instability confers a distinctive mark upon it. The reason for the constant change of fashions, which has now become seasonal- changes which are slower in basic lines, but extremely rapid in secondary variations-seems to be a desire to surpass the past. It is facilitated by the frantic character of the present era, which has a tremendous capacity for burning up in a short time all that is meant to satisfy the fantasy and the senses.

It is understandable that new generations intent upon their own future -a different and better dream than that of their fathers-should feel the need to detach themselves from those forms, not only of clothing but also of objects and ornaments, which most obviously recall a way of life that they wish to surpass. But the extreme instability of presentday styles is determined above all by the will of its artificers and guides, who have at their disposal such means, unknown in the past, as an enormous and varied textile production, the inventive fertility of fashion designers, and easy means of 'launching fashions in the press, movies, television, exhibits, and fashion shows.

The rapidity of change is further stimulated by a kind of silent competition, not really new, between the 'elite who wish to assert their own personality with original forms of clothing, and the public who immediately convert them to their own use with more or less good imitations. Nor can one overlook another subtle and decadent reason, namely, the effort of those 'stylists who play on the factor of seduction in order to insure the success of their 'creations, being well aware of the effect that constantly repeated surprise and novelty create.

The economics of fashion

It is another characteristic of today's fashions that, although they remain principally an aesthetic fact, they have also become an economic element of great proportions. The few established fashion-shops which once dictated undisputed rules of elegance from this or that metropolis to the world of European culture have now been replaced by a number of financially powerful organizations which, while they supply the demand for clothing, also form popular tastes and constantly work to promote increasing demands for their own market.

The reasons for this transformation are to be found, first of all, in the socalled 'democratization of fashion through which an increasing number of individuals fall under the spell of elegance and, secondly, in technical progress which makes it possible to turn out mass-produced styles that would otherwise be expensive but have now become easy to acquire on the socalled 'ready-made market.

Thus was the world of fashion born, a world which includes artists and craftsmen, manufacturers and merchants, publishers and critics, as well as an entire class of humble workers who draw their income from fashions.

The fashion-designer

Although the economic factor is the driving force of this activity, its soul is always the 'stylist, the person who, through a clever choice of materials, colors, cut, line, and accessory ornaments, gives life to a new and expressive style that pleases the public. It is needless to list the difficulties of this art, the fruit of genius and skill and, even more, of a sensitivity to the taste of the moment.

A style destined for certain success acquires the importance of an invention. It is surrounded by secrecy while waiting to be 'launched. Once on the market, it brings in high prices, while the information media give it wide publicity almost as though it were an event of national importance.

The influence of fashion-designers is so strong that the textile industry lets its production be guided by them, both in quantity and in quality. Their social influence is equally great in interpreting public customs, for if fashions have been the external expression of the usages of people in the past, today they have become ever more so-from the time when this phenomenon, fashions, began to be the result of reflection and study.

'High fashion

But the formation of the tastes and preferences of the people and the guidance of society toward serious or decadent habits does not depend on the fashion designers alone. It depends also on the whole organized complexus of the fashion industry, especially upon production houses and critics in that more refined sector which finds its clients in the upper social classes and takes the name of 'high fashion, as if to designate the source of the currents that people will later follow almost blindly, under what appears to be some magic compulsion.

Now, since so many important values are involved in and sometimes endangered by styles, as We have rapidly outlined, it seems providential that persons should enter upon the scene who have received a technical and Christian preparation and want to help free styles from those tendencies that are not commendable.

These are persons who see in styles the art of knowing how to dress, whose aim is certainly, though only partially, to enhance the beauty of the body, but with such moderation that the body, the masterpiece of divine creation, will not be obscured but, on the contrary, in the words of the Prince of the Apostles,will be exalted 'in the imperishableness of a quiet and gentle spirit, which is of great price in the sight of God (I Peter 3, 4).

II

The Moral Problem of Fashion and Its Solutions

The problem of fashion consists in the harmonious reconciliation of a person's exterior ornamentation with the interior of a 'quiet and modest spirit.

However, some people ask themselves if there really is a moral problem in such an exterior, contingent, and relative fact as fashion. And, granted that there is, they ask in what terms this problem is to be set forth and according to what principles it must be solved.

This is not the place to protest at length against the insistent attempts of many contemporaries to separate the exterior activities of man from the moral realm as if the two belonged to different universes, as if man himself were not the subject and the object of the moral realm and, therefore, responsible before the Sovereign Regulator of all things.

It is quite true that styles, like art, science, politics, and other so-called profane activities, follow their own rules to attain the immediate ends for which they are intended. However, their subject is invariably man who cannot prescind from directing these activities to his ultimate and supreme end.

There exists, then, the moral problem of styles, not only insofar as they concern a generically human activity, but more specifically insofar as this activity is carried out in a field common to, or at least very close to evident moral values. The problem is especially great insofar as the aims of styles-aims that are good in themselves-are likely to be twisted by the wicked tendencies of a human nature which is fallen through original sin, and thus fashions can be changed into occasions of sin and scandal.

Ecclesiastical severity

This inclination of a corrupt nature to abuse fashions has frequently led ecclesiastical tradition to treat fashions with suspicion and severe judgment, as expressed with intense firmness by notable sacred speakers and by zealous missionaries, even to the point of 'burning vain objects which, according to the usages and austerity of those times, was esteemed as effective eloquence by the people.

From these manifestations of severity, which basically showed the maternal concern of the Church for the welfare of souls and the moral values of civilization, one cannot argue, however, that Christianity exacts almost a renunciation of respect and care for the physical person and its external decorum. Whoever would draw this conclusion would be forgetting what the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote: 'In like manner I wish women to be decently dressed, adorning themselves with modesty and dignity (I Tim., 2, 9).

The Church's positive attitude

The Church, on the contrary, does not censure or condemn styles when they are meant for the proper decorum and ornamentation of the body, but she never fails to warn the faithful against being easily led astray by them.

This positive attitude of the Church derives from reasons far higher than the mere aesthetic or hedonistic considerations which have been assumed by a renewed paganism. The Church knows and teaches that the human body, which is God's masterpiece in the visible world, and which has been placed at the service of the soul, was elevated by the Divine Redeemer to the rank of a temple and an instrument of the Holy Spirit, and as such must be respected. The body's beauty must therefore not be exalted as an end in itself, much less in such guise as will defile the dignity it has been endowed with.

Moral evaluation of attire

Speaking in concrete terms, it cannot be denied that along with seemly styles there are also immodest fashions that create confusion in well-ordered minds and can even be an incentive to evil. It is always difficult to indicate with universal norms the border-line between seemliness and shamelessness because the moral evaluation of attire depends on many factors. However, 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.

The sense of decency, almost without being consulted on the matter, gives immediate warning as to where immodesty and seduction, idolatry of matter and luxury, or only frivolity, are concealed. And if the artificers of shameless fashions are skilled in the trafficking of perversion, mixing it into an ensemble of aesthetic elements that are good in themselves, human sensuality is unfortunately even more skillful in discovering it and is ready to fall under its spell.

Here as elsewhere, greater sensitivity to this warning against the snares of evil, far from being grounds for criticizing those who possess it, as though it were a sign of interior depravity, is actually a mark of an upright soul and of watchfulness over the passions.

Yet, no 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.

The element of intent

Among the objective elements that concur to make an immodest style there is, first and foremost, the evil intention of its makers. Where these seek to create unchaste ideas and sensations through their fashions, there is present a technique of disguised malice. They know, among other things, that boldness in such matters cannot be pushed beyond certain limits, but they also know that the desired effect is close to these limits, and that a clever combination of serious and artistic elements with others that are less worthy is highly suited to capturing the fancy and the senses. For they realize that a fashion thus devised will be acceptable to a client who seeks such an effect, but will not compromise, at least in their opinion, the good name of upright clients.

Every restoration of decency to style must, therefore, begin with the intention of those who design and those who wear. In both there must be an awakening of the conscience as to their responsibility for the tragic consequences that could result from clothing which is overly bold, especially if it is worn in public.

Immodesty

More basically, the immorality of some styles depends in great part on excesses either of immodesty or luxury. An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.

It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization.

Luxury

No less unfortunate, although in a different area, are excesses of style when it is assigned the task of satisfying a thirst for luxury. The small merit which luxury has as a source of labor is almost always nullified by the grave disorders that derive from it in public and private life. Prescinding from the dissipation of wealth which excessive luxury demands of its worshippers, who will more often than not end by being devoured by it, it always insults the integrity of those who live by their own toil, and it displays a cynicism toward poverty, either by flaunting too easy gains or by breeding suspicion about the way of life of those who surround themselves with it. Where moral consciousness does not succeed in moderating the use of riches, even if they are honestly acquired, either frightful barriers will be raised between classes, or the entire society will be set adrift, exhausted by the race toward a utopia of material happiness.

In indicating the harm that a lack of restraint in styles can do to individuals and society, We do not intend to suggest that the expansive force or the creative genius of fashion designers should be repressed, nor that fashion should be reduced to unchanging forms, to monotony or to dismal severity. On the contrary, We mean to indicate the right road that styles should follow, so that they may achieve their end as faithful interpreters of civilized and Christian traditions.

Three basic principles: . . .

To do this a few principles may be set down as a basis for solving the moral problem of styles; from them more concrete norms may be easily drawn.

. . . the influence of styles

The first is not to minimize the importance of style's influence for good or for evil. The language of clothing, as We have already said, is the more effective when it is more ordinary and is understood by everyone. It might be said that society speaks through the clothing it wears. Through its clothing it reveals its secret aspirations and uses it, at least in part, to build or destroy its future.

But the Christian, whether he be creator or client, should be careful not to underestimate the dangers and spiritual ruin spread by immodest fashions, especially those worn in public, because of that continuity that must exist between what one preaches and what one practices, even in the sense of externals. He will remember the high purity which the Redeemer demands of His disciples even in glances and thoughts. And he will remember the severity which God shows to those who give scandal.

We might call to mind on this subject the strong words of the prophet Isaias, in which was foretold the infamy that was to befall the holy city of Sion because of the immodesty of its daughters (cf. Isaias 3, 16-21). And one could recall those other words with which the greatest of all Italian poets expressed in vehement terms his feeling of indignation for the immodesty creeping into his city (cf. Dante, Purgatorio, 23, 94-108).

. . . control

The second principle is that style should be directed and controlled instead of being abandoned to caprice and reduced to abject service. This applies to the makers of style-designers and critics; conscience demands that they not submit blindly to the depraved, taste which is manifested by society, or rather by a part of it, and not always that part most discerning in wisdom. But it also applies to individuals, whose dignity demands of them that they should liberate themselves with free and enlightened conscience from the imposition of pre-determined tastes, especially tastes debatable on moral grounds. To direct styles also means to react firmly against currents that are contrary to the best traditions.

Control over fashions does not contradict but, on the contrary, confirms the saying that 'fashions are not born outside of and against society, provided that one ascribes to society, as one should, consciousness and autonomy in directing itself.

. . . and moderation

The third principle, even more concrete, is the respect of 'measure or rather of moderation in the entire field of styles. Just as excess is the principal cause of their defects, so moderation will preserve their value. Moderation, above all, must provide a pattern by which to regulate, at all costs, greed for luxury, ambition, and capriciousness. Stylists, and especially designers, must let themselves be guided by moderation in designing the cut or line of a garment and in the selection of its ornaments, convinced that sobriety is the finest quality of art.

Far from wanting a return to outdated forms -though these often reappear as fashion novelties-but rather to confirm the perennial value of sobriety, We should like to invite today's artists to dwell for a moment on certain feminine figures in the masterpieces of classical art which have undisputed esthetical value. Here the clothing, marked by Christian decency, is the worthy ornament of the person with whose beauty it blends as in a single triumph of admirable dignity.

III

Specific Suggestions to Promoters And associations of the 'Union

And now some specific suggestions for you, beloved sons and daughters, promoters and associates of the 'Latin Union of High Fashions.

It seems to Us that the word 'Latin itself, with which you have wished to designate your association, callicates not only a geographical region, but above all the ideal aim of your activity. In fact this term 'Latin, which is so rich in deep significance, seems to express, among other things, a lively sensibility and respect for the values of civilization.

It seems to express at the same time a sense of moderation, of balance and concreteness, qualities that are all necessary to the components of your Union. It has given Us pleasure to see that these characteristics have inspired the purpose of your statutes, which you courteously submitted to Us. We notice that these statutes derive from a complete view of the complex problem of fashions, but especially from your firmpersuasion of fashion's moral responsibility.

Your program is, therefore, as wide as the problem itself, since it includes all the determining sectors of fashions: the feminine group directly, with the intention of guiding it in the formation of its tastes and the choice of clothing; the houses which are 'creators of fashions; and the textile industry: that by mutual agreement all might adapt their efforts to the healthy principles of the Union. And since your Union is composed of organizations that are not mere spectators but participators-We might say actors in the theater of fashions-its program also deals with the economic aspect of fashions, rendered more difficult now by forthcoming changes in production and by the unification of the European markets.

The formation of taste

One of the indispensable conditions for achieving the aims of your Union lies in the formation of sound taste in the public. This is indeed a difficult task, opposed at times by premeditated design, and it requires of you much intelligence, great tact, and patience. In spite of everything, face it with a fearless spirit. You are certain of finding strong allies, first of all, among the excellent Christian families which are still to be found in great numbers in your own native land.

It is clear that your action in this direction must be aimed mainly at winning over to your cause those who control public opinion through the press and other information media. People wish to be guided in style more than in any other activity. Not that they lack a critical sense in matters of aesthetics or of propriety, but, at times too docile and at other times too lazy to make use of this faculty, they accept the first thing that is offered to them and only later become aware of how mediocre or unbecoming certain fashions are.

It is necessary therefore that your action should be timely. Among those, furthermore, who at the present time are guiding with great effectiveness the tastes of the public, celebrities, especially in the world of the theater and films, occupy a pre-eminent position. In the same measure that their responsibility is grave, so will your action be fruitful wherever you can succeed in bringing over at least a few of these to the good cause.

Aesthetic and moral problems

A distinguishing mark of your Union seems to lie in the careful study of the aesthetic and moral problems of fashions, conducted in periodic meetings, such as the present congress, that have an ever more international character, persuaded as you are that the fashions of the future will have a unified character in the individual continents. Employ yourselves, therefore, to bring into these congresses the Christian contribution of your intelligence and skill, with such persuasive wisdom that no one will be able to suspect you of prejudice in your own personal interest or of the weakness of compromise.

The sound consistency of your principles will be put to the test by the so-called modern spirit, which cannot bear hindrance. And it will be tried by the same indifference of many toward the moral consideration of styles. The most insidious of sophisms are usually repeated to justify immodesty and seem to be the same everywhere. One of these resurrects the ancient saying ab assuetis non fit passio ('The passions are not aroused by things we are accustomed to) in order to brand as old-fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold. Must it perhaps be shown how out of place the ancient saying is in such questions?

When We spoke of the absolute limits to be defended in the relativism of style, We mentioned the unfounded character of another fallacious opinion according to which modesty is no longer appropriate in the contemporary era which has now become free of all useless and ruinous scruples.

It can certainly be conceded that there are different degrees of public morality according to the times, the nature, and the conditions of the civilization of individual peoples. But this does not invalidate the obligation to strive for the ideal of perfection and is not a sufficient reason to renounce the high degree of morality that has been achieved, and which manifests itself precisely in the great sensitivity with which consciences regard evil and its snares.

A mortal combat

May your Union, therefore, pledge itself to this fight, which aims at insuring an ever higher degree of morality, worthy of its Christian traditions, in the public customs of your nation. It is not by chance that your work, which strives to introduce moral styles, is called a 'battle. Every other enterprise which tries to return to the spirit its domination over matter, meets with battle in the same way.

Considering each battle in particular, one can see that they are individual and significant episodes in the bitter and eternal struggle that everyone who is called to the freedom of the Spirit of God must endure in this life. The Apostle of the Gentiles described with inspired accuracy the front lines and opposing forces of this combat: 'For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that you do not what you would (Gal. 5, 17). Listing the works of the flesh in a sad inventory of the bequest of original sin, he included among them impurity, to which he opposed modesty as a fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Busy yourselves generously and with confidence, without ever allowing yourselves to be ensnared by that timidity which made the numerically small but heroic armies of the great Judas Machabeus say: 'How shall we, being few, be able to fight against so great a multitude? (I Mac. 3, 17). May the same answer given by the great champion of God and of the fatherland encourage you: 'For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army, but strength cometh from heaven (Ibid., 19).

With this heavenly assurance in mind We take leave of you, beloved sons and daughters. And We raise Our supplications to the Omnipotent that He might deign to bestow His assistance upon your Union, and His graces upon each one of you, your families, and, in particular upon the humble working men and women of fashions. As a token of these favors which We wish you, We heartily impart to you Our paternal Apostolic Blessing. (November 8, 1957, As found at: Moral Problems in Fashion Design by Pope Pius XII.)