Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 169 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de modestia secundum quod consistit in exteriori apparatu. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider modesty as connected with the outward apparel, and under this head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum circa exteriorem apparatum possit esse virtus et vitium. | (1) Whether there can be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel? |
| Secundo, utrum mulieres mortaliter peccent in superfluo ornatu. | (2) Whether women sin mortally by excessive adornment? |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 169 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa exteriorem ornatum non possit esse virtus et vitium. Exterior enim ornatus non est in nobis a natura, unde et secundum diversitatem temporum et locorum variantur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quod talares et manicatas tunicas habere apud veteres Romanos flagitium erat, nunc autem honesto loco natis non eas habere flagitium est. Sed sicut philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., naturalis inest nobis aptitudo ad virtutes. Ergo circa huiusmodi non est virtus et vitium. | Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with outward apparel. For outward adornment does not belong to us by nature, wherefore it varies according to different times and places. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12) that "among the ancient Romans it was scandalous for one to wear a cloak with sleeves and reaching to the ankles, whereas now it is scandalous for anyone hailing from a reputable place to be without them." Now according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1) there is in us a natural aptitude for the virtues. Therefore there is no virtue or vice about such things. |
| Praeterea, si circa exteriorem cultum esset virtus et vitium, oporteret quod superfluitas in talibus esset vitiosa, et etiam defectus vitiosus. Sed superfluitas in cultu exteriori non videtur esse vitiosa, quia etiam sacerdotes et ministri altaris in sacro ministerio pretiosissimis vestibus utuntur. Similiter etiam defectus in talibus non videtur esse vitiosus, quia in laudem quorundam dicitur, Heb. XI, circuierunt in melotis et in pellibus caprinis. Non ergo videtur quod in talibus possit esse virtus et vitium. | Objection 2: Further, if there were virtue and vice in connection with outward attire, excess in this matter would be sinful. Now excess in outward attire is not apparently sinful, since even the ministers of the altar use most precious vestments in the sacred ministry. Likewise it would seem not to be sinful to be lacking in this, for it is said in praise of certain people (Heb. 11:37): "They wandered about in sheepskins and in goatskins." Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in this matter. |
| Praeterea, omnis virtus aut est theologica, aut moralis, aut intellectualis. Sed circa huiusmodi non consistit virtus intellectualis, quae perficit in aliqua cognitione veritatis. Similiter etiam nec est ibi virtus theologica, quae habet Deum pro obiecto. Nec etiam est ibi aliqua virtutum moralium quas philosophus tangit. Ergo videtur quod circa huiusmodi cultum non possit esse virtus et vitium. | Objection 3: Further, every virtue is either theological, or moral, or intellectual. Now an intellectual virtue is not conversant with matter of this kind, since it is a perfection regarding the knowledge of truth. Nor is there a theological virtue connected therewith, since that has God for its object; nor are any of the moral virtues enumerated by the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7), connected with it. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in connection with this kind of attire. |
| Sed contra, honestas ad virtutem pertinet. Sed in exteriori cultu consideratur quaedam honestas, dicit enim Ambrosius, in I de Offic., decor corporis non sit affectatus, sed naturalis; simplex, neglectus magis quam expeditus; non pretiosis et albentibus adiutus vestimentis, sed communibus, ut honestati vel necessitati nihil desit, nihil accedat nitori. Ergo in exteriori cultu potest esse virtus et vitium. | On the contrary, Honesty [*Cf. Question [145]] pertains to virtue. Now a certain honesty is observed in the outward apparel; for Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 19): "The body should be bedecked naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity, yet nothing be added to increase its beauty." Therefore there can be virtue and vice in the outward attire. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in ipsis rebus exterioribus quibus homo utitur, non est aliquod vitium, sed ex parte hominis qui immoderate utitur eis. Quae quidem immoderantia potest esse dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, per comparationem ad consuetudinem hominum cum quibus aliquis vivit. Unde dicit Augustinus, in III Confess., quae contra mores hominum sunt flagitia, pro morum diversitate vitanda sunt, ut pactum inter se civitatis et gentis consuetudine vel lege firmatum, nulla civis aut peregrini libidine violetur. Turpis enim est omnis pars universo suo non congruens. Alio modo potest esse immoderatio in usu talium rerum ex inordinato affectu utentis, ex quo quandoque contingit quod homo nimis libidinose talibus utatur, sive secundum consuetudinem eorum cum quibus vivit, sive etiam praeter eorum consuetudinem. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., in usu rerum abesse oportet libidinem, quae non solum ipsa eorum inter quos vivit consuetudine nequiter abutitur; sed etiam saepe fines eius egressa, foeditatem suam, quae inter claustra morum solemnium latitabat, flagitiosissima eruptione manifestat. | I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive." Secondly, the lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them, either in accordance with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such custom. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "We must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things, for it leads not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell, but frequently to exceed their bounds, so that, whereas it lay hidden, while under the restraint of established morality, it displays its deformity in a most lawless outbreak." |
| Contingit autem ista inordinatio affectus tripliciter, quantum ad superabundantiam. Uno modo, per hoc quod aliquis ex superfluo cultu vestium hominum gloriam quaerit, prout scilicet vestes et alia huiusmodi pertinent ad quendam ornatum. Unde Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, sunt nonnulli qui cultum subtilium pretiosarumque vestium non putant esse peccatum. Quod videlicet si culpa non esset nequaquam sermo Dei tam vigilanter exprimeret quod dives qui torquebatur apud Inferos, bysso et purpura indutus fuisset. Nemo quippe vestimenta pretiosa, scilicet excedentia proprium statum, nisi ad inanem gloriam quaerit. Alio modo, secundum quod homo per superfluum cultum vestium quaerit delicias, secundum quod vestis ordinatur ad corporis fomentum. Tertio modo, secundum quod nimiam sollicitudinem apponit ad exteriorem vestium cultum, etiam si non sit aliqua inordinatio ex parte finis. | In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways. First when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so far as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xl in Ev.): "There are some who think that attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man who was tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No one, forsooth, seeks costly apparel" (such, namely, as exceeds his estate) "save for vainglory." Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous pleasure from excessive attention to dress, in so far as dress is directed to the body's comfort. Thirdly, when a man is too solicitous [*Cf. Question [55], Article [6]] in his attention to outward apparel. |
| Et secundum hoc, Andronicus ponit tres virtutes circa exteriorem cultum. Scilicet, humilitatem, quae excludit intentionem gloriae. Unde dicit quod humilitas est habitus non superabundans in sumptibus et praeparationibus. Et per se sufficientiam, quae excludit intentionem deliciarum. Unde dicit quod per se sufficientia est habitus contentus quibus oportet, et determinativa eorum quae ad vivere convenit (secundum illud apostoli, I ad Tim. ult., habentes alimenta et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus). Et simplicitatem, quae excludit superfluam sollicitudinem talium. Unde dicit quod simplicitas est habitus contentus his quae contingunt. | Accordingly Andronicus [*De Affectibus] reckons three virtues in connection with outward attire; namely "humility," which excludes the seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is "the habit of avoiding excessive expenditure and parade"; "contentment" [*Cf. Question [143], Objection [4]], which excludes the seeking of sensuous pleasure, wherefore he says that "contentedness is the habit that makes a man satisfied with what is suitable, and enables him to determine what is becoming in his manner of life" (according to the saying of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6:8): "Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content;"—and "simplicity," which excludes excessive solicitude about such things, wherefore he says that "simplicity is a habit that makes a man contented with what he has." |
| Ex parte autem defectus similiter potest esse duplex inordinatio secundum affectum. Uno quidem modo, ex negligentia hominis qui non adhibet studium vel laborem ad hoc quod exteriori cultu utatur secundum quod oportet. Unde philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod ad mollitiem pertinet quod aliquis trahat vestimentum per terram, ut non laboret elevando ipsum. Alio modo, ex eo quod ipsum defectum exterioris cultus ad gloriam ordinant. Unde dicit Augustinus, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, non in solo rerum corporearum nitore atque pompa, sed etiam in ipsis sordibus et luctuosis esse posse iactantiam, et eo periculosiorem quo sub nomine servitutis Dei decipit. Et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod superabundantia et inordinatus defectus ad iactantiam pertinet. | In the point of deficiency there may be inordinate attachment in two ways. First, through a man's neglect to give the requisite study or trouble to the use of outward apparel. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is a mark of effeminacy to let one's cloak trail on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up." Secondly, by seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward attire. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12) that "not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even dirt and the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's service"; and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "both excess and inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis ipse cultus exterior non sit a natura, tamen ad naturalem rationem pertinet ut exteriorem cultum moderetur. Et secundum hoc, innati sumus hanc virtutem suscipere, quae exteriorem cultum moderatur. | Reply to Objection 1: Although outward attire does not come from nature, it belongs to natural reason to moderate it; so that we are naturally inclined to be the recipients of the virtue that moderates outward raiment. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illi qui in dignitatibus constituuntur, vel etiam ministri altaris, pretiosioribus vestibus quam ceteri induuntur, non propter sui gloriam, sed ad significandam excellentiam sui ministerii vel cultus divini. Et ideo in eis non est vitiosum. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quisquis sic utitur exterioribus rebus ut metas consuetudinis bonorum inter quos versatur excedat, aut aliquid significat, aut flagitiosus est, dum scilicet propter delicias vel ostentationem talibus utitur. | Reply to Objection 2: Those who are placed in a position of dignity, or again the ministers of the altar, are attired in more costly apparel than others, not for the sake of their own glory, but to indicate the excellence of their office or of the Divine worship: wherefore this is not sinful in them. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses outward things in such a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good people among whom he dwells, either signifies something by so doing, or is guilty of sin, inasmuch as he uses these things for sensual pleasure or ostentation." |
| Similiter etiam ex parte defectus contingit esse peccatum, non tamen semper qui vilioribus quam ceteri vestibus utitur, peccat. Si enim hoc faciat propter iactantiam vel superbiam, ut se ceteris praeferat, vitium superstitionis est. Si autem hoc faciat propter macerationem carnis vel humiliationem spiritus, ad virtutem temperantiae pertinet. Unde Augustinus dicit, in III de Doct. Christ., quisquis restrictius rebus utitur quam se habeant mores eorum cum quibus vivit, aut temperans aut superstitiosus est. Praecipue autem competit vilibus vestimentis uti his qui alios verbo et exemplo ad poenitentiam hortantur, sicut fuerunt prophetae, de quibus apostolus ibi loquitur. Unde quaedam Glossa dicit, Matth. III, qui poenitentiam praedicat, habitum poenitentiae praetendit. | Likewise there may be sin on the part of deficiency: although it is not always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For, if this be done through ostentation or pride, in order to set oneself above others, it is a sin of superstition; whereas, if this be done to tame the flesh, or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue of temperance. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses transitory things with greater restraint than is customary with those among whom he dwells, is either temperate or superstitious." Especially, however, is the use of coarse raiment befitting to those who by word and example urge others to repentance, as did the prophets of whom the Apostle is speaking in the passage quoted. Wherefore a gloss on Mt. 3:4, says: "He who preaches penance, wears the garb of penance." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod huiusmodi exterior cultus indicium quoddam est conditionis humanae. Et ideo excessus et defectus et medium in talibus possunt reduci ad virtutem veritatis, quam philosophus ponit circa facta et dicta quibus aliquid de statu hominis significatur. | Reply to Objection 3: This outward apparel is an indication of man's estate; wherefore excess, deficiency, and mean therein, are referable to the virtue of truthfulness, which the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7) assigns to deeds and words, which are indications of something connected with man's estate. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 169 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ornatus mulierum non sit sine peccato mortali. Omne enim quod est contra praeceptum divinae legis, est peccatum mortale. Sed ornatus mulierum est contra praeceptum divinae legis, dicitur enim I Pet. III, quarum, scilicet mulierum sit non extrinsecus capillatura, aut circumdatio auri, aut indumenti vestimentorum cultus. Ubi dicit Glossa Cypriani, serico et purpura indutae Christum sincere induere non possunt, auro et margaritis adornatae et monilibus, ornamenta mentis et corporis perdiderunt. Sed hoc non fit nisi per peccatum mortale. Ergo ornatus mulierum non potest esse sine peccato mortali. | 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. |
| Praeterea, Cyprianus dicit, in libro de habitu Virgin., non virgines tantum aut viduas, sed et nuptas puto et omnes omnino feminas admonendas, quod opus Dei et facturam eius et plasma adulterare nullo modo debeant, adhibito flavo colore vel nigro pulvere vel rubore, aut quolibet lineamenta nativa corrumpente medicamine. Et postea subdit, manus Deo inferunt, quando illud quod ille formavit, reformare contendunt. Impugnatio ista est divini operis, praevaricatio est veritatis. Deum videre non poteris, quando oculi tibi non sunt quos Deus fecit, sed quos Diabolus infecit, de inimico tuo compta, cum illo pariter arsura. Sed hoc non debetur nisi peccato mortali. Ergo ornatus mulieris non est sine peccato mortali. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut non congruit mulieri quod veste virili utatur, ita etiam ei non competit quod inordinato ornatu utatur. Sed primum est peccatum, dicitur enim Deut. XXII, non induatur mulier veste virili, nec vir veste muliebri. Ergo videtur quod etiam superfluus ornatus mulierum sit peccatum mortale. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quia secundum hoc videretur quod artifices huiusmodi ornamenta praeparantes mortaliter peccarent. | Objection 4: On the contrary, If this were true it would seem that the makers of these means of adornment sin mortally. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa ornatum mulierum sunt eadem attendenda quae supra communiter dicta sunt circa exteriorem cultum, et insuper quiddam aliud speciale, quod scilicet muliebris cultus viros ad lasciviam provocat, secundum illud Prov. VII, ecce, mulier occurrit illi ornatu meretricio praeparata ad decipiendas animas. | 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." |
| Potest tamen mulier licite operam dare ad hoc quod viro suo placeat, ne per eius contemptum in adulterium labatur. Unde dicitur I ad Cor. VII, quod mulier quae nupta est cogitat quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeat viro. Et ideo si mulier coniugata ad hoc se ornet ut viro suo placeat, potest hoc facere absque peccato. | 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. |
| Illae autem mulieres quae viros non habent, nec volunt habere, et sunt in statu non habendi, non possunt absque peccato appetere placere virorum aspectibus ad concupiscendum, quia hoc est dare eis incentivum peccandi. Et si quidem hac intentione se ornent ut alios provocent, ad concupiscentiam, mortaliter peccant. Si autem ex quadam levitate, vel etiam ex vanitate propter quandam iactantiam, non semper est peccatum mortale, sed quandoque veniale. Et eadem ratio, quantum ad hoc, est de viris. Unde Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Possidium, nolo ut de ornamentis auri vel vestis praeproperam habeas in prohibendo sententiam, nisi in eos qui neque coniugati sunt, neque coniugari cupientes, cogitare debent quomodo placeant Deo. Illi autem cogitant quae sunt mundi, quomodo placeant vel viri uxoribus, vel mulieres maritis, nisi quod capillos nudare feminas, quas etiam caput velare apostolus iubet, nec maritatas decet. In quo tamen possent aliquae a peccato excusari, quando hoc non fieret ex aliqua vanitate, sed propter contrariam consuetudinem, quamvis talis consuetudo non sit laudabilis. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Glossa ibidem dicit, mulieres eorum qui in tribulatione erant, contemnebant viros, et ut aliis placerent, se pulchre ornabant, quod fieri apostolus prohibet. In quo etiam casu loquitur Cyprianus, non autem prohibet mulieribus coniugatis ornari ut placeant viris, ne detur eis occasio peccandi cum aliis. Unde I ad Tim. dicit apostolus, mulieres in habitu ornato, cum verecundia et sobrietate ornantes se, non in tortis crinibus, aut auro aut margaritis aut veste pretiosa, per quod datur intelligi quod sobrius et moderatus ornatus non prohibetur mulieribus, sed superfluus et inverecundus et impudicus. | 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 [Douay: 'decent'] 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod mulierum fucatio, de qua Cyprianus loquitur, est quaedam species fictionis, quae non potest esse sine peccato. Unde Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Possidium, fucari figmentis, quo rubicundior vel candidior appareat, adulterina fallacia est, qua non dubito etiam ipsos maritos se nolle decipi, quibus solis permittendae sunt feminae ornari, secundum veniam, non secundum imperium. Non tamen semper talis fucatio est cum peccato mortali, sed solum quando fit propter lasciviam, vel in Dei contemptum, in quibus casibus loquitur Cyprianus. | 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. |
| Sciendum tamen quod aliud est fingere pulchritudinem non habitam, et aliud est occultare turpitudinem ex aliqua causa provenientem, puta aegritudine vel aliquo huiusmodi. Hoc enim est licitum, quia secundum apostolum, I ad Cor., quae putamus ignobiliora esse membra corporis, his honorem abundantiorem circundamus. | 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." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, cultus exterior debet competere conditioni personae secundum communem consuetudinem. Et ideo de se vitiosum est quod mulier utatur veste virili aut e converso, et praecipue quia hoc potest esse causa lasciviae. Et specialiter prohibetur in lege, quia gentiles tali mutatione habitus utebantur ad idololatriae superstitionem. Potest tamen quandoque hoc fieri sine peccato propter aliquam necessitatem, vel causa occultandi ab hostibus, vel propter defectum alterius vestimenti, vel propter aliquid aliud huiusmodi. | 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. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, si qua ars est ad faciendum aliqua opera quibus homines uti non possunt absque peccato, per consequens artifices talia faciendo peccarent, utpote praebentes directe aliis occasionem peccandi, puta si quis fabricaret idola, vel aliqua ad cultum idololatriae pertinentia. Si qua vero ars sit cuius operibus homines possunt bene et male uti, sicut gladii, sagittae et alia huiusmodi, usus talium artium non est peccatum, et eae solae artes sunt dicendae. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., eas solas oportet artes vocare quae necessariorum, et eorum quae continent vitam nostram, sunt tributivae et constructivae. Si tamen operibus alicuius artis ut pluries aliqui male uterentur, quamvis de se non sint illicitae, sunt tamen per officium principis a civitate extirpandae, secundum documenta Platonis. Quia ergo mulieres licite se possunt ornare, vel ut conservent decentiam sui status, vel etiam aliquid superaddere ut placeant viris; consequens est quod artifices talium ornamentorum non peccant in usu talis artis, nisi forte inveniendo aliqua superflua et curiosa. Unde Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quod etiam ab arte calceorum et textorum multa abscidere oportet. Etenim ad luxuriam deduxerunt necessitatem eius corrumpentes, artem male arti commiscentes. | 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." |