Welcome to Gaia! ::

Spiritual Direction - A Catholic Guild

Back to Guilds

A guild for learning and discussing the true teachings of the Catholic Chruch. 

Tags: Catholic, Catholicism, Apologetics, Christian, Jesus 

Reply Catholic Teachings NP
Marylike Modesty Handbook

Quick Reply

Submit

EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar

PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 2:08 pm
Marylike Modesty Handbook of the
Purity Crusade of Mary Immaculate



This is taken from the "My Life In Prayer" book; I could not find any
copyright so hopefully nobody will mind that I'm putting this online.
(The very beginning of the prayer book says, "Any part of this
publication may be translated or reproduced in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or
any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be
invented, without permission in writing from the publisher. It was
printed in June 1998.) It was initiated December 8, 1944, the Feast of
the Immaculate Conception.



Table of Contents

* Commentary
* Introduction
* Foreword
* Chapter 1: What is the Marylike Crusade?
* Chapter 2: Immodest Dress
* Chapter 3: The Marylike Standards for Modesty in Dress
* Chapter 4: Questions on Marylike Standards
* Chapter 5: The Marylike Crusade Apostolate
* Appendix


COMMENTARY


Out of respect for Our Lord and for the edification of our neighbor,
we beg women and girls to appear in Church modestly dressed.
Slacks, shorts, sleeveless and low-cut dresses do not meet the norm of
Christian modesty. Your cooperation is evidence of your love for Our
Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and respect for the House of God.
"Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very
much." Our Lady of Fatima, 1917.

Marylike Modesty Handbook of the Purity Crusade of Mary
Immaculate

Nihil Obstat: Leonard A. Bauer, S.T.D.
 
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 2:59 pm
INTRODUCTION


The booklet you are about to read is, for the most part, the original
copy of the "Marylike Modesty Handbook of the Purity Crusade of
Mary Immaculate." This was a movement established and managed by
the Reverend Bernard A. Kunkel. Father Kunkel died in May of 1969.
After reading the original Marylike Handbook, realizing the research
and labor that went into bringing this project to print, it would be
difficult not to believe that our Blessed Lady and Her Angels were
there to escort Father Kunkel's soul into Everlasting Glory.

Three years before Father Kunkel's death, he made the following
statement, not knowing at the time that in three short years it would
happen. Father said, "I have a feeling when I fade out of the picture
that will be the end of the Crusade. I cannot find anyone to help who
will carry out my principles, as I would like them carried out." He
added, "Of course we cannot worry too much about these material
things; I will do what I can while I am able and after that, if it should
continue, it will be in Our Blessed Mother's hands." Father always
wanted God's Will to be done.

Just two months before his death, Father was sitting at his death, the
layout of the May-June issue of the crusader before him and he said,
"This is the last issue of the Marylike Crusader that I am writing. If I
am still alive by September, I will be too weak, because I am getting
weaker every day. The next issue is in Our Blessed Mother's hands. I
have not found a new Director yet for the Crusade. If I cannot find the
right one, I would rather see it fold up."

This was the difficult decision which had to be made by the Most
Reverend Bishop of the Belleville Diocese who was also President of
the Marylike Crusade. Father could not find anyone to carry on this
unique Crusade when he was alive. No one could be found after his
death to be the new Director and carry out his principles so to respect
his wishes, the Crusade was terminated.

Ask yourself: How could it be that no one could be found to carry on
this work which was first implemented by the Magisterium of the
Church through several of Her Holy Pontiffs?

After reading this booklet, you will see that the writings contained
herein are not Father Kunkel's but rather those of the Holy Spirit
Himself and materialized by the Old and New Testament, by Our Lady
and the Popes. So how comes it, that this work of TRUTH could not be
perpetuated?

The devil is the father of all deceit and has, through gradualism,
caused humanity (especially the clergy and the hierarchy of the
Church) to be lulled into a false sense of security and a lackadaisical
attitude about the moral issues of the day and as to what it means to
be a True Christian.

If you love God, and you mean it, studying this booklet should change
your life. It's going to cost you something. But then, anything worth-
while does not come cheap. This booklet will be for many a test. You
will know of what cloth you are cut once you have consumed and
digested its content.

We said that this booklet is, for the most part, the original copy of
Father Kunkel. It would be safe to say that 90% of the copy is the
original. We have interjected small bits of copy into appropriate
sections to update the text from the 1950s and from private
relevelation which we have prayed over for a considerable time and
feel comfortably sure of their accuracy. In re-printing this work of
Father Kunkel, furthering the cause of Truth, the name of the
organization was considered and although the original organization
had two names, "Purity Crusade of Mary Immaculate" and "The
Marylike Crusade" (one seemed to grow out of the other), the shorter
of the two was chosen - The Marylike Crusade.

We have undertaken the reprinting and direction of this noble work
and consider it a great privilege to be allowed by Our Blessed Lady to
continue this Crusade of Purity started and carried out for many
years under the able direction of Father Kunkel. Although it will not
be carried on in the same manner as Father Kunkel directed, the
organization (i.e., there will be no newsletter) it will be carried on in
the original spirit intended. Father Kunkel will be directing The
Marylike Crusade from Heaven.

It is quite clear that this little work will meet with much criticism and
stubbon refusal just as it did in Father Kunkel's time. Most people
who pick it up will not read it simply because they will not waste their
time on such a subject or because they don't want to know. We who
have enjoined ourselves to the Marylike Crusade are not pointing
fingers but are striving to love our fellow man as Christ did. That love
must be based on truth and honesty. But in any case the republishing
of this little work will be done for the greater honor and glory of God
the Father and for those seeking the Truth.

Consider these three sins against the Holy Spirit:

* Resisting truths that have been made known to us.
* Stubbornness in sin.
* Fatal obstinacy in one's sins.

One of the Seven Deadly Sins is Sloth: Laziness to do right or
carelessness to do right and to practice virtue because of the trouble
attached to it.

Three Spiritual Works of Mercy are:

* To counsel the doubtful.
* To instruct the ignorant.
* To admonish the sinner always with charity

The Eighth Beatitude: Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see
God.

The content of this booklet is surely required reading for those who
love Jesus and our Blessed Mother and those who desire to go into the
New Era of Peace. No one will be admitted to this New Era until they
are purified and purged of their earthly habits and become meek and
humble of heart. Modesty and purity are a major moral problem in
the present day, this being one of the greatest stumbling blocks to our
salvation, there needs to be a changing of life-styles and a cleansing.

If you accept and implement, in your life, the Divinely guided Truth of
the Church concerning purity and modesty expressed in this booklet,
you can be assured sufficient grace, in an unbelieving age, to save
your soul - even more - to become a GREAT SAINT. But, if, after
reading and understanding its content, you decide of your own free
will to reject this Truth, pause and consider the Final Judgment Day,
when, out of grace and among the goats on the left, our Lord
pronounces the words, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting
damnation, which was prepared for the devil and his angels."

God will not be mocked.

If Our Most Holy and Pure Blessed Mother has arranged for this
booklet to be put into your hands and you are reading these words,
you have been given a Great Gracethrough the love of God, to change
your life to coincide with His Will. The greatest sin man commits is
the rejection of God's Grace.

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...Then, 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...In 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 mind of Satan.

May the Grace of God poured out through the Most Holy and
Immaculate Heart of Our Mother Mary influence and soften your
human will to conform to His when reading this booklet.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, we have recourse to Thee.  

EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar


EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar

PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 3:26 pm
FOREWORD


Christian modesty is the forgotten virtue today. Yet, it is
indispensable for the protection of chastity. It is useless to try to
restore chastity to the individual, the family, and society, as long as its
safeguard, modesty, is either ignored or violated on such a large scale
as it is today.

This handbook of the Marylike Crusade deals almost exclusively with
modesty, as we embark on our organized campaign for Christian
chastity. There is so little written today on modesty, and most persons
who do write on this subject only serve to confuse Catholic women
more and more by their many sophisms, their compromise with
worldly views on this frail virtue, or even their full acceptance of
pagan principles.

Yet five modern Popes have, time and again, issued directives on
Christian modesty and refuation of many of these modern errors.

Is this not the reason why Christ established in His Church the
Supreme Teaching Authority? To protect the Church from errors and
to correct the clergy, the teachers and the parents who, intentionally
or in good faith, would propagate errors?

Anyone who today dares to advocate traditional Christian modesty, is
considered, even by a large number of Catholics, a scrupulous person,
a disturber of conscience, or a crackpot. But did not Christ foretell
that this is the price every one of His followers must pay who strives
to be loyal to Him and His Church?

The Marylike Crusade holds up Mary as the perfect model for all
Christians, and relies on the Magisterium of the Church, the Saints,
private revelation and the Popes who are the Supreme Teaching
Authority of the Church on modesty. Hence, its two-fold motto:
"Whatever Mary approves - Whatever the Church approves."  
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 3:33 pm
CHAPTER I - THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE

WHAT IS THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE?


The Marylike Crusade is a movement to promote chastity and
modesty through the imitation of Mary, our Queen and "Mother Most
Chaste," as the perfect model of those virtues.

WHEN & WHERE DID THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE
ORIGINATE?


It was initiated by Reverend Bernard A. Kunkel (having passed on to
his eternal reward), pastor of St. Cecilia's Parish in Bartelso, Illinois,
USA, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1944. It
received the warm approval of the late Most Reverend Henry Althoff,
Bishop of Belleville, Illinois, who also imparted to it his Episcopal
Blessing.

Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, imparted on two different occasions
his Apostolic Blessing to the Marylike Crusade, on July 14, 1954, and
on May 11, 1955, "to the members, to their Directors and Moderators,
to their families, and loved ones, and to all who further their laudable
movement for modesty in dress and behavior."

DOES THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL
STATUS IN THE CHURCH?


Yes. It received an official status in the Belleville Diocese at the time
of its incorporation in September 1955.

The incorporators of the Marylike Crusade were: His Excellency, the
Most Reverend Albert R. Zuroweste, Bishop of Belleville, as
President; the Right Reverend Monsignor Leonard A. Bauer, Vicar
General, as Vice President; and Reverend Bernard A. Kunkel, as
Spiritual Director. The headquarters were in Bartelso, Illinois. There
were no branch offices, no representatives.

IS THERE ANY SPECIAL REASON FOR EMPHASIZING
PURITY AND MODESTY?


Yes. Pope Pius XII has asserted, "Mainly through sins of impurity do
the forces of darkness subjugate souls."
This same message was given by Our Lady of Fatima in similar words;
"The sins that lead most souls to hell are the sins of the flesh."

Following a general breakdown of modesty, impurity has become the
ruling passion of the world. It is like a spiritual cancer slowly eating
away the spiritual life in souls. It has brought the world to the brink of
another Sodom and Gomorra, this time on a worldwide scale. We are
facing the threat of "The greatest catastrophe since the deluge." (Pius
XII)

DOES NOT A PURITY CRUSADE SEEM HOPELESS IN THIS
AGE?


This is what the devil would like to have us believe. By our silence we
would be letting the entire field of morality in his hands. Pope Pius
XII points out the seriousness of the general world situation as well as
the remedy: "The threat of this fearful crisis fills us with a great
anguish, and so with confidence we have recourse to Mary our
Queen." (Oct. 11, 1954)

So also the Marylike Crusade does not rely mainly on natural means,
but "with confidence turns to Mary Immaculate." Under her banner,
who foretold at Fatima: "In the end my Immaculate Heart will
triumph."

The Marylike Crusade is assured of ultimate victory, for, the
restoration of purity and modesty to a corrupt world is a prerequisite
for Mary's "triumph".

Never may we allow ourselves to be disheartened in this "Battle of the
Ages," when the serpent dares to fling his final challenge openly and
publicly against the Queenship of our Mother Most Chaste."

Not only do we have Mary's prediction in a private revelation, but
God's own promise in Scripture that "She shall crush thy head."

Certainly, Mary Our Queen and Mother, will "crush the head" of the
most insidious and poisonous serpent, the Demon of Impurity. But
God wills that this triumph be accomplished, not by our indifference
and lethargy, but by the cooperation of Mary's children marching
under her glorious banner.

DOES THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE ADVOCATE PUBLIC SEX
INSTRUCTION AS A REMEDY?


Certainly not. This is condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical,
Christian Education of Youth (December 31, 1929).

Necessary information on the physical aspect of sex is primarily the
responsibility of parents; only secondarily and in a limited degree, of
teachers and superiors. But always with reverence and modesty. "It is
of the highest importance," Pius XI states, "that a good father, while
discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his
guard and not descend to details."

WHAT IS TO BE THOUGHT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF
IMMORAL AND OBSCENE BOOKS INTO SOME CATHOLIC
SCHOOLS?


Persons who deliberately place immoral books into the hands of our
youth make themselves responsible for the moral corruption of
numerous youthful readers. "Woe to that man by whom the scandal
cometh," warns Jesus. (Matthew 18:7)

The Church has always held that the reading of immoral literature is a
mortal sin. Canon law prohibits such reading. Popes and Councils
have consistently condemned it. Only two of such condemnations are
here adduced, and very briefly:

COUNCIL OF TRENT
: - "Books which professedly deal with,
narrate, or teach lewd and obscene things are absolutely
forbidden...Those who possess them must be severely punished by
their Bishops."

HOLY OFFICE - May 3, 1927 - "Let no one make these excuses..."
(The very excuses advanced by liberal educators are then listed and
condemned.) "Persons who without due permission read a book that
is undoubtedly salacious (lustful) commit a mortal sin."

THEN, HOW DOES THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE PROPOSE
TO DEAL WITH THIS DELICATE PROBLEM?


The Marylike Crusade is concerned with the moral aspect of this
problem. It strives to point out the many spiritual pitfalls and snares
laid by the Demon of Impurity to entrap especially our youth. It is not
content with empty and futile denunciations which have so l ong been
in vogue, but offers a positive approach to the problem of impurity.

IN WHAT DOES THE POSITIVE APPROACH CONSIST?


In accordance with the general plan of the Marylike Crusade, our
Blessed Mother is presented as the "Virgin Most Pure" and "Mother
Most Chaste," as our ideal of purity and modesty, and our perfect
model for imitation. Each Crusader strives first after the Marylike
ideal in their own life. Only then can they hope to reap results in their
efforts to reform family and social life. Prayer and Sacrifice form the
basis of all crusading efforts.

WHY ARE CHASTITY AND MODESTY REPEATEDLY
LINKED TOGETHER? DO THEY MEAN THE SAME THING?


Chastity means control of the sex instinct, or sex appetite in
accordance with the sixth and ninth commandments. [Thou shall not
commit adultery; thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.] Modesty,
on the other hand, is the safeguard of chastity. It is often compared to
a wall protecting oneself and others against the frequent attacks made
on chastity.

HOW DOES A PERSON PRACTICE MODESTY?


There is a personal and a social modesty. Personal modesty is
concerned mostly with the exercising of a strict control over one's
own senses, especially the eyes, which are often called the windows of
the soul.

Thus, a modest person will not unnecessarily permit his eyes to gaze
on any person, picture, printed story, or other object which is apt to
introduce bad or impure thoughts into his mind or bad pictures into
his imagination. For these, when deliberately entertained, lead
naturally to impure sensations and desires for impure acts. The same
rule holds for the ears, which must be closed to immoral or suggestive
songs, filthy talk, etc. Likewise, for the other senses of touch, taste
and smell.

IS PERSONAL IMMODESTY A SIN?


Of course it is a sin, in spite of the wishful thinking of some persons
who try to invent a sinless type of immodesty. The removal of the wall
of mdoesty admits the enemy, impurity. The weakening of this wall
invites him to enter. Personal immodesty has, by its nature, the
capacity to be mortally sinful. It may be a venial sin if the immodesty
is not serious, and is therefore not a serious threat to one's purity in
thought, desire, word or deed. (See appendix on sin at the end of this
handbook.)

WHAT IS MEANT BY SOCIAL MODESTY?

Social modesty may be defined as a virtue which seeks to protect the
chastity of other persons, or at least not to endanger it. It is ever
careful to avoid anything that is calculated to excite bad thoughts and
desires in others or to lead them to sinful actions.

Social modesty requires decent attire in the presence of others, even
about the home; the avoidance of all undo familiarity, especially with
the opposite sex, and suggestive looks, speech, gait, etc.; and in
general a prudent reserve in one's whole appearance and behavior.

IS SOCIAL IMMODESTY LIKEWISE SINFUL?

Again, there are some who try to excuse from sin if there is no bad
intention connected with social immodesty. Thus, they see nothing
wrong in wearing an immodest dress just to be in style. Yes, it is
wrong, and it can be seriously sinful. For in this case, another
commandment is involved, the law of charity.

Regardless of one's intentions, there exists an obligation in
conscience to avoid unnecessary temptations to others by such
immodesty, be it in dress or otherwise.

IS IT A MORTAL OR A VENIAL SIN?

If one has the intention to tempt others to impurity by one's
immodesty, it is always a mortal sin, no matter how slight the
immodesty may be. When this bad intention is not present, the same
rule applies as for personal immodesty; serious immodesty, causing
serious temptations to others, constitutes a mortal sin; not serious, a
venial sin.

Social immodesty is classed under the sin of scandal. Not only is
serious or grave scandal a mortal sin, but it is a very serious one. This
is proven from the awful "woe" pronounced by Jesus against the
givers of scandal, and this awful condemnation, "It were better for
him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into
the sea." (Mark 9:41)

"How many young girls there are who do not see any wrongdoing in
following certain shameless sstyles like so many sheep. They certainly
would blush if they could guess the impression they make and the
feelings they evoke in those who see them. Do they not see the harm
resulting from excess in certain gymnastic exercises and sports not
suitable for virtuous girls? What sins are committed or provoked by
conversations which are too free, by immodest shows, by dangerous
reading. How lax have consciences become, how pagan morals!" Pope
Pius XII, July 17, 1954  

EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar


EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar

PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:24 am
CHAPTER II - IMMODEST DRESS

IS IMMODESTY IN WOMEN'S DRESSES AS IMPORTANT
AS IT IS SOMETIMES PRESENTED TO BE?


It is extremely important, far more than most women and girls
realize. In fact, it is the necessary starting point for any genuine
Purity Crusade.

It was only after the large-scale introduction of immodest fashions in
society, the powers of corruption could succeed in flooding the
market with highly obscene literature, and clutter the airwaves and
theaters with brazenly immoral pictures. How then, can we ever hope
to clean them up, as long as we lack the courage to take to task our
own Catholic women for marching in the "shameless parade of the
flesh?" The first step, then, to social purity is social modesty in our
women.

ARE WOMEN UNAWARE OF THE EVIL OF IMMODEST
DRESS?


Many refuse to believe that their semi-nude attire is the source of
numerous and serious temptations to the opposite sex. Some disclaim
any responsibility for leading others into sin thereby. Others try to
cover their own guild by nasty insinuations such as, "He must have a
dirty mind."

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SUCH ATTITUDES?


Some women certainly know better. Yet, many others actually are
unaware of the fact that the sex urge is much stronger in men than in
women. "Scanty attire in men doesn't affect me at all." some women
assert, and often with sincerity. The implied question is, Why should
men be tempted by the scanty attire of women? Others flippantly
remark, "It's only skin," having no suspicion that it is precisely the
skin that arouses concupiscence in men.

THERE IS NO SOUND REASON FOR LETTING WOMEN
REMAIN IN SUCH IGNORANCE ON SERIOUS MATTERS.


Some men are afflicted with impure thoughts and desires when only
looking at a pretty feminine face, even the woman is modest in attire
and behavior. But when the latter is immodest, she becomes the
temptress for many normal men, who succumb to such alurements:
"Whoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already
committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28 ) Indirectly
immodest women are included in this indictment, being cooperators
with sins of men.

DOES THIS NOT PROVE THAT SUCH MEN "HAVE A
DIRTY MIND"?


Not at all. God has made woman beautiful and attractive to man, to fit
in with His plan for procreation in lawful wedlock. As a result of
original sin, the man must constantly struggle to regulate this
attraction. Unless he does, and unless he fortifies himself by prayer
besides, sin quickly enters his soul, "adultery in his heart."

This is the reason ascetical writers caution men against gazing
intently into the face of a woman. The world would consider St.
Aloysius a fool for making a vow never to look into the face of a
woman, including his own mother. But the Saint realized that, for a
man who is determined to pass through life without stain of mortal
sin, "the life of man upon earth is a warfare." (Job 7:1)

The world, including worldly Catholics, ignores the sound rules of
asceticism, which were already laid down in the Old Testament, such
as: "Gaze not upon a maiden; lest her beauty be a stumbling block to
thee." (Ecclus 9:5) "For many have perished by the beauty of a
woman, and thereby lust is enkindled as a fire." (Eccus 9:9)

IS WOMAN, THEN, CONSIDERED SOMETHING EVIL,
SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED?


No! But this question is entirely beside the point. Her degree of
goodness depends on how faithfully she carries out her God-given
role as man's helpmate, rather than his temptress. By her modesty
she can use her charm to tame the passions of man; by her immodesty
"her beauty becomes a stumbling block" to man.

This makes women the guardians of chastity in the world.

This is why God has given woman a much more delicate sense of
modesty than man. Not only to protect her own integrity, but also to
protect man against the fury of his passions. When woman is modest,
man has only himself to blame if he succombs to the temptation of the
flesh. But when she decides to display parts of her body which should
be covered, she becomes a seducer, and she shares in the guilt of the
man. In fact, Theology teaches that the sin of the seducer is far greater
than that of the seduced person.

WHY IS THIS SENSE OF MODESTY ABSENT IN SO MANY
WOMEN?


They have lost it. This often occurs in infancy, when foolish mothers
train their little daughters to consider scanty attire as the normal
thing.

This sense of shame or guilt is noticeable, though in a lesser degree, in
other sins. Thus, when a child tells his first lie, he blushes. After his
100th lie, nothing happens. So also, when a girl appears in public for
the first time in immodest attire, she experiences the feeling of
shame; the sense of modesty is still present. After repeated
performances, this feeling of shame quickly vanishes. But God
planted that sense of modesty in every woman's heart.

This feminine loss of the sense of modesty is indicated by Pope Pius
XII who says, "How many girls there are who do not see any
wrongdoing in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep.
They certainly would blush if they could guess the impression they
make and the feeling they evoke in those who see them." (July 17,
1954)

DO PARENTS SHARE THE BLAME FOR THIS SAD STATE
OF AFFAIRS?


Yes, very much so. Many girls want to dress modestly, only to have the
vain and foolish mothers discourage them, and often even block
them. Take to heart the SERIOUS ADMONITION of Pope Pius XII: "O
Christian mothers (and Fathers), if only you knew the future of
distress and peril, of shame ill-restrained, that you prepare for your
sons and daughters in imprudently accustoming them to live hardly
clothed and in making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be
ashamed of yourselves and of the harm done the little ones whom
Heaven entrusted to your care, to be reared in Christian dignity and
culture."

This warning should give parents cause to consider even infant
fashions; boy's "rompers" that barely cover the diaper and have only
straps and no sleeves - and little girl's "dresses", more rightly called
"smock-tops" which leave the diaper fully exposed - the common
remedy for which is adding a frilly or lacy diaper cover, which in fact,
only draws more attention to unmentionables and does nothing to
cover the entirely naked legs. The Bible teaches us, "Train up a child
in the way he should go, etc."; is it any wonder then, as these children
go, from such shameful beginnings, they have lost their sense of
modesty? From semi-nude infant fashions, the tidal wave of
immodest fashions swept all age groups and both sexes into even
greater degrees of nudity.

Consider also, the culpability of parents, who not wishing to be
termed old fashioned, eschew the God-given parental authority and
permit their daughters and sons to wear immodest or transsexual
clothing (that of the opposite sex), saying, "It's just a teenage fad -
everyone is wearing it - it's harmless!"

Feminism has made tragic inroads in undermining the lawful
authority of the father in the home, deriding his natural instinct to
protect and safeguard the modesty and purity of his female offspring.
His noble, God-given nature is called chauvinistic and patriarchal --
assistsing Satan to expose women and girls to the lusts and passions
of worldly fashion appetites, with no defender to guard their honor!
Many loving fathers have been bullied into silence by fashion
conscious wives and daughters, when they object to their immodest
attire. Sadly, their "peace-in-the-home" compromise is not charity but
cowardice! Tantamount to an abandonment of their duty to be Christ-
like protectors of innocence and virtue.

ARE THERE OTHER AVENUES OF CORRUPTION
THROUGH WHICH OUR CHILDREN LOSE THEIR SENSE
OF MODESTY?


YES! One of the most subtle and insidious forms of corruption our
children are exposed to are anatomically correct dolls. Especially
offensive are the "fashion dolls." Plastics revolutionized the ability of
manufacturers to create "life-like" dolls. Unfortunately, modesty was
the least of their considerations. Without a thought, foolish parents
lined up to ensure their children had the newest and "best" dolls. The
wildly popular fashion dolls, however, were an exceptionally effective
tool, through which the devil provided little girls with effigies of
naked women to play with, not to mention the curiosity it aroused in
little boys, sewing the seeds of concupiscence in their hearts. When
children play, they imitate life to prepare for adulthood. A child's first
impulse is to undress a doll. What parent would give their child a
book with pictures of naked women to look through? Yet parents have
no qualms about giving their child a little plastic naked woman to
touch, look at and act out fantasy with! We should blush to see these
"toys" lying about!

To top it off, the immodest fashions these dolls are equipped with
encourage our daughters to aspire to wear such outfits. The
"glamorous" clothes become a standard for beauty for our precious
innocents at a most impressionable age. Honesty consider the type of
advertising which promotes these dolls to our children. The doll is
always "cool," "in the latest style" and "don't you wish you were like
this?" What a diabolically opportune scheme! In this way our blind or
naive attempts to offer them entertainment become a two-fold source
of scandal!

IS THERE ANY WAY TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION?

Yes! Don't buy dolls with anatomically correct plastic bodies. There
are many acceptable dolls available with cloth bodies and plastic
heads, feet and hands.

WHAT IF OUR CHILDREN ALREADY HAVE THESE
OFFENSIVE KINDS OF DOLLS?


Use this opportunity to give your children a lesson in modesty. Have
them assist you in glueing on or permanently sewing on modest
undergarments. Modify or remove immodest garments from the
dolls' wardrobe. Remember - you will be exercising your God-given
parental authority for doing this. God will provide you with the grace
to be strong and tactful in implementing and maintaining your
position!

HOW ARE WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THE SENSE OF
MDOESTY TO JUDGE BETWEEN A MODEST DRESS AND
AN IMMODEST ONE?


They cannot unaided. They have developed a faulty conscience, or one
that is lax or perplexed. The sense of modesty was to them what a
compass is to the mariner on the seas. Having lost this God-given
compass, they must seek another to direct their course and, as much
as possible, to restore that shame which we term the sense of
mdoesty. They need to follow definite standards of modest dress set
by competent authority.

IS NOT CUSTOM AND CONVENTION A SAFE COMPASS OR
GUIDE WITHOUT RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS?


There are some Catholic leaders who teach that "Modesty in dress is a
matter of custom and convention." Such teaching is false, since it
ignores the supreme authority of the Church and vests it in a fallible
human society. It leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

If custom could make public nudity a virtue, why did God find it
necessary in paradise to change the custom of Adam and Eve by
Himself providing garments for them to cover their shame after the
fall? Custom could just as logically decide that public dishonesty hsa
become a virtue.

The opinion which allows custom to decide the question of modesty is
refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence, "There always exists
an absolute norm to be preserved in modesty of dress." (Nov. 8, 1957)
Custom pays little attention to absolute norms, but is a product of
another false principle, "The majority cannot go wrong." "Modesty is
a matter of custom" is just as wrong as "Honesty is a matter of
custom."

Sin is just as nasty and harmful today as it ever was. Do not excuse
shortcomings in dress on the plea that everyone is doing it. Evil may
never be done even if everyone is doing it. Because it is not
fashionable to dress modestly, it cannot be said it is all right to dress
immodestly. It is God, not people, Who declares what is right and
wrong; He is right and His Church and His Vicars of Christ with Him,
even though the whole world may call Him wrong! The misery of the
world is due to that selfishness which puts our own pleasure, pride
and convenience ahead of God's Will.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO TEACH "WHAT IS
CUSTOMARY DOES NOT AFFECT US?"


Pope Pius XII, again, calls this application of an ancient principle to
modesty one of the "most insidious of sophisms." He calls attention to
the fact that some use this sophism "in order to brand as old
fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions that are too
bold" (Nov. 8, 1957).

Customary sights may not always register in one's consciousness.
Nine successive superficial looks at half-dressed women might fail to
stir up seriously the concupiscence of the flesh, whilst the tenth may
prove fatal to the soul. Concupiscence may often lie dormant, but it
never dies in a normal man.

There is another important consideration. Every conscious look
flashes a picture in the imagination. This picture of an indecently
dressed woman may fade quickly from the memory. Then, suddenly,
perhaps even five or ten years later, it emerges from the attic of the
mind and projects itself back to consciousness to plague its victims
against holy purity.

These timely lessons of spiritual writers are unknown to, or ignored
by, worldly minded persons. Otherwise they would not excuse
immodest dress with sophisms as, "Whatever is customary does not
affect us."

CAN WOMEN NOT SAFELY FOLLOW THE SLOGAN, "ONE
MAY FOLLOW CURRENT FASHIONS IF ONE AVOIDS
EXTREMES?"


This is another sophism. It has no solid foundation in Theology. It
represents a sugarcoated compromise. Being a relative term,
"extreme" can be made to mean almost anything to fit its user's
convenience. One might almost as well hold this error, "Sin is not sin
until it goes to extremes."

CAN IT BE SO WRONG TO WEAR SUCH GARMENTS AS
ABBREVIATED SHORTS OR STRAPLESS GOWNS WHEN
"EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT?"


In the first place, it is not true that "Everyone else is doing it." It is a
gross exaggeration. Many modest women still "dare to be different"
from the "crowd."

Even if it were true, it is based on still another sophism. Sin remains
sin if only one person in a million is avoiding the wrongdoing. There
is no safety in numbers. The only thing that counts is how God judges
the modesty or immodesty of one's attire.

ARE THERE NOT MANY WHO CONDEMN DEFINITE
STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?


Naturally, just as a dishonest businessman condemns any fair-
practices law. A society which has knocked down the traditional
standards of modest dress would hardly welcome attempts to set
them up again. Even some liberal Catholics oppose specific standards
of modesty in dress. For, Liberalism by its nature seeks false freedom
from laws, rules, regulations, and all kinds of restraint.

Nevertheless, whether people like to admit it or not, their whole lives
are regulated by standards in one form or another. Twelve inches
makes a standard foot, and sixteen ounces a standard pound. We have
standard colours and sizes, trademarks which standardize quality,
and even a standard time dictated by the sun. We have standards of
manners and of politeness directing us in the minutest details.

At every turn one is confronted with standards. People accept these
without question, even to the point of slavishness and absurdity. Shall
only the virtue of modesty be denied the right to be regulated and
protected by standards? If we are ready to accept whatever secular
authorities approve, much more eager must we Catholics be to accept
"Whatever Mary Immaculate Approves," which is our Crusade motto.

HOW ARE WE TO KNOW WHAT MARY APPROVES?

This is a very important question. Too many women, or groups,
attempt to reduce Mary's evaluation of modesty down to their own
level of thinking. They sacrilegiously believe that the Blessed Virgin
would be willing to cut off her sleeves and plunge her neckline, and
compromise her sublime modesty in favor of the pagan fashion
dictators and their nudest trends. Mary approves only "What the
Church Approves," which is another Crusade motto.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHURCH APPROVES?
HAS SHE GIVEN SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN
DRESS?


Yes! The Church has issued specific standards. But they were almost
completely ignored by our liberal press, so that we were unable to
fully establish their authenticity until 1965, more thann 35 years after
their publication. We are indebted to Father Jesus M. Cavanna, C.M.
(of the Philippino College in Rome) for discovering them in the
Bulletin of the Roman Clergy, issue of October 1928. Father Cavanna
graciously sent us a translation of the document containing the
standards of modesty (dated Sept. 24, 1928), which we proceeded to
publish. The discovery of this "missing link" enables us now to
publish a fully authenticated history of the Roman Standards. We give
here only the bare essentials.

1. On August 15, 1928, Pope Pius XI, in the consistorial chamber,
"denounced once again the danger (of immodest dress) which, by its
seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls."
2. On August 23, only eight days later, the Holy Father ordered the
Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a very strongly worded
letter to all the Bishops of Italy inaugurating a "Crusade Against
Immodest Fashions." The Bishops were to communicate the specific
injunctions of this letter to be enforced "in all schools, academies,
Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious," to
ensure "perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female
religious in the diocese."
3. To ensure such "conformity" Pius XI, on September 24, 1928, only
one month later, ordered the Sacred Congregation of Religious to
issue another letter on the "Crusade against Immodest Fashions." It
was in this letter that the following standards were prescribed: "We
recall that a dress cannot be called modest which is cut deeper than
two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover
the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the
knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper."

BUT THESE LETTERS WERE DIRECTED TO THE
CHURCHES IN ITALY. HOW DO THEY BIND US OUTSIDE
OF ITALY?


They are binding throughout the world because Pope Pius XI
extended this same Crusade for Modesty to the whole world. By his
mandate, the Sacred Council issued a letter with special instructions
to all the Bishops of the world on January 12, 1930. These instructions
were essentially the same as those given to the Bishops of Italy. But
they went even further. Not only were they directed to Sisters and to
their schools and institutions, as in Italy, but they were extended to
include also pastors, parents and the laity in general. This 1930 letter
opens with these solemn words:

"Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of
clergy and people, while cordially commending the actions of the
Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in
their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength
permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely
uprooted from human society. In order to facilitate the desired effect,
this Sacred Congregation, by mandate of the Holy Father, has decreed
as follows . . . (Here the specific instructions emphasize in very
serious language and in nine decrees, the obligation of Bishops,
Parish Priests, Nuns and parents to enforce the rules of modesty.) It
is in number 6 that the Holy Father asks for "compliance with the
letter dated August 23, 1928."

Thus, the Roman Standards were implicitly prescribed for the
remainder of the Catholic world.

WHY WERE THESE STANDARDS NOT MADE KNOWN IN
NORTH AMERICA?


Not only were they made known in North America, but they were
posted for years in the vestibules of many churches. Further, a
"League of Modesty was formed in Chicago, Illinois, USA, as directed
in the Instructions of January 12, 1930, to promote these standards
given by "the Cardinal Vicar of Rome." In 1935 this leage issued a
folder with the Imprimatur of His Eminence, George Cardinal
Mundelein, in which these standards were incorporated.

The central Bureau of St. Louis also distributed large quantities of
free folders containing the 1930 circular of the Sacred Council calling
for a worldwide Crusade for modesty in dress.

HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT?


Modesty is a very unpopular virtue in our day, and the general
tendency seems to be to search for alibis to evade its practice.

This made it quite easy for the devil, who reaps many souls through
immodesty, to bury the document in oblivion.

It seems to be a repetition of the Gospel story, "He came unto His
own, and His own received Him not." (John 1:11) We Americans like
to boast about our loyalty to the Vicar of Christ. Yes, we are very loyal
- when it costs us nothing.

In spite of all the warnings of the last five popes, we persist in the
mass rebellion against Christian modesty, preferring to submit to the
disgraceful slavery of the pagan fashion dictators, and to abet the
disciples of the nudist cult, the "powers of corruption," the "Goddess
of Reason."

Long ago did these disciples publicly raise the nudist banner of
rebellion against the Church's teaching on modesty, inviting Catholic
womanhood to enlist under it. It was on December 10, 1793, that an
angry mob rushed into the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, seized
the statue of the "Virgin Most Pure", and dashed it to the floor.
Thereupon, as a symbol of the nudist program, they enthroned in
Mary's place on the altar a nude woman, the "Goddess of Reason."

How well have their plans succeeded! In how many Catholic women's
hearts has this "Goddess of Reason" been enthroned! The Marylike
Crusade aims to reverse this awful sacrilege, and to re-enthrone in
feminine hearts the Virgin Mary's glorious banner, on which are
inscribed in bold letters THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS.

HAS THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE SET UP ITS OWN
STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?


No. The Marylike Standards are the identical standards issued by the
Holy See, differing only in form. In their present form they have
received specific Episcopal Approval as conforming as closely as
possible to the official document of Rome. Because they represent the
Christian tradition on modesty in dress, they satisfy the motto,
"Whatever Mary Approves." Hence the name, "Marylike Standards."
Not only are they approved, but they are the only minimum standards
that have been given formal approval by members of the Hierarchy.
This insures their conformity with the "Teaching Authority of the
Church."

WHO CONSTITUTES THIS "TEACHING AUTHORITY OF
THE CHURCH?


"Besides the lawful successors of the Apostles, namely the Roman
Pontiff for the Universal Church and Bishops for the faithful
entrusted to their care (Cf. Can. 1426), there are no other teachers
divinely constituted in the Church of Christ." (Pope Pius XII, May 31,
1954)

Accordingly, the 1930 instructions from Rome placed the problem of
social modesty in dress into the hands of the Bishops as the only
Official Teaching Authority in union with the Pope.

HAVE NOT SOME BISHOPS APPROVED SLEEVELESS
DRESSES, AND THOSE WITH ONLY BROAD STRAPS
OVER THE SHOULDERS OR HALTERS?


No. None of the Bishops have officially approved this lowering of
standards issued by the Holy Father's Cardinal Vicar, in spite of
claims made by some people. For this reason the Marylike Crusade
refuses to accept watered-down standards.

DO NOT SOME PRIESTS AND SISTERS APPROVE SUCH
WATERED-DOWN STANDARDS?


Unfortunately, they do. But they are exceeding their authority, since
they are not a part of the Official Teaching Authority of the Church.
Theirs is a delegated authority, which must conform with the Official
Teaching Authority. As Pope Pius XII defines it: The Supreme Teacher
and the Bishops "delegate to them the faculty to teach, either by
special grant, or by conferring an office to which the faculty is
attached. (Cfr. Can. 1328) Their faculty always remains subject to that
authority." (May 31, 1954)

MAY THEOLOGIANS SET MODESTY STANDARDS WHICH
CONFLICT WITH THIS "MIND OF THE CHURCH"?


Theologians are not lawmakers, but interpreters of the law. As such,
their opinions, too, must conform with the Official Teaching
Authority of the Church. Again, Pope Pius XII explains: "Theologians .
. . do not carry on their work through divine right, but through
delegation of the Church, and hence remain subject to the vigilance
and authority of the legitimate Teaching Authority . . . So the divisive
factor is knowing the truth is not the 'opino theologorum' (opinion of
theologians) but the 'sensus Ecclesiae' (the mind of the Church). To
reverse the matter would be making Theologians practically the
magistri Magisterii' (Supreme Teaching Authority) which is obviously
an error" (Sept. 14, 1956).

TIMES HAVE CHANGED. ARE THE 1930 STANDARDS NOT
LONG OUTMODED?


Times and customs may change, but God's laws never change or
become outmoded.

Neither does concupiscence change.

"There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved, no matter
how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be."
(Pope Pius XII, Nov. 8, 1957)

The standards of 1930 have not been changed. If there are any future
adaptations allowable because of peculiar circumstances, this is not a
question to be decided by individual Catholics, but by the authority
that issued the standards - the Pope or the sacred Council.

This is in agreement with the stand taken by His Eminence Rufino
Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, December 6, 1959. On that
date was issued a lengthy and masterful Pastoral Letter to "confirm
once more and declare in full vigor in our Archdiocese what the Holy
Father and the Catholic Hierarchy have stated on different
occasions."

The Cardinal then repeats the "Church's stand concerning modesty in
dress" by quoting the standards set by Pope Pius XI; "A dress cannot
be called modest which is cut deeper, etc." (which we quoted
previously)

IS IT WRONG FOR A WOMAN TO WEAR MEN'S TYPE OF
CLOTHING, SUCH AS SLACKS OR BERMUDAS?


To wear garments proper to the opposite sex is wrong, because it is
suggestive, even when the garments are otherwise modest. While
custom cannot make modest an immodest garment, custom can and
does decide the type of garments proper to either sex. Thus, in the
time of Christ men wore garments which today would be considered
proper to women.

IS IT A SERIOUS SIN TO APPEAR IN PUBLIC IN MEDIUM
OR SHORT SHORTS OR STRAPLESS FORMALS?


By applying the general principles of Moral Theology, it would be
hard to see how, objectively speaking, one can escape venial sin by
wearing ANY of these garments in public. It cannot be denied that
these immodest garments can easily, and often do, bring serious
temptations to men. Further, they promote the nudist program. It
cannot be repeated often enough or strongly enough, that regardless
of the garment or occasion, proper concealment of the body is the sole
objective!

THEN, ARE ALL THE WOMEN WEARING THEM GUILTY
OF MORTAL SIN?


Very many are not. Mortal sin is such a terrible thing that it is not
committed unless all of these conditions are present:

1. The sinful action must be serious.
2. It must be performed with full knowledge, and
3. With full consent of the will.

Thus, if a woman or girl, through no fault of her own, is sincerely
unaware that her attire seriously offends against modesty, one of the
essentials for mortal sin is missing. She is said to be "in good faith."

True happiness comes from God. It fills your heart if you live
according to God's plan and His commandments. Unhappiness comes
from breaking these Commandments by sin. Disobedience is the
spirit of Lucifer; "I will not serve! God and His Church can't tell me
what to do!" Since mortal sin is a grevous offence against the Law of
God, it is the greatest tragedy in the world. The emphasis is on God.
He made you His child and friend in baptism. He gives you His Life,
the supernatural life through the Sacraments and then through
selfishness you turn your back on Him. Do not try to make yourself
believe that hurting those around you is the only possible evil. God
does not agree with that view. When you break God's law you hurt
God - and yourself by severing your love relationship with Him! "The
wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23) Breaking God's law by impurity
spells death; death of the soul through the loss of sanctifying grace;
death of the peace of conscience through the crushing remorse for
sin; death of high ideals; Spiritual death through mortal sin brings
misery and unhappiness in this world and eternal damnation in the
next.

DO NOT THEOLOGIANS ADVISE TO LET PERSONS "IN
GOOD FAITH" ALONE?


No. Parents and teachers have the obligation to give thorough
instructions on the obligations of our Holy Religion. Otherwise people
would soon lose all sense of sin. The devil has already made use of this
trickery on a grand scale, by keeping responsible persons silent. For,
as Pius XII has said, already "the world has lost all sense of sin." (See
appendix on the Spiritual Works of Mercy.)

DOES THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE, THEN APPROVE
FEMININE TROUSER TYPE GARMENTS OF PROPER
LENGTH AND FIT?


"A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel: neither shall a
man use women's apparel. For he that doth these things is
abominable before God." (Deut. 22:5)

The purpose of this Old Testament Law will never change, because
undue promiscuity of the sexes will always be a source of sins against
chastity.

Hence, in the absence of any Church approval, we cannot approve the
feminine trouser type garments, until it is proven that trousers are no
longer a distinctive male garment.

Are we sure that this modern innovation was not an invention of
Satan? We are aware of his hellish program of disrobing womanhood
in order to more readily carry out his goal of moral corruption of
mankind. If feminine trousers were not the invention of the devil, we
now know definitely that he is using them very effectively for his
purpose. Very gradually did he proceed (1917 to the present day), so
as to avoid detection and to forestall a mass rebellion of womanhood
had she even suspected in advance this inch-by-inch development:
ankle-length slacks, above-the-ankle slacks, below the knee
bermudas, knee length shorts, above the knee shorts, shorts (still
called bermudas), medium shorts, short shorts.

Our Lady of Fatima did know in 1917 this pending denuding program.
It should FRIGHTEN US to recall the prophecy she revealed to
Jacinta,

"Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very
much."

SATAN'S PLAN TO CORRUPT WOMEN UNFOLDED BY
OUR LADY:

The following is most important:


It was in 1917 at a Legion of Mary meeting in Baden (Black Forest),
Germany that Father King from the Church of Miuester spoke to the
women at that meeting in regard to Our Lady of Fatima's prediction of
that same year: . . . "Certain fashions will be introduced that will
offend Our Lord very much." He had consulted the fashion designers
of Paris, France, concerning the next fashion for women to be
introduced. He reported that it was "pants."

Being a holy priest and concerned about the spiritual welfare of the
women in his Legion of Mary group, he asked them to promise never
to wear pants.

Since a woman wearing a man's garment is abominable before God,
the mere use of the word "abominable" meaning hateful; offensive;
unclean; it certainly is worthy of our attention and study.

If a woman really loves Our Blessed Mother and Our Blessed Lord,
why would she hamper the "Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate
Heart" and offend Our Lord very much by wearing "pants"?  
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:28 am
CHAPTER III - THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR
MODESTY IN DRESS


WHAT ARE THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS?


"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers'
breadth under the pit of the throat;; which does not cover the arms at
least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees.
Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper." (The
Cardinal vicar of Pope Pius XI)

1. Marylike is modest without compromise, "like Mary", Christ's
Mother.

2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows;
and skirts reaching below the knees. Acceptable Marylike Standards
have been revealed in many private revelations since 1917 throughout
the world. One of these standards is the dress or skirt should be at
least three inches below the bottom of the knee. Our Blessed Mother
was very specific in one of these private revelations commenting that
when a woman sits down her dress or skirt should cover her knees
with the requested three inches.
Our bodies are not all the same size and contour. Therefore some
women may have to add additional inches to their dresses and skirts
because when sitting down the dress or skirt has a tendency to pull
the garment up leaving the knees exposed.
(NOTE: Because of market conditions, quarter-length sleeves are
temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian
womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.)

3. Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest,
shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding
two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a
corresponding two inches on the shoulders.

4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent
fabrics, laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. unless sufficient backing is
added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.

5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of fleshcolored fabrics.

6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the
wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.

7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or
stole are removed and after assuming a sitting position.

REMARKS ON THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS:

This set of standards avoids a long litany of rules and details, which
often only serves to complicate matters and add to existing confusion.
Its form is concise, resting on the two fundamental rules of modesty:
sufficient coverage and proper fit.

Therefore, a few added points of clarification are here in order.

MARYLIKE -- The first standard seeks to re-enthrone Mary, the
perfect model of modesty, in the hearts of her children.

TWO-INCH CUT-OUT -- "Two inches" is the equivalent of the
measure given by the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome, "two fingers' breadth
below the hollow of the throat."

TRANSPARENT FABRICS -- Many women fail to realize that
transparent dresses are suggestive and cause serious temptations to
men. In some cases, because of the emphasized seductiveness of a
pretended coverage, they are even worse than the bare skin. They
tease the passions. Hence transparent fabrics are outlawed for those
parts of the body which require coverage unless they are backed with
sufficiently solid material to conceal the flesh.

Marylike women will refuse to become the pawn in Satan's hands to
promote this modern ruse for seduction, which he uses on an
extensive scale. Marylike brides and their attendants will not dare to
stand at the bridal altar, in the presence of their Eucharistic Lord,
attired in gowns of flimsy material, thus placing in jeopardy the
blessing of God offered by the Church for the marital life.

Marylike mothers will never permit their innocent daughters to don
the flimsy and transparent First Communion dresses now flooding
the market, which are an insult to the King of Kings Who deigns to
enter their innocent little hearts for the first time in their lives; and
which causes them to lose their "sense of modesty" in tender years,
even for the House of God.

FLESH COLOUR -- This color is not considered objectionable in
itself for dresses, but only when used to suggest the bare skin in parts
of the body requiring coverage. Thus, flesh color would be highly
objectionable when used as trimming on the chest, the midriff, etc.

CONCEAL THE FIGURE -- Dresses which provide sufficient
coverage may still be very immodest by reason of the fit, which
renders them suggestive. Thus, a tight or form-fitting bodice is highly
objectionable. On the other hand, a fit which is too loose at the two
inch neckline allowed in standard number 3, especially over the
shoulders and on the chest, does easily "reveal the figure" of the
wearer of the dress, especially in bending or stooping.

BRAS AND SLIPS
-- Modest women always wear slips that conceal,
and bras of proper fit. The most Marylike dress can become very
immodest, e.g., if worn over pointed or uplift bras.

"O, HOW BEAUTIFUL IS THE CHASTE GENERATION WITH GLORY,
FOR THE MEMORY THEREOF IS IMMORTAL: BECAUSE IT IS
KNOWN BOTH WITH GOD AND MEN." (Wisdom 4:1)  

EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar


EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar

PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:34 am
CHAPTER IV -- QUESTIONS ON MARYLIKE STANDARDS

IN TRYING TO IMITATE MARY AS OUR MODEL, MUST WE NOT
BECOME OLD-FASHIONED?


Mary does not ask any woman to wear the STYLES of dresses in vogue
in her day, but "Whatever Mary Approves" for our day. Modesty is not
directly concerned with the type, style, or cut of the dress, but with
proper covering for the body.

"Old fashioned" is a very effective bogie-man set up by the Demon of
Impurity to scare the wits out of many women. He even succeeds in
enlisting Catholics in responsible positions to flash this scarecrow of
ridicule before the eyes of feminine slaves of the pagan fashions. Here
is an illustration:

A writer in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review of December, 1955,
made the following sneering remark about a Catholic school trying to
popularize the "Marylike" look: "Indignant correspondents wrote to
TIME - to protest the sinister popish plot to clothe American
womanhood in Mother Hubbards..."

DO NOT THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS LEAD WOMEN TO
BE PRUDISH?

It will be a revelation to many persons to learn the correct meaning of
"prudish." In Webster's Unabridged Dictionary it is defined as
"discreet, modest," and "from F.prudefemme, an excellent woman."
As a synonym for "modest," prudish is being used also by some
Church Authorities.

The devil hates "discreet, modest and excellent" women. So, he
resorts to another bogie-man for modest women, seeking to drive
them into accepting immodest garments by ridicule. He clothes the
respectable word "prudish" with a "Mother Hubbard Dress" and tries
to make them believe that the Marylike Crusade advocates skirts
reaching down to the ankles - not one half inch less - and collars up to
the chin.

Many Catholics have a morbid fear of ridicule, and will let the devil
lead them by the nose to escape it. Yet, ridicule is no argument at all.
It is often the only resort of persons who are not conversant with the
matter they are treating, or do not wish to see the truth. Mary's
Crusaders, defying this deadly weapon of ridicule, "dare to be
different."

BUT DO NOT THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS MAKE
WOMEN SCRUPULOUS?


It is not accurate rules that usually make persons scrupulous. Rather,
it is the confusion caused by those who would abolish all standards,
that leads to scrupulosity and confused consciences.

The Marylike Crusade does not ask women to carry a yardstick with
them when shopping for a dress, as some writers have foolishly
insinuated by referring to the Marylike Standards as "yard-stick
modesty." All that women need is common sense combined with a
serious conscience in applying the Marylike Standards when buying a
dress.

The Marylike Standards are intended to serve as a guide. Because of
the many kinds of cuts, and the various degrees of angles and curves
found in the assortment of styles appearing on the market,
mathematical accuracy in applying the Marylike Standards is not
always possible. In such cases, the "letter of the law" must be
interpreted by the "spirit of the law." Thus, a V-neck cutout may
extend lower than the two-inch limit; but if it is very narrow, it may be
more modest than a broader two-inch cutout. A woman with a normal
Christian conscience will hardly suffer scruples in this case. If she is
sincerely trying to comply with the Marylike Standards as closely as
possible, she will have no qualms of conscience about a slight
deviation. On the other hand, she will not allow herself any
intentional deviations from the Marylike Standards.

CAN MARYLIKE DRESSES BE ATTRACTIVE TO A WOMAN
OR GIRL?


Let it first be noted that to the slaves of fashion, "attractive" and
"latest style" are synonymous. To such, the most outlandish dress is
considered "attractive" provided it is the "latest style."

Before the mid-sixties the Marylike quarter-length sleeve was
sneeringly greeted with, "Who wants to be seen in such a 'Mother
Hubbard' dress?" Only sleeveless dresses were considered
"attractive" by many. Then, overnight full-length sleeves appeared on
the market as the latest style, and this "Mother Hubbard" was once
again declared "attractive" and was accepted as such.

A decade or two previously -- and this would be incredible had it not
actually happened -- the ankle length "hoop-skirt," the most
exaggerated "Mother Hubbard" of the last century, was dug up and
declared "attractive" and "the latest style" in our own day.

Thereupon, for many years, the fashion-worshipping bride believed
she could not be attractively attired except in this "Mother Hubbard."

Thus, the word "attractive," as used by fashion-worshippers, is a
cover-up for sinful vanity. Of course, a well-designed MODEST dress
is always attractive to the eyes of modest persons. Of course, an
immodest dress is always "attractive" to immodest eyes -- provided it
is the "latest style." For, as St. Paul writes, "The sensual man
perceiveth not these things that are of the spirit of God." (1 Cor. 2:14)

DO THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS APPLY ONLY TO
DRESSES? WHAT ABOUT MEN'S ATTIRE?


The Marylike Standards were issued by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome to
be applied to dresses. Certainly, men are as much bound to modesty,
as are the women. However, there is a difference of standards based
on the natural difference of sex. Thus, a basketball suit which is
somewhat too scanty for women, may be modest for men.

The so-called "equality of women with men in all things" is a myth.
Equality of the sexes in conformity with the natures of the respective
sexes, by all means let it be respected. But not the false "feminism"
which is promoted by Naturalism and which ignores the natural
differences of the sexes.

The reason for the variation in standards bears repetition: woman's
attraction to man is more psychological; man's attraction to woman is
more physical. Hence, man is much more easily tempted by scanty
feminine attire than vice versa.

By no means, however, is a man exempted from the virtue of modesty.
Masculine modesty is needed today as much as feminine. But the fact
remains that the Marylike Standards were prescribed specifically for
women and girls. The Holy See has not yet found it necessary to
prescribe standards for men and boys. Although, again private
revelation, which given for our direction in a time when it is most
needed, has been very explicit about men's clothing. Our Blessed
Mother has stated that tight fitting clothing that reveals the body is
not to be worn. Our Lady has also stated that men should wear darker
clothing and loose fitting. Bright or loud colors in shirts and pants are
not to be worn by men. She also warned against such attire as
checkered and flowery pants and shirts. Men should wear the darker
colors and plain material. The bright and patterned material belongs
to the attire of women.

DO THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS APPLY ALSO TO
ATHLETIC AND GYM SUITS?


Yes. The Holy Father has insisted that girls be "fully dressed" for
games and contests, in the special instructions of January 12, 1930:
"Let parents keep their daughters from public gymnastic games and
contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such
exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let
them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb."

All orders from Rome notwithstanding, the gym suits in most Catholic
schools are scandalous in their scantiness; and anything but a credit
to our Catholic school system, in which the Pope commands that "the
Superioresses and teachers do their utmost to instill love of modesty
in the hearts of maidens confided to their care and urge them to dress
modestly." (Ibid.)

To such an extent had even our Catholic schools begun to ape pagan
fashions, that by 1956 Marylike gym suits were no longer available on
the market, having been labeled as impractical or an impediment to
effective sports play. The extent to which pagan nudity has grown in
sports is easily seen in the body-conscious attire at international
sports meets [Corinne: just look at the female gymnasts, swimmers
and skaters at the Olympics!], in the name of aesthetics (figure
skating), more accurate judging (gymnastics), lowered wind or water
resistance (track and field, cycling, swimming). One should also
consider the scandalous attire of other popular recreations, such as
aerobics, yoga, ballet, etc.

WHAT RULES REGULATE SWEATERS, PLAY SUITS, SUN
SUITS, SPORT SUITS, AND BATHING SUITS?


The same two basic rules as apply to dresses: sufficient coverage and
proper fit. Two-piece bathing suits are eliminated as a matter of
course. As to coverage, the Marylike ideal requires the same amount
of coverage, no matter what type of garment is concerned. It is not
primarily the type of feminine garment that makes it modest or
immodest, nor the style. Rather, modesty is concerned with the
proper concealment of the body. In this regard then, EVERY modern
style of swimsuit violates the Marylike standards of modesty in dress!!
(Especially offensive is spandex.) Further to this, public bathing is a
violation of modesty as it becomes a diabolical feast for the eyes,
fueling concupiscence brazenly, as any attire, no matter how modest
becomes immodestly clingy and physically exposing when wet. In the
Catholic ideal however, private family swimming is acceptable, if
undertaken in a loose fitting shirt and bermudas or similar garb.
There is nothing objectionable about private family recreation, as
opposed to the worldly public exhibitionism so widespread today.

WHAT IS TO BE SAID OF THE THEORY, "WHAT IS
IMMODEST ON THE STREET MAY BE PERFECTLY
MODEST ON THE BEACH?"


This is one of the principles advanced by the disciples of the so-called
"relative modesty." It makes modesty depend less on its real basis --
concealing the body -- than on the circumstances of time, place and
occasion. It provides a sliding scale for measuring modesty, which
gives it a strong flavor of sophism. It is often used as a handy
mechanism of escape from the natural requirements of modesty.

Some liberals interpret St. Thomas Aquinas' prescription to dress
according to the circumstances of time, place and occasion as an
approval of modern semi-nude fashions. They should know better. St.
Thomas was referring to the modest feminine garments in vogue in
the thirteenth century. It is stupid to claim that he was referring to
our strapless gowns, shorts, bikinis, etc. How could he, since these
are products of the twentieth century?

The Marylike Crusade challenges the soundness of this principle. Its
proponents should either come forward with a sound argument for it,
or relinquish it as another sophism.

ARE THERE POSITIVE ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE THIS
PRINCIPLE?


Yes. This mechanism sets up a double standard for public modesty:
one for bathing shorts, another for street shorts; one permitting only
halters, another requiring more coverage. Double standards are
bound to lead to confusion of standards, or a pulling down of the
higher standard to the level of the lower. Even now the tendency is
growing to establish as a "custom" the appearance on the street in
beach attire. Here you see the "mechanism of escape from the natural
requirements of modesty" in action. The pronouncements of the
Popes seem to make no distinctions for various types of garments.
Thus, Pope Pius XII states that "An unworthy and indecent mode of
dress has prevailed," without indicating any distinction of place, 'on
the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets,
etc.'" (Aug. 20, 1954)

Further, His quotation of the "ancient poet" as saying that "vice
necessarily follows upon public nudity" (Ibid.) applies to all places,
beach or elsewhere. American modernists will be shocked to learn
that His Eminence Enrique Cardinal Pla y Daniel, Archbishop of
Toledo, Spain, issued the following directives in 1959: "A special
danger to morals is represented by public bathing at beaches, in pools
and river banks . . . Mixed bathing between men and women which
nearly always is an approximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must
be avoided."

The argument, "Bathing suits based on the Marylike Standards are
not practical," does not hold. They were practical enough years ago,
before the style dictators dared to make them more scanty. Why
should they be considered impractical today? Experience shows that,
if the fashion designers would dictate sweaters as "the style" for July
and August, skimpy shorts for January and February, many women
would slavishly accept their unreasonable decisions. But when the
Church demands only the sensible rules of Christian modesty based
on nature, they immediately object and have recourse to all kinds of
excuses.

Finall, this theory of double standards pushes concupiscence far into
the background. Sound Theology always emphasizes it as the
important factor in making decisions on the modesty of garments.

HOW DOES THIS THEORY PUSH CONCUPISCENCE INTO
THE BACKGROUND?


By the pretense that in men, who are seriously tempted by the sight of
a woman in shorts parading the streets, this temptation suddenly
diminishes, sleeps, or perhaps dies, as soon as that same scantily
dressed woman sets foot on the beach. And this, in spite of the added
license of rolling around on the beach, and assuming other suggestive
postures which would be condemned in any other place as downright
seduction.

King David was a Saint, a man "according to the Heart of God." Yet, it
took only a "bathing beauty," Bathsheba washing herself, whom he
spied from the roof of his palace, to smite him down. It was this
"bathing beauty" who so kindled in his heart the fire of
concupiscence, as to lead him to the double crime of adultery and
murder (2 Samuel, Chapter 11).

Today "bathing beauties" continue to smite their victims, regardless
of all loud professions of good intentions. So alluring is the bait of
these "bathing beauties" which is dangled before the eyes of
concupiscence, that Church Authorities find it necessary, at times, to
threaten Catholics, who are brazen enough to enter "bathing beauty
contests," with denial of Sacraments.

Add to these considerations the testimony of letters written by men to
the Marylike Crusade headquarters, lamenting these conditions as
preventing them from enjoying the innocent pleasures which a beach
could afford -- and there should be ample reason for abolishing all
double, or multiple, standards of garments.

WHAT IS THE PROPER FEMININE ATTIRE FOR CHURCH
AND OTHER SACRED PLACES?


Canon Law requires a proper head covering for women and girls in
church. A Piece of Kleenex, a handkerchief, or any skimpy substitute
for hat or full veil, do not carry out the spirit of the law.

Only dresses with the Marylike Standards should be tolerated in
church and other sacred places such as shrines, convents, rectories,
etc. It should not be necessary to add that the wearing of slacks, tight
pants, shorts, and similar garments in sacred places is a horrible
insult to God, a sacrilege.

Pope Pius XII on IMMORAL READING:


Pope Pius XII condemns the following opinion as vain and
presumptuous: "I am no longer a baby girl; I am not a child anymore;
At my age, sensuous descriptions and voluptuous sights no longer
mean anything."

His reply is: "Are you sure this is true? If it were, it would be the
indication of an unconscious perversion. But do not believe, young
men and women, that you may sometimes allow yourselves, perhaps
in secret, to read condemned books; do not believe that their poison
can be without effect, by not being immediate, should be all the more
malignant.

"There are times when the dangers of bad reading are even more
tragic than the dangers from bad company." (To the newly married
August 7, 1940)  
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:38 am
CHAPTER V - THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE APOSTOLATE

Prayer and sacrifices are essential to the success of the Marylike
Movement in general, but especially the Marylike Crusade. For, the
Demon of Impurity has dared to challenge the Queenship of our
"Mother Most Pure" with unusual cunning in our day, and to set
himself up as the dictator of immodest fashions and of an impure
body cult. It would seem that this Demon of Impurity is one of those
fallen angels of whom Jesus told His Apostles: "This kind of devil is
not cast out but by prayer and fasting." (Matthew 17-20)

CRUSADE INTENTIONS

1. Reparation to the Twin Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the
Immaculate Heart of Mary for the innumerable sins of impurity and
immodesty committed daily over the world.

2. The success of the Marylike Crusade in: a) Promoting Marylike
chastity and modesty; b) in hastening the triumph of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary.

THE PRAYER PROGRAM (for men, women and children)

1. Recite daily three Hail Marys for personal purity and modesty,
each Hail Mary to be followed by the indulgenced prayer, "By thy
Immaculate Conception, O Mary, make my body pure and my soul
holy."

2. Consecrate myself daily to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by any
approved "Act" (or at least in your own words).

3. Wear the Brown Scapular always.

4. Wear the Green Scapular or carry on your person.

5. Attend and pray the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as often as
possible.

6. Receive Holy Communion as often as possible.

7. Go to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on First Fridays and receive
Holy Communion if possible.

8. Observance of the First Saturdays of each month (according to
our Lady's intentions) consisting of Holy Mass and Holy Communion;
reparation to Mary's Immaculate Heart; the Holy Rosary; plus a 15-
minute meditation on the mysteries of the HOly Rosary.

9. The daily Holy Rosary. This is a must. We cannot emphasize
enough the importance of saying the Holy Rosary daily.

10. Holy Hours of prayer when possible. Either before the Blessed
Sacrament if possible or at home.

11. Daily Sacrifices offered to our Heavenly Father through the
Immaculate Heart of Mary.

12. To venerate the Blessed Mother as my model, striving each day to
please God by the avoidance of sin and the imitation of her sublime
virtues. "Let them offend God no more, for He is already much
offended."

13. To practice chastity and modesty habitually, both exterior and
interior. "More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for
any other reason."

14. To add after each decade of the Rosary, "Oh my Jesus, forgive us
our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to heaven,
especially those who are most in need of Thy mercy."

15. go to private confession often. We suggest every two weeks.

THE MARYLIKE DRESS PROGRAM

This program includes the following:


1. To strive to be modest in thought, word and conduct, at all times
and in all places

2. To refuse to wear the pagan fashion known as "shorts"

3.
To refuse to wear slacks (Which our Lady made reference to at
her Fatima apparition in 1917 and said would "offend our Lord very
much")

4. To wear only such dresses as meet the Marylike Standards

5. To strive to promote Marylike modesty whenever occasion
presents (An excellent way is by making this book available)

6. Reread often the contents of this book.  

EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar


EmeraldWings
Captain
EmeraldWings's avatar

PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2010 9:45 am
APPENDIX

THE MEMORARE


Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known
that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought
thy intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly
unto thee O Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To thee I come; before thee
I stand sinful and sorrowful, O Mother of the Word Incarnate.
Despise not my petitions, but in Thy mercy hear and answer me.
Amen.

COMMANDMENTS OF GOD

The Commandments of God are these ten:


1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shall not have strange gods before Me.
2. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep holy the Lord's Day.
4. Honor thy father and thy mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS

1. Love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and soul and strength.
2. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

SIX PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

1. To assist at Mass on all Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
2. To fast and abstain on the days appointed.
3. To confess our sins at least once a year.
4. To receive Holy Communion during the Easter time.
5. To contribute to the support of the Church.
6. To observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage.

HOLY DAYS OF OBLIGATION


1. Christmas (December 25)
2. The Octave of Christmas (January 1)
3. Ascension Thursday (Forty days after Easter)
4. The Assumption (August 15)
5. All Saints Day (November 1)
6. The Immaculate Conception (December 8 )

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES (Matt. 5:3-10)

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
2. Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land.
3. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
4. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall
be filled.
5. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
6. Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
7. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children
of God.
8. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake, for
theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

CORPORAL WORKS OF MERCY

1. To feed the hungry
2. To give drink to the thirsty
3. To clothe the naked
4. To shelter the homeless
5. To visit the sick
6. To visit the imprisoned
7. To bury the dead

SPIRITUAL WORKS OF MERCY

1. To counsel the doubtful
2. To instruct the ignorant
3. To admonish the sinner
4. To comfort the sorrowful
5. To forgive injuries
6. To bear wrongs patiently
7. to pray for the living and the dead

SINS AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. Presuming to gain salvation without meriting it
2. Despair of salvation
3. Resisting truths which have been made known to us
4. Envy of another's spiritual good
5. Stubbornness in sin
6. Final obstinacy in one's sins

SEVEN DEADLY SINS

1. Pride: an unrestrained appreciation of our own worth
2. Avarice: an immoderate desire for earthly goods
3. Lust: a hankering after impure pleasures
4. Anger: an inordinate desire of revenge
5. Gluttony: an unrestrained use of food and drink
6. Envy: sorrow over the good fortune of our neighbor
7. Sloth: laziness to do right or carelessness to do right and to
practice virtue because of the trouble attached to it

SINS CRYING TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE

1. Willful murder
2. Sodomy
3. Oppression of the poor
4. Cheating laborers of their wages

NINE WAYS OF AIDING ANOTHER IN SIN

1. Counseling or advising another to sin
2. Commanding another to sin
3. Provoking another to sin
4. Consenting to another's sin
5. Showing another how to sin
6. Praising another's sin
7. Concealing, remaining silent about, doing nothing to prevent
another's sin
8. Taking part in, or enjoying the results of another's sin
9. Defending another's sin

DEFINITION OF SIN

The free transgression of a divine law is a sin. Since every law is
derived from the divine law, natural or positive, every transgression
of a punitive law of legitimately constituted authority, is a sin.

Sin may be mortal or venial. It is mortal when the transgression is of
a divine law in a matter that is serious and when the consent to sin
recognizes both the law and the serious matter. [Corinne: it's a sin of
grave matter, committed with full knowledge of the sinner and with
deliberate consent of the sinner.] A sin is venial when it is either
committed out of imperfect knowledge and consent, when one
transgresses a law that does not bind seriously, or when a sin is
actually grave but, because of an invincibly erroneous conscience [a
conscience that has not been properly formed in the knowledge of
good and evil], the one committing it is ignorant of its gravity. Sin is
also classified as to type: internal sins are those committed through
use of the spiritual faculties, e.g., imagination; actual sin is any sinful
act or omission of a prescribed good act; habitual sin is the state of sin
of one who has not repented. The sin is formal when it is deliberate
against a law, even if the law is only supposed to exist; it is material
when the transgression is against a law, but when knowledge of the
transgression's sinfulness is lacking it is actually no real sin because it
lacks consent. (Cf. Commandments of God; Precepts of the Church.)

PLEASE REMEMBER TO
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

AND TO WEAR
OUR LADY'S BROWN SCAPULAR!
 
Reply
Catholic Teachings NP

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games