Sins against purity/chasity

[Bearontherun]

It’s a person’s mind – that makes another human being “immodest”----Not the clothes.

Do clothing choices have any role to play in practicing the virtue of modesty in your opinion?

Actually the “modesty” movement – is teaching “immodesty” of the heart/mind-- by “teaching” – that the clothes worn makes another human being “immodest”-- teaching the "objectification of another. It “teaches/puts in people minds” – to view another as lesser-- to devalue – the person – for what they wear.

I think that it is the over-sexualization of fashions that devalue women/men. Those fashions emphasize a person’s physical “assets” in an immoderate way and thereby distract from the beauty and value that lies within.

 

[Walking_Home]

Do clothing choices have any role to play in practicing the virtue of modesty in your opinion?

I think that it is the over-sexualization of fashions that devalue women/men. Those fashions emphasize a person’s physical “assets” in an immoderate way and thereby distract from the beauty and value that lies within.

---

It is how we are “taught” — that plays the role – in how we view another human being. “Teach” – that what a person wears – makes the person “immodest” – that is what is believed. This in itself – devalues the human being – in the mind of the one who has been “taught” – to view another as “immodest” for what is worn.

 

[Bearontherun]

---

It is how we are “taught” — that plays the role – in how we view another human being. “Teach” – that what a person wears – makes the person “immodest” – that is what is believed. This in itself – devalues the human being – in the mind of the one who has been “taught” – to view another as “immodest” for what is worn.

I would agree that we should not label someone as an “immodest person” based on their clothes …or other things.

I would want to teach my children though, that a person dressed immoderately is more likely to attract attention - and possibly the “wrong kind” of attention.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

It is how we are “taught” — that plays the role – in how we view another human being. “Teach” – that what a person wears – makes the person “immodest” – that is what is believed. This in itself – devalues the human being – in the mind of the one who has been “taught” – to view another as “immodest” for what is worn.

I would agree that we should not label someone as an “immodest person” based on their clothes …or other things.

I would want to teach my children though, that a person dressed immoderately is more likely to attract attention - and possibly the “wrong kind” of attention.

---

The message is still the same — the devaluing of the human being-- because of the “immoderate” form of attire. A young child-- who has been “taught” – the devaluing of a human being – because of what is worn-- will be more likely – to progress into giving another – the “wrong kind” of attention.

 

[Bearontherun]

---

The message is still the same — the devaluing of the human being-- because of the “immoderate” form of attire. A young child-- who has been “taught” – the devaluing of a human being – because of what is worn-- will be more likely – to progress into giving another – the “wrong kind” of attention.

I would never teach my children to “devalue” a human being, but on the contrary, I teach them to love everyone and see their human dignity. I do my best to fulfull my responsibility to teach them that they should exercise the virtues of temperance and humility in all things. Modesty in clothing choices being one of them…out of love for God, their neighbour, and themselves.

What role(if any) do clothing choices play in practicing the virtue of modesty in your opinion?

 

[Walking_Home]

I would never teach my children to “devalue” a human being, but on the contrary, I teach them to love everyone. I do my best to fulfull my responsibility to teach them that they should exercise the virtues of temperance and humility in all things. Modesty in clothing choices being one of them…out of love for God, their neighbour, and themselves.

Do clothing choices have any role to play in practicing the virtue of modesty in your opinion?

---

If you are teacing them to love and respect everyone —to truely value the human being – the choices of clothes a person makes-- will fade – for what will shine and come to the forefront-- is the person him/her self.

 

[Bearontherun]

---

If you are teacing them to love and respect everyone —to truely value the human being – the choices of clothes a person makes-- will fade – for what will shine and come to the forefront-- is the person him/her self.

True, clothing choices should fade to the background and inner worth should shine through…I do try to teach my children this.

And I also do hope that when my children choose their own clothing that they will not need to use it as a means of getting attention and acceptance (I know that not everyone dressing a certain way is doing it for “attention”) but that they will have the confidence that their inner worth will shine through.

 

[Paddy1989]

---

The message is still the same — the devaluing of the human being-- because of the “immoderate” form of attire. A young child-- who has been “taught” – the devaluing of a human being – because of what is worn-- will be more likely – to progress into giving another – the “wrong kind” of attention.

The argument here isn’t that we as Christian’s shouldn’t devalue anyone as that’s the very reason we preach modesty in the first place, so that that each person understand’s the dignity and value of every human including themselves. When we as Christian’s see someone dressing immodestly we should/Do not devalue them but encourage modesty and it is demanded from us as Catholic’s. It seem’s that you believe men have a button in their brain that can turn on/off sexual excitement whenever they wish, i don’t know if this is the case for woman but certainly not for men.

If a woman dresses in a way in which specific area’s of her body are almost exposed or exaggerated does this seek to arouse and excite the male, of course, even without her knowing at times, secularist’s who have no problem with it will do so, many will see no problem with looking lustfully upon other’s even when in relationship or marriage. For Catholic’s who should/do desire their spouse exclusively it become’s more of something they have to avoid and turn away from and sometimes struggle with. They feel that she is exposing that which only her husband should ever see. They cannot look at such a thing as indifferent as what you propose

 

[Walking_Home]

Walkin_Home:

The message is still the same — the devaluing of the human being-- because of the “immoderate” form of attire. A young child-- who has been “taught” – the devaluing of a human being – because of what is worn-- will be more likely – to progress into giving another – the “wrong kind” of attention.

The argument here isn’t that we as Christian’s shouldn’t devalue anyone as that’s the very reason we preach modesty in the first place, so that that each person understand’s the dignity and value of every human including themselves. When we as Christian’s see someone dressing immodestly we should/Do not devalue them but encourage modesty and it is demanded from us as Catholic’s. It seem’s that you believe men have a button in their brain that can turn on/off sexual excitement whenever they wish, i don’t know if this is the case for woman but certainly not for men.

If a woman dresses in a way in which specific area’s of her body are almost exposed or exaggerated does this seek to arouse and excite the male, of course, even without her knowing at times, secularist’s who have no problem with it will do so, many will see no problem with looking lustfully upon other’s even when in relationship or marriage. For Catholic’s who should/do desire their spouse exclusively it become’s more of something they have to avoid and turn away from and sometimes struggle with. They feel that she is exposing that which only her husband should ever see. They cannot look at such a thing as indifferent as what you propose

---

We should always see the dignity and value of the person – no matter what the person wears. The dignity and true value of the human being is not dependent on how they dress. It is how we think of them in our mind – that attacks and devalues the person. A man – who has been “taught” at some point in his life – that a woman is “immodest” by what she wears — has been “taught” to devalue. For every woman he lays eyes on – he will “categorize” in his mind —as “modest” – “immodest”. Once this devaluing happens–it opens the door – to further “objectify” the person via his own improper thoughts.

And again – placing the responsibility on the body – for inciting improper thoughts – is leading toward manichaeism.

 

[severus68]

It is like this: the body when absent of food, becomes weak and tiresome, we bump into things, forget things and often become grumpy and say things we shouldnt.

So the soul, which needs prayer to survive, when prayer is absent from it, then the soul becomes weak as does our control over the flesh. This is how temptations and sexual impure acts with ourselves or others creep in.

With supreme prayer of the heart and watchfulness this can be cured but it’s rare for someone to be completely exempt from falling into commiting these sins unless they lead the life of spiritual perfection like the monks or hermits. And again it would be truely rare for any monk not to have these ‘‘temptations’’ at all.

Sometimes masturbation can be a horrible Cross that one has to just go to confession again and again and just work with the Lord in trying to overcome it, but it can be overcome if the person in question really wants to overcome it.

Good post.

 

[severus68]

---

It’s your mind – that “sexualizes” - not the clothes. And again-- placing responsibility on a person as causing "lust’ – is leading toward a manichaen mentality of the human body.

Agreed.

 

[severus68]

No one can force someone to sin–but if I invite a friend over who I know is dieting and make all of her favorite foods, cookies etc…and set them out for her to have…sure if she partakes that’s her fault but why would I as her friend do this?? Women who dress with thier low necklines, shorts that barely cover thier bottom–good grief men are visually stimulated. Why would a good and holy women, a sister in Christ want to do this to her brother in Christ. It’s wrong and many girls don’t understand how men are wired, I didn’t when I was young. I see girls dressed like this at Mass!! Women are not wired the same. That doesn’t mean we don’t like sex or that we can not have problems in this area or with pornography, it is just not as common.

With respect, that analogy is not correct. Firstly, most women are not dressing for the purpose of inciting lust. Secondly, should everyone who is not dieting hide their food, not eat in public? A person with an addiction to food, alcohol will have to control their addictions by their own decision to do so and with food and alcohol readily availabe.
I am also rather uncomfortable in likening a woman’s body to food.

It is so easy for some to use the ‘men are wired differenty’ excuses, men are more visual’ to condemn and control women.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Firstly, most women are not dressing for the purpose of inciting lust.

I certainly hope and pray that most women are not.

However, if you believe that there is not a strong element of our culture that promotes lust as a virtue, I suggest you consider the standard fare on the magazine rack next time you go through checkout at the grocery store or grab something inside the convenience store.

Whether it is “women’s” magazine with all the lastest sex tricks.

Or “men’s” magazines with a scantily clad women draping herself across the hood of a car.

Or go by the perfume aisle and read the names of the perfumes.

Or consider what Victorias Secret puts in their store front for any man, woman, or child walking through the mall to see.

Secular American culture attempts to turn morality on its head. Vices are virtues and virtues are vices. Immodesty is merely freedom of expression. Modesty is prudishness or intolerance.

The “modesty movement” at least as far as it is a Catholic movement, certainly does not teach intolerance. It teaches love.

The idea that the style of clothes are entirely irrelevant has no basis in Catholic Tradition. The only logical conclusion to draw from that position is that the Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Saints, and Martyers of the Church were all misguided fools or intolerant bigots. I do not subscribe to that belief.

From the beginning of the human race modest clothing has served both to protect from the physical elements but also from concupiscence. That is why God gave Adam and Eve clothing after the Fall. It’s also why monks wear robes and aren’t nudists.

Pax Christi

 

[Bearontherun]

The “modesty movement” at least as far as it is a Catholic movement, certainly does not teach intolerance. It teaches love.

The idea that the style of clothes are entirely irrelevant has no basis in Catholic Tradition. The only logical conclusion to draw from that position is that the Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Saints, and Martyers of the Church were all misguided fools or intolerant bigots. I do not subscribe to that belief.

From the beginning of the human race modest clothing has served both to protect from the physical elements but also from concupiscence. That is why God gave Adam and Eve clothing after the Fall. It’s also why monks wear robes and aren’t nudists.

Pax Christi

We must admit that there is such a thing as modest dress if we are to practice and teach “custody of the eyes” after all.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

---

We should always see the dignity and value of the person – no matter what the person wears. The dignity and true value of the human being is not dependent on how they dress. It is how we think of them in our mind – that attacks and devalues the person. A man – who has been “taught” at some point in his life – that a woman is “immodest” by what she wears — has been “taught” to devalue. For every woman he lays eyes on – he will “categorize” in his mind —as “modest” – “immodest”. Once this devaluing happens–it opens the door – to further “objectify” the person via his own improper thoughts.

And again – placing the responsibility on the body – for inciting improper thoughts – is leading toward manichaeism.

But WHY does the woman wear those kind of clothes? Is a thong, short shorts, a tight shirt with stomach showing, bra straps exposed, somehow more comfortable? The fewer clothes, the better IOW? You are insisting that there is no such thing as immodesty as a reality. I guess a woman could walk down the street bare-butt naked and a man would be to blame if he got sexually turned on? Ridiculous.

 

[severus68]

But WHY does the woman wear those kind of clothes? Is a thong, short shorts, a tight shirt with stomach showing, bra straps exposed, somehow more comfortable? The fewer clothes, the better IOW? You are insisting that there is no such thing as immodesty as a reality. I guess a woman could walk down the street bare-butt naked and a man would be to blame if he got sexually turned on? Ridiculous.

Nudists in nudist colonies do not turn each other on. What does that say? How many topless or bottomless women do you see walking down the street?

BTW, I have often seen mothers with young children and old women with their bra straps showing and I am sure they do not intend to incite lust nor do they. Never thought bra straps were particularly sexual but then if someone expects to see sin he/she will find it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Nudists in nudist colonies do not turn each other on. What does that say? How many topless or bottomless women do you see walking down the street?

BTW, I have often seen mothers with young children and old women with their bra straps showing and I am sure they do not intend to incite lust nor do they. Never thought bra straps were particularly sexual but then if someone expects to see sin he/she will find it.

Have you ever SEEN people in a nudist camp??? Old wrinkly men and women!!

I give up, think whatever you will.

 

[Luvz2travel]

I was wondering, why do a lot of men/young men get sucked into watching porn and hooked???

For me it was becasue my Parents never instructed me about sexuality-and they weren’t practicing catholics…

I guess am just lucky that stuff never appealed to me. Not that I’ve ever really looked for it in the first place but it’s kind of hard to avoid in todays society so I can say with confidence it just appears to be fake and emotionless.

 

[Walking_Home]

Dan Daly:

The “modesty movement” at least as far as it is a Catholic movement, certainly does not teach intolerance. It teaches love.

The idea that the style of clothes are entirely irrelevant has no basis in Catholic Tradition. The only logical conclusion to draw from that position is that the Doctors, Fathers, Popes, Saints, and Martyers of the Church were all misguided fools or intolerant bigots. I do not subscribe to that belief.

From the beginning of the human race modest clothing has served both to protect from the physical elements but also from concupiscence. That is why God gave Adam and Eve clothing after the Fall. It’s also why monks wear robes and aren’t nudists.

Pax Christi

We must admit that there is such a thing as modest dress if we are to practice and teach “custody of the eyes” after all.

---

Custody of the eyes – is centered on the one doing the looking — and not on the one being looked at. To say that how a person dresses-- which comes down to the amount of the body exposed – is the cause of a negative reaction (lust) in another person — is to fall into the manichaean mentality of giving to the body a negative value – a “badness”-- which causes the negative reaction.

 

[Bearontherun]

To say that how a person dresses-- which comes down to the amount of the body exposed – is the cause of a negative reaction (lust) in another person — is to fall into the manichaean mentality of giving to the body a negative value – a “badness”-- which causes the negative reaction.

Surely God Himself was not exhibiting Manichaeism when He provided clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall from grace. The body is wonderful but our fallen state is not immune to sin. For their own benefit, God provided their coverings…He certainly has no distain for the human body.