What defines knowledge or reasonable expectation? Should a study come out stating that 5% males are aroused by a woman’s stomach, would covering the stomach be necessary? What about 10%? 2%? 0%?
If a study should come out saying that as many men are aroused by a woman’s face as by her breasts, are women morally obligated to cover their faces?
How are shoulders “reasonably expected” to cause arousal? Should I be worried about an onslaught of shoulder fetishists, or am I missing something about them that makes them titillating?
Dear Baelor,
Hello again and thankyou for the above.
For the Catholic, my dear friend, knowledge and reasonable expectation are determined by using what we know of the human condition as a consequence of man’s fallen estate. Moreover, our experience of life only serves to reinforce and verify the conclusions of theology.
Studies can be used to prove all manner of things and so we should not place any undue credence upon them, much better to consult the consistent teaching of the Church and its moral theology. We know that men have a fallen nature and are accordingly inclined to wrongdoing of one sort or another, thus it makes good sense to avoid all the occasions of sin. Now as far as the issue of modesty is concerned, it is one thing for a woman to make herself attractive, but it is quite another to make herself deliberately seductive. Believe me, dear friend, women do know the difference and so do we chaps. The good moral sense of the faithful has always held it to be wrong and jolly uncharitable for a woman to so dress as to incite lust in members of the opposite sex by indecorous clothing choices, remember the reference from Killgallon and Weber (# 32) earlier in the thread.
As previously stated, owing to the Fall, man is subject to concupiscence or evil desire and therefore the sight of scantily clad women is likely to stimulate his baser passions, which could result in mortal sin. True, I freely admit that our Church has not mandated any one choice of clothing for men and women, but that is not the point, for the Church expects the faithful to employ their sanctified common sense to determine which
particular garments violate standards of good taste and decency and which are perfectly acceptable. It is only a sort of legalistic Evangelicalism that desires to be spoon fed as to which garments
specifically fail to comply with modesty and which trespass the bounds of propriety. Thus, for example, a few generations ago very few Catholics, if any, would have sought to defend wearing a bikini or a tarty garment like and min-skirt. Thus there appears to have been a complete loss of moral sense among many, but by no means all, modern Catholics who have become conformed to the immoral culture in their midst, instead of seeking to transform it by offering a vibrant Christian counter-culture that dares to be different and not follow the multitudes in their sinful ways and fashions.
No, my dear brother, it
is a well-formed conscience, not “scientific studies”, that should be our criterion, steering us away from manifestly seductive style attire, which causes others to view us as little more than an assemblege of body parts. Women dressing in modest apparel helps counteract the strength of concupiscence and neutralize its virulent effects. This, coupled with men striving to keep their base passions in subjection, will necessarily result in less emphasis upon the body, thus putting a check on the sexualisation of our culture. Can that really be such a terrible thing?
When we approach this whole issue from the sane and objective perspective of Catholic theology, especially as it relates to Original Sin and its dire consequences, then we are unlikely to fall into erroneous and relativistic thinking concerning immodest vesture. Born as we are with a wounded nature disposed towards sin, we must needs ensure that we keep our bodies well-covered, so as not to unnecessarily excite impurity in others. This, I realize, may not chime with secular femenism, but the fact is that when a woman dons immodest attire, she
ipso facto becomes a temptress for men and forgets, as someone has aptly remarked, that she is the “guardian of chastity for the world”. Let us look at our dear Lord’s words to those who fall prey to impurity of thought: “But I say to you that everyone who looks on a woman lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his heart” (S. Matt. 5: 28). Indirectly at least, immodestly attired women are included in this indictment, being co-operators as it were in the sins of men. God has certainly made women beautiful and attactive to men so as to fit with his plan of procreation and holy wedlock, nothing bad about that. Unfortunately, however, because of his fallen estate, man must unceasingly struggle to regulate his* a**ttraction* by keeping his baser instincts under control. Now it is manifestly obvious, given all this, that unless men and women take positive steps to reduce the strength of concupiscence, sin will swiftly enter their souls and defile them. Men and women owe it to each other as brethren in Christ to be co-operators in avoiding sin by being decently clothed. How, in all honesty, will a bikini, mini-skirt, tightly-fitting garments that emphasize body shape/parts, unseemly exposure of the shoulders, help towards this end, my dear chap?
By wearing inappropriate indecorous clothing or being scantily clad, men and women are communicating much about their moral standards, or rather lack of them, and we are entitled to censure those deplorable violations of good taste and decency in the strongest terms, as Catholics have always done, since they are degrading and an affront to our all Holy God.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
