modesty

  • Thread starter Thread starter daughteroftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daughteroftruth

Guest
How much modesty is to be observed between spouses? I’m looking for the traditional view of this, so please, please, please, PLEASE don’t quote Theology of the Body or Christopher West.
Thank you:)
 
Curious that you’re not interested in a quote from the late beloved Pope John Paul II.

But one old OMI priest would say (adapt genders as appropriate), “Your body is her body. Her body is your body. What is the problem?”

The Song of Solomon certainly does not suggest that the couple were scrupulous about how they appeared before each other.

St. Isaac of Syria who lived in the 400’s (is this traditional enough?) wrote that we wear clothes because the human body is holy, and holy things are veiled from the eyes of unconsecrated persons. But since husband and wife are consecrated to each other, no clothes are necessary.
 
I’m guessing that there may not have been one single “traditional” position, or official “Church position” on this. My sense is that there were certain ethnic / cultural forces - and certain religious orders - that, at various times and places, influenced local or regional church teachings as couples prepared for marriage. For example - and this is based on impressions from family members brought up in the '20’s and '30’s French Canadian and Irish parishes, I’m thinking that there wasn’t a whole lot of stress on relaxed connubial nudity and the consecration of each other’s bodies to the other.

Conversely, “Mediterranean”-influenced cultures - even those in the “colder” U.S., likely produced couples with a more relaxed approach to being “naked and unashamed” with each other, if that’s what you’re thinking of. But again, this is just a theory of mine.
 
Cluny said:
Curious that you’re not interested in a quote from the late beloved Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Because I’m interested in a *Catholic *opinion on the subject, not a *convenient *one.
The Song of Solomon certainly does not suggest that the couple were scrupulous about how they appeared before each other.
Click to expand...
This is not a literal book.
St. Isaac of Syria who lived in the 400’s…
Click to expand...
…(is this traditional enough?)…
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: raised eyebrows 😉
…wrote that we wear clothes because the human body is holy, and holy things are veiled from the eyes of unconsecrated persons. But since husband and wife are consecrated to each other, no clothes are necessary.
Click to expand...
That was a good one, thank you.🙂
 
Adam and Eve wore clothes in Genesis. And they were married. And not only did they put on clothing themselves after eating the apple, God saw it wasn’t enough and put some of His own clothing on them instead.

So… while strictly speaking husband and wife can view one another without clothing because they are consecrated to one another…

Modesty is something else, and applies still. How does it apply?

Well there’s a lot to consider there, and I want to think a bit more before I put in more than two cents. Modesty is the clothing and exterior appearance, manner, and behavior issue of course, but it is more than this too.

There’re a lot of sermons below in the links on modesty, but I do not know how much they address people after marriage, though of course for the most part what applies before will apply after because it’s not a virtue that disappears after marriage, merely has some changes in certain aspects.

I’m glad to have a relatively ToB free discussion of this matter I might add, and very glad that West is out.
 
Cluny said:
Curious that you’re not interested in a quote from the late beloved Pope John Paul II.

But one old OMI priest would say (adapt genders as appropriate), “Your body is her body. Her body is your body. What is the problem?”

The Song of Solomon certainly does not suggest that the couple were scrupulous about how they appeared before each other.

St. Isaac of Syria who lived in the 400’s (is this traditional enough?) wrote that we wear clothes because the human body is holy, and holy things are veiled from the eyes of unconsecrated persons. But since husband and wife are consecrated to each other, no clothes are necessary.
Click to expand...
Like **all **of these…not only for their substance, but for what they suggest about the freedom of spouses to be with each other openly. 😉
 
Is this what your looking for?

The Church upholds St. Paul’s teaching regarding conjugal chastity:

1 Corinthians 7: 4-5

4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

Remember the Marital Embrace is a sacred gift from God. It has only been twisted by the secular culture in concert with Satan to confuse people.😉
 
Because I’m interested in a Catholic opinion on the subject, not a convenient one.
Click to expand...
Please explain why you think Pope John Paul II isn’t Catholic.
 
Cluny said:
Please explain why you think Pope John Paul II isn’t Catholic.
Click to expand...
:(Begin a thread for this topic and I will unhappily name the matters in which the last pope was less than Catholic.
 
Island_Oak said:
You surely don’t suggest our beloved late Pope was something other than Catholic?
Click to expand...
In *some *matters he did not uphold Catholic teaching, and so in *some *matters he was *not *Catholic. Not a suggestion, just an acknowledgment of a sad fact.
 
I always keep myself covered with nothing hanging out.😉

A pet pieve of mine is when people come to church with scantly dressed teen.

Jorja
 
JorjaMay said:
I always keep myself covered with nothing hanging out.😉

A pet pieve of mine is when people come to church with scantly dressed teen.

Jorja
Click to expand...
shiver

that is so wicked:( But then why in the heck aren’t the priests saying anything about it…Now *that *makes *me *mad!
 
daughteroftruth said:
In *some *matters he did not uphold Catholic teaching, and so in *some *matters he was *not *Catholic. Not a suggestion, just an acknowledgment of a sad fact.
Click to expand...
It is a very dangerous thing to judge others, least of all the Bishop of Rome as the head of Christ’s Church. While it is very easy to criticize others, can you not accept the awesome responsibility and burden that it is to be pope and think that for a moment, just one moment things might be other than what YOU think they are?
 
Island_Oak said:
Thanks for posting my reply to you for me!!!
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but worshipping the Pope is a sin, not to mention it adds fuel to anti-Catholic propaganda. Applying perfection to him - which is what you’re doing by implying I’m wicked for simply *disagreeing *with an *opinion *of his - is putting him on a pedestal that belongs to God Almighty. Also, it’s a lie, and the father of lies is who?

Now, would you like to contribute to the thread’s actual question or would you prefer to continue bashing me?
 
Timothysis said:
It is a very dangerous thing to judge others, least of all the Bishop of Rome as the head of Christ’s Church. While it is very easy to criticize others, can you not accept the awesome responsibility and burden that it is to be pope and think that for a moment, just one moment things might be other than what YOU think they are?
Click to expand...
Can *you *accept the fact that the pope is not perfect and can make mistakes? I know he had a lot to deal with and don’t imagine for one second that his job was easy just because he was the pope, but to say he’s perfect is a lie. It’s not a matter of him disagreeing with me, it’s the fact that he went against 2000 of Christian teaching in some (not all) matters. Regarding some of his mistakes I believe that 1) his intentions were noble, and 2)that part of the time he was under duress…a form of cowardice, I’ll call it. We’re all guilty of it at one point or another, I’m no exception. I’m not saying he’s damned for it, I’m not saying he’s evil; I’m just acknowledging certain facts. It would be nice if he, along with all the other bishops of the world (and other Christians, for that matter) were perfect in every way, but that’s simply not the case.:o
 
AdriannaJean said:
Here is the new thread you asked for:

Take care to explain yourself carefully, you tread on Holy ground…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5202777#post5202777
Click to expand...
I was treading carefully, but I actually have nothing to worry about as I’m not deviating from the teachings of the Church in reference to the pope, nor have I been uncharitable in my remarks of him. Rather than just giving an answer to the question, some decided to just begin bashing me for not upholding false doctrine. I’d apologize for that, but I’m not sorry, and have no reason to be.

One reason I specified my question the way I did is because - contrary to popular belief - the Church wasn’t founded in the 1960s. I don’t believe the Church herself has specified modesty to the degree I was asking, but I was interested more in what had been the general consensus of the Church (among the Saints) throughout the centuries, versus the current opinion of sex-crazed today.
 
daughteroftruth said:
Can *you *accept the fact that the pope is not perfect and can make mistakes? I know he had a lot to deal with and don’t imagine for one second that his job was easy just because he was the pope, but to say he’s perfect is a lie. It’s not a matter of him disagreeing with me, it’s the fact that he went against 2000 of Christian teaching in some (not all) matters. Regarding some of his mistakes I believe that 1) his intentions were noble, and 2)that part of the time he was under duress…a form of cowardice, I’ll call it. We’re all guilty of it at one point or another, I’m no exception. I’m not saying he’s damned for it, I’m not saying he’s evil; I’m just acknowledging certain facts. It would be nice if he, along with all the other bishops of the world (and other Christians, for that matter) were perfect in every way, but that’s simply not the case.:o
Click to expand...
Either you are sincere to a fault or extremely misguided to think that YOU are the one to set the criteria to judge anyone, least of all the pope. It is those on the far right of the spectrum who give ordinary Catholics a bad name because of the type of thing that you are doing at this very moment. My comment to you is this; you are not the one to judge who or what goes with or “goes against” Church teaching. Have you ever heard the expression, “more holy than the pope?” It isn’t meant as a compliment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top