Are Nudists Bad?

[CanonAlberic]

Secular/chauvanistic reply coming… Nothing wrong with nudist beaches/camps, as long as they only allow attractive people to attend!

Peace.

 

[chevalier]

Nudity is not sinful. Nudity is not a result of sin, either. Actually, the need for the fig leaf is a result of sin.

There used to be casual nudity in the past. Hunting, martial practice, sleeping quarters, baths, thermae… whatever. Even in middle ages and later. For example, it was normal in 16th-17th century Ireland to receive guests when partially or fully nude. Before swimsuits were invented, people had to swim in the nude and they didn’t part in two groups before that, going 20 miles from each other.

Next, renaissance or baroque art is not bad (if you disagree, go to Vatican Museums). We aren’t assumed to be sinning by watching it. If we can watch sculptures and paintings, why not live people? And artists had to watch live people who were their models, anyway.

Actually, it’s porn what is bad, more than nudists. Without the omnipresent omniprevalent emphasis on sex in the modern culture, there would be no porn and no nudists, either.

The problem is lust. If people around you can’t look on you naked without lusting for you, it wouldn’t be prudent to go ahead and create an opportunity to sin for them - after all, we are on the same side of the struggle for virtue and struggle with sin.

But if people don’t care? Or if they even care and appreciate the beauty of human body but without immediately connecting it with disorderly sexual thoughts - much as it is with art?

 

[fix]

This thread is about “nudism”, not nudity. They are vastly different.

 

[felra]

chevalier:

But if people don’t care? Or if they even care and appreciate the beauty of human body but without immediately connecting it with disorderly sexual thoughts - much as it is with art?

Somehow the image of fully unclothed parents and the trail of teenage and preteen kids in tow walking along a sandy beach, or sitting around a picnic table eating corn on the cob, fails to conjure a wholesome picture or family harmony and order or for that matter greater appreciation for the human body. Bizarre, strange, “are you kidding?” comes more to mind.

 

[leo123]

What would my pastor/priest say?
“There are circumstances in which nakedness is not Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness” Pope John Paul II (nee Karol Cardinal Wojtyla)

With respect, I have never seen a quotation used quite so badly as trying to say John Paul’s words above support nudism. John Paul’s Theology of the Body certainly states that the body is not intrinsically wrong, in fact John Paul tells us that the naked body is a good instrument for understanding God’s plan for us and love.

However, he NEVER said that showing off your naked body in public, or to anyone who is not your spouse, is ever correct. Rather it is a rejection of the special openess and sexual love that God wants there to be between husband and wife.

Also, God created the pure (and naked) body to be a life-giving instrument; this is perfect if the naked body is within the context of a non-contraceptive and loving marriage. However nudity for its own sake is efinately not life-giving in any shape or form.

 

[chevalier]

However nudity for its own sake is efinately not life-giving in any shape or form.

Neither is listening to the music or baking cakes.

However, he NEVER said that showing off your naked body in public, or to anyone who is not your spouse, is ever correct.

How about going to the Vatican Museums, then? I seriously doubt the models were all artists’ spouses and they are certainly not our spouses. What about doctors? I would be careful with words like “never”. In fact, what John Paul II said later in the same work that you are quoting is that nudity in some circumstances is not bad but shouldn’t be exploited.

Somehow the image of fully unclothed parents and the trail of teenage and preteen kids in tow walking along a sandy beach, or sitting around a picnic table eating corn on the cob, fails to conjure a wholesome picture or family harmony and order or for that matter greater appreciation for the human body. Bizarre, strange, “are you kidding?” comes more to mind.

Comes to my mind, too, but it may be a cultural thing. Eating raw fish is also bizarre, strange, “are you kidding?” etc.

 

[fix]

How about going to the Vatican Museums, then? I seriously doubt the models were all artists’ spouses and they are certainly not our spouses. What about doctors? I would be careful with words like “never”. In fact, what John Paul II said later in the same work that you are quoting is that nudity in some circumstances is not bad but shouldn’t be exploited.

None of this has anything to do with the perverse notion of “social nudism” That is a construct of people who are not intending what is on the ceiling in the Vatican. It has nothing to do with a medical exam or treatment. In fact, the agenda of “nudists” are transparent.

Comes to my mind, too, but it may be a cultural thing. Eating raw fish is also bizarre, strange, “are you kidding?” etc.

In no way, at this time, can “nudism” be said to be morally licit in this culture.

 

[chevalier]

None of this has anything to do with the perverse notion of “social nudism” That is a construct of people who are not intending what is on the ceiling in the Vatican.

I wasn’t speaking about the Sistine Chapel, but about all the nude paintings and sculpture in the Church’s own possession, in Vatican Museums and elsewhere in the world, as well as robbed from bishops’ palaces.

In fact, the agenda of “nudists” are transparent.

And what is that agenda? Of course, some of those organisations have bizarre views of Christianity and strange political ideas, but why generalise?

In no way, at this time, can “nudism” be said to be morally licit in this culture.

First you make moral licitness relative to culture, but then you petrify culture as an absolute. Culture is not a ready creation sent directly from heaven, but a growing, developing entity formed and shaped constantly by those within it. You would have to prove that it’s evil to affect your culture or vary from it, if you are going to make such claims pass. Doesn’t mean I am a big fan of nudism, let alone nudist organisations, but this goes too far.

 

[fix]

chevalier:

I wasn’t speaking about the Sistine Chapel, but about all the nude paintings and sculpture in the Church’s own possession, in Vatican Museums and elsewhere in the world, as well as robbed from bishops’ palaces.

I am sorry, but you are being pedantic. Art has nothing to do with nude volleyball or ping pong.

And what is that agenda? Of course, some of those organisations have bizarre views of Christianity and strange political ideas, but why generalise?

The agenda is to attempt to make vice into virtue.

First you make moral licitness relative to culture, but then you petrify culture as an absolute.

Not me, but you. Are you denying that in parts of Africa, as an example, public nudity is not illicit as it is part of their culture?

Our culture does not have those norms and to introduce them as “nudists” do is to intentionally try to legitimize what is illegitimate. I refer you to the answer I posted from a good priest about “nudism” several posts back.

Culture is not a ready creation sent directly from heaven, but a growing, developing entity formed and shaped constantly by those within it.

Indeed, and many want to “change” our culture in an attempt
justify illcit behavior.

You would have to prove that it’s evil to affect your culture or vary from it, if you are going to make such claims pass. Doesn’t mean I am a big fan of nudism, let alone nudist organisations, but this goes too far.

Sorry, but you go to far in your defense of the indefensible.

 

[chevalier]

I am sorry, but you are being pedantic. Art has nothing to do with nude volleyball or ping pong.

There is a distant relation. The basic problem is that nudity is not per se sexual and is not evil just because the body is uncovered. What is evil is lust and leading into sin. Absent these factors, nudity is not and cannot be sinful, unless different factors apply such as humiliation or objectification of a human being.

The agenda is to attempt to make vice into virtue.

As with all those “changes” to morals proposed by liberals, I guess. The problem, however, is the perspective.

Nowadays, people tend to be convinced that sex somehow results from nudity and that there would be no question of lust without nudity. This is not so. The only necessary connection is that sexual intercourse is hard to enact for clothed persons. Problems with sex don’t come from nudity, it’s the other way round. Whatever problems we have with nudity come from its sexualisation. However, the sexualisation of nudity, as you attest in other places, is not an absolute imperative. Therefore, there is nothing inherently evil about nudity. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to be naked. The problem lies in the purpose of it. However, the purpose needs to be sexual or objectifying the human being in some other way, in order to make it evil.

Not me, but you. Are you denying that in parts of Africa, as an example, public nudity is not illicit as it is part of their culture?

The fact that you were born in a certain culture doesn’t automatically put you in a predefined set in stone set of social convenances. As pointed out above, the problem is not with nudity per se but with its use.

Our culture does not have those norms and to introduce them as “nudists” do is to intentionally try to legitimize what is illegitimate. I refer you to the answer I posted from a good priest about “nudism” several posts back.

In some cases, we may be dealing with genuine exhibitionists, voyeurists and the whole lot. But this doesn’t exhaust the list of reasons why someone could possibly prefer to sunbathe or swim in the nude. At the moment, the prevalent view in our civilisation is that one shouldn’t be naked in the presence of the opposite sex. But come to think about it, the prevalent view in our civilisation at the moment is also that revealing or tight clothing is OK, that porn isn’t really wrong, that masturbation is normal and that premarital sex is expected. So what?

I’ve always had an unending supply of irony for all those activists, especially lefty ones and their weird ideas, but this doesn’t make them sinful. Legitimatising what is illegitimate and illegitimatising what is legitimate is more or less how all laws and moral systems develop. It’s not evil per se. Neither is nudity on its own, again. Therefore, we still need to find something evil, like lust or objectification of a human being, to claim that nudists are a bunch of sinners.

 

[fix]

chevalier:

There is a distant relation. The basic problem is that nudity is not per se sexual and is not evil just because the body is uncovered. What is evil is lust and leading into sin. Absent these factors, nudity is not and cannot be sinful, unless different factors apply such as humiliation or objectification of a human being.

As with all those “changes” to morals proposed by liberals, I guess. The problem, however, is the perspective.

Nowadays, people tend to be convinced that sex somehow results from nudity and that there would be no question of lust without nudity. This is not so. The only necessary connection is that sexual intercourse is hard to enact for clothed persons. Problems with sex don’t come from nudity, it’s the other way round. Whatever problems we have with nudity come from its sexualisation. However, the sexualisation of nudity, as you attest in other places, is not an absolute imperative. Therefore, there is nothing inherently evil about nudity. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to be naked. The problem lies in the purpose of it. However, the purpose needs to be sexual or objectifying the human being in some other way, in order to make it evil.

The fact that you were born in a certain culture doesn’t automatically put you in a predefined set in stone set of social convenances. As pointed out above, the problem is not with nudity per se but with its use.

In some cases, we may be dealing with genuine exhibitionists, voyeurists and the whole lot. But this doesn’t exhaust the list of reasons why someone could possibly prefer to sunbathe or swim in the nude. At the moment, the prevalent view in our civilisation is that one shouldn’t be naked in the presence of the opposite sex. But come to think about it, the prevalent view in our civilisation at the moment is also that revealing or tight clothing is OK, that porn isn’t really wrong, that masturbation is normal and that premarital sex is expected. So what?

I’ve always had an unending supply of irony for all those activists, especially lefty ones and their weird ideas, but this doesn’t make them sinful. Legitimatising what is illegitimate and illegitimatising what is legitimate is more or less how all laws and moral systems develop. It’s not evil per se. Neither is nudity on its own, again. Therefore, we still need to find something evil, like lust or objectification of a human being, to claim that nudists are a bunch of sinners.

It seems your entire argument is that nudity is not sinful. I agree. That is not what this thread was about. Some posters were asserting that “social nudism” is compatible with the Catholic faith. My position is that it is illicit.

Those who choose to be nudists, at this point in time and this particular culture, do not have the views of nudity that you are describing. They are deceived in many ways. They paint a picture of non sexual, “openness”, but it is really about acting out on license.

Let us be reasonable. In this culture can you defend the idea of “nudism” that would include complete unveiling of what should be hidden by a 15 year old girl and a 30 year old man together in a “club” playing darts? Families all cavorting naked pretending their are enlightened or just being natural?

Are all this things really from God? Do you think “nudism” is a way to holiness?

 

[fix]

Dear Fr.
I am a Catholic who really enjoys the freedom that nudism give to me. I have gone to nudist resorts in the past and wondered if this is wrong. There is nothing at all sexual about my enjoyment of nudism and I do it simply for relaxation. Is it wrong to go to nudist resorts or beaches? If it is wrong can I continue to practice nudism in private? Thanks alot for your help.
-Jeff

oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/icons/mark_top.gifoldforum.catholic.org/discussion/icons/mark_up.gifoldforum.catholic.org/discussion/icons/mark_down.gifoldforum.catholic.org/discussion/icons/mark_bottom.gif oldforum.catholic.org/discussion/icons/tree_m.gif By Fr. J.T. Zuhlsdorf (father_z) on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 12:58 pm: Edit PostJeff:

Frankly I think you are both being slightly dishonest and also placing yourself (and others) in grave spiritual danger - for the obvious reasons.

NO, public nudism is not licit.

What you do in your own home is another matter, so long as it does not involve causing scandal or an occasion of sin to others (children, neighbors, the postman, etc.). If you want to walk around without clothes on in your house, that is your business (I think it is ridicuous for any protracted length of time, but I digress).

Fr. Z

By the way… I am not sure how one “practices” nudism, as in getting good at it. I should think everyone has equal … qualifications for that - at least in one respect (though not in others, but I digress…).

 

[felra]

fix:

Some posters were asserting that “social nudism” is compatible with the Catholic faith. My position is that it is illicit.

Are all this things really from God? Do you think “nudism” is a way to holiness?

As a litmus for the full import of your position, would you likewise invite your Catholic priest to partake in your “nudist” gatherings as consonant with your Catholic Chritian faith? IF not, why the double standard?

 

[chevalier]

I would prefer the “obvious reasons” to be spelt out, to be honest. I catch myself, too, using the phrase in such contexts, when having difficulty naming reasons for something. I would prefer to be somewhat more specific.

Let us be reasonable. In this culture can you defend the idea of “nudism” that would include complete unveiling of what should be hidden by a 15 year old girl and a 30 year old man together in a “club” playing darts? Families all cavorting naked pretending their are enlightened or just being natural?

Making it compulsory is ridiculous and so is forcing unwilling spectators to watch. However, my idea was closer to a generic albeit a bit “ideal” nudist beach, with people stripping down totally instead of stopping at underwear. For some people, this will be a in issue of “sexual freedom” even if they claim it to be asexual, but I don’t see a necessary connection.

Are all this things really from God? Do you think “nudism” is a way to holiness?

Things which are morally neutral cannot really be holy. Sunbathing or swimming already can’t really be holy and leading to holiness, which doesn’t mean they necessarily divert the soul from it. At the moment, I’m going to make myself a coffee. I don’t see how the particular act could possibly pull me closer to God, although I neither feel bad for it nor see it as a waste of time.

Please note that I am theorising. I am in no way defending nudist organisations, let alone their associates. I’m just pointing out that nudism doesn’t necessarily have to be sinful of its own, with the typical political baggage removed.

 

[wcknight]

Going nude in your own home is no big deal especially if no one else is home and your shades are pulled down.

Revealing yourself except to your spouse is no big deal, to your kids is questionable at best. Exposing yourself to others is objectionable on two levels.

One if you are somewhat attractive or very attractive you can be the source of temptation for some one else. Two if you are unattractive, that is just plain gross. Either way, leave your clothes on, the rest of us normal folks would feel a whole lot better if you dress modestly.

Maybe a full burka for some folks would be appropriate

wc

 

[Werner]

Some here have asked why somebody would be a nudist and go to a nudist camp.

Well you all here demonstrate the answer to this question yet don’t see it.

Obviously some people don’t like nudity and get bad feelings with naked people, while others don’t.

So those who don’t have bad feelings and enjoy the feeling of air on the whole body without disturbing clothes have to do it (being naked) somewhere where nobody takes offense.

Even the priest quoted in this thread said, it is ok to be naked in the privacy of your home when nobody can take offense.

Now not everybody owns a house with a big garden that is off limits to the curious looks of the neighbors, so people who shared the wish to be naked outside joined together and bought an area where they could do just that, and that was the first nudist camp.

No big deal, it isn’t a site of sin and sexual excesses as some seem to fear, it is just a place with only people who aren’t offended with nudity, that’s all.

Oh, and no, i’m not a nudist!

Werner

 

[fix]

felra:

As a litmus for the full import of your position, would you likewise invite your Catholic priest to partake in your “nudist” gatherings as consonant with your Catholic Chritian faith? IF not, why the double standard?

Right. On some level, normally formed consciences, know it is not correct.

 

[fix]

chevalier:

I would prefer the “obvious reasons” to be spelt out, to be honest. I catch myself, too, using the phrase in such contexts, when having difficulty naming reasons for something. I would prefer to be somewhat more specific.

I am not sure what you are referring to?

Making it compulsory is ridiculous and so is forcing unwilling spectators to watch. However, my idea was closer to a generic albeit a bit “ideal” nudist beach, with people stripping down totally instead of stopping at underwear. For some people, this will be a in issue of “sexual freedom” even if they claim it to be asexual, but I don’t see a necessary connection.

The public display would include those who choose to partake. Many would certainly be there as an occasion of sin. To partake would mean one would be willingly be allowing such a practice to harm another. That was the priest’s point.

Things which are morally neutral cannot really be holy.

“Nudism” is not morally neutral. It is illicit. That is my point.

Sunbathing or swimming already can’t really be holy and leading to holiness, which doesn’t mean they necessarily divert the soul from it. At the moment, I’m going to make myself a coffee. I don’t see how the particular act could possibly pull me closer to God, although I neither feel bad for it nor see it as a waste of time.

I cannot follow the analogy. Making coffee in no way can be scandalous or cause another to sin. “Nudism” can be both.

Please note that I am theorising. I am in no way defending nudist organisations, let alone their associates. I’m just pointing out that nudism doesn’t necessarily have to be sinful of its own, with the typical political baggage removed.

I appreciate your effort to help us clarify and refine our positions.

 

[felra]

Werner:

Some here have asked why somebody would be a nudist and go to a nudist camp.

Obviously some people don’t like nudity and get bad feelings with naked people, while others don’t.

So those who don’t have bad feelings and enjoy the feeling of air on the whole body without disturbing clothes have to do it (being naked) somewhere where nobody takes offense.

Werner

But, why do these “nudist” folks not register a bad, self-consious, “I need to put on a fig leaf” type of feeling? This is the bigger question.

 

[fix]

felra:

But, why do these “nudist” folks not register a bad, self-consious, “I need to put on a fig leaf” type of feeling? This is the bigger question.

Yes, that is the key. On the surface it would appear to be self deception.