It is extremely important, far more than most women and girls realize. In fact, it is the necessary starting point for any genuine Purity Crusade.

It was only after the large-scale introduction of immodest fashions in society, the powers of corruption could succeed in flooding the market with highly obscene literature, and clutter the airwaves and theaters with brazenly immoral pictures. How then, can we ever hope to clean them up, as long as we lack the courage to take to task our own Catholic women for marching in the "shameless parade of the flesh?" The first step, then, to social purity is social modesty in our women.

ARE WOMEN UNAWARE OF THE EVIL OF IMMODEST DRESS?

Many refuse to believe that their semi-nude attire is the source of numerous and serious temptations to the opposite sex. Some disclaim any responsibility for leading others into sin thereby. Others try to cover their own guilt by nasty insinuations such as, "He must have a dirty mind."

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SUCH ATTITUDES?

Some women certainly know better. Yet, many others actually are unaware of the fact that the sex urge is much stronger in men than in woman. "Scanty attire in men doesn't affect me at alL" some women'assert, and often with sincerity. The implied question is, Why should men be tempted by the scanty attire of women?" Others flippantly remark, "It's only skin," having no suspicion that it is precisely the skin that arouses concupiscence in men.

THERE IS NO SOUND REASON FOR LETTING WOMEN REMAIN IN SUCH IGNORANCE ON SERIOUS MATTERS.

Some men are afflicted with impure thoughts and desires when only looking at a pretty feminine face, even when the woman is modest in attire and behavior. But when the latter is immodest, she becomes the temptress for many normal men, who succumb to such allurements:

"Whoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28) Indirectly immodest women are included in this indictment, being cooperators with sins of men.

DOES THIS NOT PROVE THAT SUCH MEN "HAVE A DIRTY MIND?"

Not at all. God has made woman beautiful and attractive to man, to fit in with His plan for procreation in lawful wedlock. As a result of original sin, the man must constantly struggle to regulate this attraction. Unless he does, and unless he fortifies himself by prayer besides, sin quickly enters his soul, "adultery in his heart."

This is the reason ascetical writers caution men against gazing intently into the face of a woman. The world would consider St. Aloysius a fool for making a vow never to look into the face of a woman, including his own mother. But the Saint realized that, for a man who is determined to pass through life without stain of mortal sin, "the life of man upon earth is a warfare." (Job 7:1)

The world, including worldly Catholics, ignores the sound rules of asceticism, which were already laid down in the Old Testament, such as: "Gaze not upon a maiden; lest her beauty be a stumbling block to thee." (Ecclus 9:5) "For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and thereby lust is enkindled as a fire." (Eccus9:9)

IS WOMAN, THEN, CONSIDERED SOMETHING EVIL, SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED?

No! But this question is entirely beside the point Her degree of goodness depends on how faithfully she carries out her God-given role as man's helpmate, rather than his temptress. By her modesty she can use her charm to tame the passions of man: by her immodesty "her beauty becomes a stumbling block" to man.

This makes women the guardians of chastity in the world.

This is why God has given woman a much more delicate sense of modesty than man. Not only to protect her own integrity, but also to protect man against the fury of his passions. When woman is modest, man has only himself to blame is he succumbs to the temptation of the flesh. But when she decides to display parts of her body which should be covered, she becomes a seducer, and she shares in the guilt of the man. In fact, Theology teaches that the sin of the seducer is far greater than that of the seduced person.

WHY IS THIS SENSE OF MODESTY ABSENT IN SO MANY WOMEN?

They have lost it. This often occurs in infancy, when foolish mothers train their little daughters to consider scanty attire as the normal thing.

This sense of shame or guilt is noticeable, though in a lesser degree, in other sins. Thus, when a child tells his first lie, he blushes. After his 100th lie, nothing happens. So also, when a girl appears in public for the first time in immodest attire, she experiences the feeling of shame; the sense of modesty is still present. After repeated performances, this feeling of shame quickly vanishes. But God planted that sense of modesty in every woman's heart.

This feminine loss of the sense of modesty is indicated by Pope Pius XII who says, "How many girls there are who do not see any wrongdoing in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They certainly would blush if they could guess the impression they make and the feeling they evoke in those who see them." (July 17,1954)

DO PARENTS SHARE THE BLAME FOR THIS SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS?

Yes, very much so. Many girls want to dress modestly, only to have the vain and foolish mothers discourage them, and often even block them. Take to heart the SERIOUS ADMONITION of Pope Pius XII: "O Christian mothers (and Fathers), if only you knew the future of distress and peril, of shame ill-restrained, that you prepare for your sons and daughters in imprudently accustoming them to live hardly clothed and in making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and of the harm done the little ones whom Heaven entrusted to vour care, to be reared in Christian dignity and culture."

This warning should give parents cause to consider even infant fashions; boy's "rompers" that barely cover the diaper and have only straps and no sleeves - and little girl's "dresses", more rightly called "smock-tops" which leave the diaper fully exposed - the common remedy for which is adding a frilly or lacy diaper cover, which in fact, only draws more attention to unmentionables and does nothing to cover the entirely naked legs. The Bible teaches us, "Train up a child in the way he should go, etc."; is it any wonder then, as these children grow, from such shameful beginnings, they have lost their sense of modesty? From semi-nude infant fashions, the tidal wave of immodest fashions sweeps all age groups and both sexes into even greater degrees of nudity.

Consider also, the culpability of parents, who not wishing to be termed old fashioned, eschew the God-given parental authority and permit their daughters and sons to wear immodest or transsexual clothing (that of the opposite sex), saying, "It's just a teenage fad - everyone is wearing it - it's harmless!"

Feminism has made tragic inroads in undermining the lawful authority of the father in the home, deriding his natural instinct to protect and safeguard the modesty and purity of his female offspring. His noble, God-given nature is called chauvinistic and patriarchal—assisting Satan to expose women and girls to the lusts and passions of worldly fashion appetites, with no defender to guard their honor! Many loving fathers have been bullied into silence by fashion conscious wives and daughters, when they object to their immodest attire. Sadly, their "peace-in-the-home" compromise is not charity but cowardice! Tantamount to an abandonment of their duty to be Christ-like protectors of innocence and virtue.

ARE THERE OTHER AVENUES OF CORRUPTION THROUGH WHICH OUR CHILDREN LOSE THEIR SENSE OF MODESTY?

YES! One of the most subtle and insidious forms of corruption our children are exposed to are anatomically correct dolls. Especially offensive are the "fashion dolls." Plastics revolutionized the ability of manufacturers to create "life-like" dolls. Unfortunately, modesty was the least of their considerations. Without a thought, foolish parents lined up to ensure their children had the newest and "best" dolls. The wildly popular fashion dolls, however, were an exceptionally effective tool, through which the devil provided little girls with effigies of naked women to play with, not to mention the curiosity it aroused in little boys, sewing the seeds of concupiscence in their hearts. When children play, they imitate life to prepare for adulthood. A child's first impulse is to undress a doll. What parent would give their child a book with pictures of naked women to look through? Yet parents have no qualms about giving their child a little plastic naked woman to touch, look at and act out fantasy with! We should blush to see these "toys" lying about!

To top it off, the immodest fashions these dolls are equipped with encourage our daughters to aspire to wear such outfits. The "glamorous" clothes become a standard for beauty for our precious innocents at a most impressionable age. Honestly consider the type of advertising which promotes these dolls to our children. The doll is always "cool," "in the latest style" and "don't you wish you were like this?" What a diabolically opportune scheme! In this way our blind or naive attempts to offer them entertainment become a two-fold source of scandal!

IS THERE ANY WAY TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION?

Yes! Don't buy dolls with anatomically correct plastic bodies. There are many acceptable dolls available with cloth bodies and plastic heads, feet and hands.

WHAT IF OUR CHILDREN ALREADY HAVE THESE OFFENSIVE KINDS OF DOLLS?

Use this opportunity to give your children a lesson in modesty. Have them assist you in gluing on or permanently sewing on modest undergarments. Modify or remove immodest garments from the dolls' wardrobe. Remember—you will be exercising your God-given parental authority for doing this. God will provide you with the grace to be strong and tactful in implementing and maintaining your position!

HOW ARE WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THE SENSE OF MODESTY TO JUDGE BETWEEN A MODEST DRESS AND AN IMMODEST ONE?

They cannot unaided. They have developed a faulty conscience, or one that is lax or perplexed. The sense of modesty was to them what a compass is to the mariner on the seas. Having lost this God-given compass, they must seek another to direct their course and, as much as possible, to restore that shame which we term the sense of modesty. They need to follow definite standards of modest dress set by competent authority.

IS NOT CUSTOM AND CONVENTION A SAFE COMPASS OR GUIDE WITHOUT RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS?

There are some Catholic leaders who teach that "Modesty in dress is a matter of custom and convention." Such teaching is false, since it ignores the supreme authority of the Church and vests it in a fallible human society. It leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

If custom could make public nudity a virtue, why did God find it necessary in paradise to change the custom of Adam and Eve by Himself providing garments for them to cover their shame after the fall? Custom could just as logically decide that public dishonesty has become a virtue.

The opinion which allows custom to decide the question of modesty is refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence, "There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved in modesty of dress." (Nov. 8, 1957) Custom pays little attention to absolute norms, but is a product of another false principle. "The majority cannot go wrong" "Modesty is a matter of custom" is just as wrong as "Honesty is a matter of custom."

Sin is just as nasty and harmful today as it ever was. Do not excuse shortcomings in dress on the plea that everyone is doing it Evil may never be done even if everyone is doing it. Because it is not fashionable to dress modestly, it cannot be said it is all right to dress immodestly. It is God, not people, Who declares what is right and wrong; He is right and His Church and His Vicars of Christ with Him, even though the whole world may call Him wrong! The misery of the world is due to that selfishness which puts our own pleasure, pride and convenience ahead of God's Will.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO TEACH "WHAT IS CUSTOMARY DOES NOT AFFECT US?

Pope Pius XII, again, calls this application of an ancient principle to modesty one of the "most insidious of sophisms." He calls attention to the fact that some use this sophism "in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold" (Nov. 8,1957)

Customary sights may not always register in one's consciousness. Nine successive superficial looks at half-dressed women might fail to stir up seriously the concupiscence of the flesh, whilst the tenth may prove fatal to the soul, Concu-piscence may often lie dormant, but it never dies in a normal man.

There is another important consideration. Every conscious look flashes a picture to the imagination. This picture of an indecently dressed woman may fade quickly from the memory. Then, suddenly, perhaps even five or ten years later, it emerges from the attic of the mind and projects itself back to consciousness to plague its victim with terrific temptations against holy purity.

These timely lessons of spiritual writers are unknown to, or ignored by, worldly minded persons. Otherwise they would not excuse immodest dress with sophisms as, "Whatever is customary does not affect us."

CAN WOMEN NOT SAFELY FOLLOW THE SLOGAN, "ONE MAY FOLLOW CURRENT FASHIONS IF ONE AVOIDS EXTREMES?"

This is another sophism. It has no solid foundation in Theology. It represents a sugarcoated compromise. Being a relative term, "extreme" can be made to mean almost anything to fit its user's convenience. One might almost as well hold this error; "Sin is not sin until it goes to extremes."

CAN IT BE SO WRONG TO WEAR SUCH GARMENTS AS ABBREVIATED SHORTS OR STRAPLESS GOWNS WHEN "EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT?"

In the first place, it is not true that "Everyone else is doing it." It is a gross exaggeration. Many modest women still "dare to be different" from the "crowd."

Even if it were true, it is based on still another sophism. Sin remains sin if only one person in a million is avoiding the wrongdoing. There is no safety in numbers. The only thing that counts is how God judges the modesty or immodesty of one's attire.

ARE THERE NOT MANY WHO CONDEMN DEFINITE STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?

Naturally, just as a dishonest businessman condemns any fair-practices law. A society which has knocked down the traditional standards of modest dress would hardly welcome attempts to set them up again. Even some liberal Catholics oppose specific standards of modesty in dress. For, Liberalism by its nature seeks false freedom from laws, rules, regulations, and all kinds of restraint.

Nevertheless, whether people like to admit it or not, their whole lives are regulated by standards in one form or another. Twelve inches makes a standard foot, and sixteen ounces a standard pound. We have standard colors and sizes, trademarks which standardize quality, and even a standard time dictated by the sun. We have standards of manners and of politeness directing us in the minutest details.

At every turn one is confronted with standards. People accept these without question, even to the point of slavishness and absurdity. Shall only the virtue of modesty be denied the right to be regulated and protected by standards? If we are ready to accept whatever secular authorities approve, much more eager must we Catholics be to accept "Whatever Mary Immaculate Approves." which is our Crusade motto.

HOW ARE WE TO KNOW WHAT MARY APPROVES?

This is a very important question. Too many women, or groups, attempt to reduce Mary's evaluation of modesty down to their own level of thinking. They sacrilegiously believe that the Blessed Virgin would be willing to cut off Her sleeves and plunge Her neckline, and compromise Her sublime modesty in favor of the pagan fashion dictators and their nudist trends. Mary approves only "What the Church Approves," which is another Crusade motto.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE CHURCH APPROVES? HAS SHE GIVEN SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?

Yes! The Church has issued specific standards. But they were almost completely ignored by our liberal press, so that we were unable to fully establish their authenticity until 1965, more than 35 years after their publication. We are indebted to Father Jesus M. Cavanna, CM. (of the Philippine College in Rome) for discovering them in the Bulletin of the Roman Clergy, issue of October 1928. Father Cavanna graciously sent us a translation of the document containing the standards of modesty (dated Sept. 24, 1928), which we proceeded to publish. The discovery of this "missing link" enables us now to publish a fully authenticated history of the Roman Standards. We give here only the bare essentials.

1. On August 15, 1928, Pope Pius XI, in the consistorial chamber, "denounced once again the danger (of immodest dress) which, by its seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls."

2. On August 23, only eight days later, the Holy Father ordered the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a very strongly worded letter to all the Bishops of Italy inaugurating a "Crusade Aeainst Immodest Fashions."

The Bishops were to communicate the specific injunctions of this letter to be enforced "in all schools, academies. Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female relirious." to ensure "perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female relieious in the diocese."

3. To ensure such "conformity" Pius XI, on September 24, 1928, only one month later, ordered the Sacred Congregation of Religious to issue another letter ou the "Crusade Against Immodest Fashions." It was in this letter that the following standards were prescribed: "We recall that a dress cannot be called modest which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper."

BUT THESE LETTERS WERE DIRECTED TO THE CHURCHES IN ITALY. HOW DO THEY BIND US OUTSIDE OF ITALY?

They are binding throughout the world because Pope Pius XI extended this same Crusade for Modesty to the whole world. By his mandate, the Sacred Council issued a letter with special instructions to all the Bishops of the world on January 12, 1930. These instructions were essentially the same as those given to the Bishops of Italy. But they went even further. Not only were they directed to Sisters and to their schools and institutions, as in Italy, but they were extended to include also pastors, parents and the laity in general This 1930 letter opens with these solemn words:

"Therefore this Sacred Council, which watches over the discipline of clergy and people, while cordially commending the actions of the Venerable Bishops, most emphatically exhorts them to persevere in their attitude and increase their activities insofar as their strength permits, in order that this unwholesome disease be definitely uprooted from human society. In order to facilitate the desired effect, this Sacred Congregation, by mandate of the Holy Father, has decreed as follows ... (Here the specific instructions emphasize in very serious language and in nine decrees, the obligation of Bishops, Parish Priests, Nuns and parents to enforce the rules of modesty). It is in number 6 that the Holy Father asks for "compliance with the letter dated August 23,1928."

Thus, the Roman Standards were implicitly prescribed for the remainder of the Catholic world.

WHY WERE THESE STANDARDS NOT MADE KNOWN IN NORTH AMERICA?

Not only were they made known in North America, but they were posted for years in the vestibules of many churches. Further, a "League of Modesty" was formed in Chicago, Illinois, USA, as directed in the Instructions of January 12, 1930, to promote these standards given by "the Cardinal Vicar of Rome." In 1935 this league issued a folder with the Imprimatur of His Eminence, George Cardinal Mundelein, in which these standards were incorporated.

The central Bureau of St. Louis also distributed large quantities of free folders containing the 1930 circular of the Sacred Council calling for a worldwide Crusade for modesty in dress.

HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT?

Modesty is a very unpopular virtue in our day, and the general tendency seems to be to search for alibis to evade its practice.

This made it quite easy for the devil, who reaps many souls through immodesty, to bury the document in oblivion.

It seems to be a repetition of the Gospel story, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." (John 1:11) We Americans like to boast about our loyalty to the Vicar of Christ. Yes, we are very loyal—when it costs us nothing.

In spite of all the warnings of the last five popes, we persist in the mass rebellion against Christian modesty. preferring to submit to the disgraceful slavery of the paean fashion dictators, and to abet the disciples of the nudist cult, the "powers of corruption." the "Goddess of Reason."

Long ago did these disciples publicly raise the nudist banner of rebellion against the Church's teaching on modesty, inviting Catholic woman-hood to enlist under it. It was on December 10.1793. that an angry mob rushed into the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, seized the statue of the "Virgin Most Pure", and dashed it to the floor. Thereupon, as a symbol of the nudist program, they enthroned in Mary's place on the altar a nude woman, the "Goddess of Reason."

How well have their plans succeeded! In how many Catholic women's hearts has this "Goddess of Reason" been enthroned! The Marvlike Crusade aims to reverse this awful sacrilege, and the re-enthrone in feminine hearts to Virgin Marv's glorious banner, on which are inscribed in bold letters THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS.

HAS THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE SET UP ITS OWN STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN DRESS?

No. The Marylike Standards are the identical standards issued by the Holy See, differing only in form. In their present form they have received specific Episcopal Approval as conforming as closely ad possible to the official document of Rome. Because they represent the Christian tradition on modesty in dress, they satisfy the motto, Whatever Mary Approves." Hence the name, "Marylike Standards." Not only are they approved, but they are the only minimum standards that have been given formal approval by members of the Hierarchy. This insures their conformity with the "Teaching Authority of the Church."

WHO CONSTITUTES THIS "TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH?"

"Besides the lawful successors of the Apostles, namely the Roman Pontiff for the Universal Church and Bishops for the faithful entrusted to their care (Cf. Can. 1326), there are no other teachers divinely constituted in the Church of Christ" (Pope Pius XII, May 31,1954)

Accordingly, the 1930 instructions from Rome placed the problem of social modesty in dress into the hands of the Bishops as the only Official Teaching Authority in union with the Pope.

HAVE NOT SOME BISHOPS APPROVED SLEEVELESS DRESSES, AND THOSE WITH ONLY BROAD STRAPS OVER THE SHOULDERS OR HALTERS?

No. None of the Bishops have officially approved this lowering of standards issued by the Holy Father's Cardinal Vicar, in spite of claims made by some people. For this reason the Marylike Crusade refuses to accept watered down standards.

DO NOT SOME PRIESTS AND SISTERS APPROVE SUCH WATERED DOWN STANDARDS?

Unfortunately, they do. But they are exceeding their authority, since they are not a part of the Official Teaching Authority of the Church. Theirs is a delegated authority, which must conform with the Official Teaching Authority. As Pope Pius XII defines it: The Supreme Teacher and the Bishops "delegate to them the faculty to teach, either by special grant, or by conferring an office to which the faculty is attached, (Cfr. Can. 1328). Their faculty always remains subject to that authority." (May 31,1954).

MAY THEOLOGIANS SET MODESTY STANDARDS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THIS "MIND OF THE CHURCH?"

Theologians are not lawmakers* but Interpreters of the law. As such, their opinions, too, must conform with the Official Teaching Authority of the Church. Again, Pope Pius XII explains: "Theologians ... do not carry on their work through divine right, but through delegation of the Church, and hence remain subject to the vigilance and authority of the legitimate Teaching Authority ... So the divisive factor in knowing the truth is not the 'opino theologorum' (opinion of theologians) but the 'sensus Ecclesiae' (the mind of the Church). To reverse the matter would be making Theologians practically the 'magistri Magisterii' (Supreme Teaching Authority) which is obviously an error" (Sept. 14,1956).

TIMES HAVE CHANGED. ARE THE 1930 STANDARDS NOT LONG OUTMODED?

Times and customs may change, but God's laws never change or become outmoded.

Neither does concupiscence change

"There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved, no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be." (Pope Pius XII, Nov. 8,1957).

The standards of 1930 have not been changed. If there are any future adaptations allowable because of peculiar circumstances, this is not a question to be decided by individual Catholics, but by the authority that issued the standards - the Pope or the sacred Council.

This is in agreement with the stand taken by His Eminence Rufino Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, December 6,1959. On that date was issued a lengthy and masterful Pastoral Letter to "confirm once more and declare in full vigor in our Archdiocese what the Holy Father and the Catholic Hierarchy have stated on different occasions."

The Cardinal then repeats the "Church's stand concerning modesty in dress" by quoting the standards set by Pope Pius XI; "A dress cannot be called modest which is cut deeper, etc." (Which we quoted previously).

IS IT WRONG FOR A WOMAN TO WEAR MEN'S TYPE OF CLOTHING, SUCH AS SLACKS OR BERMUDAS?

To wear garments proper to the opposite sex is wrong. because it is suggestive, even when the garments are otherwise modest. While custom cannot make modest an immodest garment, custom can and does decide the type of garments proper to either sex. Thus, in the time of Christ men wore garments which today would be considered proper to women.

IS A SERIOUS SIN TO APPEAR IN PUBLIC IN MEDIUM OR SHORT SHORTS OR STRAPLESS FORMALS?

By applying the general principles of Moral Theology, it would be hard to see how, objectively speaking, one can escape venial sin by wearing ANY of these garments in public. It cannot be denied these immodest garments can easily, and often do, bring serious temptations to men. Further, they promote the nudist program. It cannot be repeated often enough or strongly enough, that regardless of the garment or occasion, proper concealment of the body is the sole objective!

THEN, ARE ALL THE WOMEN WEARING THEM GUILTY OF MORTAL SIN?

Very many are not. Mortal sin is such a terrible thing, that it is not committed unless all of these conditions are present:

1. The sinful action must be serious.
2. It must be performed with full knowledge, and
3. With full consent of the will.

Thus, if a woman or girl, through no fault of her own, is sincerely unaware that her attire seriously offends against modesty, one of the essentials for mortal sin is missing. She is said to be "in good faith."

True happiness comes from God. It fills your heart if you live according to God's plan and His Commandments. Unhappiness comes from breaking these Commandments bv sin. Disobedience is the spirit of Lucifer; "/ will not serve! Cod and His Church can't tell me what to do!" Since mortal sin is a grievous offense against the Law of God, it is the greatest tragedy in the world. The emphasis is on God. He made you His child and friend in baptism. He gives you His Life, the supernatural life through the Sacraments and then through selfishness you turn your back on Him. Do not try to make yourself believe that hurting those around you is the only possible evil. God does not agree with that view. When you break God's law you hurt God - and yourself by severing your love rela­tionship with Him! "The wages of sin is death." (Rom.6:13). Breaking God's law by impurity spells death; death of the soul through the loss of sanctifying grace: death of the peace of conscience through the crushing remorse for sin; death of hish ideals; Spiritual death through mortal sin brings misery and unhappiness in this world and eternal damnation in the next.

DO NOT THEOLOGIANS ADVISE TO LET PERSONS "IN GOOD FAITH" ALONE?

No. Parents and teachers have the obligation to give thorough instructions on the obligations of our Holy Religion. Otherwise people would soon lose all sense of sin. The devil has already made use of this trickery on a grand scale, by keeping responsible persons silent. For, as Pius XII has said, already "The world has lost all sense of sin." (See appendix on Spiritual Works of Mercy).

DOES THE MARYLIKE CRUSADE, THEN APPROVE FEMININE TROUSER TYPE GARMENTS OF PROPER LENGTH AND FIT?

"A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel: neither shall a man use woman's apparel For he that doth these things is abominable before God." (Deut. 22:5)

The purpose of this Old Testament Law will never change, because undue promiscuity of the sexes will always be a source of sins against chastity.

Hence, in the absence of any Church approval, we cannot approve the feminine trouser type garments, until it is proven that trousers are no longer a distinctive male garment.

Are we sure that this modern innovation was not an invention of Satan? We are aware of his hellish program of disrobing womanhood in order to more readily carry out his goal of moral corruption of mankind. If feminine trousers were not the invention of the devil, we now know definitely that he is using them very effectively for his purpose. Very gradually did he proceed (1917 to the present day), so as to avoid detection and to forestall a mass rebellion of womanhood had she even suspected in advance this inch-by-inch development: ankle-length slacks, above-the-ankle slacks, below the knee bermudas, knee length shorts, above the knee shorts, shorts (still called bermudas), medium shorts, short shorts.

Our Lady of Fatima did know in 1917 this pending denuding program. It should FRIGHTEN US to recall the prophecy she revealed to Jacinta,

"Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much."

SATAN'S PLAN TO CORRUPT WOMEN UNFOLDED BY OUR LADY:

The following is most important;

It was in 1917 at a Legion of Mary meeting in Baden, (Black Forest) Germany that Father King from the Church of Miuester spoke to the women at that meeting in regard to Our Lady of Fatima's prediction of that same year... "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much." He had consulted the fashion designers of Paris, France, concerning the next fashion for women to be introduced. He reported it was "pants."

Being a holy priest and concerned about the spiritual welfare of the women in his Legion of Mary group, he asked them to promise never to wear pants.

Since a woman wearing a man's garment is abomin­able before God, the mere use of the word "abominable" meaning hateful; offensive: unclean; it certainly is worthy of our attention and study.

If a woman really loves Our Blessed Mother and Our Blessed Lord, why would she hamper the "Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart" and offend Our Lord very much by wearing pants?