How do I explain to someone being 90% naked is immoral

[EmeraldWings]

Unfortunateltly, the computers at the place I’m staying at (I’m travelling) cannot open the document you gave a link to. However, be careful about what you think is infallible! Only a few Church teachings fall under papal infallibility.

infallible or not, we still have an obligation to be obedient to church authority, and if the church tells us we must do something or refrain from doing something, or if they condemn something, we must listen,

but anyways, i am also posting that book on my forum, which i might have finished by tonight, so if you can’t get that to work, i will post the link from my forum as soon as it’s done.

 

[BobObob]

infallible or not, we still have an obligation to be obedient to church authority, and if the church tells us we must do something or refrain from doing something, or if they condemn something, we must listen,

That’s not completely true.

 

[EmeraldWings]

That’s not completely true.

It is possible for one to disagree with a non-infallible, although authoritative, teaching and still be a Catholic in good standing.

Authorititiveness of a certain teaching does not make it so we cannot quietly disagree with it. It does mean that we shouldn’t disregard it, and that we shouldn’t disagree with it without serious thought (and for some cases consultation with a Church authority over the disagreement).

i’m not talking about agreement, which can’t always be possible without proper understanding, i’m only talking about obedience, we still must obey whether we understand or not,
to disobey would be to say “i know better then the church” which is likewise to say “i know better then God” who truly guides His church, and who is the true authority behind all lawful authorities.
and whether or not what the church commands is true or not, or whether we agree or not, it is also a test of our obedience,
even if something the church commanded us was not true, so long as it was not outright sinful, we would still be in the right to obey,
God loves obedience, in a sense, above any of the other virtues, because it means the sacrifice of one’s will out of love for God.

well, anyways, i got done with posting that book, i thought it would take longer, but i guess there was less than i thought -
gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=19124981

read everything including the introduction, you don’t have to read it all at once if you don’t want to of course, i’m not in any hurry, but it’s really for your benefit, and not just for the purpose of debate,
this is the book that really helped my sister take modesty seriously, along with many others i know personally, because it’s not just about charity towards others and ourselves, it’s also about obedience and honor towards God, and so if it’s not one thing that convinced them, it was another.

well, hope this helps, take care.

 

[BobObob]

i’m not talking about agreement, which can’t always be possible without proper understanding, i’m only talking about obedience, we still must obey whether we understand or not,

EmeraldWings, I haven’t yet read the Marylike Modesty Handbook, and probably won’t get to it for a while. I’ll try to get to it eventually. However, there are a few things to consider first.

The authority of the CC, and that of individual popes, as far as I understand, has its limits. The CC is an authority on faith and morals, but since the morals of modesty are subject to the particular culture, the CC can only talk in an absolute way regarding principles of modesty (such as treating the body in a non-degrading way as a temple of the Holy Spirit), not particulars (which change with culture). This is not to say that the bishops and the pope cannot give an unofficial standard for particulars, which is what I think Pop Pius XI did.

Also, the directives toward the Bishops that Pope Pius XI mandated of the Sacred Congregation of the Council were meant to instruct regarding what were the norms for modesty, rather than to mandate people to hold to these standards (in the sense that the CC mandates attendance at Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation).

to disobey would be to say “i know better then the church” which is likewise to say “i know better then God” who truly guides His church, and who is the true authority behind all lawful authorities.

To deliberately disobey a mandate by the CC, which the CC has the authority to bind you to, such as attending Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, would be a sin.

To disagree with a non-infallible CC teaching after sufficient consideration, and even to act according to your disagreement, even if the teaching is authoritative to a certain degree, would NOT be a sin.

even if something the church commanded us was not true, so long as it was not outright sinful, we would still be in the right to obey,

Unless for some reason to obey the erroneous teaching would be to violate our own conscience, which we are always bound to (even if our conscience is erroneous).

Overall, modesty is about properly respecting the body. Modesty is not defined by necessarily one’s amount of clothing, but if one treats their body like a harlot by exposing it, than it would be immodest to do so. It is possible to both be modest and nude.

 

[EmeraldWings]

(2 posts)

EmeraldWings, I haven’t yet read the Marylike Modesty Handbook, and probably won’t get to it for a while. I’ll try to get to it eventually. However, there are a few things to consider first.

well…the answers to what you are saying and asking, in this post, and your other posts, are answered in that book, far better then i can answer them…

The authority of the CC, and that of individual popes, as far as I understand, has its limits. The CC is an authority on faith and morals, but since the morals of modesty are subject to the particular culture, the CC can only talk in an absolute way regarding principles of modesty (such as treating the body in a non-degrading way as a temple of the Holy Spirit), not particulars (which change with culture). This is not to say that the bishops and the pope cannot give an unofficial standard for particulars, which is what I think Pop Pius XI did.

the catholic church is an authority in all things regarding the catholic faith, and can certainly give, and has given, authoritative instructions on how we must dress,
i wanted you to read that book so i wouldn’t have to quote it…but i guess i have no choice,
here is what the church has issued by authority to be obeyed -

*"HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE CHURCH APPROVES?
HAS SHE GIVEN SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF MODESTY IN
DRESS?

Yes! The Church has issued specific standards. But they were almost
completely ignored by our liberal press, so that we were unable to
fully establish their authenticity until 1965, more thann 35 years after
their publication. We are indebted to Father Jesus M. Cavanna, C.M.
(of the Philippino College in Rome) for discovering them in the
Bulletin of the Roman Clergy, issue of October 1928. Father Cavanna
graciously sent us a translation of the document containing the
standards of modesty (dated Sept. 24, 1928), which we proceeded to
publish. The discovery of this “missing link” enables us now to
publish a fully authenticated history of the Roman Standards. We give
here only the bare essentials.

1. On August 15, 1928, Pope Pius XI, in the consistorial chamber,
   “denounced once again the danger (of immodest dress) which, by its
   seductive fascination, threatens so many unwary souls.”
2. On August 23, only eight days later, the Holy Father ordered the
   Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a very strongly worded
   letter to all the Bishops of Italy inaugurating a “Crusade Against
   Immodest Fashions.” The Bishops were to communicate the specific
   injunctions of this letter to be enforced “in all schools, academies,
   Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious,” to
   ensure “perfect conformity of conduct among all institutes of female
   religious in the diocese.”
3. To ensure such “conformity” Pius XI, on September 24, 1928, only
   one month later, ordered the Sacred Congregation of Religious to
   issue another letter on the “Crusade against Immodest Fashions.” It
   was in this letter that the following standards were prescribed: “We
   recall that a dress cannot be called modest 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.” "*

if we can’t trust the church in these matters, then there is no one else we can trust, that is the very reason Jesus left us His church, so we would have a way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong, because He promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and that it would be guided by the Holy Ghost.
and if we can’t put that much trust in the church, then we can hardly put any trust in ourselves, who are much less guided by the Holy Ghost then the church is…

Also, the directives toward the Bishops that Pope Pius XI mandated of the Sacred Congregation of the Council were meant to instruct regarding what were the norms for modesty, rather than to mandate people to hold to these standards (in the sense that the CC mandates attendance at Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation).

and what do they say now are the requirements for modesty in dress?

 

[EmeraldWings]

Overall, modesty is about properly respecting the body. Modesty is not defined by necessarily one’s amount of clothing, but if one treats their body like a harlot by exposing it, than it would be immodest to do so. It is possible to both be modest and nude.

not really…modesty is moderation, it moderates not just our dress, but even our actions, words, and all around general behavior,
it is really impossible to say that nudity could be modest, because it is not moderating anything, there is nothing there to moderate,
moderation is also known as temperance, which is the virtue of neither going from one extreme or to another, it’s having neither to much or to little,
now of course temperance does not mean there’s no room for breathing, it’s not meant as a measuring stick for perfection,
but in this case, the one extreme would be wearing WAY to much clothing, or covering every inch of your body, which is obviously ridiculous,
and the other extreme would be wearing nothing at all, also ridiculous, and way to much of a temptation for both those trying to be pure and those who actually do want to look and lust after others.
and lets be realistic, do you really think we would ever change to nudity everywhere? in the extreme heat, cold, wind and rain?
and yes, wearing nothing at all can actually make you hotter in hot weather, i learned that from reading rainbow :3

here is another part from that book on the matter of custom -

*"IS NOT CUSTOM AND CONVENTION A SAFE COMPASS OR
GUIDE WITHOUT RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS?

There are some Catholic leaders who teach that “Modesty in dress is a
matter of custom and convention.” Such teaching is false, since it
ignores the supreme authority of the Church and vests it in a fallible
human society. It leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

If custom could make public nudity a virtue, why did God find it
necessary in paradise to change the custom of Adam and Eve by
Himself providing garments for them to cover their shame after the
fall? Custom could just as logically decide that public dishonesty hsa
become a virtue.

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.”

Sin is just as nasty and harmful today as it ever was. Do not excuse
shortcomings in dress on the plea that everyone is doing it. Evil may
never be done even if everyone is doing it. Because it is not
fashionable to dress modestly, it cannot be said it is all right to dress
immodestly. It is God, not people, Who declares what is right and
wrong; He is right and His Church and His Vicars of Christ with Him,
even though the whole world may call Him wrong! The misery of the
world is due to that selfishness which puts our own pleasure, pride
and convenience ahead of God’s Will. "
*

the only way modesty can be subject to a particular culture is if that culture was not even attracted to the human body in an impure way(speaking generally of course)
our culture however, along with most others, do lust after others and feast their eyes, the human body may be a beautiful thing, and of course as said before, is not a sin in and of itself, but as most things, it can be a cause for sin, and it is a cause and extreme temptation in our current culture,

whether or not this theory of yours would work, what do you plan on doing in the mean time? you agree that there certainly is a problem, lust is rampant all over the world, and we already know dressing modestly does work, even if a man were to lust after a modestly dressed woman, his temptation, or direct intention of lusting after her, would not be caused by him gazing on her body parts, because there wouldn’t be anything like that revealed, so the sin would be on him and not her, because she would not be a cause for temptation, but instead he would be the one willingly seeking out his evil passions.
or basically it’s like this - the idea is not to eliminate temptation altogether, but instead to dress modestly enough that we are not a direct temptation to sin,
a woman who is dressed modestly can’t be gazed upon in improper places, but woman who dress in tight or revealing clothing(or nothing at all) can be gazed upon lustfully in improper places, and men might do this either willingly or even without meaning to, but nevertheless, it is a direct temptation, and can be prevented…

such an idea that nudity would not be looked on in a sexual way is so far off without even knowing for sure that it would work,
and most people would reject the idea simply because they want to look at others lustfully, because it does make them feel good…

if God saw that nudity could be accepted in a pure way, He would have had it so from the beginning, but the fact is, we sin, we sin in every way imaginable, and God knows better then we do on the matter, He knows you better then you know yourself, and He has guided His church all these years on matters of modesty, which has not changed, it has simply been disfigured, just as so many other teachings of the church, but it’s not the church who has disfigured her own teachings, it’s society who has,
the teachings are still there, it’s just a matter of trusting someone else over ourselves, trusting that God knows best, and that He guides His church.
and so it simply comes down to having faith…and if someone does not have the faith to trust, then there is nothing you can do for them…only God can give someone the grace to have faith.

well, i’ve said more then enough, so that’s all for now.

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

There’s so much here that needs to be addressed, and you’ll probably think I’
M just being argumentative, but I’ll try to abbreviate it to keep it short…

It would take me forever to explain this, but none of the actions of the CC that were mentioned in the section of the book you cited, are authoritative in the sense that it would be a sin to disagree and do otherwise. I have actually somewhat addressed this on another thread, in which someone was citing Mary-like modesty as if it were dogma.

The letter to the bishops (the one ordered on August 24), as the text said, it was addressed to “schools, academies, Sunday schools and laboratories directed by female religious.” Directions regarding dress to schools run by the CC is much different from saying “Catholics have to dress this way…”

The letter orders on September 24 used the words, “We recall that…”, which isn’t exactly indicating a binding obligation he is placing on them. If those words denote a doctrine, rather than Church commandment, it definitely doesn’t fall under papal infallibility, and would be authoritative to only a weak degree.
EmeraldWings; 6665070:

if we can’t trust the church in these matters, then there is no one else we can trust, that is the very reason Jesus left us His church, so we would have a way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong, because He promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and that it would be guided by the Holy Ghost.
and if we can’t put that much trust in the church, then we can hardly put any trust in ourselves, who are much less guided by the Holy Ghost then the church is…

First, we are all called to do what we can to properly form our own consciences. If one, in the process of forming his conscience, holds that the Catholic Church is authentic, than he should consult the teachings of the CC in forming his conscience. The Church has taught a few infallible teachings, and one cannot both hold that CC to be authentic and disagree with these teachings.

One may disagree with a non-infallible teaching of the CC, hold the CC to be authentic, and be a Catholic in good standing if he educates himself about the authority of the CC and its scope, thought thoroughly about the issue he disagrees with, and goes through the proper process of trying to receive consultation on the issue from a proper official in the CC. To shorten, it is good for someone who does not fully understand the Catholic faith to give non-infallible teachings the “benefit of the doubt” while he learns more about his faith, but when one has a good general understanding of the faith, it is good to understand the scope of the Catholic faith, and carefully consider some non-infallible issues.

To shorten, non-infallible teachings have value in the sense that they may help those who are starting to form the stone foundation. However, realizing that not everything the pope does as head of the visible institution of the CC (as opposed to the pope as the vicar of Christ in the spiritual kingdom of the CC) is not building your house on sand. Popes have made erroneous statements in apparently authoritative ways in the past, which were later recognized as erroneous. An ecumenical council declared Pope Honorius I a heretic (newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm ).

not really…modesty is moderation, it moderates not just our dress, but even our actions, words, and all around general behavior,
it is really impossible to say that nudity could be modest, because it is not moderating anything, there is nothing there to moderate,

So was Peter immodest when he was fishing naked in Public? (blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=1&t=KJV#top )

What about (presumably) Jesus and (definitely) early Christians when they were baptized? (page 575 of books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA575&lpg=PA575&dq=naked+baptism&source=bl&ots=BrfN42PVvv&sig=yuRUUMC787dS80phEgeFvfnYScQ&hl=en&ei=Iq34S–UG5H4Ndf5pYQI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=naked%20baptism&f=false )

I see no reason why modesty would mean nothing more or less than moderation. It could entail some moderation in some, perhaps most, cases though./

lets be realistic, do you really think we would ever change to nudity everywhere?

Did I ever advocate for nudity everywhere? I do think that women should be allowed to at least breastfeed in a public or semi-public area. If you go far enough back, it was no big deal for kids to go swimming naked in the swimming hole together, and I think that should be OK.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

here is another part from that book on the matter of custom -

The rest of the book you cited here was the author’s opinion, which I simply disagree with.

The author does somewhat of a strawman by opposing the position that “Modesty in dress is a matter of custom and convention.” My position is that there are moral principles by which one must adhere to to dress modesty (some of which I’ve already mentioned). However, how those principles apply to particular situations is largely relative to the culture and age. Even if the statement by Pius XII regarding absolute norms in modesty of dress, it actually wouldn’t contradict my thesis (absolute principles, subjective particular applications of those principles).

Regarding Adam and Eve, the Bible mentioned shame regarding their nakedness. In this regard, I find the following, which I got from Papawbrooks on another thread, to be relavent:

"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.’

—Karol Cardinal Woytyla [Pope John Paul ll ]

You may disagree with this statement by JPII, but it is just as infallible and authoritative as the statements by Pius XI that the book you cited mentioned. This quote indicates that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person” and that shame is a function of the interior of the person. Thus, for Adam and Eve, their initial nakedness was not immodest, but when their interior changed and they experienced shame, their nakedness played a negative role regarding their personhood, and thus it was immodest for them not to be dressed. That’s not to say that after the fall all incidences of nakedness is immodest, like many tend to assert.

Regarding the paragraph that starts by saying “Sin is just as nasty and harmful today as it ever was”, I’d have to agree with that initial statement, but disagree that this is due to people today not wearing enough clothing. However, it seems like in cultures where there is practically no nudity allowed people have greater problems with porn and lust, while in cultures where people who grow up are exposed to more casual nudity it seems it seems to be the opposite.

the only way modesty can be subject to a particular culture is if that culture was not even attracted to the human body in an impure way

It seems, from what I’ve read, that the sexualization of nudity is a learned thing. Thus, A culture with greater casual nudity would sexualize mere nudity less than a culture were people are almost never exposed to nudity apart from sex.

such an idea that nudity would not be looked on in a sexual way is so far off without even knowing for sure that it would work,

Well, cultures which have much more casual nudity seem to have far fewer problems with lust, so I do think it has been shown to have worked. Also, cultures such as those in the Middle East, where women cannot have a square inch of their skin exposed, tend to have far greater problems with lust. Some of the hijackers ordered porn the night before 911, even though they knew they were going to die the next day and get their virgins (or so they thought).

whether or not this theory of yours would work, what do you plan on doing in the mean time?

To be short, I would stop freaking out about children being exposed to some non-pornographic nudity. Children have not sexualized the human body before puberty, and thus exposure to nudity would not likely be an occasion of sin, and would likely make them have fewer problems with curiosity, lust, and porn during puberty, and for the rest of their lives. I’ve seen a journal article that indicated that children who more often saw their parents in the nude had (if I remember correctly) fewer problems regarding sexuality.

For adults, that would be a longer and more complex issue. For adults it should probably be more gradual, since adults are a lot less plastic in general, and especially in this regard.

if God saw that nudity could be accepted in a pure way, He would have had it so from the beginning.

Well, God DID make it that way in the beginning. Adam and Eve didn’t seem to wear clothes until they God gave them clothes when they experienced shame.

Humans are born naked. Children typically don’t mind being naked until they have learned that there is shame involved (which some may learn through their parents re-dressing them when they tried to take off their clothes in public, or many other ways).

I still hold, perhaps a little stronger than previously, that there is no exact standard of particulars which the Church makes obligatory, or proclaims to be the case, in which individuals cannot deviate that yet remain modest.

 

[tjm190]

“Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.”

So those Africans who never ‘sexualized’ the chest area are being immodest, even though in their culture they aren’t revealing anything sexual?

 

[BobObob]

“Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.”

So those Africans who never ‘sexualized’ the chest area are being immodest, even though in their culture they aren’t revealing anything sexual?

Please read what I wrote regarding the infallibility and authoritativeness (or lack thereof) on Marylike dress. Or did I post that on a similar thread and forgot to post it here?

The goal of Marylike dress seems to be to avoid arousing the passions. Other cultures are able to do that well without the particular dimensions mentioned by Pius XI.

 

[EmeraldWings]

“Marylike dresses require full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in the back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.”

So those Africans who never ‘sexualized’ the chest area are being immodest, even though in their culture they aren’t revealing anything sexual?

well, it’s not that they are immodest, immodesty by definition meaning indecency, it’s just that they are not, by proper use of the word, modest,
but not being modest does not mean they are being immoral, it just means that there is no moral reason to dress as someone would to cover up what others would gaze on lustfully, which they do not, so there is no moral need.

 

[fulbert4605]

Part 2/2

…

Well, God DID make it that way in the beginning. Adam and Eve didn’t seem to wear clothes until they God gave them clothes when they experienced shame.

Humans are born naked. Children typically don’t mind being naked until they have learned that there is shame involved (which some may learn through their parents re-dressing them when they tried to take off their clothes in public, or many other ways).

I still hold, perhaps a little stronger than previously, that there is no exact standard of particulars which the Church makes obligatory, or proclaims to be the case, in which individuals cannot deviate that yet remain modest.

This is not correct.

Gen 3:7 “And the eyes of both of them were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.”

Gen 3:10 “And Adam said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

God did not give them clothes. If what you say is true, BobObob, about shame being learned, why was this the first thing Adam and Eve did when their eyes were opened? Who told them, Adam and Eve, they were naked?

 

[EmeraldWings]

(3 parts)

Did I ever advocate for nudity everywhere? I do think that women should be allowed to at least breastfeed in a public or semi-public area. If you go far enough back, it was no big deal for kids to go swimming naked in the swimming hole together, and I think that should be OK.

well i do agree with you, we should be able to have those things, but only without perverts and pedophiles being rampant, that is what we have now, and we should act accordingly,

So was Peter immodest when he was fishing naked in Public? (blueletterbible.org/Bible…&v=1&t=KJV#top )

What about (presumably) Jesus and (definitely) early Christians when they were baptized? (page 575 of books.google.com/books?id=xC9…aptism&f=false )

I see no reason why modesty would mean nothing more or less than moderation. It could entail some moderation in some, perhaps most, cases though./

he was fishing with other men, it’s not that he was immodest, which as i said in the previous post, immodesty means indecency, but not being modest does not necessarily mean it is immoral, depending where and with who,
no he was not modest, but it was also not immoral,
of course it does not say he was completely naked, he could very well have been wearing a loin cloth, we don’t know for sure.
but the reason they did not swim or catch fish with clothes on is because they would be dragged down into the water that way, it was a safety precaution and therefore a necessity, whereas how we dress today on the street in public, with both men and woman around, is not necessary.

To shorten, non-infallible teachings have value in the sense that they may help those who are starting to form the stone foundation. However, realizing that not everything the pope does as head of the visible institution of the CC (as opposed to the pope as the vicar of Christ in the spiritual kingdom of the CC) is not building your house on sand. Popes have made erroneous statements in apparently authoritative ways in the past, which were later recognized as erroneous. An ecumenical council declared Pope Honorius I a heretic (newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm ).

disagreeing with the church is one thing, even if you wholeheartedly believe what you think to be right, if it is opposed to what the church teaches, then you should keep it to yourself,
to openly disagree with the church is a very bad example to set for others, because even if you are right, if you have the wisdom to be able to tell for church whether someone in the church is right or wrong, others may not have that wisdom, and they may end up simply disobeying the church on matters they just don’t understand,
i’m sure you can see the danger in that, the church must be united, even if some of us do not agree with the church in everything, we must look after our brothers and sisters in charity and not influence them to make their own decisions in things they may not even know very much about, we have to help people to turn to the church in their ignorance, if people get the idea that they can disagree with the church even on things that are not declared infallible, that can be very dangerous for them, and i know this because i’ve witnessed it before, people just end up trusting in themselves more then the church and even God.

You may disagree with this statement by JPII, but it is just as infallible and authoritative as the statements by Pius XI that the book you cited mentioned. This quote indicates that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person” and that shame is a function of the interior of the person. Thus, for Adam and Eve, their initial nakedness was not immodest, but when their interior changed and they experienced shame, their nakedness played a negative role regarding their personhood, and thus it was immodest for them not to be dressed. That’s not to say that after the fall all incidences of nakedness is immodest, like many tend to assert.

i do not believe that the “nakedness” they were ashamed of was referring to their bodies, but instead the loss of sanctifying grace, which many great theologians and doctors of the church have also come to the conclusion of (which is where i got the idea actually)
according to Ann Catherine Emmerich, when they were in the garden, they were clothed in light, so they were not really naked, but after sinning and losing that light, they realized they were naked, but not being shameful of the nakedness itself, only the lack of what covered them, and so they “sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.”
of course that is private revelation and does not have to be believed, but i believe it.

however, as far as public revelation goes, which we are obligated as Catholics to believe, the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima are public revelation, and are actually the only apparitions ever to be made public revelation,
so keeping that in mind, here is what Our Lady told Jacinta on the fashions of our time -
“Certain fashions will be *introduced *that will offend Our Lord very
much.”

notice how it does not say certain fashions will evolve, it says they will be “introduced” that means that these fashions have not just become, they have actually been pushed and encouraged, and this is what that book says regarding this message - (next post)

 

[EmeraldWings]

*"SATAN’S PLAN TO CORRUPT WOMEN UNFOLDED BY
OUR LADY:

The following is most important:

It was in 1917 at a Legion of Mary meeting in Baden (Black Forest),
Germany that Father King from the Church of Miuester spoke to the
women at that meeting in regard to Our Lady of Fatima’s prediction of
that same year: . . . “Certain fashions will be introduced that will
offend Our Lord very much.” He had consulted the fashion designers
of Paris, France, concerning the next fashion for women to be
introduced. He reported that it was “pants.”

Being a holy priest and concerned about the spiritual welfare of the
women in his Legion of Mary group, he asked them to promise never
to wear pants.

Since a woman wearing a man’s garment is abominable before God,
the mere use of the word “abominable” meaning hateful; offensive;
unclean; it certainly is worthy of our attention and study.

If a woman really loves Our Blessed Mother and Our Blessed Lord,
why would she hamper the “Triumph of Our Lady’s Immaculate
Heart” and offend Our Lord very much by wearing “pants”? "*

Regarding the paragraph that starts by saying “Sin is just as nasty and harmful today as it ever was”, I’d have to agree with that initial statement, but disagree that this is due to people today not wearing enough clothing. However, it seems like in cultures where there is practically no nudity allowed people have greater problems with porn and lust, while in cultures where people who grow up are exposed to more casual nudity it seems it seems to be the opposite.

partial nudity is pretty much what we’re seeing right now, and pornography is more a problem now then ever before, immodesty IS socially acceptable right now, and it’s not that immodesty is the cause of **this **sin, but it is caused by sin, and currently is the cause for other sins.

Well, cultures which have much more casual nudity seem to have far fewer problems with lust, so I do think it has been shown to have worked. Also, cultures such as those in the Middle East, where women cannot have a square inch of their skin exposed, tend to have far greater problems with lust. Some of the hijackers ordered porn the night before 911, even though they knew they were going to die the next day and get their virgins (or so they thought).

and did these cultures evolve into this casual nudity? or was it introduced?
the problem with the Muslims is that they don’t make their woman dress that way for the sake of chastity, the fact that they think they’re gunna get 40 virgins when they die really shows who their real God is, and what they’re beliefs are based off of,

but if you look at our culture just 100 years ago, when modesty was common practice, we did not have all these problems that we have now, and certainly not even near the degree to which it is now.

if times have changed for the worse, we have to look at what has changed with it, and modesty is one of those things.

To be short, I would stop freaking out about children being exposed to some non-pornographic nudity. Children have not sexualized the human body before puberty, and thus exposure to nudity would not likely be an occasion of sin, and would likely make them have fewer problems with curiosity, lust, and porn during puberty, and for the rest of their lives. I’ve seen a journal article that indicated that children who more often saw their parents in the nude had (if I remember correctly) fewer problems regarding sexuality.

For adults, that would be a longer and more complex issue. For adults it should probably be more gradual, since adults are a lot less plastic in general, and especially in this regard.

the problem with that is, if we looked at nudity in a casual way, if men did not get turned on by seeing a woman naked,
that would take ALOT away from the marital act, God made man and woman this way, that man would be turned on by looking at a woman, and a woman turned on more in the emotional way with the man,
this is how God made it so man and woman would be more attracted to procreation, just like how He wants us to eat, so He makes food enjoyable,
it is something good and moral when done in it’s proper place.
it is good that men are turned on by woman, but not every woman, only their own spouse, and that is something which lies in our human nature, it is good because God put it there, but as anything else, it can be used wrongly,

men use to get turned on just by seeing a ladies bare ankle, so can you imagine how much less men are turned on by now? nudity is not going to make the human body more beautiful, it’s going to cheapen it, the marital act has become so cheapened because men are just turned on less and less by the smaller things,
so yes the human body is beautiful, but there’s a right time and place for everything.

 

[EmeraldWings]

now as far as what Pope John Paul ll said, i do agree, but let’s not interpret what he said wrongly,

“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.”

where does he say at all that public nudity should be acceptable?
yes i agree, the human body can and should retain it’s “splendor and beauty” even when naked…but not in public,
and it’s true, nudity plays a negative role in regard to the value of the person, and so how do we value each other? it shows quite well in our actions, in our dress, you can tell if someone respects others by how they treat them, and you can tell how someone respects themselves by their external modesty(in both their dress and behavior),
the human body does not have to be exposed to be respected, respect is not a physiological thing, it’s an act of the will, and we can decide to be pure, to be respectful, not based on others, but based on God and our religion,
there is no need for nudity, because that is not where the problem is, to overcome impurity, we must practice chastity, and there are many ways to do that, but making yourself unaffected by nudity is not even suggested in any advice recommended for the practice of chastity,
there have been and still are many chaste people in the world, despite it’s current errors, so obviously it can be done, if we simply take the churches advice on it.

Well, God DID make it that way in the beginning. Adam and Eve didn’t seem to wear clothes until they God gave them clothes when they experienced shame.

Humans are born naked. Children typically don’t mind being naked until they have learned that there is shame involved (which some may learn through their parents re-dressing them when they tried to take off their clothes in public, or many other ways).

I still hold, perhaps a little stronger than previously, that there is no exact standard of particulars which the Church makes obligatory, or proclaims to be the case, in which individuals cannot deviate that yet remain modest.

as i said before, the “shame” they felt was not in their nakedness, where would they have even gotten the idea that being nude was shameful? no one could have influenced them that way, and as was said, nudity is not a shameful thing, so that can’t be what they were ashamed of,
they were clothed, just not in anything natural,
and aside from that, they had the right to be nude while alone together, they were husband and wife,

do you not think, that as long as lust is rampant in our society, we should not atleast clothe ourselves appropriately? with the way the world is right now, it will only get worse unless chastity is taken into practice,
implementing casual nudity in a chaste society may not be harmful(although i can’t say i believe that)
but implementing it into a society that is already overly perverted would only result in either more perversion, or different perversion, because the problem is not being taken away, it is just being changed,
the problem is the vice of lust, and lust will always be a temptation no matter what is custom,
the change has to take place in our hearts, but dressing skimpily really only makes it harder for others,
and woman certainly do dress immodestly with the intention of tempting men, i’ve talked to enough young girls in my life to figure that out,
and men love to look, also obvious.

if you do not agree that dressing modestly will help, then you have not personally seen it’s effects, but i have, and i can see how it helps immeasurably,

one thing it does is it shows men, i don’t want you looking at me that way, i respect my body, and so should you,
and that does help very much in how men allow themselves to see and treat woman,

well, i would have more to say, but i gotta get going.

 

[BobObob]

This is not correct.

Gen 3:7 “And the eyes of both of them were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.”

Gen 3:10 “And Adam said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

God did not give them clothes. If what you say is true, BobObob, about shame being learned, why was this the first thing Adam and Eve did when their eyes were opened? Who told them, Adam and Eve, they were naked?

I take back saying that God made the clothes for them.

Genesis 2:25, the last verse of the chapter, said that they were naked “and were not ashamed.” They would have obviously noticed that they weren’t carrying any clothing, but what they wouldn’t have realized until after the fall, which I believe is what Gen 3:7 means by “nakedness”, is shame and degradation of the body. This would be somewhat of a rhetorical sense of the word “naked” that refers to “interior nakedness.”

 

[BobObob]

Part 1/2

EmeraldWings, Since it seems that little progress would likely be made by continuing much more, I think I’ll star winding down on this thread.

Regarding pedophiles being prevalent, I don’t think they are. We hear all the time of cases of child sexual abuse because they create attention-catching headlines stories, but overall, the chances of a child being abused by a pedophile is extremely small. Pedophiles are usually a family member or close friend of the victim, rather than a passerby.

Regarding your use of the word “modesty”, I think it is considerably different from what the Church means when the CC talks about modesty being a virtue that is violated when someone dresses inappropriately. Also, Decency in dress depends greatly on the situation.

Regarding disagreeing with a non-infallible CC teaching, there is no official rulebook for how you may discuss your disagreement with others (at least that I know of). I would say that a good rule in this regard is that one should avoid voicing one’s opinion in such a way that would likely adversely affect the faith of others, or that tries to oppose not only a particular teaching of the magisterium, but rebelliously opposes the office of the magisterium itself. I don’t think that what I’ve been saying is likely to adversely affect the faith of others here on CAF, although I’m sure some would disagree.

I may have mentioned this here, but this is a good article by a professor of Catholic studies, regarding disagreeing with teachings of the CC:

lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html

Your interpretation of the nakedness Adam and Eve were ashamed of is plausible, as is mine. However, with Genesis, especially with things concerning the first parents, it’s difficult to know too much for sure.

Regarding apparitions of Mary, the Church can make these authoritative if the CC recognizes them as authentic.

I assent to the statement by Mary that “Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.” However, it’s difficult to know for sure which particulars she is talking about. Not that we shouldn’t be conscious of what she said and “keep an eye out.”

partial nudity is pretty much what we’re seeing right now, and pornography is more a problem now then ever before, immodesty IS socially acceptable right now, and it’s not that immodesty is the cause of **this **sin, but it is caused by sin, and currently is the cause for other sins.
…
but if you look at our culture just 100 years ago, when modesty was common practice, we did not have all these problems that we have now, and certainly not even near the degree to which it is now.

I’m not an expert historian (even though I’m a history minor) but I believe that casual nudity, in which the person is totally nude in the presence of others, was a lot more common a hundred years ago, while the amount of clothing worn in other situations was probably more than the amount of clothing that is worn today (Victorian like I think). It seems to me that people many years ago would have no problem being nude around others in some situations, but would be more strict regarding what they wear in other situations.

I think what we have more of today is titillating, not casual nudity. The partial nudity that is presented everywhere today is much more of a problem than casual full nudity in the past.

" the problem with that is, if we looked at nudity in a casual way, if men did not get turned on by seeing a woman naked,
that would take ALOT away from the marital act…

I used to think that too, but have since changed my mind.

It seems that people in cultures where nudity is more common procreate just as much as those in other cultures.

For some people, sex is more visual, while for others, its more physical (touch). I learned in a personality class last semester that men are more turned on by visual sexual stimuli, while women tend to be turned on more by stimuli of touch. This is important because this could explain why de-eroticizing nudity might not cause people to stop being turned on sexually. It could be that the more you de-eroticize the visual, the more other aspects of it including that of affectionate touching and even various romantic contexts, could be eroticized instead.

 

[BobObob]

Part 2/2

now as far as what Pope John Paul ll said, i do agree, but let’s not interpret what he said wrongly,

“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.”

where does he say at all that public nudity should be acceptable?

He didn’t say public nudity should be acceptable, but he didn’t exclude it from being acceptable, he indicated that the human body may be exposed, and he indicated that “Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person”. Since it may be possible for public nudity to not play “a negative role with regard to the value of the person,” it is possible for public nudity to be modest (at least by JPII’s view).

there is no need for nudity, because that is not where the problem is, to overcome impurity, we must practice chastity, and there are many ways to do that, but making yourself unaffected by nudity is not even suggested in any advice recommended for the practice of chastity,
there have been and still are many chaste people in the world, despite it’s current errors, so obviously it can be done, if we simply take the churches advice on it.

I’d argue that there can be good reasons for there to be nudity in some contexts. Studies have shown that people who were exposed to more casual nudity while growing up have a much better body image, or comfortability with one’s own body, which could only be a good thing.

To me it seems really clear that cultures in which there is little or no casual nudity tend to struggle a lot more with lust and pornography. Lust is prevalent to varying degrees in every culture, but America is the largest consumer of porn (crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/Porn.pdf ).

there have been and still are many chaste people in the world, despite it’s current errors, so obviously it can be done, if we simply take the churches advice on it.

Thank God for all the chaste people in the world! However, most of the CC’s advice on modesty is not only non-infallible, but also non-authoritative (see the forth kind of CC teaching in the article I cited above). The CC has far off on at least some issues that fall under this king of CC “teaching” (which is more of strong advice).

do you not think, that as long as lust is rampant in our society, we should not atleast clothe ourselves appropriately? with the way the world is right now, it will only get worse unless chastity is taken into practice,
implementing casual nudity in a chaste society may not be harmful(although i can’t say i believe that) but implementing it into a society that is already overly perverted would only result in either more perversion, or different perversion, because the problem is not being taken away, it is just being changed, the problem is the vice of lust, and lust will always be a temptation no matter what is custom, the change has to take place in our hearts, but dressing skimpily really only makes it harder for others, and woman certainly do dress immodestly with the intention of tempting men, i’ve talked to enough young girls in my life to figure that out, and men love to look, also obvious.

I think that allowing an upcoming generation to be appropriately exposed to nudity would prevent a lot of problems, such as problems with porn, immensely.

I think for current adults, being exposed to more of the human body in the right contexts (context is key) can gradually help. In the wrong contexts, it would be a completely different story.

BTW, do you think that male medical students when seeing an image of nude female breasts in order to study, are turned on by it? I don’t. My fathers best friend in childhood is now an MD, and he said that doctors just get used to seeing bodies as if it’s no big deal, and thus, they are somewhat desensitized. However, I don’t think MDs tend to be impaired when it comes to conjugal relations with their spouses.

if you do not agree that dressing modestly will help, then you have not personally seen it’s effects, but i have, and i can see how it helps immeasurably,

I have talked face-to-face with many men who have struggled immensely with pornography and other sexual sins. I think that many of them wouldn’t have such a hard time with lust if they had more healthy exposure to the human body.

Some of these men had same-sex attractions, and had very little comfortable, casual, exposure to nudity around other men (like in a locker room). Many of them had also noted that when they were able comfortably (without feeling shame) be around others of the same sex who were nude in appropriate contexts, their sexual attractions to them diminished greatly, and they were able to be around other men who were nude in these contexts without being tempted to sin! I do realize that these particular cases (those with SSA) are special cases that may or may not apply to normal cases.

I don’t want people to struggle with lust and porn as much as many of these men that I’ve personally talked to have. It is such a difficult burden for these men. If avoiding all nudity and covering as much of the body as possible would best prevent/deal with this, then I’m all for it. If some occasional, situational, casual nudity would better prevent/deal with this than the former, than I’m all for that.

So much for trying to be brief and “wrapping it up”. I guess I get a little caried away sometimes.

 

[EmeraldWings]

first of all i want to apologize, i can’t reply to everything right now because i don’t have the time, but i will try to when i can,
so right now i just wanted to touch on a few points i’ve been thinking about,

first of all, the messages from Our Lady to Jacinta on the modesty and fashions of our time, she not only said "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.”, she also said "Woe to women wanting in modesty.”

now, these things she said are not hard to understand or see, just as the reference i gave you said “It was in 1917 at a Legion of Mary meeting in Baden (Black Forest),
Germany that Father King from the Church of Miuester spoke to the
women at that meeting in regard to Our Lady of Fatima’s prediction of
that same year: . . . “Certain fashions will be introduced that will
offend Our Lord very much.” He had consulted the fashion designers
of Paris, France, concerning the next fashion for women to be
introduced. He reported that it was “pants.””

it’s not something that will happen or that has happened recently, it is something that happened way back when the message was given, and has only gotten much worse up till now.

it was a prediction of warning, because what we wear does matter, there is a standard of modesty that is pleasing to Our Lord, otherwise Our Blessed Lady would not have said that He would be offended by certain fashions, and "Woe to women wanting in modesty.”…what is wanting exactly? i can see what is wanting, young girls every day go around in what i only wear as underclothes,
what kind of fashions do you think could displease Our Lord if nudity or skimpy dress does not offend Him? i really can’t think of much else,
and don’t you think that Our Lady would not have said that one thing out of the few messages she gave if it was not very important and something that would make a very big impact?

as far as studies go, there was a study done on men, in which they discovered that men, when exposed to various pictures of woman, instinctively looked at the woman’s particular body parts,
and of course instinct is not something learned or influenced, it is something inborn, and in this case, a natural tendency which is normal in all average men,
so, if the average man, and i’m sure even the less than average man, instinctively look at woman in those places, then it is not something that can be taken away,

of course in your example of men being uncomfortable around other men in the nude? that is not the same, men should be able to see other men naked and not care, and the same for woman, but men and woman seeing each other naked and not caring? that’s just not how God intended it,
if God made man to instinctively look and be turned on by a woman’s body, then that is a good thing, it’s what God wanted, but only, as i said, in the right circumstance, which is marriage,
you may not think that a man being turned on by what he sees is an important part of the marriage act, but then why did God make it that way? i believe it is an important thing, and if it is seen as a sexual thing? well that’s the point, that’s what sex is supposed to be, sexual does not mean dirty, it’s simply something that is good in and of itself, and bad when misused.
yes the human body is being looked at in the wrong way right now, it is being looked at in a perverted way, that’s the problem, people hear the word “breast” and get dirty thoughts, that’s what impurity is, and people are not perverted because of how they look at the human body, they look at the human body impurely *because *they are perverted.

ok well that is all the time i have, so till next time, take care.

 

[tjm190]

well, it’s not that they are immodest, immodesty by definition meaning indecency, it’s just that they are not, by proper use of the word, modest,
but not being modest does not mean they are being immoral, it just means that there is no moral reason to dress as someone would to cover up what others would gaze on lustfully, which they do not, so there is no moral need.

Alright. Well I’m not sure if agree with everything in the handbook, but it seems pretty adamant that the book’s standards are absolute, responding to claims that the standards were outdated by saying ‘God’s laws never change.’