E
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
They went around nude because they had little clothes?? Can you provide a reference that confirms that?
Nudist resorts do not confer an automatic ‘it’s not a sin or might not be a sin’ classification.
God bless,
Ed
B
BobObob
Guest
Like I said, the fact that a woman could be killed for having been discovered to have been raped makes it nearly impossible to gauge the actual rate of rape there because it is extremely rare for a rape to be reported. After all, what rapist is going to self-incriminate himself and what women would sentence herself to death just to press charges?
middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/a/me0904150.htm
independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/in-the-name-of-god-the-saudi-rape-victims-tale-760847.html
I was going off what some individuals, who live or used to live in the Middle East, had said. They said things were so bad that a woman wasn’t safe at home without a person there to protect her.
Before looking at history, common sense would tell you that if someone didn’t have any clothes in their possession, they were naked. Also, if someone didn’t have lots of clothes, they didn’t wear lots of clothes.
It’s difficult and time consuming to find historical sources for EVERYTHING. These aren’t ideal because you have to dig through them (but that’s how most good research is done, it can take hours to do serious research).
versita.metapress.com/content/4j44hx8381p50437/fulltext.pdf
130.102.44.247/login?uri=/journals/victorian_studies/v050/50.2.levine.pdf
If public nudity is not a sin per se (which is the case), then being naked at an area designated for that (such as a private nudist resort) would not be a sin per se.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
I assume you’re referring to BobOBob.
It can’t be me, because I’m really not all that smart.
And it certainly cannot possibly be Mr. West, because everything Mr. West has posted has – thus far – been almost exactly the opposite of Church teaching, as has been pointed out by every other poster in here. The fact that Mr. West speaks absolutely, in short, unreasoned sentences, as if he were pronouncing anathemas rather than exploring a teaching, could not have fooled you into believing that his understanding of Catholic teaching bears any resemblance to that which is actually held by the Magisterium.
There are many appropriate occasions for nudity, inside and outside the bedroom. Anyone who questions the Church’s teachings on this subject should visit St. Peter’s – or any other Church in the city of Rome – or pick up the Catechism – or read Genesis. They should also bear in mind the prudential and historically circumstantial status of most papal pronouncements, including all informal papal comments. If we humans could get our sexual issues in order (which, tragically, is not likely before the Second Coming, as Genesis makes clear), then public nudity would properly be the norm rather than the exception.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
You might have that backward. God designed males to be attracted to females and vice versa—the taboo (and rightly so) proceeds from that fact.
As for Mr. West posting everything ‘opposite’ to Church teachings—I do not find that to be the case.
E
edwest2
Guest
I can’t agree with that last comment at all. There are other designated areas where it may be legal for people to do certain things, but that does not make them less sinful.
Thank you for providing the references.
Regards,
Ed
B
BobObob
Guest
Pornography is real or simulated sex acts (CCC 2354) or other materials which are intended to arouse another person sexually (could be books, images, or videos).
Nudity in itself does not always qualify as pornography. A male medical student looking at images of a naked lady while studying the human anatomy isn’t usually aroused by or intending to be aroused by looking at these images.
It’s the intent that differentiates non-pornographic nudity from pornography. In fact, pornography doesn’t necessarily need to involve nudity since semi-nude images may have the intent to sexually arouse people.
God did design the sexes to be attracted to one another, but nudity in itself isn’t always arousing. The context matters a lot in cultures where nudity is more socially acceptable. Men in African cultures where women often go topless don’t lust as much at a woman who Is topless, but at the same time they still reproduce probably just as much as anyone in other parts of the world.
B
BobObob
Guest
I think you might have misread what I said. I was saying that if it isn’t a sin (per se), then it’s OK to do it in a designated area (per se). I think that usually going to a location designated for nudity (and being nude there) is usually not a sin (but this is contingent on one’s intent).
BTW, I’ve neither been to, nor could imagine myself ever going to, a nude beach or resort. I’m actually the person who goes to great lengths to avoid being naked or half naked around others. Perhaps if I grew up in another part of the world or a different age that would be different.
Of course having a designated area for something doesn’t give one license to do whatever it is. There are designated areas for killing babies (Planned Parenthood), but that doesn’t give one license to do so.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Are you certain you want to leap in and defend blanket ‘nudity?’ And are you also certain you are so good at reading intent that you are ready to decree a thumbs-up or down on any particular image or person?
B
BobObob
Guest
I’m simply saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity. I’m not trying to say that we should be running around naked or posting nude pictures up everywhere.
My personal skill in detecting one’s intent aren’t really that relevant to this discussion. Generally however, it is not difficult for people to distinguish the difference. It is my understanding that people who live in cultures where situational nudity is more commonly accepted tend to have better judgment in this regard.
In the American culture, full nudity is almost always intended to arouse, and thus I don’t think Americans are typically good at distinguishing a difference (accept for obvious situations such as locker rooms).
W
Wowbagger
Guest
I don’t want to pull the thread too far off-topic, but I think this is worth pointing out. The common culture abuses the word “pornography,” giving that word much too broad of a definition, and that broadness leads sometimes to serious confusion in discussions like this one. (It also leads to bad Supreme Court opinions, like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous definition of pornography as “I know it when I see it.”) So let’s clarify exactly what the Catholic Church means by “pornography.”
In the strictest sense, a picture of a nude person is never pornography (for the purposes of CCC 2354) under any circumstances. CCC 2354 would not only not recognize Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel as pornography; CCC 2354 would not even recognize a Playboy centerfold as pornography. This is because CCC 2354 defines pornography – very deliberately – as removing from the marital context “real or simulated sexual acts.” No matter what you do with nudity, nakedness is never a “sexual act.” Can’t be.
Now, obviously, there’s a lot else that’s wrong with a Playboy centerfold, and the fact that looking at a naked lady in Playboy is sinful is shown by other passages in the Catechism – CCC 2521, for instance, insists on modesty and “refusing to unveil what should remain hidden,” and condemns both those who act immodestly and those who dwell on or lust after such immodest behaviour. CCC 2351’s ban on lust (either harboring it in onself or provoking it in another) is self-explanatory. The entire chapter on lust (CCC 2514 - 2533) makes it very clear that deliberately provoking impure thoughts in your own heart, whether by looking at pictures of completely naked ladies in Playboy or watching the girls on Baywatch or thinking sexy thoughts about Edward Cullen from Twilight, is seriously sinful, and very damaging to your relationship with God.
But none of it, according to the Catholic Church, is pornography. It can be sinful; sometimes it’s clearly sinful. Here in the common culture, we loosely call everything that provokes sexual thoughts “pornography” or at least “softcore porn.” But unless the actual commission of sexual acts is involved, it simply is not pornography. It doesn’t matter what the producer’s intent is; it doesn’t matter what the effect on the consumer is – mere nudity cannot be pornography.
Therefore, nudity is sometimes (often!) inappropriate, frequently sinful, and constantly exploited in our sexually deranged culture in all sorts of evil ways – but, properly speaking, nudity is never pornographic.
Like I said at the beginning, that’s a bit of a digression, but I think that once the distinction is seen it will clear up certain intellectual difficulties happening in this thread.
EDIT:
Sailor Kenshin:
I would be gratified for an explanation of your findings. So far Mr. West’s flat pronouncements on Church teaching have numbered four: (1) culture is irrelevant in the determination of standards of modesty (demonstrably false and thus demonstrated with Catechetical references); (2) artistic value is no excuse for nudity, which is always sinful (which would make Pope John Paul II, restorer of the Sistine Chapel, the moral equivalent of Hugh Hefner) and (3) that “public nudity is always sinful. Period,” (demonstrably false and thus demonstrated by Biblical, Catechetical, Sacred Traditional, and Catholic Cultural references), and (4) “it does not matter what nudists might think because if they want to have kids then there is a condition required for sexual arousal” (which is possibly accurate, and which I might even agree with, but about which there has been no official Church teaching).
The rest of his posts have consisted of general observations about life in the Western world, historical judgements, and questions. Those are his four doctrinal statements. Two are obviously, totally false. One is not false on its face, but has so many absurd implications for a Catholic that it must be considered untenable. The last is a dramatic overstatement of existing teaching.
All of this has been done without citation or reference to the teaching of the Magisterium or the Holy Father, while the more liberal-minded in this thread have hewed closely to Vatican documents, Sacred Scripture, and serious consideration of the mind of the Church.
I did not speak flippantly or lightly when I said what I did. I would be very interested to know how you came to different conclusions.
B
BobObob
Guest
Wowbagger, I guess I view terms as flexible in the sense that they change to refer to different concepts over time. Often, the way a word enters the dictionary, or has it’s officially recognized definitions changed, is by being abused enough. For example, the word “gay” has certainly changed a lot since the original usage which used to mean “happy”.
My use of the word “pornography” extended beyond what CCC 2354 defines it as. I was using it as it typically is used today, that of material (such as books, pictures, or videos) which are intended to sexually arouse someone. One must understand that the CCC is not a document that infallibly defines, but rather JPII’s summary, as a private theologian, of previously existing Church teachings. Thus, the CCC is a great tool for learning/teaching the Catholic faith which in itself isn’t infallible, but many of the teachings in it are.
The reason I brought up porn was to make the point that looking at the naked (or semi-naked or even fully clothed) human body is morally qualified according to the intent. If one is looking at an image of a naked lady for sexual gratification, than that person is committing sin. If a medical student looks at an image of a naked lady merely to study the human anatomy, he isn’t sinning.
Other than the meaning and usage of the word “pornography”, it seems that you and I are on the same page.
My use of the word “pornography” extended beyond what CCC 2354 defines it as. I was using it as it typically is used today, that of material (such as books, pictures, or videos) which are intended to sexually arouse someone. One must understand that the CCC is not a document that infallibly defines, but rather JPII’s summary, as a private theologian, of previously existing Church teachings. Thus, the CCC is a great tool for learning/teaching the Catholic faith which in itself isn’t infallible, but many of the teachings in it are.
The reason I brought up porn was to make the point that looking at the naked (or semi-naked or even fully clothed) human body is morally qualified according to the intent. If one is looking at an image of a naked lady for sexual gratification, than that person is committing sin. If a medical student looks at an image of a naked lady merely to study the human anatomy, he isn’t sinning.
Other than the meaning and usage of the word “pornography”, it seems that you and I are on the same page.
A
adv1sor
Guest
Do we, in the US, make too big a deal out of nudity? Yes, I believe that we do.
That said, would you who think that public nudity might be ok, assuming you are a heterosexual male, visit a nude beach if there were only other men there and no women?
Would you feel comfortable walking naked through a park accompanied by Mary or Jesus?
You know what’s in your heart and, more importantly, God knows what’s in our hearts.
That said, would you who think that public nudity might be ok, assuming you are a heterosexual male, visit a nude beach if there were only other men there and no women?
Would you feel comfortable walking naked through a park accompanied by Mary or Jesus?
You know what’s in your heart and, more importantly, God knows what’s in our hearts.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
You’re entirely correct about this, and about the authority of the CCC, and I also see why you brought up pornography as you did.
I wanted to raise the distinction, though, because I think it’s important to at least point out that there are major, categorical differences between “any potentially arousing subject” and, say, Debbie Does Dallas. That error leads to all sorts of mischief, and, unchecked, it leads to almost everything being classified as pornography – from the naked human body to the complete library of Grace Kelly movies.
So, I thought it was worth mentioning, in the same way that it’s worth mentioning that “the common good” does not mean what most people assume it means (“the greatest good for the greatest number”), even though everyone understands the subject immediately at hand.
And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
P
papawbooks
Guest
"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.’
Code:
---Karol Cardinal Woytyla [Pope John Paul ll ]
'Love & responsibility', 1981
E
edwest2
Guest
As someone who works in the media, I have seen far too many attempts to normalize pornography, nudity and the exploitation of women. The lie proposed by the National Organization for Women that men are “male chauvenists pigs” is exposed for what it is when women in Sex and the City are portrayed as female chauvenist pigs.
Not enough is being made of “gentlemen’s clubs” or adult bookstores, which did not exist in abundance until the 1970s and lewd remarks and images shown on TV.
Wake up people. Indifference can and will lead you to think: “Hey. What’s the big deal?”
God bless,
Ed
P
Ponyguy
Guest
Nobody I know of will claim that “Gentlemen’s clubs” (what a gross mis-nomer!) are not a den of sin. Those nasty places are the Boar’s nest of Satan.
And no male human who would patronize such a place can correctly be entitled a “Gentleman.”
Not terribly far from where I live is a “Bookstore for Adults” that has been the target of the County’s State’s Attorney for years. The county has spent a considerable sum of money trying to eradicate the place, but the shyster lawyers hired by the store has always found a way to circumvent or redefine the laws. The best that we got after forking over seven figures of taxpayer dollars was for the place to require a plain wall front, with parking lot and entrance on the back side of their building. Fortunately, it’s located in a rather isolated area away from residential areas and children.
These nests of iniquity exist because of the considerable income they generate, which allows them to purchase the sleaziest of pettifogging shysters.
A
avflf
Guest
Only if you’re over 50.
P
papawbooks
Guest
Yes, of course we should fight pornography, but we should use a new approach. Pope John Paul ll once said that the problem with pornography was not that it revealed too much, but that it revealed too little. In the past, this attitude was far from evident in our deportment as we crusaded against pornography. The impression we gave was that pornography, indeed, revealed too much. By so operating, we effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater. The end result was an abiding contempt for the body itself.
“Decency” necessarily meant keeping the body out of sight and out of mind.
Instead of denying the body altogether, we should have asserted it in its rightful place. By undressing Michelangelo’s figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel Pope John Paul ll did just that.
This is why we must begin to move in the opposite direction, opposing pornography with new tactics–tactics which do not negate the body but which elevate it to its rightful, God-given place.
GOD BLESS
“Decency” necessarily meant keeping the body out of sight and out of mind.
Instead of denying the body altogether, we should have asserted it in its rightful place. By undressing Michelangelo’s figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel Pope John Paul ll did just that.
This is why we must begin to move in the opposite direction, opposing pornography with new tactics–tactics which do not negate the body but which elevate it to its rightful, God-given place.
GOD BLESS
B
Bookcat
Guest
not been following this thread either but
Catechism of the Catholic Church notes (read the whole slowly…i highlighted parts but the whole is important0:
2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. **It inspires one’s choice of clothing. **It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.
Catechism of the Catholic Church notes (read the whole slowly…i highlighted parts but the whole is important0:
2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.
2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. **It inspires one’s choice of clothing. **It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.
2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.
2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.
- Status