Clothing Optional Beaches

[Bookcat]

You were probably looking at a translation of the Bible that is slightly less literal. The exact meaning of the words in John 21:7 is debatable.

John 21:7, with the original words, approximate meaning of those words, and the other places in the Bible where those same words appear, can be seen at blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#top. Click on “C” for the original words. The exact meaning is debatable.

The word which indicates that Peter was naked (my interpretation) or that he was only wearing inner garments, is “gymnos”. This word appears in Matt 25:36-44 (“you found me naked and you clothed me…”), Mark 14:51-52 (man fleeing naked from Gethsemane, which it uses “gymnos” to describe his body before and after he lost the only cloth he was wearing (see various translations of this passage to see what I mean)), Acts 19:16 (possessed man), 1 Cor 15:37, 2 Cor 5:3, Hebrews 4:13, James 2:15, Rev 3:17, Rev 16:15, and Rev 17:16.

I recommend looking at these for context and forming your own opinion.

Exegesis is not just “words”…tis been understood that Peter was not naked in the “full naked sense” but stripped for work…with some sort of work garment on…as noted above. Also …RSV is closer to the literal as a translation …

 

[Bookcat]

Part 1/2

Actually, it’s (somewhat) the other way around IMHO. There are moral principles one must abide by regarding dress, such as don’t dress in a way that stimulates lust or degrades the body, but the applications of these principles depend on the context. Contexts determine the morality of dress, and the virtue of modesty is the virtue by which one dresses appropriately and respects the body. It entails hiding what should remain hidden (CCC 2521) and inspires one’s choice of clothing (CCC 2522). Note: the Catholic Church has never officially said that any particular parts of the body should always and everywhere remain hidden. It takes prudence to discern what should not be revealed in a given situation.

The Church does not say it is the beach…so hey bare it all! It is inferred that ordinarily…they are to be hidden…except for example…for doctor’s examinations…hospitals…Marriage…etc…the Church is VERY clear that there are aspects that one should “REFUSE” to unveil… The Catechism states regarding modesty: means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.…yes of course there are contexts where such is permitted…like doctors offices…but even there it is still done trying to maintain the persons dignity…

I think JPII said it well regarding the virtue of modesty when he said:

"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)

Actually Pope John Paul did not say this. He was not Pope at the time…it is not Papal teaching…but having noted this yes…of course I have read and studied LR …what he did not MEAN is that it is FINE TO RUN AROUND NAKED ON THE BEACH! Such would be a misunderstanding of his ideas and later teachings…

I think this quote by JPII is solid because he concisely laid down principles regarding dress, while viewing nudity as such as not violating these principles (although it may be depending on intent).

The Catholic Church has NOT, to my knowledge, offered any authoritative interpretation of this passage. Individual Catholic theologians and translators, even those hired by the Vatican, may have strong opinions on the matter, but they aren’t dogmatic by any stretch of the imagination. If you find any official interpretation of this by the Catholic Church I’d like to know.

The Church though has given authoritative teachings on modesty…and being naked on the beach is not part of this…rather we are exhorted to protect chastity by modesty etc refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden

Do you have evidence that he was not naked. The word “gymnos” could mean partially naked (although usually it mean fully naked), but considering that most fisherman at that time I think worked in the nude, it’s reasonable to interpret it that way.

I gave it above from 2 scholars of fame.

Plus, I’m not an expert on the original language, but I can’t see any phrase where the “for he was stripped for work” phrase in the original text.

I do not know Greek…sorry. …but This is how it has been understood…even where a translation may add context for understanding in places…this is for the purpose of undertstanding if it is a good translation…and the commentators I mentioned…noted it meant this as well…and they knew Greek etc

If that has been the consensus interpretation, then I disagree with the consensus interpretation.

I am sure there is much that had gone into this understanding…perhaps…well above your education…or mine …even at such a fine School…

Both this interpretation and mine are plausible but unprovable. I’m going to stick to my interpretation because (I think) it was common for slaves to wear one piece of clothing (an undergarment) while working, like it seems may be what Exod 22:26-27 is referring to.

If you stick to an interpretation cause it fits what one wants it to say,…that is an approach taken among some protestants …not an approach we want to take…the towel was added onto what he was wearing for the sake of function…in drying the feet…

 

[kenofken]

A few years ago I spent an afternoon at a nude beach (Wreck Beach) in Vancouver. There is something to be said about prolonged nudity de-eroticizing the experience. After a time, it is comfortable, but rather boring. I suppose the fact that half the people there were old dudes that looked like late-stage Jerry Garcia helped, although there were plenty of younger people too. Besides, if your thoughts did get a little too “distracting,” the 50 degree water of the Pacific up there cured that in short order.

 

[Bookcat]

Both this interpretation and mine are plausible but unprovable. I’m going to stick to my interpretation because (I think) it was common for slaves to wear one piece of clothing (an undergarment) while working, like it seems may be what Exod 22:26-27 is referring to.

If you stick to an interpretation cause it fits what one wants it to say,…that is an approach taken among some protestants …not an approach we want to take…

PS: you may not be doing that of course…but it is a temptation for all of us…be open to change…even back to where you were etc

 

[Bookcat]

PS: In LR Pope John Paul II …expressly mentions the use of bathing suits for the purpose of swimming…never that being naked on the beach…as ok…(not saying you said this…but I thought I should not it)

 

[Bookcat]

PS: I mentioned our discussion and your thesis my wife…including regarding Europe and USA …now my wife is from Europe…and has a Master’s Degree in Theology from a Pontifical institution there…

her response??

she laughed…

and was rather shocked that you would be arguing all of this…

(she is in agreement with me…)

(of course no disrespect is meant …just was her honest response…I mention it due to her being from Europe…and I know you mean well and I know the mind of an avid student seeking out things……but really this is not the road to go on…)

 

[edwest2]

Here is just another attempt to make public nudity ok. This goes hand in hand with women degrading themselves in public with thong bikinis and g-strings. Very sad.

This amounts to contract style negotiating. Example:

OK everyone. Let’s turn to page 8, paragraph 3. When is a swim suit not a swim suit? When over 95% of the woman’s bare flesh is exposed.

Party B. We object to your conclusion that a thong and g-string combination constitutes a “bathing suit” by any definition.

Party B: What’s the point of ‘clothing optional’ beaches? Anybody? Just cause I feel like it? So a naked woman on a beach is not the same thing as a naked woman in your bedroom? Please. Quit pouring water on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

God bless,
Ed

 

[nablaise]

I think Americans have a LOT more problems with lust than most of the world does. Sexual sins are committed in every culture on planet Earth, but the US is hand-down the largest consumer of porn in the world (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf), and also the culture that probably has the least exposure to the human body.

And the greatest producer as well…

God bless

 

[nablaise]

he was stripped for work…not working nude

All that discussion may not really be all necessary.
Concerning beaches, people stripp for swim. They only strip at different degrees.
The good news of Christ is that man is not defiled by what he consumes,
but by what he produce from his heart. Christians don’t change the world by regulating it, but by changin their own heart and shining the light of God into the darkness.

Fact is, a fully dressed person can cause more sin than a fully nude person.
As far as lust springs from lies/distortion of truth…
We should not waste our time arguing whether people should dress or undress,
But how people should dress properly and be nude properly.
The point here is Truth:
God wills that his image in man be transmitted/received undistorted.
And this is the point of the Church I am sure.

Mark Shea wrote a wonderful article titled :Cloth The Naked. He highlight the true meaning of ‘nakedness’ and ‘clothing’. I recommend it.

God bless

 

[edwest2]

And the greatest producer as well…

God bless

“least exposure to the human body”? “largest consumer of porn”? Does anyone else see the obvious contradiction?

God bless,
Ed

 

[nablaise]

A few years ago I spent an afternoon at a nude beach (Wreck Beach) in Vancouver. There is something to be said about prolonged nudity de-eroticizing the experience. After a time, it is comfortable, but rather boring. I suppose the fact that half the people there were old dudes that looked like late-stage Jerry Garcia helped, although there were plenty of younger people too. Besides, if your thoughts did get a little too “distracting,” the 50 degree water of the Pacific up there cured that in short order.

I have been there.
When the Sistine Chapel was put online, I made a virtual tour and wondered if there is any place where people could be nearly as confortable with nudity. I remembered someone talking about Wreck beach. I looked it up and found that it was at university and that it was not nudists, but clothing-optional. I thought that there must be some academic connection to it. It looks like a university beach…why would a universtiy give its whole beach space to nudists? May be there was academic debate and they decided to make it clothing-optional…

There were more dressed people than nudes.
Apparently, according to its website, some nudists there feel like those who are dressed are mostly there to watch them. It is unavoidable that some may go there like tourists and others with voyeristic inclinations. However, some of the dressed ones are practicing and trying to be confortable with being nude.

I did not see anything particularly insane that can not be seen on regular beaches. However, to approch it with a cleaner and confident heart, I would recommend a big immersion in Theology of the Body. Before going there, I reviewed my TOB: lots of Christopher West and other teachers.

God bless

 

[nablaise]

“least exposure to the human body”? “largest consumer of porn”? Does anyone else see the obvious contradiction?

God bless,
Ed

I think he meant least exposure to ‘clean’ human body…‘clean’ language

The human body speaks.
We should not hang around blasphemers…
in porn, the nude body is used to curse and blaspheme the Lord. Porn abuse the image of God.

But the human body is not a curse, nor is its natural language a cursing or blaspheming language.

America is the least exposed to ‘clean’ language of the human body.

I am from Africa. I have seen childreen up to 13 swim nude even in public…boys and girls. I would not say that it was porn…very far from it. I have seen grown up men swimming in the nude on occasion in rivers in Congo…I am sure women did the same thing as there were at times women areas…This was very far from porn.

God bless

 

[edwest2]

I think he meant least exposure to ‘clean’ human body…normal according to the norm of God.

The human body speaks.
In the sistine Chapel for instance, the nude body bless the Lord.
in porn, the nude body curse and blaspheme the Lord.

I am from Africa. I have seen childreen up to 13 swim nude even in public…boys and girl. I would not say that it was porn…very far from it. I have seen grown up men swimming in the nude on occasion in rivers in Congo…I am sure women did the same thing perhaps in women areas…This was very far from porn.

God bless

I have seen this pattern before: show some exceptions to the rule. Exploit this opening by referring to “real” art or foreign cultures.

I am interested in promoting modesty in the West, which includes North America and Western Europe. I recall in the 1960s and 1970s, hearing that Europe was more ‘progressive’ than America. I then found out what that meant: open nudity, partial nudity and more explicit sexual publications. Not progressive at all.

I recall hearing how “artists” in the late 1960s wanted their freedom. Translation: excuses to show some skin or non-explicit sexual scenes for “art.” I actually believed them for a while because they explained in serious tones that it was important to telling the “story.” When Adult Bookstores appeared, telling the story went out the window. And what kinds of books were they selling? Skakespeare, Chaucer, Milton? No. Pictures of prostitutes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[nablaise]

I have seen this pattern before: show some exceptions to the rule. Exploit this opening by referring to “real” art or foreign cultures.

I am interested in promoting modesty in the West, which includes North America and Western Europe. I recall in the 1960s and 1970s, hearing that Europe was more ‘progressive’ than America. I then found out what that meant: open nudity, partial nudity and more explicit sexual publications. Not progressive at all.

I recall hearing how “artists” in the late 1960s wanted their freedom. Translation: excuses to show some skin or non-explicit sexual scenes for “art.” I actually believed them for a while because they explained in serious tones that it was important to telling the “story.” When Adult Bookstores appeared, telling the story went out the window. And what kinds of books were they selling? Skakespeare, Chaucer, Milton? No. Pictures of prostitutes.

God bless,
Ed

I am a Catholic trying to speak from a catholic perspective. You are speaking like a conservative westerner against progressive westerners. I think you are getting me wrong.
Pictures of prostitures are clearly not a ‘clean’ language I am talking about.
I am new in the West, and I am traditionally ‘conservative’. You can be at peace that I dont’ have any liberal/progressive agenda I am promoting. I am just reflecting on Christian morality. If any consolation, Michael and his Vortex are one of my internet favorites

I am up to promoting modesty. But as you know, we do not change the world by running away from it, but by CONVERTING it. The progressive are not up to changing the world, but to conform to it.

God bless

 

[kenofken]

I have been there.
When the Sistine Chapel was put online, I made a virtual tour and wondered if there is any place where people could be nearly as confortable with nudity. I remembered someone talking about Wreck beach. I looked it up and found that it was at university and that it was not nudists, but clothing-optional. I thought that there must be some academic connection to it. It looks like a university beach…why would a universtiy give its whole beach space to nudists? May be there was academic debate and they decided to make it clothing-optional…
"

It is in fact below the bluffs where the university sits. I don’t believe it’s university property, although I could be wrong about that. It wasn’t a specific “nudist” resort. I suppose clothing optional is more accurate, although no one exercised that option when I was there until the end of the day when it was time to go back up to regular society. (Some, including my dear wife, wore something). Nobody was disrespectful and I found that in general people were more respectful of personal boundaries and each other’s dignity than in clothed society.

An interesting aside, it gave you a great deal of exercise. The stairway leading down to the beach is so long you have to take breaks walking DOWN. The uphill you can well imagine. The rich folks had boats to take them off the beach. Even the homeless guys who scavenge aluminum cans are nude during the day. With the sun exposure and living outdoors, they had turned the color of the earth itself and were in remarkable shape from making that climb every day. Those guys scampered up that bluff like Smeagol from Lord of the Rings. You can’t buy entertainment like that (a relief to most of you perhaps).

I won’t attempt to argue for or against it based on Catholic values, as I am pagan and have no prohibitions (or particular agenda) as regards nudity. I will suggest that an idea has only as much power over you as you grant it. By clinging so tightly to the idea that the human body is something prurient and an “occaision for sin”, you make it so.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

I’m responding late because I’ve been away from my computer all day.

The Church does not say it is the beach…so hey bare it all! It is inferred that ordinarily…they are to be hidden…except for example…for doctor’s examinations…hospitals…Marriage…etc…the Church is VERY clear that there are aspects that one should “REFUSE” to unveil… The Catechism states regarding modesty: means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.…yes of course there are contexts where such is permitted…like doctors offices…but even there it is still done trying to maintain the persons dignity…

The Catholic Church doesn’t definitively give ANY particulars. She may offer particulars, which was what Marylike Modesty was, but these aren’t doctrinal.

When CCC 2521 says that “[Modesty] means refusing to reveal what should remain hidden,” it doesn’t say what is to be hidden, it just says that those things that are to remain hidden should remain hidden for modesty to be retained.

BTW, it is possible, with the right steps taken, to disagree with a non-infallible teaching in the CCC and remain a Catholic in good standing (lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html), but that’s a topic for another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259&page=10).

Actually Pope John Paul did not say this. He was not Pope at the time…it is not Papal teaching…but having noted this yes…of course I have read and studied LR …what he did not MEAN is that it is FINE TO RUN AROUND NAKED ON THE BEACH! Such would be a misunderstanding of his ideas and later teachings…

Are you saying JPII didn’t write L&R at all, or that he didn’t write L&R AS POPE regarding doctrine? I know L&R isn’t Catholic Church teaching, but it’s compatible with it. I never was using L&R as binding teachings of the CC.

I mentioned that the good thing about this quote is that it laid down principles, rather than particulars. JPII, in the general area in L&R where he wrote what I quoted, said that the principles are easy to understand, but their application may be difficult to discern, and individuals may highly disagree with them (the applications). I’m guessing that JPII usually won’t be OK with people walking naked at a beach, but that’s a matter of application, which is largely contingent on the social and psychological effects dress (or lack thereof) has. However, this is getting more into social sciences, where Catholics may disagree.

The Church though has given authoritative teachings on modesty…and being naked on the beach is not part of this…rather we are exhorted to protect chastity by modesty etc refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden

If the CC has given authoritative teachings on particulars, as opposed to principles, regarding modesty, can you cite any binding teaching of the CC that contradicts my view?

Yes, the CC has said that one aught to refuse what should remain hidden, but has the CC ever definitively said what particulars should be hidden in all or some circumstance? The CC may have informally offered particulars (such as with “Marylike modesty), but nothing that Catholics are bound to hold as a formal teaching of the CC.

Plus, I’m not an expert on the original language, but I can’t see any phrase where the “for he was stripped for work” phrase in the original text.

I do not know Greek…sorry. …but This is how it has been understood…even where a translation may add context for understanding in places…this is for the purpose of undertstanding if it is a good translation…and the commentators I mentioned…noted it meant this as well…and they knew Greek etc

Looking at the words used, it was clear this phrase was added.

Both this interpretation and mine are plausible but unprovable. I’m going to stick to my interpretation because (I think) it was common for slaves to wear one piece of clothing (an undergarment) while working, like it seems may be what Exod 22:26-27 is referring to.

If you stick to an interpretation cause it fits what one wants it to say,…that is an approach taken among some protestants …not an approach we want to take…

I specifically said why I’m holding to this interpretation (pending sufficient evidence that it’s wrong). It was not “cause it fits what * it to say” (strawman), but because “it was common for slaves to wear one piece of clothing (an undergarment) while working”. Thus it seems that there is at least a 50% change of this being correct.

Enough with John 21:7. I meant it only to make a point, but then got carried away. If you want to say more about it I’ll try to restrain myself and let you get the last words on this verse.

PS: In LR Pope John Paul II …expressly mentions the use of bathing suits for the purpose of swimming…never that being naked on the beach…as ok…(not saying you said this…but I thought I should not it)

I’m sure that JPII disagrees with me on applications of principles behind modesty. However, I see no theological difference. His position is open to the nude human body potentially being modest, even if that would be extremely rare.*

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

PS: I mentioned our discussion and your thesis my wife…including regarding Europe and USA …now my wife is from Europe…and has a Master’s Degree in Theology from a Pontifical institution there…

her response??

she laughed…

and was rather shocked that you would be arguing all of this…

(she is in agreement with me…)

(of course no disrespect is meant …just was her honest response…I mention it due to her being from Europe…and I know you mean well and I know the mind of an avid student seeking out things……but really this is not the road to go on…)

First, Many cultures within Europe are different from other cultures within Europe. The same is true in North America. Mexico (although I’ve never been there) is I’m sure much different from the US and Canada. Many people in the US used to be weirded out by Mexican culture, which actually had a lot to do with marijuana being made illegal in the early 20th century.

Second, she can disagree all she wants, but there seems to be reasonable evidence that demonizing mere exposure of the human body is correlated (I think somewhat causally) with problems with lust.

Thirdly, it seems that places in Europe that are most like the US when it comes to social nudity have more issues with lust and porn than other parts of Europe. Unfortunately, I don’t yet have research from journal articles to back this (regarding Europe in particular) up yet, although it would be an interesting thing to research. I have some evidence, not specific to Europe, that seems to back this up though. For some of this evidence, see post 12.

Forth, a lot of this, perhaps most of it, falls outside the realm of theology and into social sciences. I say this because the morality of dress is highly contingent on its effects on individuals and societies. The moral principles of dress are laid down by the CC. You said, “we are exhorted to protect chastity by modesty etc refusing to unveil that which should remain hidden,” but it is up to social sciences to answer the question, “what clothing practices must be adopted to least tempt one to sexual sin.”

Moral theologians have to appeal to social sciences when discerning particulars like these in various theologically-relevant contexts. This is part of the reason why pastors need at least an elementary understanding in social sciences when giving pastoral advice.

“least exposure to the human body”? “largest consumer of porn”? Does anyone else see the obvious contradiction?

This isn’t a contradiction. Exposure to the human body does not equal porn. Porn is material meant to arouse one sexually, and is thus a sexual thing. Nudity itself isn’t a sexual thing (although it tends to be viewed that way in the US).

Porn involves exposure of the human body, but exposure of the human may or may not be pornographic.

In fact, I think it’s sad that the only exposure people nowadays in the US get to the human body tends to be sexual. I think our society has over-sexed nudity and it is causing problems with lust.

I’m sure that you don’t think that boys who, decades ago, weren’t allowed to wear clothes in the pool areas of YMCAs were lusting after each other.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Church doesn’t definitively give ANY particulars.

walking around naked is a “do not eat the daisies thing” she does not have to say this!

When CCC 2521 says that “[Modesty] means refusing to reveal what should remain hidden,” it doesn’t say what is to be hidden, it just says that those things that are to remain hidden should remain hidden for modesty to be retained.

this one is obvious …what it means…and for sure being buck naked on the beach surely has met the mark at what should not be refused to be unveiled! for there is noting left!

Are you saying JPII didn’t write L&R at all, or that he didn’t write L&R AS POPE regarding doctrine? I know L&R isn’t Catholic Church teaching, but it’s compatible with it. I never was using L&R as binding teachings of the CC.

I love LR…my point is you said Pope John Paul II said it and he did not…for it was before he was Pope…I practically wore out my copy during my 20’s

I mentioned that the good thing about this quote is that it laid down principles, rather than particulars. JPII, in the general area in L&R where he wrote what I quoted, said that the principles are easy to understand, but their application may be difficult to discern, and individuals may highly disagree with them (the applications). I’m guessing that JPII usually won’t be OK with people walking naked at a beach, but that’s a matter of application, which is largely contingent on the social and psychological effects dress (or lack thereof) has. However, this is getting more into social sciences, where Catholics may disagree.

this one would be in the don’t eat the daisies catagory…not something for practice…

If the CC has given authoritative teachings on particulars, as opposed to principles, regarding modesty, can you cite any binding teaching of the CC that contradicts my view?

I have the Catechism…it is authoritative…and pretty darn applical…one does not need an infallible work to know what the Church teaches in modesty

Yes, the CC has said that one aught to refuse what should remain hidden, but has the CC ever definitively said what particulars should be hidden in all or some circumstance? The CC may have informally offered particulars (such as with “Marylike modesty), but nothing that Catholics are bound to hold as a formal teaching of the CC.

“Marylike” modesty is not per se I think a teaching of the Church or a practical application today (if I know what you mean by this term)…but walking around naked is not going to be a good application of modesty for us

Looking at the words used, it was clear this phrase was added.

I specifically said why I’m holding to this interpretation (pending sufficient evidence that it’s wrong). It was not “cause it fits what * it to say” (strawman), but because “it was common for slaves to wear one piece of clothing (an undergarment) while working”. Thus it seems that there is at least a 50% change of this being correct.

Enough with John 21:7. I meant it only to make a point, but then got carried away. If you want to say more about it I’ll try to restrain myself and let you get the last words on this verse.

I stand with the exegetes mentioned et al and translations and how it has been understood…and my explaination…enough debating this…

I’m sure that JPII disagrees with me on applications of principles behind modesty. However, I see no theological difference. His position is open to the nude human body potentially being modest, even if that would be extremely rare.

I urge you while you are there to revise your positions…

and I wish you well in your education…*

 

[BobObob]

The Catholic Church doesn’t definitively give ANY particulars.

walking around naked is a “do not eat the daisies thing” she does not have to say this!

If your going to hold that it is the Catholic position that clothes-optional beaches are immoral, than the CC does need to say it.

When CCC 2521 says that “[Modesty] means refusing to reveal what should remain hidden,” it doesn’t say what is to be hidden, it just says that those things that are to remain hidden should remain hidden for modesty to be retained.

this one is obvious …what it means…and for sure being buck naked on the beach surely has met the mark at what should not be refused to be unveiled! for there is noting left!

The CCC doesn’t say that there must always be something covered. Put it this way, CCC 2521 says that modesty means covering up something IF it should be covered up. CCC 2521 does not exclude the possibility for the body to not be covered at all.

Are you saying JPII didn’t write L&R at all, or that he didn’t write L&R AS POPE regarding doctrine? I know L&R isn’t Catholic Church teaching, but it’s compatible with it. I never was using L&R as binding teachings of the CC.

I love LR…my point is you said Pope John Paul II said it and he did not…for it was before he was Pope…I practically wore out my copy during my 20’s

OK, it was written by Karol Wojtyla who latter became Pope John Paul II. I’ve seen publications written by Cardinal Ratzinger before JPII’s death being advertised as written by Pope Benedict XVI. When I hear of someone talking about JPII, Benedict XVI, or other people who were popes, I don’t exclude the possibility that they were talking about that person before they became pope.

I mentioned that the good thing about this quote is that it laid down principles, rather than particulars. JPII, in the general area in L&R where he wrote what I quoted, said that the principles are easy to understand, but their application may be difficult to discern, and individuals may highly disagree with them (the applications). I’m guessing that JPII usually won’t be OK with people walking naked at a beach, but that’s a matter of application, which is largely contingent on the social and psychological effects dress (or lack thereof) has. However, this is getting more into social sciences, where Catholics may disagree.

this one would be in the don’t eat the daisies catagory…not something for practice…

How do you know it’s not something for practice (clothes-optional beaches)? Have you done any research into the social science in this regard, or are you making assumptions? It may seem like common sense that clothes-optional beaches would lead to immorality in practice, but sometime social science disproves what was thought to be common sense.

If the CC has given authoritative teachings on particulars, as opposed to principles, regarding modesty, can you cite any binding teaching of the CC that contradicts my view?

I have the Catechism…it is authoritative…and pretty darn applical…one does not need an infallible work to know what the Church teaches in modesty

Actually, the CCC does not, in any way, contradict my views regarding modesty. You keep assuming that the “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” phrase means that the CC teaches that certain parts must always remain hidden (barring a greater evil). It does not.

Side note about the CCC. The wording that was used to give it whatever authoritativeness it has was, “I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.” (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html) Being a “sure norm for teaching the faith” is a bit too weak for it to be itself a source of teaching for which all Catholics are bound to. Stronger language would be used if it were authoritative. Rather, I view the CCC as a kind of compendium of previously defined teachings of the CCC. This would be for another thread though…

Yes, the CC has said that one aught to refuse what should remain hidden, but has the CC ever definitively said what particulars should be hidden in all or some circumstance? The CC may have informally offered particulars (such as with “Marylike modesty), but nothing that Catholics are bound to hold as a formal teaching of the CC.

“Marylike” modesty is not per se I think a teaching of the Church or a practical application today (if I know what you mean by this term)…but walking around naked is not going to be a good application of modesty for us

I’m not advocating walking on the street naked. However, I do think that a greater allowance of nudity in our culture, as well as allowing many, if not most, beaches to be clothes-optional would do a lot of good and NOT be contrary to what the CC teaches. If people have problems with lust when they see some skin, they should avoid such locations (which they don’t have a need to go to anyways).

I really think that a less puritanical view of the human body would reduce sexual sin in society. It seems that any culture which exposes parts of the human body in public which may be considered sexual in other cultures, isn’t lust-inducing in the one it is exposed in. For example, in many places in Africa, women go around in public topless. In those cultures, topless women don’t tempt men to lust. Note: I’m not saying women should walk around topless, I’m just making a point regarding the effects of casual exposure of the human body.

 

[Bookcat]

If your going to hold that it is the Catholic position that clothes-optional beaches are immoral, than the CC does need to say it.

Nope it does not…lots of things are note spelled out by the Magisterium …the Church is not a causistry book…

The CCC doesn’t say that there must always be something covered. Put it this way, CCC 2521 says that modesty means covering up something IF it should be covered up. CCC 2521 does not exclude the possibility for the body to not be covered at all.

round in circles we go…I must get off this ride…so I will refer you to my prior answers

OK, it was written by Karol Wojtyla who latter became Pope John Paul II. I’ve seen publications written by Cardinal Ratzinger before JPII’s death being advertised as written by Pope Benedict XVI. When I hear of someone talking about JPII, Benedict XVI, or other people who were popes, I don’t exclude the possibility that they were talking about that person before they became pope.

sure…but it is NOT papal teaching…and Pope Benedict would be the first to note this…but again there is no point to argue…I was formed by Karol Wojtyla’s LR…I wore it out…but then again you noted yourself that he would not agree with you here…

How do you know it’s not something for practice (clothes-optional beaches)? Have you done any research into the social science in this regard, or are you making assumptions? It may seem like common sense that clothes-optional beaches would lead to immorality in practice, but sometime social science disproves what was thought to be common sense.

theology…

Actually, the CCC does not, in any way, contradict my views regarding modesty. You keep assuming that the “[Modesty] means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden” phrase means that the CC teaches that certain parts must always remain hidden (barring a greater evil). It does not.

yes it does…around and round we go…

I’m not advocating walking on the street naked. However, I do think that a greater allowance of nudity in our culture, as well as allowing many, if not most, beaches to be clothes-optional would do a lot of good and NOT be contrary to what the CC teaches. If people have problems with lust when they see some skin, they should avoid such locations (which they don’t have a need to go to anyways).

I have and I do disagree…and the Church also would say it is also on the person not to tempt others…but then again I also note the very fact of walking around the beach naked has already “unveiled” it all!

I really think that a less puritanical view of the human body would reduce sexual sin in society. It seems that any culture which exposes parts of the human body in public which may be considered sexual in other cultures, isn’t lust-inducing in the one it is exposed in. For example, in many places in Africa, women go around in public topless. In those cultures, topless women don’t tempt men to lust. Note: I’m not saying women should walk around topless, I’m just making a point regarding the effects of casual exposure of the human body.

the ends do not justify the means (I know you are not intending this…but this is what it ends up being…it can go there easily)

and we are not talking tribal groups who have always been like that…we are talking about the beach

Look I wish you well …but we are going in circles here…