Irish Bishops Issued Warnings Against Immodest Fashions

Published in a Catholic Magazine: Page 16, Our Young People, Volumes 29-30, Copyrighted by St. John’s Institute, April 1919. Published with the approbation of Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D. D., Archbishop of Milwaukee.

Several Irish Bishops have issued warnings against the present extreme fashions in women’s attire. They denounce the new modes as immodest, and offer the suggestion that Irish women could more fitly allow the national spirit to dictate their taste in the matter of fashions. The Bishop of Limerick, Msgr. Hallinan, writes in a letter to the press: “I have seen it stated on what I conceive to be reliable authority that the principle designers of these modern fashions in women’s dress are men, not women; and, furthermore, that they are generally Parisian Jews or Freemasons, who are bitterly opposed to Christianity and seek, among other means, to uproot it by the introduction into Christian society of these dangerous and indecent dresses.”

Photo: Msgr. Denis Hallinan

The Old Fashioned Mother – Fr. John McCarthy

An article published in a Catholic Magazine: Page 20, Our Young People, Volumes 29-30, Copyrighted by St. John’s Institute, April 1919. Published with the approbation of Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D. D., Archbishop of Milwaukee.

The Jesuit father, John McCarthy, who is now giving missions, preaches a sermon on the old-fashioned mother.

She did not long for a career away from home nor refuse to do her duty there. She loved her husband and her children. Her chief ambition was to be her husband’s dearest companion and to rear her sons and daughters to be a credit to the name they bore. She was willing to work early and late, for she toiled for those she loved. The old-fashioned mother was loved in return for the love she gave. Her husband thought the world and all of her, and her children were sure that she was the best, the dearest, the sweetest woman they ever knew. Even when her boys and girls grew up and went away to homes of their own, they came back to her often for ad vice and consolation, encouragement and mother-love. She was a great force for morality. Faith was to her like the breath of life. Virtue was for her the only course. Vice she hated in all its forms. She preached by example how to practice the Christian life. She is not dead, the old-fashioned mother. But under the inroads of irreligion, of Godless education, of new thought, of birth-control, of indecent fashions, of luxury, of materialism, and of the devil of impurity, her number is not what it once was. But she still reigns, where she does exist, the queen of a Christian home.—The Columbian.

Rev. John W. Shaw,”We Are Deeply Concerned with the Morals of Dress”

“‘While we are neither presumptuous nor foolish enough to discuss ‘colors, forms and fashions,’ yet we are deeply concerned with the morals of dress in the interest of Christian purity and modesty. The present shocking disregard in modern female attire for the elementary principles of ordinary decency is simply appalling. It is a question whether a licentious woman of the degenerate Roman Empire surpassed her modern society sister in her immodesty of dress. To say nothing from an economic stand point of the large sums expended foolishly for the gratification of female vanity, ‘to be dressed up and built up and masqueraded’ only to be looked at, the disgusting realism of the modern fashions is fast extinguishing in the hearts of all noble-minded men that spirit of reverence and chivalry which regarded the women of other days as something almost mystic and vine.” It must have been humiliating “to the painted and wanton beauties of modern society to read not long ago in a daily paper that their grotesque and shameless fashions originate in the minds of their fallen sisters in a prominent European capital,’ Archbishop Shaw declared. Catholic women, and especially Catholic mothers, were reminded by the Archbishop of the danger of incurring responsibility for them selves and others by disregarding the canons of Christian modesty.”

Page 18, Our Young People, Volumes 29-30, Copyrighted by St. John’s Institute, April 1919. Published with the approbation of Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D. D., Archbishop of Milwaukee.




Guidelines for Education within the Family

Decency and Modesty

56. The practice of decency and modesty in speech, action and dress is very important for creating an atmosphere suitable to the growth of chastity, but this must be well motivated by respect for one’s own body and the dignity of others. Parents, as we have said, should be watchful so that certain immoral fashions and attitudes do not violate the integrity of the home, especially through misuse of the mass media. In this regard, the Holy Father stressed the need “to promote closer collaboration between parents, who have primary responsibility for education, those in charge of the mass media at various levels and the public authorities, so that families are not left without guidance in such an important sector of their educational mission… In fact the presentations, content and programmes of healthy entertainment, information and education to complement that of the family and the school must be recognized. Unfortunately this does not change the fact that in some countries especially there are many shows and publications abounding in all sorts of violence with a kind of bombardment of messages that undermine moral principles and make it impossible to achieve a serious climate in which values worthy of the human person may be transmitted”.

In particular, with regard to use of television, the Holy Father specified: “The life-style — especially in the more industrialised nations — all too often causes families to abandon their responsibility to educate their children. Evasion of this duty is made easy by the presence of television and of printed materials in the home. These occupy the time for children and young people. No one can deny the justification for this when the means are lacking, to develop and use to advantage the free time of the young and to direct their energies”. Another circumstance that facilitates this is the fact that both parents are busy with their work, in and outside the home. “The result is that these young people are in most need of help in developing their responsible freedom. There is the duty — especially for believers, for men and women who love freedom, to protect the young from the aggressions they are subjected to by the media. May no one shirk from this duty by using the excuse that he or she is not involved”. “Parents as recipients must actively ensure the moderate, critical, watchful and prudent use of the media”.

Four Ways to Discern a Man’s Soul by His Appearance – Fr. Cornelius a Lapide, S.J.

Rev. Cornelius Cornelii à Lapide, SJ (né Cornelis Cornelissen van den Steen; 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637) was a Catholic, Flemish, Jesuit priest and exegete of Sacred Scripture.

He was born at Bocholt, in Belgian Limburg. He studied humanities and philosophy at the Jesuit colleges of Maastricht and Cologne, first theology for half a year at the University of Douai and afterwards for four years at the Old University of Leuven; he entered the Society of Jesus on 11 June 1592 and, after a novitiate of two years and another year of theology, was ordained a Catholic priest on 24 December 1595. After teaching philosophy for half a year, he was made a professor of Sacred Scriptureat Leuven in 1596 and next year of Hebrew also. During his professorship at Leuven it pleased him to spend his holidays preaching and administering the Sacraments, especially at the pilgrimage of Scherpenheuvel (Montaigu). Twenty years later in 1616 he was called to Rome in the same capacity, where, on 3 November, he assumed the office that he held for many years thereafter. The latter years of his life, however, he apparently devoted exclusively to completing and correcting his commentaries. He died in Rome on 12 March 1637.

He described himself in a prayer to the Prophets at the end of his commentary on the Book of Daniel: “For nearly thirty years I suffer with and for You [God] with gladness the continual martyrdom of religious life, the martyrdom of illness, the martyrdom of study and writing; obtain for me also, I beseech You, to crown all, the fourth martyrdom, of blood. For You I have spent my vital and animal spirits; I will spend my blood too.”

The attire of the body and the laughter of the teeth and the gait of the man show what he is. (Ecclesiasticus 19:27)“Interpreting this verse, Siracides gives four ways by which one can see, as through windows of the soul, the hidden virtues or vices, the simplicity or hypocrisy of a person.

“The first quite clear way is the outward appearance and the expression of the face, principally the eyes. The nature of a person shows and reveals itself by the eyes. For if the lamp of the body is the eyes, why is it surprising if that lamp should reveal the body? So, when one first meets a ferocious man, his eyes seem to spread terror; when one meets a pious man, his eyes spread joy. Just as wisdom and sanctity shine in the face of the wise and the holy, (Eccles, 8:1), so also foolishness and evil darken the face of the stupid and wicked.

“St. Ambrose (Book on Elias, chap. 10) admirably says: “The face is a witness of the thoughts and is a silent interpreter of the heart. The outward appearance is often a sign of the conscience and the unspoken words of the mind.”

“St. Augustine (Rule for the Servants of God, at the end) says: “Do not say that you have pure souls if you have impure eyes, because impure eyes are messengers of an impure heart.”

“The second way is the clothing or dress: overbearing apparel reveals interior pride, false dress reveals falsity; dissolute dress, dissolution; capricious apparel, capriciousness; grave clothing, gravity; sensual dress indicates and represents sensuality of spirit. Hence St. Augustine (Letter 73 to Possidium) says: “The true adornment of the Christian is not false make up, nor opulent and ostentatious dress, but rather good customs.”

“By means of the face, dress, and dissolute customs of Julian the Apostate, St. Gregory Nazianzen discerned his hidden impiety. He refers to it (Speech 2, in Julian) with these words: “Nor does it speak of any good to me to see a man with a weak neck, stooping shoulders, a constantly agitated bearing, insolent eyes and a roving and furious gaze, unstable and tottering feet, an offensive nose breathing contempt, and an arrogant and unrestrained laugh.” After describing his dissolute soul with other similar observations, he argues: “Hence his bearing speaks clearly: What a great evil the Roman land has nourished!” ….

“The third way is the laugh. Indeed, the sincere and regular laugh reveals a sincere, constant and open heart. The short, twisted, sardonic, and arrogant laugh reveals a narrow, twisted, fraudulent, and arrogant spirit and signifies an imbued hatred. In this respect Rabanus says that by the bearing of the body one demonstrates the quality of the will. ….

“The fourth way is the manner of walking. The fast and precipitate way of walking is a symptom of the impulsive spirit, just as the slow step reveals slowness of spirit; the light step, lightness of spirit; the arrogant step, an arrogant spirit; the furious step, an angry spirit; and an affected or feigned step, falseness of spirit.

“For this reason, Bede (in Proverbs) says: “The movement of the body demonstrates the habit of the mind.”

“And St. Bernard (On the Way to Live Well, chap. 9) says: “Let your way of walking be simple, and your step honest. No shame, no sensuality, no arrogance, no insolence, no frivolity should appear in your way of walking. Indeed, the spirit shows itself in the movement of the body, the carriage of the body is a signal of the soul.”

(Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Paris 1875, vol. 9, pp. 542-542)

“A Priest Cries For Modesty!” – Fr. John Lyons, O.M.V. FSSP

reposted article from this website —> X

Cover photo.

“When I showed the article to the Pastor, he told me to be more charitable. So, you are getting the friendly version.”Father John Lyons, OMV

Parents are often obliged to correct their children over
and over again – about the same thing. They would
really prefer not to have to do it, but if they didn’t they
would be guilty of sinning by omission. Priests feel the
same way. One of the things that we often have to
correct people about is the use of immodest clothing.

Dressing Immodestly Is A Sin

At this time we most especially need to remind girls
and women to not wear immodest low-cut dresses or blouses.
Women and girls should be careful that their dress is
not revealing at all, even when they bend over or kneel
down. Maybe some women do not know that revealing
clothing is a source of temptation for most men. If you
doubt this, ask a man. If a woman knows that such is
the case, and still she would wear such clothing, then she
would be committing the sin of scandal.

Immodesty Is Wrong At All Ages

Unfortunately, even some older women of otherwise
upright character, even daily communicants, sometimes
wear such revealing clothing. Maybe they think that
they’re beyond the age of posing a temptation (and
maybe they are). However, they are giving bad
example to others – most notably their own daughters
and grandchildren. They, too, are committing scandal.
Those who see them will think: “She’s a good Catholic,
and she wears revealing clothing. It must be okay.”

Immodesty Does Not Fit God’s Standards

Someone might argue that the wearing of revealing
clothing now meets with society’s standards. It may
indeed meet with society’s standards; however, we can
safely say that it does not meet with God’s. As
Christians, we are not to be followers of society’s
standards, but the standards of Christ. We urge every
woman to examine her wardrobe (and that of her minor
children if she has any), and get rid of all clothing that
is immodest unless it can be adapted to be worn

What Would Mary Do?

If a woman has doubts about the modest use of a
particular article of clothing, it may be helpful to ask
herself if our Blessed Mother would wear such clothing
if she lived in this day and age. Or, to ask herself if our
Blessed Mother would be pleased with her wearing the
article of clothing in question.

Let It Be Known

We suggest that you cut out this bulletin article, make
copies of it, and give it to women and girls who need to
hear this message. Even give or send the article
anonymously, if necessary. Those who desire to do
what is right will take the correction to heart and put it
into practice.

“Immodestly Dressing”

By Father John Lyons
Headlines by John Michael
St. Peter Chanel Church Bulletin, California

One Can Sin against Modesty by Negligence in Dress – Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.

Antonio Royo Marín, O.P. (Morella, Castellón, 1913 – Villava, 17 April 2005), was a Spanish Dominican priest and theologian. He was an influential theologian and moralist, specially as a Thomist.

He was the third of seven children. He moved with his family to Madrid in 1928, aged 15 years old. He soon joined the Catholic Union of Atocha. He asked to join the Dominican novitiate, but a bout of tuberculosis made him return to his family home. He started studying Philosophy at Madrid Seminary, probably in 1934/35. He was captured twice by Republican militiamen during the Spanish Civil War but escaped execution. He later said that he believed that he wasn’t worthy of martyrdom, and because of this God spared his life.

He joined the Dominican Order in 1939 and was ordained a priest in 1944. He was a teacher of Moral and Dogmatic Theology at the University of San Estebán, in Salamanca. He was approved “summa cum laudem” with his Doctorate thesis, Teología de la Perfección Cristiana (Theology of the Christian Perfection), in June 1948, published in 1954, which would became his most famous work, being translated into several languages.

He was awarded the medal Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice by Pope John Paul II.


Modesty is a virtue derived from temperance which inclines the individual to conduct himself in his internal and external movements and in his dress in accordance with the just limits of his state in life and position in society. (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 160)

Modesty is a virtue by which one observes proper decorum in his gestures and bodily movements, in his postures and in the way he dresses. In the matter of modesty, it is necessary to attend especially to two considerations: the dignity of each person and of those who are in his company.

Bodily modesty has great importance both for the individual and for society. Ordinarily, a person is judged by externals, and for this reason any inordinate movement, staring, indiscreet glances or any other uncontrolled movements are generally interpreted as signs of an inordinate and unruly interior. With good reason does St. Augustine recommend in his Rule that individuals should be especially careful to observe external modesty of deportment lest they scandalize their neighbors.

And, we read in Sacred Scripture: “One can tell a man by his appearance; a wise man is known as such when first met. A man’s attire, his hearty laughter and his gait proclaim him for what he is” (Eccles 19:25-26)

The vices opposed to modesty of demeanor are affectations and rusticity or rudeness.

As regards modesty of dress, St. Thomas states that any sin that arises in this matter is due to something immoderate on the part of the person in view of particular circumstances. (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 169, a. 1) This immoderation may be due to a lack of conformity to the customs of the persons with whom one lives, or to an excessive attachment and concern in regard to clothing and personal adornment. It may become inordinate because of vanity, sensuality or excessive interest in one’s apparel.

It may also happen that one could sin against modesty of clothing by being deficient in a concern for one’s personal attire, for example, if one were to be unreasonably negligent in dressing according to this state in life, or were to seek to attract attention by his lack of concern in his manner of dressing (ibid a. 2).

Pastoral Letter on Decency and Modesty – Archbishop Albert G. Meyer of Milwaukee

The first teaching of our faith is that the law of chastity is imposed on every human being. It binds him in public and in private, in marriage and outside of marriage, in youth and in old age. It is one of the serious laws that God has made, which means that it is one on which the salvation of our soul depends. …

It is most important to remember that the same law of chastity equally forbids the unchaste thought and the unchaste desire. The words of Christ in this regard are crystal clear: “I say to you that anyone who even looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Mt. 5:28) …

The second teaching of our Faith which we ask you to recall here is the doctrine of original sin. Every human being, except the Immaculate Mother of God, has through original sin inherited a tainted nature, which manifests itself more intensively perhaps in inclinations to unchastity than in any other way. The resulting battle with concupiscence is not limited to a given age or state of life; it must be waged by all at all times.

It is fashionable to deny original sin. But to the Catholic, the doctrine of original sin is fundamental for the true understanding of the whole economy of grace and salvation. The denial of original sin ultimately leads to a denial of Christ and the purpose of His Incarnation and Redemption. The denial of original sin leads to a completely false appraisal of the meaning of life.

Such a tragic denial, for example, underlies much of the theory of some progressivist educators. And such a tragic denial is implicit in much of the ostrich-like approach to the very real connection between modesty and chastity, between unchaste thoughts and unchaste deeds, between the unchaste picture or book or dress or film and these unchaste thoughts, desires and deed. It is the teaching of our Faith that through original sin man’s nature has been wounded, although not totally corrupted. The wound in our nature is universally experienced through the struggle in which we have to control our imagination and our passions.

Imagination by itself, we know is simply a picture-making power. It certainly is of real use to the intellect of man, but because of original sin, it plays a part in the mind’s affairs totally out of proportion to its merits, and has passed far beyond the condition of a useful servant.

Hence, to feed the imagination with all sorts of pictures that serve to excite the passions in man’s bodily nature is obviously against God’s plans and God’s will. Such pictures tend to make the passions rebel against the control of the intellect and will, and to draw the will itself away from conformity to God’s will. That is sin. Original sin and its consequence in our fallen nature impose upon us the obligation of keeping the imagination in proper subordination to the intellect and the will.

The third teaching of our holy Faith is that this weakness of human nature, which is the result of original sin, can only be met by following the natural counsels of prudence and right reason, and by using the plentiful means of supernatural graces that have been provided for us by our Divine Savior. The world uses neither.

Prudence tells us that we must reasonably avoid whatever tends to make the imagination rebellious to the intellect and will, and to draw both of these away from God. Prudence is a dictate of the natural law. Prudence see the intimate and necessary connection between the thought and the deed, between the sensory impression of the imagination and the thought and desire.

Therefore, the prudence that sees the virtue of chastity as a desirable and necessary good, also sees that certain things must be avoided to assist the will in the pursuit of that good. The world does not use prudence in the matter of chastity, because it provides a constant flow of incentives to lust, completely heedless of the intimate and necessary connection between modesty and chastity, and indeed often denying the sin of unchastity itself …

The world does not heed the admonition of Christ (Mt. 18:8-9) because it denies the reality of the sin of scandal, and because it ignores or despises the supernatural means for preserving chastity and the helps which come though the Sacraments and prayer.

This brings us to a consideration of the virtue of modesty in the general scheme of virtues, and more especially as it relates to the virtue of chastity.

The virtue of modesty, in general, may be described as that virtue that prompts us to be decorous, proper and reserved in the way we dress, stand, walk, sit – in general, in the way we behave exteriorly. The virtue of modesty bears a relation to other virtues besides that of chastity, especially to the virtue of humility.

In a special way, manner, however, the virtue of modesty is particularly regarded as the guardian of chastity in thought, word and action.

St. Thomas says that it is the virtue by which we rightly regulate our conduct in respect to those things that can lead to impure thoughts, desire and actions, in ourselves and in others. He says that, while chastity deals with the regulation of difficult things, powerful passions and strong desires for pleasure, modesty deals with the regulation of easy things, the remote and proximate occasions and conditions that lead to unholy desires. Thus, we see that modesty is a virtue allied to the virtue of temperance, or the general habit of self-restraint. …

It is this virtue of modesty, in its relation to chastity, which prompted the Holy Father (Pope Pius XII) to write in his Encyclical on Holy Virginity:

“Educators of the young would render a more valuable and useful service if they would inculcate in youthful minds the precepts of Christian modesty, which is so important of the preservation of perfect chastity and which is truly called the prudence of chastity. For, modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun.. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex. … He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions.”

With regard to clothing, modesty requires especially two things: first, care that one does not make chastity difficult for oneself or for others by one’s own modes of dress; second, a prudent but firm and courageous resistance to the styles and customs that are a danger to chastity, no matter how popular or widespread, or adopted by others.

In setting down these two general principles, there is no thought on our part to attempt to define details. In general, that form of dress may be said to be immodest which serves to arouse the lust of men, or which serves as a scandal, that is, a stumbling block to the practice of virtue.

With an honest respect for the innate sense of shame with which every human being is endowed, and with ordinary knowledge of human nature tainted by the effects of original sin, one can with fair accuracy determine what is immodest and what is immodest in given circumstances…

Here, then is also a call to parents to lead the way in encouraging their growing children not to make any compromise with immodest beach and summer wear, no matter how many thousands make use of such; with immodest evening gowns, though such may be seen in the most fashionable social gatherings; with immodest styles of dress that have been a feature of so much of the television entertainment almost from the beginning; with picture magazines that exploit nudity and suggestiveness in every issue; with dangerous associations, readings, shows.

Albert G. Meyer, Pastoral Letter on Decency and Modesty, May 1, 1956,
(Milwaukee, WI: Chancery Office, 1956), pp. 12-15.

Fr Dominic Murphy : Magnificent Modesty of Mary

A homily given December 22nd 2010 by a Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate.

” In today’s Gospel reading we have the Magnificat where Our Lady proclaims the great things that the Lord has done for her. In doing so she demonstrates her humility, pointing out her lowliness and the greatness of God. Let strive for the same docility to God’s will as Mary had and receive similar blessings. Ave Maria! Mass: – – Form: Readings: 1: 1 Sam 1:24-28 R: 1 Sam 2:1,4-8 G: Lk 1:46-56 “

Another homily given about St. Bernadine:

Showing proper dignity when attending supper of the Lamb – Bishop Paprocki

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

Summer is upon us, bringing vacations, picnics and beach parties. Actually we have been blessed with summer-like weather for several weeks. The warm weather has also brought out summer apparel earlier than usual. Unfortunately, skimpy garb more suitable for vacations, picnics and beach parties has also made its way into church as the clothing of choice for many people. In visiting many of our parishes this spring for confirmation as well as attending some commencement ceremonies, I have noticed more and more people wearing short shorts, tank-tops and flip-flops. Even the more formal wear with slit-leg dresses, bare midriffs and strapless tops looks more suited to a House of Blues than the House of God.

Now I’m sure some people will immediately object to my making these observations, rationalizing that it is better that these people come to church even if they’re not properly dressed rather than not have them there at all. They argue that we should just be happy that they’re in church, regardless of what they wear. I disagree. 

St. Paul said “to dress modestly, with decency and propriety,” adorned “not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). Similarly, St. Peter wrote, “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:3-4).

In the parable of the wedding banquet, Jesus said that “when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:11-14).

Of course, Jesus did not tell this parable to give a literal instruction on how to dress at a wedding, but to illustrate God’s righteousness as “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness” (Isaiah 61:10), where the acquisition of these qualities is likened to clothing given us at a wedding. But Jesus could tell this parable because his listeners were familiar with the custom that refusal to wear a proper wedding garment was an insult to the father of the groom and could get a guest ejected from the festivities.

The church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27) and the faithful, clothed in their wedding garments, are called to the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:8-9). Our revised translation of the Roman Missal now brings out that imagery more clearly when the priest presents the Body and Blood of Christ to us at Mass saying, “Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” As we go up to receive Jesus in holy Communion, we should not insult the Father by not dressing properly for this foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

In contrast to the casual dress now commonly seen, people were much more formally attired at the Solemn Pontifical High Mass in the Extraordinary Form that I celebrated at the Shrine of St. Rose of Lima in Quincy last Sunday. During this celebration, I consecrated new altars, administered the sacrament of confirmation, offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and carried the Blessed Sacrament in procession in honor of the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. The ceremony took fours hours, which is usually how long it takes me to run a 26.2 mile marathon, so one could say that this was certainly a marathon liturgy! 

St. Rose of Lima Church just marked its 100th anniversary, and it looked splendid for this grand occasion. I commend Father Arnauld Devillers, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and all the faithful who made this such a dignified event by which we gave glory and praise to God. 

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote an Apostolic Letter called Summorum Pontificum, in which he said that it was “permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.” Last year, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, said that the pope hopes for the eventual development of a newly reformed liturgy, combining elements of both the traditional Latin Mass and the ordinary form of the liturgy that has commonly been used since the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. Cardinal Koch said that Summorum Pontificum, with its call for expanded use of the traditional liturgy, is “only the beginning” of the pope’s overall scheme for liturgical reform.

For now, one very practical area that we could work on would be for everyone to dress with proper dignity for Mass, whether it is celebrated in the ordinary or the extraordinary form.

May God give us this grace. Amen.