Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[bmullins]

As I posted in reply to the person, the position is anything but Catholic. So I assume you mean that according to the best of your knowledge it looks Catholic?

Could you show me in detail and using the Catechism how the position above is ‘anything but Catholic?’ I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Debora123]

I’ve heard modesty called a relative virtue and not an absolute virtue, but I haven’t heard it called a static or dynamic virtue. I suppose that one could call it dynamic since it changes relative to the conditions. For instance, it would be immodest to go shirtless to Mass, if you’re male or female, but if you’re a man who works construction or for the public works department and it’s a hot day, going shirtless might be the difference between keeping cool or getting badly dehydrated. It would be immodest to go completely naked if you’re walking down the street, but it would be absurd to not take your clothes off if you’re taking a shower (read this one book on Christian virtue which I nearly pitched out the window, since it recommended trying to be modest, even in the privacy of one’s bedroom with the door shut and the blinds drawn, while one is undressing in order to change one’s clothes, since you don’t want to tempt your guardian angel. I’m not making that one up.)

First of all, good post.

Second, the bolded part is HILARIOUS!!!

 

[passer_by]

Could you show me in detail and using the Catechism how the position above is ‘anything but Catholic?’ I see nothing wrong with it.

Aah, that is a simple matter my friend.

The position of JoArtist is that

‘we must dress modestly in order to help men who are struggling with lust’.

To the contrary, the Catechism warns us about Concupiscence

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God,** but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.**

So the reason for Modesty, is in fact to help entire mankind that is struggling with Concupiscence, not just ones struggling with lust issues.

Now I can go on to some more writings of Church fathers like St. Augustine as well but I am sure you get the point. If you are interested for a detailed discussion, the following will interest you

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1087

 

[bmullins]

The position of JoArtist is that ‘we must dress modestly in order to help men who are struggling with lust’.

I don’t see that position espoused in the quote that you were commenting on. All I see is a discussion on the perception of modesty being relative to culture. In fact, I read it as completely the opposite. It seemed to me JoArtist was saying that you can’t blame your struggling lust on dress, but the opposite that men who are going to lust are going to lust no matter how you dress (which is true.)

 

[Nate13]

Could you show me in detail and using the Catechism how the position above is ‘anything but Catholic?’ I see nothing wrong with it.

They are not wrong, but they continue to fail to present the big picture in a coherent manner.

It would be like if I told you to listen to what the Church taught and follow that, but was not able to tell you why you should listen to what the Church says.

We are being told “look to your culture for what is modest”, yet they have yet to describe a way of determining whether our culture’s standard is right or not.

If there are objective principles by which a culture’s idea of modesty is based on, then there would be objective principles by which modesty is based on in general.

 

[bmullins]

Wouldn’t the answer be simple common sense?

 

[fix]

So Modesty, is not entirely dependent on Culture. In fact, using the plumb line above, one can determine if a culture’s form of dress meets the standards of modesty.

This is the point that will not be addressed. That some standard may exist in some particular culture at some point in time does not mean the standard is correct.

But here some women may object: “Why is it my responsibility to dress modestly? If a man struggles with lustful thoughts, that’s his problem, not mine.” But this objection misses Wojtyla’s point. The purpose of modesty is not merely to help prevent men from stumbling into impure thoughts. Modesty of dress is primarily meant to protect the woman herself. It helps keep the woman from being treated as an object for sexual pleasure.

Wojtyla offers two important insights that help make sense of this. On one hand, we must remember that human beings are fallen. Thus, it is not easy for us to avoid a utilitarian attitude when we see the body of the opposite sex. The attitude of “I shouldn’t have to worry about how I dress-that’s the man’s problem” naively fails to take original sin seriously. As Wojtyla explains, “Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person . . . can arouse in him merely a disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection. In practice it also arouses concupiscence, or a wish to enjoy concentrated on sexual values with no regard for the value of the person” (p. 190). …

To Inspire Love: A Return to Modesty
Love and Responsibility

 

[Debora123]

Wouldn’t the answer be simple common sense?

Yes sir it would, and it is.

Also, when it comes to dress, there is no “right or wrong” in a culture. If a certain type of dress is not considered sexual and does not arouse negative feelings in that particular culture, then there is nothing wrong with it - as there is nothing wrong with the human body itself.

But this by no means signifies that impurity of body is identified simply with partial or total nudity. There are circumstances in which nudity is not impure. If someone uses it to treat the person as an object of pleasure - even if it is by bad thoughts - he alone is the one who commits an impure act. I**mpurity of body only occurs when nuditity plays a negative role with respect to the value of the person. **One can say that what happens then is a de-personalization.

Nakedness itself is not immodest… 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.

This is some of the quotes from JPII I posted on the last thread. Hope it helps!

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I actually recall this story of a group of missionaries who went to Papua New Guinea. There the people that are in the primitive tribe wear very little clothing. The men wear penis sheaths and some jewelry and the women wear grass skirts and some jewelry. That is it.

The missionaries were trying to get them to be more modest and gave them t-shirts. All the tribes people wore their t-shirts with pride. Then a storm hit (it rains very often here) and all of their t-shirts got wet. A whole bunch of the tribes people sat in their wet shirts and many got pneumonia and a few even died. When they went without t-shirts their skin dried way faster and they didn’t stay soaked for long periods of time. I would say that although the missionaries were trying to do good, they ended up making a very large error that costed lives. I think in tribes it is not fine to modestly go around without a top, but obviously practical when you live in small houses up in the trees without places to store extra clothing.

Modesty does depend on culture. In the Victorian era it was immodest and scandalous for a woman to show her ankles. Today that is obviously not true. No matter what time it is there will always be lust around. There was in the Victorian era when women were covered from their necks to their wrists to their feet. In tribes people walk around topless all the time because that is just the cultural garb. Everyone’s breasts are showing, so no one gives it a second thought. It is not immodest.

Now in our society I think it is perfectly fine to wear things that hit a little above the knee (within a few inches or so depending on leg length) and wearing tank tops or shirts is fine as long as they aren’t low cut and are worn in the appropriate setting. Like not wearing a tank top , shorts, and flip flops to church.

If you have such bad lust problems that seeing shoulders or knees, then you probably need to get help through counseling. You can’t spend all your time blaming women, because even if all women were dressed in Victorian style clothing (which is hot and uncomfortable especially in 100 degree + weather) you may still have problems with lust. Men did in the Victorian era and women were totally covered back then.

There is a reasonable level of modesty we should all dress in to help protect those struggling with lust, but when we start having double standards or asking people to sweat to death, we go too far. We need to not pass off our sins onto other people like Adam did in the Garden (the woman made me do it!), but instead teach our children to take responsibility for their own actions and short-comings. When they see us blaming our sins on everyone but ourselves, they will not learn personal responsibility.

Papua New Guinea is just below the equator and no one gets cold there. So I’m not swallowing the story about the people getting wet and cold and dying. That’s a story for people who don’t know anything about the equator.

The idea that modesty is relative is just insane. Men love breasts.

 

[fix]

Those who extrapolate that modesty is entirely subjective – that the need for it exists only in the minds of those who refuse the call for “redemption from the bonds of lust” – are missing the TOB’s larger message about the dignity of the human body. John Paul stressed that moral progress was measured by an increase in modesty: “If culture shows an explicit tendency to cover the nakedness of the human body, it certainly does so not only for climatic reasons, but also in relation to the process of growth of man’s personal sensitivity. The anonymous nakedness of the man-object contrasts with the progress of the truly human culture of morals.”…

Equally troubling, a young woman who is told that modesty is purely subjective might then believe that her father’s ordering her to “cover up” shows that he lacks “mature purity.”

Solution: In addition to reviewing John Paul’s writings on modesty in Love and Responsibility, TOB instructors would do well to study the observations Pope Benedict made prior to his papacy on how the “theology of the body” is linked to a “theology of clothing.” Since the Fall, the naked human body, while retaining its fundamental goodness, can no longer have its original “decency” (a word that in Latin is related to fittingness, honor, and worthiness)…

Unraveling a Common Myth About the Theology of the Body

 

[ahs]

In addition to the great quotes being posted, I ran across this article that quoted St. John Chrysostom. Although he wrote this 407AD, the message is as true today as it was then. I’ll post a link to the article after the quote:

“You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment, and much more effectively than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death-dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body, but the soul. And it is not to enemies that you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride.”

–St. John Chrysostom (d. 407A.D.) (taken from the article linked below)

catholicsistas.com/2012/01/11/the-virtue-for-women/

 

[ahs]

So to relate that quote, and the article it came from, to the topic:

What is modest depends on where you are…what the culture is. What Christians need to evaluate is where has the “line” of modesty been drawn in our culture, and what might constitute immodesty. What is the purpose of dressing a certain way? If it is for flaunting what you’ve got, or for attracting attention, or “looking cute for the guys”, or showing off your figure, then it may be really necessary to read the words of the Saints and re-evaluate whether modesty will be compromised and whether there is potential to lead someone to sin, even unintentionally. These things would represent that “foolish vanity and pride” that St. John Chrysostom refers to, IMHO.

When clothing draws focus to the body, rather than the countenence, immodesty is encroaching and the potential for leading another into sin is present.