Help me understand what's wrong with this reasoning

[DarkLight]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

 

[Dorothy]

Women can dress modestly without having to wear a burka.

We should certainly pray for those who are weak and vulnerable with regard to alcohol, and encourage them to get help. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that a person who has a glass of wine with friends at dinner needs to be concerned that a person present who has a problem with alcohol should bring about the necessity that no one should have a glass of wine while he is present.

 

[DarkLight]

Women can dress modestly without having to wear a burka.

We should certainly pray for those who are weak and vulnerable with regard to alcohol, and encourage them to get help. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that a person who has a glass of wine with friends at dinner needs to be concerned that a person present who has a problem with alcohol should bring about the necessity that no one should have a glass of wine while he is present.

What’s the justification for this? I’ve heard it often enough, but I’ve never really heard someone give a reason other than “well it doesn’t seem right.”

 

[PaulfromIowa]

If you know someone who has a problem with alcohol and want to abstain in his presence, that might be a very charitable act. That does not mean that Christians have any general responsibility to abstain from alcohol. Alcohol is not inherently sinful.

 

[DarkLight]

If you know someone who has a problem with alcohol and want to abstain in his presence, that might be a very charitable act. That does not mean that Christians have any general responsibility to abstain from alcohol. Alcohol is not inherently sinful.

Again, why? What you’ve given here is just a statement - I’m looking for the reasoning behind it. How would you respond to someone who said, well, the Bible teaches us that we should avoid tempting the “weaker brother” who is struggling, and so we should refrain from all alcohol. After all it’s not required that we drink and there’s always a possibility we could be tempting someone.

 

[thistle]

Again, why? What you’ve given here is just a statement - I’m looking for the reasoning behind it. How would you respond to someone who said, well, the Bible teaches us that we should avoid tempting the “weaker brother” who is struggling, and so we should refrain from all alcohol. After all it’s not required that we drink and there’s always a possibility we could be tempting someone.

Jesus drank wine in the company of sinners. Are you suggesting Jesus was wrong?

 

[DarkLight]

Jesus drank wine in the company of sinners. Are you suggesting Jesus was wrong?

They would say that the culture back then wasn’t what it is now, and that our modern culture around alcohol is so corrupt we have to apply different standards.

What would you say to the modesty version that I offered, if someone said that women should wear clothing as loose and covered as possible so as not to tempt men? After all in charity we ought to take whatever steps we can to make our brothers’ lives easier.

 

[cena]

Jesus drank wine in the company of sinners. Are you suggesting Jesus was wrong?

Was he drinking wine in front of alcoholics? I know he sat with tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

Catechism:

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. the temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.” Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites.” In the New Testament it is called “moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.”
To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one’s heart, with all one’s soul and with all one’s efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only (God) (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).

While we should strive to not be a source of temptation to others (by our dress, or action, or what have you), it is also each individual’s responsibility to seek temperance, and we should also help others in that goal.

:twocents: If a man cannot look upon the feminine form without lust, or see someone else temperately using alcohol, he does need help, but our help should not be merely the removal of temptation, but the strengthening of his will against temptation. :twocents:

tee

 

[JRKH]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

These are good questions…

I am not a fan of “don’t go to extremes” - except that one must be careful of the reason one goes to extremes and what those extremes might entail. This is just one reason why it is good to have a spiritual director.

Great Saints such as John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi certainly went to extremes because that is what they were called to do. Yet in their own writings we find cautions and admonitions to be careful about such extremes for there are many traps and possible missteps and potential for getting off track.

Now to try to answer your questions - I think that the theological - or at least - scriptural foundation for the view of not going to extremes is likely found in St Paul’s writings.
He speaks in a couple of different places about being careful to not be a stumbling block to others, yet he also speaks about not allowing others to restrict the freedom we have in Christ.
What comes out of this (in my reading of it) is something of a balancing act between our responsibility, and being a good example, to others while at the same time not allowing the scruples of others to unduly restrict us.

The examples you give above might go like this:
A woman should dress modestly. This is true but NOT mainly to prevent a man from sinning. Rather she should dress modestly to give Glory to God. Being a good example - and helping a man not to sin are important, but secondary considerations.
After all - whether a man sins in thought or not is not something you can control. A man might be just as “turned on” by a modestly dressed woman as an immodest one. Likewise with “setting a good example”. Some might admire it, others might denounce you as “holier than thou”.

Similar ideas can be pointed out with regards to one who struggles with alcohol.

As with all other matters, the thing to do is to seek the most loving solution. Dress and act in a way that shows your love of God and your fellow man…you may not be able to do this perfectly but we try to do it the very best we can.

Peace
James

 

[lmelahn]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

I think the issue has more to do with common sense than theology properly speaking.

We are not under an obligation to avoid all possible occasions of sin for other people. It is possible that someone has an obsession with the color orange that causes him a temptation to sin. I do not, therefore, need to refrain from wearing orange. That is obviously an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the idea.

In reality, modesty in dressing is a demand of justice. The requirement is not that the clothing remove all conceivable temptation against chastity (which is impossible), but that it be respectful of the dignity of the person wearing the clothes. In so doing, he or she will also avoid being an occasion of sin, to anyone with a modicum of chastity.

Likewise, we are not required to abstain from drinking, so as to avoid every conceivable temptation against moderation. If we were in the company of someone that we knew would be affected by seeing us drink, then it might be a good idea to refrain from drinking, but that is a different situation.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

First, your examples do not seem like examples of balance, in fact, they seem rather odd to me. In your first example, it seems like women could always somehow make an outfit “more modest” until, as someone mentioned, we were all wearing burkas or some sort of balloon-shaped clothing that goes in at the neck and at the ankles, altho I hear the sight of ankles was a problem for Victorian men, maybe bell-shaped. Maybe just enormous umbrellas!

As for the second, we are never tk purchase or consume alcohol on the basis it might be a temptation for someone around us? That is most certainly not an example of balance!

So there are reasons for having true balance in many areas of our life: we should eat, because it nourishes us, but not too much, because it would be bad for our health. We should pray, we should work, we should have leisure–each are good for us, bit not to the exclusion of the others.

Wrt modesty, we should dress appropriately as well as modesty. Someone wearing a huge umbrella or burka or whatever, would actually be immodest by dressing so out of line with the norm because they would be drawing attention to themselves.

 

[1ke]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

There isn’t a Catholic teaching about “balance”. The Church certainly DOES teach the theological and cardinal virtues and the fruit of the Spirit, which all flow from the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit received at baptism.

Prudence, temperance, modesty, fortitude, etc, are all virtues. And we are to live the virtues and beatitudes.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up.

Seems you were exposed to a lot of Protestant thinking growing up, based on your examples.

-]Women/-] People ought to do-] whatever they can /-]what is prudent to help keep their brothers from stumbling.

This is true of men and women.

This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

This is not Church teaching.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

This is not Church teaching.

 

[coachdennis]

Again, why? What you’ve given here is just a statement - I’m looking for the reasoning behind it. How would you respond to someone who said, well, the Bible teaches us that we should avoid tempting the “weaker brother” who is struggling, and so we should refrain from all alcohol. After all it’s not required that we drink and there’s always a possibility we could be tempting someone.

Anything, ANYTHING we do in our day to day life could be a temptation to someone, somewhere in the world. Food to the glutton, perfume may arouse sensual senses, earning a large paycheck may lead to greed to envy… where do you stop? Do you stop living YOUR life because others might be affected? Remember free will? Others have to deal with their own “stuff” at the end of the day.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m not trying to put forward the examples as church teaching. What I’m trying to say is that, these were arguments that seemed Biblically supported, and I’m still not sure how to answer that. It’s not like upon being confirmed suddenly a light shone down and illuminated the difference between what we ought to do for our brothers and sisters and what’s going overboard and putting unnecessary restrictions on ourselves.

So I’m having trouble because while I understand that these things aren’t church teaching, it still looks to me like they ought to be logical conclusions of things the church does teach. And I don’t know where I’m going wrong, or where to even begin telling where the line is, and chalking it up to “prudence” or “common sense” or other things that don’t have an actual argument that can be used as a guide doesn’t help.

As a side note: how on earth are we supposed to practice prudence anyways? I don’t remember anyone ever going over it except as a thing we were supposed to somehow have. But no guidance on what it looks like or how one develops it or knows when one is or is not practicing it or anything, all I’ve ever heard is that we’re supposed to do it.

 

[TK421]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

I think there are 3 important points for why modesty is unique from other potential temptations.

1. Unlike alcohol, gambling, computer games, etc., physical attraction is something that is (more or less) universal for every single adult. If a person is an alcoholic or past alcoholic, an environment with alcohol can be a hardship for them. If a person is a gambler or past gambler, and an environment of gambling can be a hardship for them. When it comes to physical attraction, you just need to have hit puberty.
2. There are somewhat objective guidelines on what constitutes modest or immodest dress. Genetically, any human body part of a gender which the other gender does not possess is going to be an object of physical attraction, regardless of what your cultural background is. People in Papua New Guinea wear very little clothing, obviously because they’re in the middle of the jungle, but even there, it is customary that when a woman is climbing a ladder to a tree house, the men shouldn’t be following behind her, so that they can’t look up her skirt. So although there isn’t going to be precise guidelines on what the magical length of a shirt or skirt ought to be, modesty can still be universally understood as not being sexually provocative with people, which is by far the most important part.
3. Although forms of addiction through drugs, games, habits, etc., can be very harmful, it is solidly routed in Catholic theology that lust is unique in its depravity. We don’t share in the view of some secularists that sexual addiction can be counted among other forms of addiction. In the case of a woman, this “addiction” happens to be with a creature that radiates the image of the Divine Creator, and so using a creature the possesses this infinite dignity as an object of gratification bears particularly grave consequences on the individual soul and on the soul of the society. This is why St JPII sagely explained that the real problem with pornography is not that it shows too much, but rather that it shows too little. If you can understand and appreciate that statement, then it means you’re starting to view sexual ethics through the lens of the Catholic Church.

The more and more lust becomes socially acceptable, the more the family crumbles. The family unit is our human reflection of the Holy Trinity itself. It is absolutely impossible for Christian charity and lust to co-exist.

 

[DarkLight]

Seems you were exposed to a lot of Protestant thinking growing up, based on your examples.

Relevant point: I grew up protestant, and six months of RCIA focused mostly on keeping people away from worldliness really wasn’t enough to get a very firm grasp on the different problems with that sort of thinking. And then once you’re in everyone just sort of assumes you’ve got a good handle on things…

 

[TK421]

As an extension to my previous post, I think you could make a solid argument that the opposite extreme - requiring women to dress up in burqas - can bear many of the same spiritual sicknesses that you get from women purposely dressing immodesty. In both instances, you’re demonstrating an obsession with her body, which is what reduces her divine image to an object.

Wisdom from above can and will guide a Christian woman to dress in a certain way, but since lust and purity are both spiritual conditions, whether or not a person falls to temptation is going to rest on the actual person. God will deliver the grace to avoid sin to all who ask for it. I’m at a point in my life where a woman that purposely exposes herself to be sexually provocative is actually unattractive to me. Whereas a wise woman that dresses modestly looks beautiful, radiant and stunning, though not in a base, lustful sort of way. It’s a different kind of attraction to her. It’s the kind of attraction I get when I’m looking at my Blessed Mother, and when I pray to her, I tell her, “Mother, you look so beautiful”. I didn’t get myself here. God brought me to it.

 

[oldburkes]

They would say that the culture back then wasn’t what it is now, and that our modern culture around alcohol is so corrupt we have to apply different standards.

DarkLight, this is one of my “pet peeves”. I hear way too often that our modern culture is altogether different than “those days”. There may be more temptation, but that’s because there’s more people to be tempted. If there was no problem with alcohol consumption, St. Paul would not have brought up that our brothers and sisters could be tempted. I hope nobody thinks that sexual lust was different then.
There is a difference between “Buddy, have a drink. Just one won’t hurt you”, and quietly consuming in moderation in a public place where a Christian brother or sister may see you.
In the same way, a man may be tempted to lust even when seeing a woman in a loose-fitting dress, if he is so inclined. Provocative, skimpy clothing would show that she was actually inducing temptation.

 

[runningdude]

I’ve been struggling a lot with the theological reason behind balance. I often hear that we should try to have some balance in our lives, but I can never find why this is so theologically. Most of the arguments I’ve seen have just amounted to “but of course we don’t want to go to that extreme”, which seems like the right conclusion but isn’t an argument by itself.

So here’s a common enough argument from when I was growing up. Women ought to do whatever they can to help keep their brothers from stumbling. This means any outfit that can be made more modest ought to be so. Clothing should be as loose as possible without looking like it is going to fall off, so as to minimize the risk of tempting someone.

Or another one: Some people struggle with drunkenness. Seeing another person with alcohol is a real temptation to them, especially if it’s a brother or sister in Christ. So to avoid the possibility of tempting someone, we ought to refrain from purchasing or consuming alcohol, lest we be seen by someone who would be led into temptation.

The church teaches that moderation and temperance are virtues. Everything is permitted of us, but not everything is beneficial, says Saint Paul. We must strive to learn and do only that which is healthy; “extremes” are rarely healthy.

Any human rule or guideline is bound to be imperfect. To follow a rule rigidly, meaning to take the rule to its extreme, will likely produce an illogical result. Drinking water, for instance, is healthy. Drinking several gallons in one sitting, will cause aquatic toxicity. Rigidly following the rule that one should drink lots of water, without light of human reason, is foolish and dangerous.

Fashions are a fleeting matter, and advice from even a few years ago may no longer be applicable. One must plan one’s dress with the virtues of modesty and chastity in mind, guided by human reason. Following hard, fast rules will allow for “loopholes” that may be illogical and counter to one’s goals.

For alcohol, there is no requirement to refrain from its consumption; indeed, Christ commands its use leading up to the most sacred act of Christian worship. Alcohol, however, must not be glamorized, because glamorization leads to excessive consumption, which is not healthy. Modest amounts improve social interaction, lower stress, and have even been shown to help the heart. Excess consumption leads to loss of coordination, automobile accidents, and death. One must always use human reason and beware of the potential consequences, when choosing what amount to consume, if any.