Dominican Vocations

	DOMINICAN VOCATIONS PROVINCE OF THE ASSUMPTION

Site map	Modesty: Talk to Victorian Catholic Students' Association (2 March 2007)	Br Vincent Magat, O.P.
Home News -------------------------- Welcome Benedict XVI Master -------------------------- History Introduction St Dominic's gift Australia --------------------------- Order Discernment Formation Dominican habit Novitiate Studentate --------------------------- Life Introduction Four pillars Apostolate --------------------------- People Dominican saints Our brethren --------------------------- Resources Lectio Divina Links Prayer Reading --------------------------- Site dedication	Recently, I’ve become a graduate student of philosophy at Melbourne University and the recurring reaction from many of my good friends has been: “Don’t let them corrupt you.” Such indeed, and not unjustifiably, is the popular conception of modern philosophy. One only needs to hear about the doubts that some philosophers entertain about the existence of the real world, the assault on traditional ethics and their outright rejection of God. But there are those who disagree. Some years back I came across a book, an introduction to philosophical ethics written, if I remember correctly, by a fairly undistinguished professor from Ontario by the name of E.J. Bond. He claims that his work and that of his colleagues was not to corrupt the youth, but to repair the corruption society had already imprinted on them. Many an undergraduate, he argued, comes to the university a ready made moral skeptic or a relativist, either rejecting judgments about morality outright, or believing them to be at best a matter of personal preference. In this light, Bond saw his job as primarily teaching his students the enduring standards of morality, which furnish the foundations of this civilization. Part of his plan was to pull the classical virtues from their Greco-Roman setting and to defend each one of them as an unchanging guide for human behavior and wellbeing … each one of them, that is, until he got to modesty. Looking again and again at modesty, he could not get away from the fact that so much has changed (especially in the last hundred years), that so much to do with modesty seems to be at the whim of society, nations, states, even local groups of peoples. In the end, he could not bring himself to declare modesty a virtue on par with such essentials as justice or prudence. But what if modesty really is one of the virtues; what if what we wear, how we look, how we present ourselves is not just a matter of social contract, or an ever changing consensus? What if to say that “...modesty is a matter of custom” is just as wrong as to say that, “...honesty is a matter of custom?" In English, the traditional meaning behind modesty has been reduced almost exclusively to clothing and to revealing or hiding parts of the body from public view. And I would like to suggest to you that if this is our primary focus, if this is all that there is to modesty, we will not get very far. Because climate and comfort have much to do with what becomes customary, with what people wear. The Arabs of the desert do not have more modesty because they cover their whole bodies, nor are the peoples of the Caribbean comparatively immodest because they wear less. If we want to see if modesty is a virtue, we must start at its most general, as that which is concerned with all elements of our outward appearance: not only dress, but also gestures, speech and so forth. While in the English language there might be only one word for modesty and it is always tied up with sexual connotations, in Greek mythology there are no less than three gods concerned with modesty and four words to describe it. When Saint Thomas Aquinas talked about modesty, the way we dress was the last thing he mentioned. In the first place he was concerned with how we present our achievements and our desires, how we communicate what we know, and how we present ourselves in our movements and actions. Essentially, modesty is about presenting the good things about ourselves without deceit and without pretension. Goodness should not be invisible, it should not be colorless, but it should not dazzle or overpower anyone. If a man has achieved great things in his life, we rightly look at him with admiration. But if he trumpets these at every occasion, we rightly consider him odd. Consider why this is so. Isn’t it that there is more to us as persons then the degrees we’ve been awarded, the positions we hold in business or the Church? God has made the human person to possess depths of character that cannot and should not be communicated all at once. I’m sure you have all met or heard about a person who on first impressions is an excellent individual. But if we establish a friendship with them, we find that there is nothing more to them, their excellence is shallow, they always talk about the same things and there is never anything new about them. In the case of knowledge: who has not met someone who appears supremely knowledgeable, but all that he knows is mere trivia, lacking any real use? Who has not known persons practiced in affectations and outlandish views that are designed to impress, to demand our attention and our affections? Modesty, you see, is not about shutting things in, but about moderating our display. It means that if someone wishes to partake of the goodness that we possess, the good persons that we are, they have to invest time and energy to establish a relationship and to discover all that is good about us. Modesty makes us valuable, without it we are either uninteresting because we never display anything good about us, or we are mere objects of (short-lived) admiration or outright ridicule. When we possess modesty we define ourselves as persons with a certain aura of mystery, as human subjects that others actually want to meet and befriend. Modesty is thus that which presents goodness in its proper color. When modesty speaks we know that what it says is true, dependable and genuine. Which brings me onto gestures and the way we act: here, modesty fights against those who would prefer style over substance and image over essence. Modesty teaches elegance and naturalness over showing off. It is about performing good deeds without fanfare, about in the end having the confidence that what is good about us as persons created in the image of God is actually good enough. If we really consider ourselves works of art by the Master Craftsman, then there is no need to gild the lily so to speak, to exaggerate our goodness and conceal our weakness in fear. Sure we are not the most excellent individuals in the world, but modesty teaches precisely the kind of confidence that does not require ever new proofs of affection ad nausea from our friends. The modest person knows and trusts his friends. On the other hand, modesty inspires a moderation that does not try and acquire new friendships at the cost of neglecting the old and faithful ones. While the thrill of meeting ever new friends has a certain allure to it, the quiet confidence and ease we have around those whom we have known for a long time provides the foundation for enduring times of sorrow and of joy alike. So, is modesty a virtue? Every virtue is contrasted with two opposite vices and I have already hinted at what conflicts with modesty. Shamefulness on the one hand covers up all the good things about us, it is derived from fear and an unhealthy misconception of our value and qualities. Shamelessness on the other hand propels to the top of an imaginary hierarchy, people who suffer from it tend to believe that they are, in the words of our Savior, ‘the light of the world.' More importantly though, for modesty to qualify as a virtue, it must present an enduring standard for human life. But which of the things mentioned have changed radically? Was it ever acceptable to boast, to pretend, to seduce by illusion? Was it ever good to shy away from every talent and the realization of any of our skills? None of these things have changed in essence, though the limits of what is acceptable have varied from time to time. In times when military proves was important men used to woo ladies with displays of their skills and strength which we would most likely find immodest. In our age, it seems to be the sensitive nature which sets the feminine heart racing, though the men of old would probably consider us sissies. The point is, whatever we are presenting, we must present modestly: no woman will love a man who kisses his biceps in admiration while presenting his skill, and no woman will respect a man whose sensitive side brings him to tears when he steps on a snail. Now let’s talk about how we dress and present our bodies. But first, a quick summary to show you the pattern we’ve been following: modesty in how we present ourselves protects the depths of our character from being spilled on just anyone and gives it value in keeping it for our friends, modesty in knowledge protects our know-how from being reduced to sensationalism, modesty in act saves us from becoming a hollow image, so finally modesty in dress protects the power and gift of naked intimacy, which, for those called to marriage, God intends to be used only for one other person. Naked intimacy is a sign of the gift of self, it is an expression of a complete trust in the other. It is the grounds for a total self-giving that necessarily transcends the moment and establishes a lasting bond between the couple. It is this which modesty protects and makes valuable by making it the prize of courtship and the consummation of unfailing love. But the world about us has done its best to cheapen this gift. On the internet, on television, in print, we are constantly bombarded with images that leave nothing to the imagination, stories that are meant to wake up our imagination and pictures which are there to tease our imagination. But, the world does agree with us on this point: that naked intimacy is actually valuable. They have turned this unique gift from God into a commodity to be bought and sold, a cheap commodity perhaps, but nonetheless one that has actually created a large industry. This industry feeds on the desire we all have for communion with another person, but unfortunately twists this natural element of our being into an expectation. What is wrong with that? You’ll remember when I talked about friendship, that when we present the good things about us modestly, it creates in other people a desire to get to know us and to spend energy and time doing that. So similarly here, when we present ourselves as sexual beings modestly, it creates in persons of opposite sex a desire for communion. You will notice I said “desire” not “expectation.” A desire of this sort is accompanied by the willingness to actually* do *anything for the other person all the way up to actually spending one’s whole life in the pursuit of the gift that we are. An “expectation” on the other hand does not carry with it any connotations of being willing to work for the prize, let alone give anything of oneself for it. Men and women of our age, just like men and women of all ages, have always felt the need to be the ‘special one’ for some other person. The illusion of the present age is that it is possible for lowly me to be the ‘special one’ for more than one person. We’ve been lead to believe that the more people desire us, the more valuable we become. And in a limited sense that is true. But when we move to the point of being public property, of being on display, of being an object of expectation from passers by, we will find that the unique gift has been spent and we have received nothing in return. The virtue of modesty is there to ensure that when the right time comes to give everything to the one person we’ve committed to love for life, that then there is so much to give, a gift that has not been shared in any way with anyone. Maybe just one last comment. One reason perhaps why modesty has been downgraded as a virtue is that when it works it is essentially an invisible virtue. Because it is concerned with moderation, it rarely makes it into history books or front pages of newspapers. Nonetheless I suspect billions upon billions have been guided by its invisible hand to lead respectable lives in which moderation of display was simply taken for granted as an essential element of human behavior, a virtue passing from one generation to the next.