|
Objection 1: It would seem that the adornment of women is not devoid
of mortal sin. For whatever is contrary to a precept of the Divine
law is a mortal sin. Now the adornment of women is contrary to a
precept of the Divine law; for it is written (1 Pt. 3:3):
"Whose," namely women's, "adorning, let it not be the outward
plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of
apparel." Wherefore a gloss of Cyprian says: "Those who are
clothed in silk and purple cannot sincerely put on Christ: those who
are bedecked with gold and pearls and trinkets have forfeited the
adornments of mind and body." Now this is not done without a mortal
sin. Therefore the adornment of women cannot be devoid of mortal sin.
Objection 2: Further, Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg.): "I
hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women
without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface
God's work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid
of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye
that alters the natural features." And afterwards he adds: "They
lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed.
This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the
truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes
that God made, but those the devil has unmade; with him shalt thou
burn on whose account thou art bedecked." But this is not due except
to mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women is not devoid of
mortal sin.
Objection 3: Further, just as it is unbecoming for a woman to wear
man's clothes, so is it unbecoming for her to adorn herself
inordinately. Now the former is a sin, for it is written (Dt.
22:5): "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel,
neither shall a man use woman's apparel." Therefore it seems that
also the excessive adornment of women is a mortal sin.
Objection 4: On the contrary, If this were true it would seem that
the makers of these means of adornment sin mortally.
I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in
mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning
outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman's
apparel may incite men to lust, according to Prov. 7:10,
"Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's attire, prepared to deceive
souls."
Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through
despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Cor.
7:34) that the woman "that is married thinketh on the things of
the world, how she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married
woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this
without sin.
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are
in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin
desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this
is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with
this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas
if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of
ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the
same applies to men in this respect. Hence Augustine says (Ep.
ccxlv ad Possid.): "I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding
the wearing of gold or costly attire except in the case of those who
being neither married nor wishful to marry, should think how they may
please God: whereas the others think on the things of the world,
either husbands how they may please their wives, or wives how they may
please their husbands, except that it is unbecoming for women though
married to uncover their hair, since the Apostle commands them to
cover the head." Yet in this case some might be excused from sin,
when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary
custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
Reply to Objection 1: As a gloss says on this passage, "The
wives of those who were in distress despised their husbands, and decked
themselves that they might please other men": and the Apostle forbids
this. Cyprian is speaking in the same sense; yet he does not forbid
married women to adorn themselves in order to please their husbands,
lest the latter be afforded an occasion of sin with other women. Hence
the Apostle says (1 Tim. 2:9): "Women . . . in ornate
apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with
plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire": whence we are
given to understand that women are not forbidden to adorn themselves
soberly and moderately but to do so excessively, shamelessly, and
immodestly.
Reply to Objection 2: Cyprian is speaking of women painting
themselves: this is a kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of
sin. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "To
dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion
is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are
willing to be deceived by it, by whom alone" (i.e. the husbands)
"are they to be permitted, but not ordered, to adorn themselves."
However, such painting does not always involve a mortal sin, but only
when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of
God, and it is to like cases that Cyprian refers.
It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a
beauty one has not, and another to hide a disfigurement arising from
some cause such as sickness or the like. For this is lawful, since
according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:23), "such as we think
to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more
abundant honor."
Reply to Objection 3: As stated in the foregoing Article, outward
apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according
to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to
wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a
cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law
(Dt. 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of
attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this
may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either
in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other
clothes, or for some similar motive.
Reply to Objection 4: In the case of an art directed to the
production of goods which men cannot use without sin, it follows that
the workmen sin in making such things, as directly affording others an
occasion of sin; for instance, if a man were to make idols or anything
pertaining to idolatrous worship. But in the case of an art the
products of which may be employed by man either for a good or for an
evil use, such as swords, arrows, and the like, the practice of such
an art is not sinful. These alone should be called arts; wherefore
Chrysostom says [Hom. xlix super Matth.]: "The name of art
should be applied to those only which contribute towards and produce
necessaries and mainstays of life." In the case of an art that
produces things which for the most part some people put to an evil use,
although such arts are not unlawful in themselves, nevertheless,
according to the teaching of Plato, they should be extirpated from the
State by the governing authority. Accordingly, since women may
lawfully adorn themselves, whether to maintain the fitness of their
estate, or even by adding something thereto, in order to please their
husbands, it follows that those who make such means of adornment do not
sin in the practice of their art, except perhaps by inventing means
that are superfluous and fantastic. Hence Chrysostom says (Super
Matth.) that "even the shoemakers' and clothiers' arts stand in
need of restraint, for they have lent their art to lust, by abusing
its needs, and debasing art by art."
|
|