Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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 : "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."

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quia secundum hoc videretur quod artifices huiusmodi ornamenta praeparantes mortaliter peccarent.

Corpus

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.

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. 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.

Ad 1

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.

Ad 2

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.

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.

Ad 3

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.

Ad 4

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.