The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

[Debora123]

I’d also like to add that JPII greeted various groups of a bare-breasted native women in Papua New Guinea, when he arrived to say his mass.

 

[Debora123]

Yes but it describes the human condition. We are not like we were before the fall.

EXACTLY! I am glad we are getting somewhere.

There is nothing wrong with nudity itself, only with our negative reactions to it, if those negative reactions are present.

 

[Nate13]

Well it WAS fine by Him until the fall of man came, when man found out they could use each other. They then covered up to protect themselves of each other, not because God told them it was a sin to not wear clothes.

Where does this protect themselves from each other idea come from? I’m sure they got unclothed when they had sex. I think the problem you have with this story is that your having a hard time figuring out why a married couple who is all alone would feel the need to wear clothes to protect their dignity. The answer is that lustful thoughts are possible even within marriage.

You’re making it sound like I’m an advocate of people walking down the street completely naked. Of which I absolutely am not. I am merely saying that nakedness is not dirty or sinful in itself. IMMODESTY is. And immodesty depends on culture, because it is about our intent and what is in our hearts - not necessarily about skin exposure itself. Though you never answered my question on whether or not you agree with that.

I’m of the opinion that nakedness in a public setting is always immodest. Depending on the culture, culpability for said immodesty varies.

 

[TrueLight]

The point is that in every culture, there is an immodest way to dress.

In summary, as Christians, we should aim for what is considered modest in our culture.

 

[Nate13]

EXACTLY! I am glad we are getting somewhere.

There is nothing wrong with nudity itself, only with our negative reactions to it, if those negative reactions are present.

Do some people stop being human?

 

[Debora123]

You should not deny the literal truth in the Bible unless you have a good reason to. Yes there can always be other deeper meanings, but the literal truth always stands unless otherwise said. Unless your saying that a man finding a woman’s breast to be sexual exciting is a learned behavior, it is safe to say Eve covered hers.

I am not denying any truths of the bible. Catholicism allows us to have the belief that the story in Genesis was told in allegorical form.

I DO believe that men finding women’s breasts exciting to be a learned behavior, actually. I hate to keep bringing up indigenous tribes, but women walk around topless all day and men think absolutely nothing of it. Other than that, I’m not going to get into a discussion of whether or not Eve covered her breasts, as I feel that is pointless to the point I’m trying to get across.

 

[Debora123]

Saying something is sinful is not making a judgement. That still leaves culpability entirely up to God which is what counts.

Like I said, I do not know if it is sinful. The Church does not say it is, and I don’t really know enough about it to make any personal conclusions. Nonetheless, that’s not important, considering I don’t plan on joining a nudist colony, nor do I know anyone who does.

 

[Debora123]

The point is that in every culture, there is an immodest way to dress.

In summary, as Christians, we should aim for what is considered modest in our culture.

Yes ma’am.

 

[Debora123]

Where does this protect themselves from each other idea come from? I’m sure they got unclothed when they had sex. I think the problem you have with this story is that your having a hard time figuring out why a married couple who is all alone would feel the need to wear clothes to protect their dignity. The answer is that lustful thoughts are possible even within marriage.

It comes from a book I read written by Mary Beth Bonacci, called “We’re on a Mission from God”… which ultimately comes from the Theology of the Body. Mary Beth is like the female version of Chris West.

And your assumption is wrong, by the way. I know lustful thoughts are possible within marriage, and I am having no hard time figuring out anything pertaining to this. It is all very clear to me.

 

[Debora123]

Do some people stop being human?

Uh… no

Your point?

 

[Nate13]

It comes from a book I read written by Mary Beth Bonacci, called “We’re on a Mission from God”… which ultimately comes from the Theology of the Body. Mary Beth is like the female version of Chris West.

And your assumption is wrong, by the way. I know lustful thoughts are possible within marriage, and I am having no hard time figuring out anything pertaining to this. It is all very clear to me.

Forgive me then, “protect each other” did not equate to help prevent lustful thoughts when I read it although I can see how that is what you intended now.

 

[LilyM]

Well it WAS fine by Him until the fall of man came, when man found out they could use each other. They then covered up to protect themselves of each other, not because God told them it was a sin to not wear clothes.

It was fine WHILE they were unfallen, while they were as yet not subject to original sin and concupiscence, yes.

After partaking of the fruit and coming to know both good and evil (which is what the fruit did) they correctly discerned that being now fallen and subject to original sin and concupiscence they needed to cover up.

With their eyes being now opened, they rightly discerned the temptations to evil which accompany nudity. And it is because they were correct on this point that God showed His approval of the action they took by Himself doing the same and making clothes for them! Why would he do it if they were wrong? Why would He not correct their misconceptions?

You’re making it sound like I’m an advocate of people walking down the street completely naked.

Uh no, you did that by giving the thumbsup to nudist camps - places where complete strangers DO strut around completely naked in front of each other, as if you didn’t know that!

And you went further. You implied that the Church has no problem with nudism - as if the Church should even NEED to formally teach against something so totally contrary to Godly ideals of chastity and modesty as a nudist camp!

I am merely saying that nakedness is not dirty or sinful in itself. IMMODESTY is. And immodesty depends on culture, because it is about our intent and what is in our hearts - not necessarily about skin exposure itself. Though you never answered my question on whether or not you agree with that.

First of all - I did answer, you just didn’t pay attention. Allow me to repeat.

Nakedness is akin to sex in theological terms - not sinful in itself, no, but very VERY easily capable of becoming so, and so only appropriate in very very few and limited situations.

God indisputably endorsed Adam and Eve’s decision to cover up, which is a most sensible thing to do after the Fall. So covering up is critical, important to God, and has been from the earliest times.

Some non-Christian societies have forgotten this, not necessarily that any culpability attaches to them for doing so.

Then again, some societies until very recently practiced headhunting, cannibalism and polygamy. The fact that some cultures have accepted these practices only shows that some cultures get it very wrong. Hence Christ’s command that we are to make disciples - Christians - of all nations.

We are not to adapt the relativistic ‘anything goes if enough people think it’s OK’ attitude that you endorse - not in regards dress or anything else.

Instead we are to carefully discern all cultural trends, looking at their fruits, and adopt ONLY those that are beneficial.

And what exactly are the fruits in our society of the trend towards flashing more and more flesh at every possible opportunity? More godliness? Greater chastity? Better marriages? A better society in any way? None of the above, and emphatically the contrary.

 

[Nate13]

Uh… no

Your point?

My point is that lustful thoughts are an inherent part of our humanity. Certain parts of the body will always have the ability to inspire lustful thoughts. These thoughts are not inherently lustful, but outside of marriage they are disordered and therefore lustful. Viewing nudity on a regular basis can work to blind us to the fact that our nakedness means something, and stem the occasions of lustful thoughts but it will not completely wipe them out.

Here is a thread on this issue that has some reasonable responses:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=481574

 

[Debora123]

It was fine WHILE they were unfallen, while they were as yet not subject to original sin and concupiscence, yes.

After partaking of the fruit and coming to know both good and evil (which is what the fruit did) they correctly discerned that being now fallen and subject to original sin and concupiscence they needed to cover up.

With their eyes being now opened, they rightly discerned the temptations to evil which accompany nudity. And it is because they were correct on this point that God showed His approval of the action they took by Himself doing the same and making clothes for them! Why would he do it if they were wrong? Why would He not correct their misconceptions?

Uh no, you did that by giving the thumbsup to nudist camps - places where complete strangers DO strut around completely naked in front of each other, as if you didn’t know that!

And you went further. You implied that the Church has no problem with nudism - as if the Church should even NEED to formally teach against something so totally contrary to Godly ideals of chastity and modesty as a nudist camp!

First of all - I did answer, you just didn’t pay attention. Allow me to repeat.

Nakedness is akin to sex in theological terms - not sinful in itself, no, but very VERY easily capable of becoming so, and so only appropriate in very very few and limited situations.

God indisputably endorsed Adam and Eve’s decision to cover up, which is a most sensible thing to do after the Fall. So covering up is critical, important to God, and has been from the earliest times.

Some non-Christian societies have forgotten this, not necessarily that any culpability attaches to them for doing so.

Then again, some societies until very recently practiced headhunting, cannibalism and polygamy. The fact that some cultures have accepted these practices only shows that some cultures get it very wrong. Hence Christ’s command that we are to make disciples - Christians - of all nations.

We are not to adapt the relativistic ‘anything goes if enough people think it’s OK’ attitude that you endorse - not in regards dress or anything else.

Instead we are to carefully discern all cultural trends, looking at their fruits, and adopt ONLY those that are beneficial.

And what exactly are the fruits in our society of the trend towards flashing more and more flesh at every possible opportunity? More godliness? Greater chastity? Better marriages? A better society in any way? None of the above, and emphatically the contrary.

As I said on my last post to you, I think you and I have exhausted this discussion enough. I agree with some things you say, and disagree with others. To talk them over would be to repeat myself endlessly.

I see now where you answered my question (though very indirectly) about whether or not you agreed that modesty was dependent on culture.

**With that being said, I’d like to make clear to anyone reading this that your accusation about me giving the “thumbs up” to nudist colonies, and saying that the Church supports nudism, is completely false and makes me look bad. So please refrain from making such false accusations.
**
The only thing I said about nudist colonies is that I personally have not thought it out enough, or learned enough about it to conclude that they are sinful. The Church has remained silent on the morality of nudist colonies, so to put it bluntly, I haven’t done my homework on them enough to conclude their moral standing. Mainly because I don’t really care. I don’t plan on ever joining one, so they don’t apply to me.

I also never said the Church supports nudism. Only that the Church recognizes that nakedness is not in itself sinful. IMMODESTY is sinful. And Immodesty changes and takes different forms depending on a number of factors. And I believe I’ve written those sentence about 3 times now.

Also, for a better understanding of where I actually stand on this issue, I invite you to please read my post #158, if you haven’t done so already. I have either done a poor job of explaining myself, or instantly got written off for not giving off a conservative enough vibe for your taste. Either way, I think the quotes I posted t\do a better job than I do of expressing my standing on this.

 

[LilyM]

I’d also like to add that JPII greeted various groups of a bare-breasted native women in Papua New Guinea, when he arrived to say his mass.

Do you think that means he approved in any way? Thought their appearance appropriate?Or even had any kind of forewarning that it would happen?

Of course not. They were invited, he showed up, they showed up, he was quite possibly totally appalled and just tactfully decided not to make a scene.

Cardinal Arinze, a man highly favored by John Paul II, actually commented about that very incident, along the lines that the Pope often has things he doesn’t approve of forced on him. I’ll post the link to his exact comment as soon as I’ve found it. That he would make such a comment about the Pope’s business means quite likely that the two had discussed the incident and the Pope had said something to the effect and Cardinal Arinze was repeating it.

ETA: I sincerely apologize for misreading your comments on nudism.

 

[Debora123]

My point is that lustful thoughts are an inherent part of our humanity. Certain parts of the body will always have the ability to inspire lustful thoughts. These thoughts are not inherently lustful, but outside of marriage they are disordered and therefore lustful. Viewing nudity on a regular basis can work to blind us to the fact that our nakedness means something, and stem the occasions of lustful thoughts but it will not completely wipe them out.

Here is a thread on this issue that has some reasonable responses:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=481574

I don’t entirely disagree with what you’re saying, but you make it sound as though people have NO control whatsoever and will always lust when they see a naked body. Such is not true, otherwise is would be considered sinful for women to see male gynecologists. Nudity is not ALWAYS meant to incite lust, and does not ALWAYS incite lust. The paintings of the Vatican come to mind as well.

 

[Debora123]

Do you think that means he approved in any way? Thought their appearance appropriate?Or even had any kind of forewarning that it would happen? Perhaps requested that they appear topless or something?

Of course not. They were invited, he showed up, they showed up, he was quite possibly totally appalled and tactfully decided not to make a scene.

Cardinal Arinze, a man highly favored by John Paul II, actually commented about that very incident, along the lines that the Pope often has things he doesn’t approve of forced on him. I’ll post the link to his exact comment as soon as I’ve found it.

No thanks. I’m not interested in someone else’ assumptions of what JPII must have thought about those tribal women. Thanks though.

The way I see it, JPII was a pretty outspoken guy. I believe he would have said something or taken the opportunity to give a talk on the morality of such, if he thought such immorality was happening at his mass right before his eyes.

None of us will ever know what ran through his mind, but personally I think he had no problem with it, otherwise he would have acted differently.

 

[LilyM]

No thanks. I’m not interested in someone else’ assumptions of what JPII must have thought about those tribal women. Thanks though.

The way I see it, JPII was a pretty outspoken guy. I believe he would have said something or taken the opportunity to give a talk on the morality of such, if he thought such immorality was happening at his mass right before his eyes.

None of us will ever know what ran through his mind, but personally I think he had no problem with it, otherwise he would have acted differently.

JPII was pastoral and diplomatic enough not to single people out when he knew they would be shamed and embarrassed by it - and in this case they would have been - except when they were deliberately and wilfully defiant, as with Archbishop Lefebvre and the like.

Perhaps he did say something afterwards, it’s not the sort of thing that would necessarily be reported. You’re right we’ll never know 100%. Which begs the question why did YOU brig it up? You are making as many assumptions as I.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t entirely disagree with what you’re saying, but you make it sound as though people have NO control whatsoever and will always lust when they see a naked body. Such is not true, otherwise is would be considered sinful for women to see male gynecologists. Nudity is not ALWAYS meant to incite lust, and does not ALWAYS incite lust. The paintings of the Vatican come to mind as well.

I’m going to stop trying to explain it and call on JPII

Nakedness itself is not immodest… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.

p. 190 of “Love and Responsibility” from which the quote comes. There Pope John Paul II states that man is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body especially of the opposite sex, will be a “disinterested liking” developing “innocent affection”. He states that in practice it arouses concupiscence which must be taken into account.

Here is the if though: A person must be careful not to scandalize others, intentionally, or unintentionally, so that they are not led into mortal or venial sin.

In other words wherever you are, ask yourself if what you are wearing will possibly cause scandal to others and put them in a near occasion of sin. If you are content that the possibility is low enough and you are within reason go for it. I think there is also a point where women are clothed to a point where you have to ask if the women are the ones with the problem or is it the men.

From this point I don’t think it is worth arguing about whether wearing X is immodest or not unless we specify the location we are talking about and the people commenting have actually been there, know the people well, and can attest to the experience.

 

[Debora123]

JPII was pastoral and diplomatic enough not to single people out when he knew they would be shamed and embarrassed by it - and in this case they would have been - except when they were deliberately and wilfully defiant, as with Archbishop Lefebvre and the like.

Perhaps he did say something afterwards, it’s not the sort of thing that would necessarily be reported. You’re right we’ll never know 100%. Which begs the question why did YOU brig it up? You are making as many assumptions as I.

I brought it up because to ME it was pretty clear. He gave a mass which contained a group of topless participants/dancers, and then proceeded to give them communion himself.

Initially it was a no brainer to me, and still is. But after your post I can see that neither side can claim to be correct because we don’t have 100% proof, since JPII didn’t speak of the incident, at least not publicly.

My fault for bringing it up.