As a late-comer, I have read what everyone has said or at least skimmed through the less sensitive parts that didn’t seem to require meticulous attention. I’ll try to avoid quoting anybody, though.
The teaching of the Church does not provide a legalistic, casuistic, detailed standard focused on counting the inches. And if it did, people would still find a way around it. However, as a previous poster has expressed so aptly, the “ethos” is constant.
The following two things cannot be denied:
case 1. that to incite lust in someone else on purpose is sinful (materially, please no casuistry with examples of imperfect intent or knowledge), this is more properly seduction than immodest and I am mentioning in order to underline that this type of thing is definitely not not be classified along with simple failures in modesty.
case 2. that to cause temptation to someone by being culpably negligent about modesty without actively intending to tempt that person is sinful.
In order to prevent some of the outcry from people for whom the above two points may pose issues, let me remind us that:
- any sin requires some measure of knowledge and consent
- mortal sin requires grave matter (something serious enough, a violation of a commandment of God or of the Church in a serious matter), full knowledge and consent
- a lot in specific details in modesty (but only in case 2 because intentionally inciting lust is objectively wrong) depends on the culture (from the Catechism, 2524: “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another”, please note “forms”).
Inciting lust (case #2) may be a little harder to narrow down. However, some clear examples can be named: intending to cause someone to desire to commit fornication or adultery with us physically (in an externally manifested way) or
in his heart (as in Mt 5:28), intending to cause someone to face a serious temptation to the above (the temptation of the other person is the object of our intent), intending to cause someone to give in to temptations of lustful thoughts, lustful imagination (e.g. intending to cause someone to start engaging in fantasising about sex with us).
Also “giving or receiving arousal” (to or from a non-spouse) used to be listed as a sin, much in line with old moral theology. I wonder if it still appears in this form in modern guides for examination of conscience, which seem to use a different type of language. To avoid causing doubt, this “arousal” does not include the not sexual excitation with someone’s company or even the perception that someone is attractive (when it stops being perception and starts to be reception, the problem starts—is basically the thought at least I understood from Love and Responsibility). Scholastic theology would talk about “venereal pleasure”, although it doesn’t specify the details (seems to be sensations in genitals). At any rate, building up sexual arousal is reserved for marriage because it’s in marital intercourse that sexual arousal can find legitimate release. Therefore we should not dress (or behave or otherwise act) in ways which are intended to arouse others sexually. We also shouldn’t dress (or etc.) in ways which are normally expected to arouse others sexually.
There may seem to be a little gap in the definitions because it is not wrong to be attracted or attractive, which obviously does include things like getting attention, seeking it from someone, wanting to be “registered” as attractive etc. I admit I am at a loss as to at which point exactly the wrong kind of stimulation starts. On the other hand, our behaviour, including our choice of clothing, should not become some kind of sexual activity, some kind of foreplay.
And I actually have a problem with topless on the beach in Europe, and am from Europe (though not a country where this is done by locals). I can understand talk about sunshine etc. and I can listen to someone who tries to claim, scientifically, that male chests are as attractive to females as otherwise. But the whole topless trend seems to be about being sexy, which does not seem to be modest to me.
I don’t know if “sexy” crosses the line where the forbidden stimulation starts. However, the Catechism’s statements do call for a purification of the climate: “Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate” (2525) (purification as opposed to bringing unhealthy sexual curiosity to the forefront). They also say that, “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,” therefore trying to cause “unhealthy curiosity” or even being nonchalant about it, is not modest.
Please note that, “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,” (2523). I do not presume to explain the Catechism. But clear logic shows that from the point of view of the Catechism, there is a problem with modern fashion and the attitude of the media. And the advertisements (which do not actually show full nudity, it tends to be kinky underwear and suggestive poses, or something similar).
Permissiveness must be avoided: “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,” (2526).
