Does She Go Too Far?

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 4, 26 March 1927, Page 22 (Supplement)

Does She Go Too Far?

Fathers, husbands, brothers have been appealel to by Pope Pius to help check what is held to be an increased immodesty in women's fashions. The Catholic Church has repeatedly counselled women not to follow the extremes in styles, and bishops have forbidden women to enter the sanctuary unless they conform to certain requirements against what the Church holds to be vulgar display. In another and more recent pronouncement against “increased immodesty,” Pope Pius declares it constitutes an “ugly, ruinous, catastrophical tendency, which Catholic husbands, fathers and brothers should attempt to check at all costs. “There is a phrase in holy writings,” s..id the rope, “which touches the basis of the matter, a phrase which God puts in the mouth of man when He makes him say: ‘Lord, save me from an irreverent and shameless soul.’ ” . number of the leading American r i.gious journals -ve expressed their views on thi atter. It is interesting to note at the start that whether woman’s dress, or the lack of it, is immodest and immoral is still a question, even among those whose particular business it is. to point out evil and to warn us against temptation. Some hold that modern fashions are an open invitation to grossness, an alarming sign of decadence where virtue should find its stoute'st stronghold. Others see in woman’s scanty garb merely a welcome and healthy escape from the restraints and conventions of an older day. The “Sunday School Times,” Philadelphia, said that the “terrific movement” of the women away from scriptural teachings on the subject of dress is “plainly supernatural and Satanic In its intensity and is indeed a challenge to all true Christians to set themselves against it by prayer and teaching and example.” “Undoubtedly,” declared the “Christian Index,” “the Christian women of to-day have taken upon themselves a fearful responsibility in allowing the pagan modistes of Paris and New York to hand down to them and their daughters styles in street and evening dress which are calcu lated to do Jreat violence to the sane titles of womanhood.” “The Pope,” argues the “Christian Courier” of Dallas, “is eminently proper in beginning his campaign, if it is a campaign, against the liberties

The Churches and Miss 1927

women are taking in dress TiT"' men.” The “Christian Courier”. concede! that there is something in Wom J : assertion that “a wee bit of colonT' the cheek to simulate health is T ally conducive to health," and tin“feminine ankles are too graceful hide away in unsightly boots." * The “ Methodist Protestant Herald* says: “ We do not blame women f • throwing off the oppressive forms « dress that prevailed in former times “ One consoling thing,” thinks a “ Catholic Citizen,” “is that tre r? accustomed to things. After a wp. we cease to be shocked. We stc ’ taking notice. And then, perha t , fashion changes.” The “ Presbyterian Advance ” 0 ’ Nashville believed it futile to dlscass women’s dress. They “ will what they want to wear— even if theiwills are turned out at wholesale fm® tailor shops.” And without desiring to defend the present styles, “thougs they are obviously far more sensibithan fashions which convert vcome: into strait-jacketed street-sweepers; “ Mrs. Partington,” says the " Nonb western Christian Advocate,” "pm. ting her broom against the Atlantic, was a marvel of conservative elfa. tiveness alongside those who think bj law to strengthen or shorten, narret or widen, the garments which wonts; wear, or to add or subtract a thresd of them.”