Clothing Optional Beaches

  • Thread starter Thread starter nablaise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nablaise

Guest
In my understanding, it is not a sin to go on a clothing optional beaches.
However, depending on people and their cultural background - the body language they are used to or have developed, it can be a near occasion of sin.

Does anybody go to clothing optional beaches or come from a cultural background which is familiar with this type of beaches or familiarity with nudity?

I would like to hear comment in relation to Catholic understanding of the human body and society.

God bless
 
Have not been and would not go.

There are two reasons for this.
  1. The opportunity for sinning, in particular the sin of lust. Perhaps there are those strong enough to resist such temptaions. I do not believe I am one of them.
  2. To avoid the possibility of scandal. Even if I avoided personal sin, the mere fact of being there could give rise to scandal, dissention among the faithful and possibly cause the loss of other souls.
Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Have not been and would not go.

There are two reasons for this.
  1. The opportunity for sinning, in particular the sin of lust. Perhaps there are those strong enough to resist such temptations. I do not believe I am one of them.
  2. To avoid the possibility of scandal. Even if I avoided personal sin, the mere fact of being there could give rise to scandal, dissension among the faithful and possibly cause the loss of other souls.
Peace
James
Click to expand...
I’ve never been to a “skin beach” and probably never will.

There was a lengthy thread about “nudity” here at CAF a few weeks ago, and the report from one CAF member was almost humorous. His daughter (I think) was studying in France, and one warm day, she and some of her friends decided to go to the beach. Most of France’s beaches are either “topless” (I guess the new, politically correct term is now “top free”) or “clothing-optional.” These young American women didn’t realize this, and were allegedly shocked at what they saw… her report was that very, very few of those nude or partially nude bodies amounted to anything close to what might be termed “temptation;” most of what they saw was almost sickening… (I guess maybe those nude beaches should be restricted to “hot bodies” only…) Ancient bodies, wrinkles, rolls of fat, bulging bellies, saggy bottoms, flabby arms and such all combined to give the girl some bad memories of what a French nude beach was like.

The nude bathers? “Lustworthy” they were definitely NOT! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/yuk.gif
 
I personally would never be naked in public and have never been to a clothes optional beach.

I think your right that clothes-optional beaches aren’t wrong per se. It depends on the situation (especially culture). I think the virtue of modesty is best summed up in the words of John Paul II, who wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in his work Love and Responsibility:

“Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.”

-John Paul II, Love and Responsibility, page 190

It can be found at:

books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=immodesty+is+present+only+when+nakedness+plays+a+negative+role&source=bl&ots=sx1n0BAWAX&sig=0CyJAFZeCJdLD70_YKD62-7I0JE&hl=en&ei=x1EiTKbyB8T8nAfz-_jADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=immodesty%20is%20present%20only%20when%20nakedness%20plays%20a%20negative%20role&f=false

Regarding to the previously mentioned answer from ewtn, it is incorrect IMHO when it says that “Public nudity [always] denies the doctrine of original sin.” The fact that in some circumstances public nudity may not arouse lust does not go against the doctrine or original sin (which I think is an often misunderstood doctrine). Original sin roughly means we inherit the absence of sanctifying grace. Also, as a Catholic theology major who has studied the Bible a little, I would caution against using the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) as a literal catechism or moral guide. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that disobedient children should be stoned. Leviticus 20:9 says that anyone who curses their parents should be put to death.
 
I do not think Pope John Paul II would be in favor of such behaviors …we are not talking about tribal-wear in the deep jungle here…and of course he did not write the CCC but approved it…here is what that Catechism says on this:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

2526 So called moral permissiveness rests on an erroneous conception of human freedom; the necessary precondition for the development of true freedom is to let oneself be educated in the moral law. Those in charge of education can reasonably be expected to give young people instruction respectful of the truth, the qualities of the heart, and the moral and spiritual dignity of man.

2527 "The Good News of Christ continually renews the life and culture of fallen man; it combats and removes the error and evil which flow from the ever-present attraction of sin. It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes, and restores them in Christ."315
 
Bookcat said:
I do not think Pope John Paul II would be in favor of such behaviors …we are not talking about tribal-wear in the deep jungle here…and of course he did not write the CCC but approved it…here is what that Catechism says on this:

2521…
2522…
2523…
2524…
2525…
2526…
2527…
Click to expand...
I’ve already read what the CCC says regarding dress, including all of what you cited. The CCC, which is designed to be a “sure norm for teaching the faith” rather than exclusively dogma (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html), contains nothing that I know of that’s contrary to the position that there may be some situations (perhaps rare) when public nudity is morally acceptable. Perhaps you could find other portions of the CCC that are contrary to this position or show me how the paragraphs you cited are.

The moral virtue of modesty is based on fairly simple moral principles (such as the body must be treated with proper respect), but the application of these principles isn’t always easy.

Here’s more context of the quote:

"Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty…Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness…Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful …Shamelessness [just like shame and modesty] is a function of the interior of a person.” (emphasis added)

JPII, Love and Responsibility.

I’m not calling for public nudity, I’m just saying that it may be morally acceptable.
 
Thanks you all for your comments.

I am trying to find objective attitude toward modesty and the human body.

So thanks particularly to you Bookcat for quoting the CCC on modesty.

Yet, I think we are relativistic about it without realising it.

For instance, they are countries and cultures where western clothing is seen as immodest. We don’t even need to go as far as pointing out regular western swimsuits.
A swimsuit that a good western catholic may consider acceptable may be found deeply immodest somewhere in Asia or Africa buy an other good catholic. And he these CCC quote could seem supporting enough.
What we consider alright today would be seen as immodest by Catholics of few hundred years ago.

What one catholic may see as encouraging voyerism, an other catholic from a different part of the world may see is a alright. Beside, voyerism explotation still happens on regular beaches…

This seems to be a test to our Faith, the fact that we are not supposed to get with the spirit of the age, but to embrace what it true at all times and everywhere…the unchangin truth.

In this line of thought, it seems to me that God has already set it: fashions changes but our bodies do not change. So is it really the body that troubles us, or the fashions (and languages -meaning- associated with them) ?

It seems to me that lust is more caused by fashions than by the body. Of course if fashions have been preaching poisoneous message about the body, we will get the body wrong. Satan could be getting us to hide the body so much that we will never know the message God speaks to us through it. When the body is not hiden, the devil make sure it is desplayed as much immodestly as possible so the message is still distorted. So what’s the best way to fight the devil?

This is my reason of pondering the appropriateness of nudity in the context of swimming: at beaches.
 
nablaise said:
I am trying to find objective attitude toward modesty and the human body.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the only thing that is absolute regarding the morality of dress are principles, the applications of which are frustratingly subjective and often very political.
nablaise said:
This seems to be a test to our Faith, the fact that we are not supposed to get with the spirit of the age, but to embrace what it true at all times and everywhere…the unchangin truth.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, using the body as an object of lust isn’t exclusive to the current age. In every age, Christians aught to uphold the value and beauty of the human body. This may be done by covering the body in manners and situations likely to give rise to lust, but may (perhaps less frequently) be done in properly viewing the human body unclothed (such as when viewing many nude statues and painting in the Vatican museum).
nablaise said:
In this line of thought, it seems to me that God has already set it: fashions changes but our bodies do not change. So is it really the body that troubles us, or the fashions (and languages -meaning- associated with them) ?
Click to expand...
Scholarly research confirms that the meanings and effects of nudity vary greatly from culture to culture.

versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1933-02865-001&CFID=9249663&CFTOKEN=16651498

Some research shows that nudity among nudists does not stimulate eroticism (scribd.com/doc/30328401/Sexual-Modesty-Social-Meanings-And-the-Nudist-Camp ), which is probably because nudists don’t view nudity as a sexual thing. On the other hand, in the US, where nudity is most often viewed as a sexual thing and people aren’t used to look at the body outside of sex, more porn is sadly consumed than any other place in the world (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf ).
nablaise said:
So what’s the best way to fight the devil?
Click to expand...
I think that the best way to fight the devil in regards to dress is to be OK with displaying the human body in appropriate contexts and covering up appropriately in other contexts…

I mean, in the past social nudity was acceptable in various contexts (such as all-male YMCAs banning clothes in pool areas decades ago), yet in other situations they were stricter than today’s standards (wearing suits to Mass). Today, is seems that any exposure to the body is taboo, and hence is sexualized from adolescence onwards. Other cultures, were situational public nudity is more acceptable, seem to have less problems with lust. A priest who my brother met at Ave Maria said that he thought the puritan approach to nudity people tend to have in the US has lead to more sexual sin in the US than where he came from in Europe (remember, he’s heard confessions on both sides of the ocean).

Other studies regarding the social effects of nudity:

accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34711618_ITM
sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJN-4G7JXXW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01/31/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6883&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fee01b9b4a0b185375bc154173c7690b
dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf
 
Ponyguy said:
I’ve never been to a “skin beach” and probably never will.

There was a lengthy thread about “nudity” here at CAF a few weeks ago, and the report from one CAF member was almost humorous. His daughter (I think) was studying in France, and one warm day, she and some of her friends decided to go to the beach. Most of France’s beaches are either “topless” (I guess the new, politically correct term is now “top free”) or “clothing-optional.” These young American women didn’t realize this, and were allegedly shocked at what they saw… her report was that very, very few of those nude or partially nude bodies amounted to anything close to what might be termed “temptation;” most of what they saw was almost sickening… (I guess maybe those nude beaches should be restricted to “hot bodies” only…) Ancient bodies, wrinkles, rolls of fat, bulging bellies, saggy bottoms, flabby arms and such all combined to give the girl some bad memories of what a French nude beach was like.

The nude bathers? “Lustworthy” they were definitely NOT! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/yuk.gif
Click to expand...
Well stated. Of course even this could give rise to the temptation speak of others in an unchristian manner. So I guess lust would not be the only temptation in this.

Peace
James
 
I’m confused. I’ve lived in Europe for half of my adult life and we’ve always just taken clothing-optional/topless beaches for granted.
Have I been sinning all this time? 🤷
 
i would never go to a beach without clothes i would be very embaressed to do so besides for a man to go and look at naked woman is the same as looking at porno magazines or x rated movies i see no difference. read the story in bible of adam and eve
 
bcra said:
i would never go to a beach without clothes i would be very embaressed to do so besides for a man to go and look at naked woman is the same as looking at porno magazines or x rated movies i see no difference. read the story in bible of adam and eve
Click to expand...
True if we consider the difference between GOING TO LOOK WITH LUST AT and GOING TO BEACH where naked women might be.

The word of the Lord speaks of ‘looking with lust’ it does not say anything about clothing or not clothing. As we know, a man can even be guilty of adultery by looking at his own wife with lust.
 
Musician said:
I’m confused. I’ve lived in Europe for half of my adult life and we’ve always just taken clothing-optional/topless beaches for granted.
Have I been sinning all this time? 🤷
Click to expand...
The Puritans have really influenced American culture in many subtitle and not so subtitle ways.
bcra said:
i would never go to a beach without clothes i would be very embaressed to do so besides for a man to go and look at naked woman is the same as looking at porno magazines or x rated movies i see no difference. read the story in bible of adam and eve
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Vatican museum displays porn? After all, the Vatican museum has many paintings and sculptures of naked men and women. I saw many of them two of the three times I went to Rome. Just look at the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling. Here’s some pictures (history.hanover.edu/courses/art/111ren.html ).

What about nude paintings and sculptures in major basilicas like St. Peter’s?

Looking at a naked woman MAY be like looking at porn, but it depends on the intent.
 
It is interesting to note that Jesus didn’t condemn Peter for being naked in public in John 21:7.

Also, many of the early Christians were baptized naked.

Nudity as such I hasn’t really been viewed as such an evil thing in the past as it is today.
 
It is interesting to note that Jesus didn’t condemn Peter for being naked in public in John 21:7. He was not naked…

Also, many of the early Christians were baptized naked. Men by men and women by women…not all together…this is why they had “deaconesses”…which were non-ordained women who helped with baptism…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top