public nudity a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eureka525
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The words of the Blessed Mother at Fatima to Bl.Jacinta Marto.
Blessed Jacinta Marto

“the sins which bring most souls to hell are the sins of the flesh. Certain fashions are going to be introduced which will offend Our Lord very much… the Church has no fashions; Our Lord is always the same…”
1910-1920
Jacinta on Holy Silence:
Noticing that many visitors chatted and laughed in the chapel, Jacinta asked Mother Godinho to warn them of the lack of respect for the Real Presence this represented. When this measure did not bring about satisfactory results, she asked that the cardinal be advised that “Our Lady does not want people to talk in church.”
Some days, Jacinta while in the hospital, was very saddened by the worldliness of the visitors, the women dressed in fashionable clothes, often with low-cut dresses. “What is it all for?” she asked Mother Godinho (her guardian ). “If they only knew what eternity is.”
Pope Pius XII seriously admonished Christian mothers:

“The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts… If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up… O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill-guarded shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making of yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians.” (Pius XII to Catholic Young Women’s Groups of Italy)
 
Those of you who have replied that nudity is a sin are in disagreement with John Paul II
 
Was reading a thread about whether or not to wear bikinis and I started wondering about nudity in general. Sorry if this has been discussed before, I’m new here and didn’t find anything!

So would nudity that is not meant to incite lust, etc. be considered a sin? For example, I know in some cultures many women sunbathe topless in public parks, beaches, etc., not to mention the numerous nude beaches out there. Would this be considered sinful?
If you’re under the age of two, then no.
 
This made me laugh a little . . . the Vatican is chock full of great works of art, including many, many nudes. Surely the Church doesn’t think all those artists were mortally sinning? Why preserve and display their work?
The “it’s art” argument is always excuse number one. When a certain singer posed nude in a certain magazine, she also said she did it “for art.” I’m positive that’s not why people bought it.

Great art, like great literature, will never be found in the local Adult Bookstore.

God bless,
Ed
 
Public nudity is never sinful. Not during Mardi Gras. Not in an arttist’s studio. Not in the locker-room. Not in the bedroom. Not in Times Square during rush hour.

Any public behavior with the specific intention of causing someone else to behave inappropriately carries moral agency. But even if one appeared nude in public specifically to encourage someone else to behave inappropriately, it would be the intention to incite inappropriate behavior, and not the public nudity, that would be wrong.
Uh huh. So actual nudity is not required?

Mardi Gras is twisted. I can’t repeat what some guys yell to women here. Artist’s studio? Locker room? Those aren’t out in public. Times Square is and it’s indecent.

God bless,
Ed
 
Those of you who have replied that nudity is a sin are in disagreement with John Paul II
He talked about the good ness of the body but he never said nudity was not a sin. Why Did our First parents have to cover up after the original sin? Because the could no longer see the goodness of the body. Be are all born with original sin and still have weekness of the sences. Get It Nudity is a sin!
 
The “it’s art” argument is always excuse number one. When a certain singer posed nude in a certain magazine, she also said she did it “for art.” I’m positive that’s not why people bought it.

Great art, like great literature, will never be found in the local Adult Bookstore.
Nudity for the purpose of inciting one’s lust (pornography), or that is likely to incite lust, under the guise of art, is always wrong. However, not all nudity is porn. The Sistine Chapel has lots of nudity, but no porn.
He talked about the good ness of the body but he never said nudity was not a sin. Why Did our First parents have to cover up after the original sin? Because the could no longer see the goodness of the body. Be are all born with original sin and still have weekness of the sences. Get It Nudity is a sin!
Original sin damaged human nature, but didn’t destroy it.

I think it is good to keep in perspective the fact that not only modesty changes in various ages and in various cultures, but also generally the areas of the body that are typically socially acceptable to expose in a given culture is usually “de-sexualized” in that particular culture. For example, like another person mentioned, in some places in Africa it is normal for women to be topless in public. In those cultures, doing so would not incite lust in the local men, because that part of the body isn’t sexualized, but it likely would for a visitor from America.

Basically, it seems that one who grows up in a culture where nudity is more often socially acceptable is generally less likely to lust because of mere nudity.
 
There is no need to mention other cultures here. The answer to the question is that public nudity is sinful. Period.

God bless,
Ed
 
I personally believe that the sin depends on the person, the way they were raised, and the intention. I’m also in disagreement with the last poster.

My family is from India where the generally accepted modest dress is the sari. Only recently did I realized that many people from western culture thought the sari blouse extended to the waist (Mother Teresa style). In reality, it only comes to half way down your torso and is well over the belly button. This is not considered immodest in India… why? Because it is the traditional dress. It is generally accepted.

Back in the day, if someone came up to a colonist who was wearing a dress up to her ankle and fully covered otherwise and told her she was immodest, would she think so?

This ties in to the theme of how they were raised. If you had generally easy-going parents and you were a tank-top and shorts kinda girl, the idea of wearing a bikini might not seem sinful. However, to someone raised in a conservative home, even wearing a one-piece with a cover up would seem barely bearable. This is on account of the raising.

Finally, the intention. If your intention is to incite a reaction, then don’t do it. If it’s generally
accepted in the culture you’re in, then don’t do it. If you think that it’s on the brink of not being good… then don’t do it.

Personally, yes, I do believe it is a sin. How much of a sin it is however, depends on the person and situation.

Thanks! 👍
 
There is no need to mention other cultures here. The answer to the question is that public nudity is sinful. Period. God bless, Ed
The way western cultures dress is considered offensive to other cultures.eg, Muslims.
I also consider it stupid the way some girls immodestly dress. They are dumb and don’t know any better.
 
The way western cultures dress is considered offensive to other cultures.eg, Muslims.
I also consider it stupid the way some girls immodestly dress. They are dumb and don’t know any better.
I confronted a relative about the way she dressed and her reply, “But all my friends dress like this.” I pointed out the problem with the type of clothing she was wearing.

Are we going to let the media or our friends dress us? What about mom and dad? Where are they?

God bles,
Ed
 
There is no need to mention other cultures here. The answer to the question is that public nudity is sinful. Period.
Cultures DO matter with regard to modesty. CCC 2524 says, “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another…”

Can you show me any Church teaching which says that “public nudity is sinful” per se?

Certainly in America public nudity would almost always be sinful, but that’s because it would tend to either incite lust in people in this culture or in general disturb people (even if it doesn’t incite lust). Very often it seems, people who have had little exposure to the human body growing up will more often be the ones to lust when they see someone of the opposite sex naked.
 
Cultures DO matter with regard to modesty. CCC 2524 says, “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another…”

Can you show me any Church teaching which says that “public nudity is sinful” per se?

Certainly in America public nudity would almost always be sinful, but that’s because it would tend to either incite lust in people in this culture or in general disturb people (even if it doesn’t incite lust). Very often it seems, people who have had little exposure to the human body growing up will more often be the ones to lust when they see someone of the opposite sex naked.
The Marylike Standards For Modesty In Dress [3]

“In order that uniformity in understanding prevail… we recall that a dress cannot be called decent 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 materials are improper.” — The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI.
Code:
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, "like Mary,” Christ's Mother.  

2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows and skirts reaching below the knees. [When a woman sits down her knees should still be well covered]. (Note: because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.)  

3. Marylike dress 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 back, and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.  

4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.  

5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.  

6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.  

7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage even after jacket, cape or stole are removed. — (Full, loose fitting culottes reaching below the knees have been suggested by some as acceptable for picnics, hikes, sports, and certain kinds of work.) [4]

Virtuous, young ladies should understand that dressing modestly does not mean that they cannot appear attractive. However, the attractiveness of their attire should be a modest reflection of the beauty deep within their soul rather than an improper exposure of sensual beauty that has an attraction that is only skin deep. Scripture teaches: "…let their adorning not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden self of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit which is rich in the sight of God" (1Pet. 3:3-4).
this is church teaching! Why would nudity be ok?
 
The Marylike Standards For Modesty In Dress [3]
…
this is church teaching! Why would nudity be ok?
I did a search and I think I found the web page you got it from (tldm.org/News7/modestyMarylikeStandards.htm).

The portion you cited is not an authoritative Church teaching, it is from pages 17-18 of the book Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church by Louis Martin, a private theologian! Private theologians err all the time.

The portion you didn’t cite contained a non-authoritative statement by Pope Pius XII (as a private theologian) that merely said that there must be a norm that prevents changes in culture from justifying fashions that incite lust.

Nudity would be OK because that’s how Adam and Eve were created. It wasn’t until after the fall that they began to wear clothes. Peter was naked out in public in John 21:7 (blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=21&v=7&t=KJV#7). I’m sure there were other instances in which people were rightly naked in public in the Bible. St. Francis stripped naked in public (catholic-saints.suite101.com/article.cfm/st_francis_of_assisi_receives_his_call).

Please don’t present something like it’s authoritative Church teaching when it’s not.
 
We are not born in sin. However, we are inclined to sin. Jesus spilt his blood on the cross to save the world from sin. Not everyone on this earth has sinned nor has everyone lusted after the naked human body. An individual chooses to sin. If someone sees a person naked, they can choose whether to lust after that person or not.
 
Cultures DO matter with regard to modesty. CCC 2524 says, “The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another…”

Can you show me any Church teaching which says that “public nudity is sinful” per se?

Certainly in America public nudity would almost always be sinful, but that’s because it would tend to either incite lust in people in this culture or in general disturb people (even if it doesn’t incite lust). Very often it seems, people who have had little exposure to the human body growing up will more often be the ones to lust when they see someone of the opposite sex naked.
The majority of the people here understand nudity in the American - European context. Your conclusion about seeing the naked human body makes no sense. Too many are addicted to pornography and seeing the naked human form has a lust inducing effect on them without question.

I always get the feeling that those who insist on exposing Western Catholics to other cultures which we do not live in, and there attitudes to partial or full nudity, is not about education but about the idea that public nudity is not only OK but should be practiced in Western countries. I’m against that.

I hope you’ll note that as missionaries entered other cultures, the trend was for people to cover their bodies?

Thank you for the Catechism reference, I appreciate it.

God bless,
Ed
 
The majority of the people here understand nudity in the American - European context. Your conclusion about seeing the naked human body makes no sense. Too many are addicted to pornography and seeing the naked human form has a lust inducing effect on them without question.
Mere nudity is not necessarily pornography. Because nudity is viewed as taboo in the US, it is so often linked to sex. Like someone noted earlier, in parts of Africa where women often go topless, that part of the female anatomy does not cause a sexual response in the males there.

Obviously the Sistine Chapel, which has fully nude men and women, as well as many other famous pieces of art, weren’t meant to incite lust. If they were, the pope wouldn’t have allowed that stuff to be painted anywhere, much less in a holy chapel!
I always get the feeling that those who insist on exposing Western Catholics to other cultures which we do not live in, and there attitudes to partial or full nudity, is not about education but about the idea that public nudity is not only OK but should be practiced in Western countries. I’m against that.
My point is that public nudity is not a sin per se. It just depends on the situation and intent.

I do think that if nudity was less taboo, we would actually have less problems with pornography in our country. One priest, who is from Europe, who my brother knew at Ave Maria, thought that Americans treated mere nudity as too taboo and thus over-sexualize a picture of the human body. He thought that this lead Americans to have more problems with pornography than the rest of the world. As of recently, I’d say I agree with him.

I’d like to see nudity gradually become less taboo in America if that would lead to less use of pornography and less lust. However, most people in this culture would have a hard time imagining that more acceptance of nudity would lead to less lust because in this culture we have connected the two.
I hope you’ll note that as missionaries entered other cultures, the trend was for people to cover their bodies?
I’m a history minor. Sometimes, but not always, having missionaries enter other cultures caused people in those cultures to cover up more. However, this is mainly because those cultures were poor, and tend to go around nude out of necessity because they had little clothes. Thus, when the missionaries arrived, they had more opportunities for resources, and used more clothes as they came. Also, many of these cultures changed to become more like the visiting culture in order to gain favor with them. Other cultures visited by missionaries were different…

I’m not exactly trying to say that people should run around in public naked (although that wouldn’t be sinful to do in some places in many cultures) nor trying to justify the use of pornography. In our culture, it generally would be a sin (unless you went to a private nudist resort, in which case it might not be a sin).
 
I also wanted to add that in Middle Eastern countries where women are pretty much forced to cover every square inch of their body, incidences of rape, including by family members, from what I’ve been told by people who live or used to live in that part of the world, is astronomically high!

I do admit that that may have a lot to do with the male-dominating laws making it extremely easy to get away with rape (a women who is raped could be sentenced to stoning). These laws would drastically lower the rate of reported rape (because no women would say that they have been raped if they’ll get killed because of it).
 
My point is that public nudity is not a sin per se. It just depends on the situation and intent.

I’d like to see nudity gradually become less taboo in America if that would lead to less use of pornography and less lust.

I’m not exactly trying to say that people should run around in public naked (although that wouldn’t be sinful to do in some places in many cultures) nor trying to justify the use of pornography. In our culture, it generally would be a sin (unless you went to a private nudist resort, in which case it might not be a sin).
I’m pretty much in agreement (in principle) with Bob here… the old deal of “The thing that you can’t have is the thing you want the most” comes into play; if everyone went chest-bare topless (weather permitting) there wouldn’t be the urge to peer at those forbidden mammaries. And, once some of “the girls” were openly exposed, I’ll bet that an awful lot of people would prefer that a lot of them were covered up again.

Bob mentioned a Nude resort… I’ve been told that the amount of sexual shenanigans, assaults and rapes at those clothing-free resorts is virtually nil. The participants supposedly don’t stand (or sit) for any of that kind of behavior, and instantly call the cops if it does happen; before you even enter the place, they know who you are, and (so I’m told) they run a criminal background check before permitting you to enter the resort. So, it appears that the people who populate such resorts aren’t perverts, but simply people who are “comfortable in their skin.” A former co-worker used to take an annual vacation to some Caribbean Island where total nudity was normal on the beach; apparently, seeing masses of naked bodies isn’t really as “exciting” as it might seem; this worker simply enjoyed nude swimming and sunbathing, and that was simply not readily available except at this island.

(I wouldn’t know… I’d be embarrassed to appear naked in public like that… the last time I was in the hospital for surgery, I was lying totally in my birthday suit on my back, and it seemed like a dozen nurses were hovering around me… finally I asked one of 'em to cover me up with a blanket or a sheet “because I was cold”… “Bless me Father, for I have sinned… I lied through my teeth to a nurse”…)

Regards,
Ponyguy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top