This is a question about the specifically religious and moral factors which impact upon Christian decisions about “personal appearance.” It is less interested in the societal norms and cultural expectations which also influence Christians, except where they have the potential to become confused and misrepresented as religious requirements.
1. Scripture
Christians sometimes cite Biblical texts as rules for their appearance. For example, Leviticus 19:28 can be read as forbidding tattoos and piercings.
However, there are many prohibitions in the Old Testament which Christians ignore. For example, is eating a cheeseburger really a “sinful” mixing of milk and meat (Exodus 23:19)? A Christian may have many reasons for considering a cheeseburger to be evil, but Scripture should not be one of those reasons.
Jesus transformed the meaning and implications of the Old Testament. As a result, St. Paul insisted that Christians are no longer subject to many of the laws of the Old Testament (Romans 6:14).
This means that Christians cannot settle questions about personal appearance by just citing Old Testament texts.
2. Cleanliness
In the ancient world, Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) stressed the importance of cleanliness.
However, Roman bathing was often a public event, which raised questions of “decency.” So, some ascetics dismissed cleanliness as just a cultural expectation. They concluded that Christian excellence should be measured by its stench.
St. Francis de Sales (d. 1622) took an opposite view. He accepted that social conventions partially define issues of respect and disgust. He encouraged Christians to follow those conventions in their cleanliness and dress habits (Introduction to the Devout Life, 3.25). After all, Christians are meant to “love their neighbor” (Mark 12:31), but your options to do so are limited if your neighbor cannot bear to have you in the same room.
3. Self-Decoration
Traditionally, when theologians discussed issues of appearance, they treated it as a question of personal “ornamentation” or “decoration.” This included discussion of hair styles, wigs, jewelry, nail polish, hair removal, fashions, tattoos, piercings (etc.).
Theologians have generally agreed that self-decoration is not immoral, unless it involves mutilation. People have argued about whether hair cutting and ear piercing count as mutilation. But neither are permanent or irreversible, so neither are mutilations.
Questions of decoration have sometimes been confused with questions of societal “propriety.” For example, Victorian women were told that wearing trousers was a sinful “cross-dressing” (Deuteronomy 22:5). But the ancient Greeks considered trousers to be effeminate because nomadic barbarian tribeswomen wore them. So trousers are arguably a cultural issue, rather than a gendered religious one.
Confusion also arises when fashions and “tastes” are viewed as “right” or “wrong.” For example, a person wearing a garish jacket may look (unfashionably) “wrong.” But a fashion faux pas is not a religious sin. Nor is there moral virtue in being fashionable.
Issues of decoration are not inherently moral, but their expression can generate moral problems. For example, some early Christians “flaunted their wealth” (James 2:2). The issue was not so much the appearance of their wealth, it was the fact that it was impacting others by distorting relationships within the community.
This shows that there is an unavoidable “contextual” factor to questions of appearance. Contextual issues often come to a head in questions of “vanity” and “modesty.”
4. Vanity
The word “vanity” does not appear in the index of the Catechism. However, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) explains it as a “vainglory,” which is a form of excessive selfishness (Summa Theologiae 2-2, Q.132).
What it means to be “excessive” depends upon context. Spending hours dressing for a wedding may be appropriate. Spending the same time, each morning, dressing for work would probably be excessive. Thus, it could be an instance of vanity.
Some Amish communities consider buttons to be a vanity. Perhaps medieval buttons were excessively expensive, or perhaps they drew excessive attention to their wearers? Clearly, normal modern buttons do not do so, so it is implausible to still consider them to be sinful vanities.
In 1 Peter 3:3, there is a criticism of Christians who focus on hair styles and jewelry. The text urges people to focus on developing moral excellence instead. Of course, there is nothing to prevent people from doing both. What is being condemned is the vanity which focuses excessively upon hair styles, so that it is at the expense of spiritual development.
5. Modesty
Immodesty is a form of minimalism, which raises issues of “purity” (CCC 2521), because it contributes to objectifying the human body.
Modesty is easily summarized, but it often proves more complex to define. This is because “modesty” involves a degree of cultural relativity (CCC 2524). This has not always been recognized by Christians. Historically it has led to inadvertent cultural imperialism, when missionaries have preached Christianity but ended up developing cultural dress codes.
Modesty is a contextual concept. Modesty in the workplace is not necessarily the same as modesty on the sports field. And modesty on a tropical island may not be the same as modesty in a tundra.
It is also possible to be overmodest. St. Thomas Aquinas warns against the risk of “showing off” a proud “holier than thou” attitude, by dressing in ostentatiously modest garments (Summa Theologiae 2-2, Q.169, A.1, ad.2).
6. Objectionable Fashions
Fashions sometimes veer in directions which Christians might consider to be immodest. These “objectionable” fashions present practical problems for Christians. Must they ignore them, and thus risk social stigma by being “unfashionable”?
In his textbook on Moral Theology, St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787) considers this question, as it applies to a particular type of dress which was “showing breasts” (ubera ostendentes).
He was clear that whoever introduced the fashion had sinned, grievously. But he also thought that Christians cannot just disengage from society. This is so, even if it means engaging with objectionable fashions to be able to socialize. St. Alphonsus thought that there is still objective fault in adopting an objectionable fashion, but it cannot be a grave sin because Christians are partially victims of the situation which they find themselves in (Theologia Moralis 2, 3, 55, p. 249).
This approach should remind us that some appearance issues are not fully within people’s control. So, if Christians see each other wearing “objectionable fashions,” a charitable attempt to understand the situation might be far more appropriate than an immediate condemnation.
7. Honesty: Paints and Dyes
When it comes to makeup (paints) and hair dyes, theologians have traditionally viewed them as raising a distinct set of moral issues about honesty. The ornamentation of self-decoration (section 3) was about enhancing personal appearance, but St. Augustine (d. 430) considered paints and dyes to be issues of falsifying appearances (Letter 245).
This is an odd view. Is rouging the cheek really morally equivalent to a quick paint job on a dodgy car?
Thomas Aquinas adds an even odder comparison. He agreed that rouging cheeks was falsifying appearances, but he thought that using makeup to hide scars was morally acceptable, as it was repairing a blemish (Summa Theologiae 2-2, Q.169, a.2). Yet, wouldn’t someone feel far more deceived to find a “hidden” scar under a new spouse’s makeup, rather than a normal skin tone under a rouged cheek?
Aquinas admits that makeup can be useful in a marriage, especially when it is deployed tactically to stave off adultery. Beyond this, medieval theologians seem uneasy with the idea of makeup, but they struggle to explain why.
There is little serious analysis, or justification, for medieval assumptions that makeup is inherently dishonest. After all, why should anyone view a rouged cheek as a dishonest falsifying of the appearance of a cheek, rather than as just a decorative enhancement of a cheek?
Consequently, modern thinkers tend to view questions about male or female makeup as issues of decoration (see section 3), rather than as a separate moral issue of honesty. This means that context becomes a far more significant factor in determining appropriateness.
8. Beautifying
One important reason why people focus on their appearance is that they want to look “beautiful.”
At a basic level beauty can involve repairing blemishes (e.g., hair transplants, removing moles, etc.). But beautifying is more than just correctional, it presupposes a vision of what counts as beauty.
Medieval philosophers articulated abstract theories of beauty (aesthetics). In recent decades psychology has taken a different approach, trying to codify what people mean when they talk about physical beauty. A key idea to emerge is that “beauty” involves aspects of reproductive fitness.
This view suggests that when people make themselves look beautiful, they are effectively (albeit probably subconsciously) signaling impressions relevant to indicating potential reproductive success. For example, a tan is considered “beautiful” because it signals health. Similarly, some lip and eye makeup enhance beauty because they mimic signals of availability (i.e., sexual attraction), and availability is a precondition of reproductive success.
The science of beauty is complicated and controversial. If there is any accuracy in the view that beauty is signaling reproductive fitness, then it could have moral implications, especially in terms of medieval ideas about the “honesty” of what a person’s appearance is communicating.
A beauty which is signaling reproductive fitness could be appropriate in certain contexts (e.g., like dating). But would it be appropriate in a work context?
Might it not even be exploitative of employees, to ask them to dress and use makeup in ways which are designed to maximize the signaling of their personal reproductive fitness, just so that a business can “use” that signaling to engage its customers?
9. Sunday Best
Some Christians insist on dressing up for church as a way of honoring God. Others insist on not-dressing-up, as a way of showing the non-exclusivity which is as the heart of the gospel.
Either approach is legitimate for Christians. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition which determines one approach as more correct than the other. The closest the Church has come to a dress requirement is the wearing of chapel veils. But the current practice of the Church shows that that is an ancient cultural tradition, not a divinely mandated requirement. (See: “Must Christian Wives Be Subordinate to Their Husbands?”).
In the modern world, there are churches which publish formal dress codes, as there are also restaurants, clubs and businesses with dress codes. These types of dress codes are social requirements. Even when a church insists that its dress code is an authoritative interpretation of what is religiously appropriate, questions can still arise about the extent to which it is imposing cultural assumptions masquerading as religious requirements.
This is not to say that dress codes are bad. They are often useful, in that they can avoid confusion and debilitating dissension in social contexts. But those imposing dress codes must always be careful to distinguish their sociological and cultural basis, from any claim of religious authority which they could be confused with.
10. Conclusion
The religious issues raised by “personal appearance” are complex. They are far too complicated to be reduced to Scriptural proof texts, or simplistic lists of dos and don’ts. Those kinds of reductionistic approaches inevitably struggle to deal fairly with differing contextual factors. They can also risk confusing cultural expectations with religious commands.
Christian attitudes to personal appearance are governed more by principles, rather than by specific rules. This means that people need to think about situations, and they need to understand the implications of contextual nuances. Ideally decisions should flow from healthy mindsets and good habits, rather than attempts to obey lists of instructions.
Where there is a temptation to worry about the specifics of garments and aspects of appearances, it is important to remember that a central thrust of the gospel message is a freedom from rules about matters like diet and dress. The revolution of Christianity is that it is a call to change hearts and thoughts, not a demand for a scrupulous conformity to lists of religious laws. Perhaps this is the most fundamental principle of all, when it comes to reflecting on the issues of personal appearance.
27 thoughts on “Should Christians Care About Their Appearance?”
Pingback: A Woman Priest Comes Home, the Hidden Idolatry in Our Midst, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio
Many years ago I had the misfortune to follow in the line up to receive Holy Communion a woman wearing a modest, full length, bell-sleeved caftan in loud, brilliant yellow. Back and front, neck to feet, it depicted one huge image of blue-skinned Hindu god Lord Krishna, blazing with day-glow orange and purple glory.
To this day I marvel at the simultaneous bad taste and and flouting of the 1st Commandment (as in, “Thou shalt have no false gods before Me”) –inasmuch as there was an image of this idol facing Our Lord from the front, and facing me from the back, –utterly wrecking my recollection in amused horror just before I received Our Lord.
I remember going back to my pew apologising to Him for this woman’s breathtaking insensitivity to His feelings by clothing herself in this tacky garment gaudily celebrating the glory of a devil.
For as St Paul Observed, “The gods of the pagans are demons.”
That was hardly her intention. “He who is not against us is with us.” Luke 9:50.
I don’t have the perspective of a man, but as a woman, I consider clothing, makeup, jewelry, tattoos, and other accoutrements one’s personal style, not items to worn just to catch the opposite sex’s gazes. Yes, there is a time and place for particular garments, but we need be careful of judging why a person dresses or decorates herself a particular way. Maybe a person inappropriately dressed one Mass was coming home from a night out at the club and she happened to be passing the church then, striking up the courage to place herself on her knees before the assembly of heaven after a night of questionable dancing? Also, pants and one-piece bathing suits were considered immodest on women, but we’re so used to them now, no one blinks an eye at a woman in trousers. Not every woman intends to catch the eye of a man when she dresses up; she just wants to feel good about the way she appears (her style). It’s not her fault a man is turned on by her confidence. I honestly believe if being nude wasn’t taboo, we’d surreptitiously look a second time at every naked body as often as we do for any person in clothing. Meaning sometimes we would and sometimes we would not. My reasoning is that after so long, nakedness would be normal, just as bathing suits and trousers are now, so we wouldn’t give it a second thought on a normal basis. Anything can turn on a person: I was reading comments on Reddit a few days ago how many men stated they feel sun dresses are extremely attractive.
Thank you Sarah, that’s a good summary of an important perspective on the issues.
So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God – 1 Corinthians 10:31
In Christ,
Andrew
Well cited Andrew, St Paul’s dealings with dietary laws provide a very helpful set of considerations for dealing with issues of dress and appearance.
So much of this depends on culture, time period, climate, and relative wealth of the community in question.
Yes Capt Crisis, it is a point well made, but not always appreciated, that there is an inescapable element of relativity when it comes to discussions of dress and appearance.
Yes, men need to have custody of their eyes. But that doesn’t mean a woman has freedom to make it exceptionally difficult for men. Many times whilst walking I’ve had to stop, or change my route, to avoid walking behind a woman wearing (or rather not wearing) such clothing. When she’s in the pew in front of you in church, not so easy.
Perhaps there are two distinct sets of issues involved. One set might involve strategies for dealing with temptation. The other set might involve charitable ways to balance conflicts of free choice?
Temptation takes odd forms. As a child in the late 50’s early pre-Vatican II 60’s, I remember a fashion for women’s hats covered with fluffy down feathers, often dyed to match the woman’s outfit. My family one Sunday sat behind such a fashionably dressed woman. Dad, directly behind her, started blowing puffs of air to make her hat’s turquoise feathers stir in the middle of a long, boring homily by our Pastor, I remember shaking with ill-suppressed mirth as Mom kept giving him a sharp left elbow to stop blowing the feathers, and a sharp right elbow to me to cease giggling at Dad. Mother had to sit between us to prevent us surreptitiously playing “scissors, paper, stone” during the pastor’s legendarily lengthy and repetitious sermons.
Thank you for your reply to my life experience of us creatures and our response to the spiritual aspect of how we behave in dress and body ornamentation.
May I also point out how frequently I have found when a young couple get into a new relationship; the young male very quickly asks the female to tone down her dress and appearance. The male creature knows only too well his chances of keeping the female of his desires poses a risk to his position and security in that relationship if she still seems to be painted and polished ready for another encounter.
I have heard so many girls complain at how they now feel controlled, because they don’t see the same way as the males, and don’t get why they are being asked to cover up and tone down the make up.
I would not compare envy of material acquisitions with mating issues, which is the bottom line when we deal with modesty in how females dress.
Doesn’t Saint Paul tell women to cover their hair in the assemblies, and we know some men are turned on by and nice head of hair on a woman. I wonder if Saint Paul had a weakness for a nice head of hair on a woman.
This is a fascinating topic, and not addressed either on the pulpit or in education for young ones facing life matters. IMHO
Thank you Julia, some thought provoking suggestions. Perhaps the issues can serve as a reminder of the importance of good communications in relationships, so that people feel comfortable talking about issues which might otherwise lead to frustrations and feelings of being “controlled.”
Your musings on St Paul’s comments about women’s dress raise a fascinating set of questions which, I fear, scholars will struggle to resolve.
And thank you Ordinary Papist, you make a good point about ‘equality.’ Dress and appearance issues should not become just a way of criticising women, or exerting controlling behaviour. I did once ask some female undergraduates if there was any types of male dress that they thought should be banned on grounds of modesty. Uniforms flagged up as a potentially ‘stimulating’ issue for some. One mentioned priestly vestments, so she was currently avoiding churches… for the good of her soul. Perhaps more research is needed before conclusions can be drawn…?
I have asked the same question and women tend to criticise the sloppiness of men’s dress, rather than their modesty: they don’t want to be seen with men wearing baggy trousers and tee shirts, especially sleeveless ones. At the least they want a man accompanying them to church to wear a collared shirt with the tail tucked in. Nor do they like shorts, sandals or caps in church. (It is lamentable that men must be told to take off hats in church; most don’t understand that it’s disrespectful for men, and respectful for women, to cover their heads in Church.)
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
The article was interesting but I was surprised it did not mention that women were always advised to cover themselves appropriately especially at Holy Mass so as not to draw attention to themselves and distract men when we were all meant to be honouring our God.
We used to be told wear dresses below the knee and sleeves at least to the elbow. No plunging necklines.
These general guidelines were pointers to modesty. In later years I heard from male work colleagues that the sight of female flesh was a turn on, ie sexual arousal signal. So God help the Priests these days saying Mass facing the people when women have sleeveless dresses, low necklines and short skirts at holy Mass. Real men even in holy orders are still men, so it must be a sin against the sixth Commandment when women and girls are left ignorant of the reason for modesty.
@an ordinary papist. Women are not naturally aroused by the sight of men. Women fall for the whole package, like how a males present themselves. Decent reliable and reasonably presentable is all a man needs to be. But men are easily aroused by the sight of females, and it appears the more flesh a woman uncovers the more signal she is sending to the male instinct to mate, even if she is unaware of the fact.
I was even told women unconsciously uncover more flesh when they are fertile, and this is instinctively arousing to the male psyche.
As for the make up, I do believe it is vanity, unless it is used to cover blemishes that make people react or make remarks when one is in the company of others or at work. IMHO
Thank you Julia, thats a good summary of one approach to these issues. In recent years there have been questions about why some women were traditionally ‘blamed’ for causing thoughts in men by their dress (even when it was non intentional), when Christians were not blamed for other actions which can cause sinful thoughts. For example Christians with expensive cars could be accused of causing envy in others. But envy has always been seen as the envious person’s problem, ie it is not a reason not to own an expensive car. So, if that is so, why isnt dress treated the same way, with blame for the person with the sinful thoughts, rather than blame for the (non intensional) causer of the thoughts? Arguments like this show that the issues of dress are more complex than they may initially seem. And they may be more complex than they have traditionally been treated by theologians.
Women fall for the whole package, like how a males present themselves. Decent reliable and reasonably presentable is all a man needs to be.
Right. That’s how men shake their booty and when they are sure of conquest they start, ever so slightly, to put on the jeans and slide into a baseline that would have lowered their odds. The trope that men in general are susceptible to a burgeoning female form is just that. W. B. Yeats said it best: Wine comes in through the mouth and Love comes in through the eye and that’s all ye shall know about truth before we grow old and die. I lift my glass to my mouth, I look at you and sigh.” It’s why the male dominated and hyper insecure Islamic world covers their face and body if possible and restricts their company to females – while in other cultures eye contact is a serious breech of etiquette. It’s why Jesus referred to eye contact as the smoking gun. Good for an hour loses its grip when everyone goes forth in peace.
A good summary of the long history of teachings on this issue. Thanks.
Can’t say I agree with all of this. There are some things that are inherently wrong. Stretch pants (leggings) with no dress or shirt to cover the nether regions are never ok. The important questions to ask are: What is the purpose? And what is the result? Leggings draw attention to parts that ought not be seen or ogled. The result can be lustful for those seeing them–therefore, they are immoral in nature, and should never be worn by real Christians, much less at MASS!
Rouge and lipstick were designed to make women look aroused. They were used by prostitutes to make men think that they desired them in return (dishonest). As a woman, I can tell you that most girls/women wear them to be admired. What is the purpose, and what is the result?
Real soul searching is necessary to be truly honest with oneself about the purpose. Would the Blessed Mother, if she were here today, wear leggings, makeup, or nail polish. Likely not.
So, any tips on what the women ogle ? There must be something that gets them aroused.
Thank you, I think we are in agreement on the importance of context and circumstances in determining the appropriateness of dress. So, perhaps there are some contexts where leggings might be appropriate? When it comes to the issue of “ogling,” perhaps the oglers need to take some responsibility for their ogling? Otherwise, if an ogler can blame others, then this can easiliy become a rationale for the very oppressive dress codes which are an issue in some parts of the world.
I agree Fiat. This is a glaring omission from this article. Wearing such garments in public with nothing over them is definitely a sin. Wearing them in Church, or letting one’s young daughters wear them, is a grievous sin.
Rory, while men should have control over their eyes, that is a silly expectation. First, would an artist be angry for someone staring at the focal point of the painting? The intention and result of the focal point is that eyes are naturally drawn there. Most women who dress like that, at the very least, subconsciously know that people will look. Humans just aren’t that naive to think that skin-tight clothes won’t draw the gazes of others. Second, even I find myself gazing unintentionally upon women who are inappropriately dressed. It’s like an accident on the side of the road. You don’t WANT to look–but it happens. While I have no attraction to other women, I still can’t avoid looking at something that catches the eye. Now, how much harder is it for young men? I have sons. What is their response? They are young and do not have the self-control to “mortify the senses” and look away. How many women when they see their lives in review at the end of their earthly journey will see before them the sad reality of how many men they led into breaking the 9th Commandment because they would not cover themselves? Christian women ought to know better, so we should do our best not to confirm anyone in this dress style and justify it based on cultural context of the times. I’m not saying we need to wear burkas, but what we put on the outside of our bodies should reflect the inside. Modesty in dress should be an expression of purity within.
Yes Fiat, you make a good point that people cannot avoid looking at certain things. People are not morally responsible for what they cannot avoid, as morality commences in the choices that people make, in how to respond to what they cannot avoid. When people cannot control their responses to what they are seeing, they may indeed ask others to change their behaviour. But that kind of approach can also be problematic. For example, it may have been a contributory factor in the colonialism of cultural imperialism, which sometimes inappropriately imposed upon indigenous peoples.
I wonder if the Catechism is making an important point when it states that “the forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another” (paragraph 2524), as this may have potential implications on the view that specific garments can be always, or everywhere, “wrong.”