Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[Debora123]

Thank you.

But, OK; perhaps Rio was a bad example. I’m talking more in theory about places where casual nudity is not uncommon. What about “nudist camps”? Supposedly, the nudist culture is more about communing with nature than it is about the sex.

Well the Church remains silent on the issue of nudist colonies.

I am sure you will get some people who will say all is dandy with nudist colonies, others who will say absolutely not. As for myself, I like to just not make any conclusions in regards to the morality regarding nudist colonies simply because I know nothing about them, and since I’m not interested in joining one, I really don’t care lol.

Good question though. Perhaps that is one of those questions that only God can truly know the answer to, since He is the only one who knows the intention of those groups of people and what goes on in their heads and hearts. Thus the Church, in Her wisdom, remains silent on the issue.

 

[Walking_Home]

Haha you are in the moral theology section. Saying its a “sin” is not condemning someone. I have not asked you to speak towards the woman’s culpability or blame at all. Objectively is it a sin or not? If you can’t tell me if its a sin or not and why, how can you speak with any credibility on this subject in saying what is right and wrong? You have knocked down every point I have made, so I’m trying to figure out your idea of what is right and wrong with respect to modesty.

---

If being naked was “objectively” a sin – would a person sin when naked – at times when it is appropriate – for ex. some type of medical examination. Pope John Paul II – stated that total nudity – would not be “immodest”/inappropriate – in certain situations. So if nudity was “objectively” sinful – he would be condoning and telling us to sin.

 

[Debora123]

Haha you are in the moral theology section. Saying its a “sin” is not condemning someone. I have not asked you to speak towards the woman’s culpability or blame at all. Objectively is it a sin or not? If you can’t tell me if its a sin or not and why, how can you speak with any credibility on this subject in saying what is right and wrong? You have knocked down every point I have made, so I’m trying to figure out your idea of what is right and wrong with respect to modesty.

I think what WH meant is that whether or not it would be a sin would depend on a lot of things, primarily on the woman’s intent… and only God can know that. Thus she is saying that only God knows if there was sin there or not.

Let’s not forget, St Francis of Assisi walked down the street naked at one point. I hardly doubt it was a sin, considering his intentions and the nature of what he was doing. It was not of a sexual nature.

 

[Nate13]

I think what WH meant is that whether or not it would be a sin would depend on a lot of things, primarily on the woman’s intent… and only God can know that. Thus she is saying that only God knows if there was sin there or not.

Let’s not forget, St Francis of Assisi walked down the street naked at one point. I hardly doubt it was a sin, considering his intentions and the nature of what he was doing. It was not of a sexual nature.

Heres the original question:

What is the failure of a woman or man when they are unintentionally immodest then? Your arguments seem to almost say that unintentional immodesty is impossible. If a women goes out on the street in New York City stark naked, but with zero intent to be immodest and has pure intentions, did she commit a sin? Obviously the circumstances given mean she would not be committing a sin willfully so at worst it would be a venial sin. But did she commit a sin, and if so why was what she did sinful?

From the Catechism and thus why I continue to question this:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

The underlined section seems to me to say that one can be guilty of scandal even if it is not done intentionally. Obviously if their intentions were pure they would probably not be culpable or have a very low amount of culpability for their action. However it would still be a sin.

We should also remember that ignorance of sin is not always an excuse:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Sorry for all the quotes from the Catechism but I hope my point gets across. I made sure to underline the parts I’m referring to in particular. There is some confusion as to what a sin is as well. If I sin out of ignorance, my action is still a sin, I just may not be culpable for it. Having good intentions or not knowing does not change whether something is a sin, it changes culpability.

 

[edwest2]

The Church teaches us through the Catechism as well:

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu48.htm

And here is more valuable information:

"Modesty Standards

"How do we know what the Church approves? Has She given specific standards of modesty in dress?

   "Yes. On January 12, 1930, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, by mandate of Pope Pius XI, issued emphatic instructions on modesty of dress to all Bishops, directing them to insist on these prescriptions of September 24, 1928:

   “We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.”

   “ Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb.”

   "The feminine loss of the sense of modesty is indicated by Pope Pius XII who says, “How many girls there are who do not see any wrong doing in following certain shameless styles like so many sheep. They certainly would blush if they could guess the impression they make and the feelings they evoke in those who see them” (July 17, 1954).

     “O Christian mothers, if only you knew the future of distress and peril, of shame ill-restrained, that you prepare for your sons and daughters in imprudently accustoming them to live hardly clothed and in making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and the harm done the little ones whom heaven entrusted to your care, to be reared in Christian dignity and culture.”

   "The opinion which allows custom to decide the question of modesty is refuted by Pope Pius XII in one short sentence, “There always exists an absolute norm to be preserved” in modesty of dress. (Nov. 8, 1957.) Custom pays little attention to absolute norms, but is a product of another false principle, ”The majority cannot go wrong.” “Modesty is a matter of custom” is just as wrong as “Honesty is a matter of custom.”

"What about those who teach “What is customary does not affect us?”

"Pope Pius XII, again, calls this application of an ancient principle to modesty one of “the most insidious of sophisms.” He calls attention to the fact that some use this sophism “in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold.” (Nov. 8, 1957.)

T"he pronouncements of the Popes seem to make no distinctions for various types of garments. Thus, Pope Pius XII states that “An unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed,” without indicating any distinction of place, “on the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets, etc.” (Aug. 20, 1954). Further, His quotation of the “ancient poet” as saying that “Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity” (Ibid.) applies to all places, beach or elsewhere. American Modernists will be shocked to learn that His Eminence Enrique Cardinal Pla Y Daniel, Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, issued the following directives in 1959:

   “A special danger to morals is represented by public bathing at beaches, in pools and river banks . . . Mixed bathing between men and women which nearly always is a proximate occasion of sin and a scandal, must be avoided.”

Source: catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/purity.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Debora123]

Heres the original question:

From the Catechism and thus why I continue to question this:

The underlined section seems to me to say that one can be guilty of scandal even if it is not done intentionally. Obviously if their intentions were pure they would probably not be culpable or have a very low amount of culpability for their action. However it would still be a sin.

We should also remember that ignorance of sin is not always an excuse:

Sorry for all the quotes from the Catechism but I hope my point gets across. I made sure to underline the parts I’m referring to in particular.

Perhaps WH can explain herself better than you or I can explain her.

 

[Walking_Home]

Heres the original question:

From the Catechism and thus why I continue to question this:

The underlined section seems to me to say that one can be guilty of scandal even if it is not done intentionally. Obviously if their intentions were pure they would probably not be culpable or have a very low amount of culpability for their action. However it would still be a sin.

We should also remember that ignorance of sin is not always an excuse:

Sorry for all the quotes from the Catechism but I hope my point gets across. I made sure to underline the parts I’m referring to in particular.

---

So did Pope John Paul II – condone the sin of “immodesty/nudity”. “If” nudity is “objectively” sinful – it would be sinful in each and every situation and circumstance.

 

[Nate13]

Perhaps WH can explain herself better than you or I can explain her.

Its a tricky question, but I’m just trying to figure out by what standard modesty is determined if it has no relation to man’s lust. Pointing to “culture” is no help because culture and society formed their opinion on what is modest and what isn’t based on some guideline. If that guide line has nothing to do with what causes men to lust, I have no clue what it would be.

If there is no guideline that culture is basing their opinion on, why the heck should I listen to the standard my culture randomly set? There has to be some kind of objective guideline.

 

[Nate13]

---

So did Pope John Paul II – condone the sin of “immodesty/nudity”. “If” nudity is “objectively” sinful – it would be sinful in each and every situation and circumstance.

Your still not answering my question. I don’t know what the answer is, and I’m asking you if you do. If the answer to my question before is “yes it is a sin” then we know that immodesty can be sinful sometimes even if there is no intent. I do not know how to balance that with everything else we know, but that will get us somewhere to start from. I cannot think of anyone way to pin down what immodesty without relating it to men lusting. If you can please put your idea forward.

 

[severus68]

What makes a person’s culture the ultimate authority worth listening to on the concept of modesty? Especially when that culture’s idea of modesty is based a lot on what causes men to lust?

Re your question, I would say, what gives you the right to demand that another society see sin in something which they do not?
You are making a presumption and why are you referring to modesty with regard to women only?

 

[severus68]

---

That would speak of a deficiency of a Christ like attitude on the part of those others.

Yes.

 

[LilyM]

There are so many who appear to be so concerned with the sins of others, surely Jo has the right to be concerned about the sin of men blamed on women? Why then are so many men so worried about the sins of women I could well ask you.

I’ve seen plenty of mention of the sins of men. It is a sad and unfortunate truth, though, that threads like these focus much more on the modesty of women.

One major reason for this is that it is exclusively women, or men on behalf of women, who are the only ones in these threads stridently asserting a ‘right’ to wear, in so many words, either exactly what they please or exactly what everyone around them is wearing.

I do not see men getting all steamed up on their own behalf on CAF and demanding asserting that they should be free to wear teeny-weeny bathers or skin tight jeans or go shirtless wherever and whenever they please. If I did, I would assuredly be as frank with them as I am with women.

As if we, men or women, have ANY such thing as a ‘right’ to merely please ourselves by our clothing choice. Our bodies are a gift from God, created to be His instrument and His temple. And we show an understanding of that by our clothing choice, as surely as we do by any of our other choices and behaviors (sexual and otherwise).

I think chevalier makes some excellent points. While cultural acceptability is a component of standards of modesty, the catechism makes it very clear that it is far from the be-all and end-all, and indeed that in at least some cultures what passes as acceptable is a ravely deficient standard by which to determine modesty. That in those cultures we are called on to do more than merely not offend the majority around us.

I’m glad the issue was raised again, as I’d like to say something to Debora. I made comments about your wedding dress, which you took to be condemnatory. I unreservedly apologize, my words were poorly chosen.

My main frustration in threads like this is the constant reference to changing/different standards of modesty in different cultures, usually with the comment of ‘well, this is how most people dress in place xyz’ or ‘99% of people would think I’m dressed OK’ or ‘my family and friends see no problem with how I dress’.

God does not think like the people in your area, He does not think like 99% of people, and as wonderful as our family and friends might be, He doesn’t think like them either. So we can’t use them as the only standard by which to judge anything, including modesty. it would be no defence to amcharge of dressing immodestly, or indeed any other sin, to say to God ‘but everyone else thought it was OK’.

And so many of you seem to think of nothing beyond adhering to commonly worn styles of dress, and seem to have no real justification for what you wear beyond ‘oh well, it’s no worse than what other people do’.

I’m frustrated by the seeming lack of desire to go much beyond the bare (pun intended) minimum of acceptability in dress, to go beyond what seems to be a herd mentality, the apparent lack of desire to consider the many different layers of significance that our bodies, and how we choose to clothe them, have. Some of which totally (or should, when we are aware of them) transcend culture.

None of this, my dear beautiful Debora, is to say that your dress is in any way inappropriate. I was simply, and clumsily, putting to you the challenge I have tried to express better in the above paragraphs. Which is one I often have to put to myself, and about all sorts of things I do as well as how I dress.

 

[severus68]

In a world of concupiscence, what you say is impossible. If you forget the concept known as original sin or disregard its effects completely like some early heresies, then yes, you will end up with a view where possible everyone could go nude in society.

But Church teaching is clear, we are fallen creatures as a result of concupiscence. Our struggle is a life long one. Hence, our cultural standards of dress, conduct etc are based on the idea of preventing temptation to sin as well.

We are fallen creatures because of the Fall when the first men disobeyed God.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

So did Pope John Paul II – condone the sin of “immodesty/nudity”. “If” nudity is “objectively” sinful – it would be sinful in each and every situation and circumstance.

Your still not answering my question. I don’t know what the answer is, and I’m asking you if you do. If the answer to my question before is “yes it is a sin” then we know that immodesty can be sinful sometimes even if there is no intent. I do not know how to balance that with everything else we know, but that will get us somewhere to start from. I cannot think of anyone way to pin down what immodesty without relating it to men lusting. If you can please put your idea forward.

---

Going by Pope John Paul II — No – nudity is not objectively sinful.

 

[Nate13]

---

Going by Pope John Paul II — No – nudity is not objectively sinful.

Obviously, but can it ever be subjectively sinful if there is no mal intent? A woman walking naked down the street in New York City is cause for scandal is it not? And above it did say scandal is wrong even if it is unintentional did it not?

 

[severus68]

Thank you.

But, OK; perhaps Rio was a bad example. I’m talking more in theory about places where casual nudity is not uncommon. What about “nudist camps”? Supposedly, the nudist culture is more about communing with nature than it is about the sex.

My view is that there is nothing sinful about that. It is never about sex. People with all sorts of bodies walk around without qawking. I would think it is also about accepting our bodies.

 

[Nate13]

Re your question, I would say, what gives you the right to demand that another society see sin in something which they do not?
You are making a presumption and why are you referring to modesty with regard to women only?

Haha I’m not! I’m just trying to figure out what makes culture worth listening to in the first place!

I’d also add that by your reasoning not only can we not tell women in another culture that they should cover up better for the sake of modesty, we can also not tell women in Muslim countries to have more freedom in what they wear. Their culture says they must be completely covered to be modest, thus they can’t try and change that.

I’m not willing to accept either of these notions at face value. So again I’ll ask, how does culture come up with its standard of what is modest and what isn’t?

 

[severus68]

---

If being naked was “objectively” a sin – would a person sin when naked – at times when it is appropriate – for ex. some type of medical examination. Pope John Paul II – stated that total nudity – would not be “immodest”/inappropriate – in certain situations. So if nudity was “objectively” sinful – he would be condoning and telling us to sin.

Great answer.

 

[Debora123]

I’ve seen plenty of mention of the sins of men. It is a sad and unfortunate truth, though, that threads like these focus much more on the modesty of women.

One major reason for this is that it is exclusively women, or men on behalf of women, who are the only ones in these threads stridently asserting a ‘right’ to wear, in so many words, either exactly what they please or exactly what everyone around them is wearing.

I do not see men getting all steamed up on their own behalf on CAF and demanding asserting that they should be free to wear teeny-weeny bathers or skin tight jeans or go shirtless wherever and whenever they please. If I did, I would assuredly be as frank with them as I am with women.

As if we, men or women, have ANY such thing as a ‘right’ to merely please ourselves by our clothing choice. Our bodies are a gift from God, created to be His instrument and His temple. And we show an understanding of that by our clothing choice, as surely as we do by any of our other choices and behaviors (sexual and otherwise).

I think chevalier makes some excellent points. While cultural acceptability is a component of standards of modesty, the catechism makes it very clear that it is far from the be-all and end-all, and indeed that in at least some cultures what passes as acceptable is a ravely deficient standard by which to determine modesty. That in those cultures we are called on to do more than merely not offend the majority around us.

I’m glad the issue was raised again, as I’d like to say something to Debora. I made comments about your wedding dress, which you took to be condemnatory. I unreservedly apologize, my words were poorly chosen.

My main frustration in threads like this is the constant reference to changing/different standards of modesty in different cultures, usually with the comment of ‘well, this is how most people dress in place xyz’ or ‘99% of people would think I’m dressed OK’ or ‘my family and friends see no problem with how I dress’.

God does not think like the people in your area, He does not think like 99% of people, and as wonderful as our family and friends might be, He doesn’t think like them either. So we can’t use them as the only standard by which to judge anything, including modesty. it would be no defence to amcharge of dressing immodestly, or indeed any other sin, to say to God ‘but everyone else thought it was OK’.

And so many of you seem to think of nothing beyond adhering to commonly worn styles of dress, and seem to have no real justification for what you wear beyond ‘oh well, it’s no worse than what other people do’.

I’m frustrated by the seeming lack of desire to go much beyond the bare (pun intended) minimum of acceptability in dress, to go beyond what seems to be a herd mentality, the apparent lack of desire to consider the many different layers of significance that our bodies, and how we choose to clothe them, have. Some of which totally (or should, when we are aware of them) transcend culture.

None of this, my dear beautiful Debora, is to say that your dress is in any way inappropriate. I was simply, and clumsily, putting to you the challenge I have tried to express better in the above paragraphs. Which is one I often have to put to myself, and about all sorts of things I do as well as how I dress.

This was a very kind post, and I thank you for that, and for the compliment.

I’m not sure we will ever see eye to eye on this issue, but I appreciate your genuine attitude and openness.

 

[severus68]

I think what WH meant is that whether or not it would be a sin would depend on a lot of things, primarily on the woman’s intent… and only God can know that. Thus she is saying that only God knows if there was sin there or not.

Let’s not forget, St Francis of Assisi walked down the street naked at one point. I hardly doubt it was a sin, considering his intentions and the nature of what he was doing. It was not of a sexual nature.