Reinvigorating the Weakened Sense of Modesty

by Charles Bruehl, D.D.

The situation that confronts us must be considered calmly and sympathetically. We must not allow ourselves to become unduly alarmed and excited; for alarm and excitement have a tendency to produce distorted views and to give a pessimistic bias to our judgments. Alarm and fear exaggerate the danger and make it loom disproportionately large. The evil usually presses to the foreground and dwarfs the good to such an extent that it seems to be prevalent and in the ascendency, when in reality this appearance is due only to the favorable position — right in the focus of attention — which it always manages to secure. The light of publicity we know plays more strongly on the bad than on the good, the latter not having any particular news value and, therefore, never being featured either in the daily papers or the periodicals. This illusion must be duly discounted. Moreover, we are aware that the reformer himself habitually overstates his case. This for a two-fold psychological reason. The reformer does not see in perspective, for the simple reason that he is a specialist who observes things microscopically and consequently out of relation to anything else. Then in order to arouse public sentiment, he feels that it is necessary to stress and emphasize his point and to paint his picture with a heavy brush, dipped in glaring and arresting colors. We have no desire to fall into the self-deception of the reformer, or to adopt his specious tricks. Neither, on the other hand, however, are we inclined to mince matters, or to gloss over the evil.

The sociologist leans towards wholesale condemnation. His indictment is mostly of the sweeping kind that ignores the bright spots and sees nothing but the black shadows. The moral theologian is more discriminating and penetrates beneath the surface. His equanimity is not so readily disturbed, for he knows the fatal corruption of human nature and is also able to distinguish between essentials of morality and accidentals. He is also, on the whole, more hopeful, because, though he fully realizes the possibilities of evil latent in human kind, he is equally aware of the moral resources of the race and the incalculable potentialities of divine grace, a factor which never figures in the calculations of the sociologist.¹

The Function of Modesty

In order to understand the whole matter properly, it is essential to get a precise notion of the nature and meaning of modesty. It would be a grave mistake to imagine that modesty and purity are identical or coextensive. Purity constitutes a definite and absolute value. It has an unchangeable content and a fixed signification. Modesty, on the contrary, is a relative term and subject to great variations and modifications. Modesty is not the virtue of purity itself, but merely its outward protection and safeguard. Plainly, the safeguards will change as the dangers change. To a large extent, all safeguards may be removed if the danger entirely vanishes. That accounts for the stricter or laxer insistence on modesty in different ages and different environments. If we keep this relative character of modesty in mind, it will prevent confusion. There have been times when a rigid modesty was adhered to and yet gross immorality prevailed. Again times have been when external modesty was little observed and yet purity held very high. The affair is a matter of time, place, temperament and a number of factors.²

We can readily see, then, why what are called the proprieties and decencies of society are subject to such striking fluctuations. The so-called proprieties and decencies of society are established defenses of purity. Their rigidity or laxity will depend on various conditions. Taken by themselves alone, they cannot be used to gauge the corruption of an age. It is quite conceivable that a society may adopt and enforce high standards of outward propriety for the explicit purpose of concealing its perversity of heart.

Still, there is a relation between modesty and purity, even if they cannot simply be put down as identical. Conscious chastity will not discard the outer proprieties, because it realizes their protective value. Hence, purity and modesty will ordinarily be found together. If they become divorced, it is not good for purity, for in that case the angelic virtue is robbed of its first line of defenses and exposed to serious danger. When all the defenses have been leveled, resistance is much more difficult. To tear down barriers never strengthens a position, but on the contrary makes the holding of it exceedingly precarious. It may, therefore, be said that if the breaking down of the existing proprieties does not argue the actual presence of moral corruption, it certainly heralds the speedy arrival of a wave of immorality. However much men may differ in their philosophical views, they agree on the prophylactic value of modesty. The neglect of all external restraints would inevitably lead to an intolerable coarseness and vulgarity of life. The proprieties cannot be violated with impunity. It is always hazardous to approach danger too closely. Experience tells us that those who have no regard for the external decencies of social conventions care little for the virtue for the protection of which the latter have been devised.³ There are some who boast that they can dispense with these safeguards, but this is usually an idle boast.

It is interesting to see what thoughtful men have to say on the problem. What is serviceable we can retain; the rest we may reject. It is necessary to go into details, on account of the confusion of ideas which prevails with regard to this subject in our days. Professor Edward A. Ross, the well-known sociologist of the University of Wisconsin, recently declared "that a weakening of restraint between the sexes has occurred throughout the country, and that six hundred sociologists of the United States were united in the opinion that a rapid deterioration of the race will follow, unless some way can be found to build up the barriers of restraint again." He is not the first one to deplore the excessive freedom of social intercourse that exists between the sexes in the younger set. Apparently, these young people think that there is no danger for them and that they are proof against every temptation. They might be told that human nature is to-day what it was centuries ago and that the carnal passions are likely to flare up at the slightest provocation.⁴ Here is the testimony of another observer of things and times: "Modesty," says Mr. John A. W. Haas, President of Muhlenberg College, "may be restraint of our whole demeanor in life, but it is specifically the control of dress and manners in the direction of the privacy of our sex-life, and the avoidance of everything that leads to the seductiveness and allurement of sex. Shame can be a reaction of guilt after we have committed the sexually immodest and wrong act. But it can also be a preventive virtue through which we recognize the protection of the physical. Animals have no shame. Shame is the testimony of the rise of human, rational nature above the animal world."⁵

It is perfectly true that outward manners are not virtues, but it is not less true that they serve as a powerful protection against the approach of temptation. It is thus that Dr. Samuel S. Drury looks on the matter when he writes: "Perhaps it is manners only that are wrong; the apparent revolt may be only against transitory standards. We must guard against the deeper evil, because manners are the protecting armor of morals and when manners are abandoned the nature is rudely exposed. Serviceable manners every age must have, but even if manners alone were suffering, we shall not help our young people by merely treating symptoms."⁶

Modesty Asserts Man's Spiritual Nature

The purpose of modesty is not only to remove temptation and to shield us against the allurements of sex, but also to emphasize the spiritual nature of man. It does this by drawing away attention from the animal phase of human nature and revealing to the eye only those portions of the human body that are expressive of the spiritual side of man's nature, or the special instruments of mind; the countenance and the hands.⁷ It is a protest against that conception of man which views him only as the member of an animal species, and proclaims him as endowed with the unique prerogatives of a distinct person that has an end in itself and is not merely the means for the realization of the species. The attacks on modesty, consequently, come from those who deny the spiritual nature and higher destiny of man and who are satisfied to assign him exclusively to the animal kingdom. They assume that there is no dissonance in human nature, because man is all animal and nothing else. These theories are more common than we think and they unconsciously influence many more who really do not profess, but rather abhor them. Among the representatives of rank naturalism stands out Miss Ellen Key, whose books, unfortunately, are widely read. Arguing against Dr. F. W. Foerster, who opposes her views on love and marriage, she writes: "These views in the ascetic conception of life are, as I have said, natural. But he to whom the aim of life is life itself feels the same reverence for its sensual as for its spiritual demands. He knows there is immoral asceticism, just as there is immoral sensual passion — immoral, because it is not uplifting to humanity or the individual . . . Either we believe that the sensual instincts are pitfalls and obstacles, or we regard them as guides in the upward movement of life on a par with reason and conscience. If we hold the latter opinion, then we know . . . that passion produces great and beautiful effects, which duty cannot achieve . . . The old morality that still claims the right to be considered the only morality is built upon a conception of life according to which the divine resides exclusively in the spirit and the will, not in the body and its instincts and impulses. The new morality, on the other hand, does not regard the spiritual as hostile to the physical, nor does it call every manifestation of nature divine. It sees in the sensual and the spiritual the two forms of the divine and it holds that the divine reveals itself the more clearly the more the bodily and the spiritual pervade each other."⁸

Such theories are contrary to experience. The trouble with man is that when the animal side is not restrained it dominates. Naturalism invariably leads to animalism. Man will either live above the level of the animal or below it. He cannot live on the same level. We must exercise unremitting control over the lower self, or it will luxuriate and sap the strength of the spiritual self. We cannot let ourselves go; for then we will slip to unforeseen depths. Nature must continually be elevated, since the gravitational downward pull never for one moment abates or diminishes. We find a parallel of this downward tendency, so manifest in the moral and spiritual world, in the realm of plant life. A plant brought to a high degree of perfection by careful cultivation will speedily revert to its primitive condition and degenerate into a weed if the care that has been bestowed on it is withdrawn and it is left to itself. Only a continued upward pull can prevent it from deteriorating. Even as in the physical, so in the moral world the law of deterioration works inexorably. All theories, therefore, that deny the fatal bias in human nature and, as a consequence, deny the need of discipline, restraint and repression, inevitably lead to the degradation of man. However much naturalism would like to pose as man's friend, it is in reality his deadliest enemy.⁹

The question of modesty, then, has profound philosophical implications. If treated with any degree of thoroughness, it issues into problems of world view and interpretation of life and human nature. The conflict between us and the advocates of a greater freedom in matters of sex morality does not lie on the surface of things. It touches on basic differences. It is, in the last analysis, a conflict over the nature of man. Accordingly, there is no possibility of a reconciliation. Nor can we agree to any compromise. It is our duty fearlessly to uphold the dignity of man and to safeguard his spiritual interests, even though we incur the wrath and ridicule of those who idly prate of a state of beautiful harmony existing in the members of man and who laugh to scorn the dogma of original sin.

---

End Notes

1. Here is a verdict of that unmitigated type which if taken at its face value would have a most depressing effect. "The standards of the home," writes Professor Hudson, "even the criteria for the rearing of children, have broken down The leisure occupations of youth, always symptomatic of any age, are not only undisguisedly and frankly hedonistic, but across the borders of what was once considered decorous; not because of a new and liberalizing moral standard, as is sometimes pretended, but because of the lack of any. The popularity of certain recent dances, formerly forbidden even in the red-light districts, is typical. So is much of our periodical reading matter, and any number of movie plays, over the edge of the decadently erotic" (The Truths We Live By). In a similar spirit, Professor L. T. Hobhouse expresses himself in the July, 1921, issue of The Sociological Review: "The question of the survival of civilization, which month by month becomes more doubtful and more urgent, does not depend upon political institutions alone. Fundamentally, it is a question of the available amount of moral wisdom in mankind."

2. We adduce some reliable authorities. "Modesty," we read in one place, "is a decent reserve or propriety of manner and regard for the rules of taste and good breeding. It differs according to person, time, place, and social environment, and is not necessarily identical with moral goodness. As a Christian virtue, modesty consists in the habitual avoidance of whatever is apt to arouse the sexual passions, either in oneself or in others" (A Handbook of Moral Theology. By the Rev. Antony Koch, D.D.; adapted and translated by Arthur Preuss; St. Louis, B. Herder Book Company). "Besides the greater virtues into which temperance enters as a component, we may consider some smaller ones, which conduce to the perfection of a man's character, and which restrain him from irregularities which do not amount to serious sin. Modesty is one of these. It is a virtue which controls the external demeanor. This is a small matter in comparison with the graver precepts of the law. It is quite possible for considerable defects of this kind to coexist with great and solid virtues. Yet the interior disposition and the outward comportment are closely allied" (Bishop James Bellord, D.D., Meditations on Christian Dogma).

3. Thus Dr. J. Elliot Ross, C. S. P., speaking of artists who claim the right to defy the conventions of society, says: "Art students congregated in great cities, such as Paris, have an unenviable reputation for immorality, and their conduct justifying this reputation is probably partly due to painting from the nude" (Christian Ethics; New York, The Devin-Adair Company; 1923).

4. With full justice, Dr. George Byrne writes: "The fundamental principles of asceticism can never change, as human nature does not change. The body is still sown in weakness, the struggle of the flesh lusting against the spirit is as strong for us as it was for St. Paul and his hearers. Modern science which advances physical health cannot eradicate the heritage of concupiscence, left by original sin" ("Non-Catholic Ideals of Asceticism," in The Month, September, 1924). Those who advocate a relaxation of outward restraints seem to be blissfully unaware of the sinister possibilities of corrupt human nature; yet the occurrences of which they read in the daily papers ought to be quite sufficient to enlighten them in this matter.

5. "The more independence a woman has," remarks Prof. G. L. Duprat, "the more she must abstain from provoking in man those sensual feelings which are founded on a lack of respect for the moral person, and which have as their effect brutal aggressions or insidious tactics which are more characteristic of the lower animals" (Morals: A Treatise on the Psycho-sociological Bases of Ethics; translated by W. J. Greenstreet, M.A., F.R.A.S.; New York, Charles Scribner's Sons). Along the same lines Prof. Robert Michels writes: "On this view, the sentiment of modesty is a consequence of fear; or, if you will, a preventive measure, a means of defense for woman in her resistance to the uncontrolled sexual desires of the male. This defensive character of modesty is manifest even today . . . It has often been maintained that the sentiment of modesty originates in man's desire to conceal his kinship with his animal ancestors" (Sexual Ethics: A Study of Borderland Questions; same publisher). If the latter sentiment be true we can readily understand why, in an age when man boasts of his animal descent, modesty has almost disappeared to the vanishing point. The idea is confirmed by Camille Melinaud, who says: "La pudeur c'est la honte de l'animalite qui est en nous" (La psychologie de la pudeur).

6. "What are our young people seeking in their apparent revolt from the moral standards of an earlier day?" in The Influence of the Church on Modern Problems; New York, The Macmillan Company, 1922.

7. This view is also held by Dr. Fr. Paulsen. "The original purpose of clothing, he writes, "was partly to protect, partly to decorate the body, and to reveal the importance of the wearer. Its negative object was to conceal the animal portions of the body, leaving only the face, the symbol of the spiritual powers, uncovered" (A System of Ethics; translated by Dr. Frank Thilly; New York). Immodesty on this basis would bespeak a lack of appreciation of the finer and more elevated side of our nature and a leaning towards animalism.

8. Love and Ethics; New York, B. W. Huebsch. Of course, there may be an immoral asceticism, but it is infinitely less frequent than immoral sensuality. Man is not by far so prone to fall into ascetical excesses as he is to indulge in sensual excesses. This warning against undue suppression of our animal nature is hardly necessary; but the flesh has at all times possessed more advocates than the spirit. Dr. Anton Nystrom strikes the same note and proclaims the glories of the flesh. "A new, modern love-cult," he says, "has, as a reaction against asceticism, appeared in our times and it comes forward with constantly new creations on the field of the fine arts, creations which glorify love and woman. The new morality cannot approve of asceticism, as it is in opposition to happiness and enjoyment of life. It is dreariness and thus contrary to nature; it disturbs its functions, yes, it excites disgust for that which nature has made beautiful, pleasant and lovable. The highest principle of life, love, should not be disfigured by unnatural ideas of the sinfulness of the sensual, ideas which, life itself opposing, have spoiled nature and made innumerable people perish in agonies of supposed sin and guilt" (The Natural Laws of Sexual Life; translated from the Swedish by Carl Sandzen, A.M., M.D., Ph.D.; St. Louis, C. V. Mosby Company). The learned doctor who shows such fine pity for the victims of asceticism, of course, has never heard of the ravishes wrought by undisciplined sensuality and the tragedies that come in the wake of uncontrolled passion.

One might object that these destructive theories after all circulate only in a restricted coterie and that they leave the mass of the people unaffected. Not so. Our periodicals are reeking with just that kind of stuff. A recent issue of what is looked upon as a decent and conservative magazine could not resist the opportunity of having its little fling at the old morality. In answer to a protest against licentious screen productions and a plea for censorship, it frivolously remarks "But Mr. DeMille's ideas about these things do not strike us as immoral. We don't see that the current attitude of keeping them under cover is accomplishing a great deal. The ostrich theory is pretty well outworn. Give ideas air, and if there is no fuel in them they will soon burn out. But perhaps that is contrary to the doctrine of man's fundamental depravity and the idea that he must be protected from himself on all possible occasions" (Scribner's Magazine, November, 1924). Here we have it in a popular magazine that finds its way into many a Christian and, no doubt, Catholic home; the denial of the original taint. The atmosphere of naturalism that pervades the whole country need no longer astonish us if such doctrines are broadcast and proposed with the utmost assurance.

Modesty and shame are based on a deep-seated disharmony in human nature. They cannot be rightly understood by those who deny the fall of man. Hohenemser, a modern psychologist, comes very near the truth. "Even Hohenemser — who argues that for the perfect man there could be no shame, because shame rests on an inner conflict in one's own personality, and the perfect man knows no inner conflict — believes that, since humanity is imperfect, modesty possesses a high and, indeed, symptomatic value, for its presence shows that according to the measure of man's ideal personality, his valuations are established" (Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex; Vol. I: The Evolution of Modesty; Philadelphia, F. A. Davis Company). What must be thought of our age so utterly heedless of modesty may be gathered from the following paragraph: "Dugas goes further, and. asserts that the idea of modesty develops with human development, and forever takes on new and finer forms" (L. c.). If this is so, then our civilization is evidently not on the ascending curve, but rather on the decline.

© Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.

This item 9044 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org