St. Thomas Aquinas even mentions the fact that although the people who start a trend in dress may sin against modesty, the trend can become so commonplace that it loses its abilty to draw illicit attention after a while. It is possible to then dress in that way without violating modesty, even though one would have sinned if one had followed such a trend when it still drew illicit attention.
Thus, it is incorrect to make a blanket statement that the same type of dress required for modesty in one time period and culture is the same that is required in all time periods and cultures.
Can you refer me to where St. Thomas says “although the people who start a trend in dress may sin against modesty, the trend can become so commonplace that it loses its abilty to draw illicit attention after a while”? Thank you in advance.
I think you’re taking St. Thomas too far. While he recognizes the aspect of local customs he does not do so to such an extent, it seems, as to make something that causes temptation to be acceptable. Notice below, from the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa, St. Thomas says that a local custom may be the reason why a woman wears something that incites temptation but he says that such a custom cannot be commended - which means one ought not do it. Here he is speaking of a type of ignorance where the woman did not realize her dress would lead into temptation. But elsewhere he speaks of mortal sin or venial sin by causing another to lust by how one dresses.
Listening to you, it would seem St. Thomas is saying that if people were naked long enough then it would become common and thus not cause temptation since it was common. That is not correct because there is a degree of objectivity in modesty. There is a core, that that which should be hidden be not revealed, i.e. those parts of the body most related to procreation.
I cannot accept that just because something is long practiced that it is suddenly unable to cause attraction. Women have been dressing immodestly in our country for a long time but men are still attracted and allured. The issue is fallen human nature that is enticed by the body of the opposite sex. It is therefore going to cause temptation if those parts of the body are revealed regardless of how long it has been that way.
Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?
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 Proverbs 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 Corinthians 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 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 (Deuteronomy 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.
Pax Christi tecum.
So convincing!