Modesty Vs. Morality

[popestpiusx]

pinstripes,
YEs it does! You are not rooting your decision in anything other than relativity. Your comfort? How is that a standard? If I am comfortable naked does that justify my being that way in public? A string bikini only pushes the limit of modesty?? What is your standard of modesty? The difference between a string bikini and a regular one is but a couple inches of material. What do you consider necesary to cover up? Please read what the Catechism actually says about modesty!! Read the writings of the saints and the words of the Blessed Virgin. Something being in fashion or culturally accepted DOES NOT justify anything. Nor does practicality

Edited April 21, 2004 by popestpiusx

[Homestarlover85]

just wondering? are nude beaches immoral?

[popestpiusx]

Please read:

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 for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians." - Pope Pius XII

[popestpiusx]

Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend Our Divine Lord very much. Those who serve God ought not to follow these fashions. Our Lord is always the same." -Our Lady of Fatima, warning the people of the 1920s of the fashions that were to come for Catholic women. It wasn't a warning of the fashions that were to come for protestants and pagans since they were already indulging in indecent fashions. It was a warning to the Children of God, who are going to imitate them.

[popestpiusx]

As long as certain audacious modes of dress remain the sad privilege of women of dubious reputation and almost a sign by which they may be known, no-one else would dare to wear that same dress upon herself: but the moment that it appears upon persons beyond all reproach, she will hesitate no longer to follow the current, a current which will drag her perhaps to the worst fall." -Pope Pius XII, May 22, 1941

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 21 2004, 01:09 PM'] YEs it does! You are not rooting your decision in anything other than relativity. Your comfort? How is that a standard? If I am comfortable naked does that justify my being that way in public? A string bikini only pushes the limit of modesty?? What is your standard of modesty? The difference between a string bikini and a regular one is but a couple inches of material. What do you consider necesary to cover up? Please read what the Catechism actually says about modesty!! Read the writings of the saints and the words of the Blessed Virgin. Something being in fashion or culturally accepted DOES NOT justify anything. Nor does practicality [/quote]
I don't recall any books authored by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[pinstripes]

these are all standards of modesty in the 20th century...

how do these aply durring the oppresive victorian era?

it's apple and oranges...

my standard of morality is outlined in the CCC. in that curcumfrence i train my conscience. with that conscience, i make my decisions. that's how i have a standard and how theres an allowence of my personal preference.

how do you fold your hands when you pray? how ever you prefer.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='pinstripes' date='Apr 21 2004, 12:03 PM'] if there is no absolute form of liturgy, is there no liturgy at all? (in reference to other forms of the Mass) [/quote]
That is a rediculous analogy. Morals and liturgy are two very distinct entities. However, though there is not an absolute form of liturgy (if by that you mean the ritual aspect of it), there is certainly an absolute standard acoorfing to which all liturgies must comply for licitness and validity. Even in the realm of the ritual there is a very high absolute standard by which all liturgies are judged.

We must not go into this any further, lest we completely change the topic of this thread to debating liturgical norms.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 21 2004, 12:17 PM'] I don't recall any books authored by the Blessed Virgin Mary. [/quote]
Never said she did. I said "read the words of the BVM". See above quote. By the way, I have a feeling that you would be arguing the same thing that I am if I was not here.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 21 2004, 09:55 AM']







[/quote]
[quote]What is the justification for the tight swimming trunks men wear?[/quote]

None.

[quote]Or the tight shirts, or no shirts at all?[/quote]

Tight Shirt or not shirt? Really there is no issue. Men don't have "private" parts on their chest. To wear no shirt isn't scandelous for a man. I agree it could be immodest. But when it gets sweltering hot, I like to take my shirt off to be cooler.

Women have to protect their modesty for other reasons - like their private parts are right there. Tight clothes on women, bottom or top, reveals their sex organs / private areas. Yes, tight pants on men is not good. Tight shirt or no shirt, that's really no prob. We have nothing to hide there.


[quote]What is the justification of men working out? [/quote]


To get stronger for certain things, like maybe work... To be healthy, feel better. Not necessarily to show off the goods.

This issue becomes a lot more subjective with men. Not because I'm a man. Just logically. We have much less of a sexual / privat region to cover and guard.


[quote]People wear bathing suits for 3 general reasons.
To get wet, to tan, and to be seen.[/quote]


And does this justify a bikini? Does it justify a woman showing her breasts basically? A girl can get wet and have fun and be "seen" modestly.

So can a guy.


[quote]How much does a woman have to cover up to be acceptable to you?[/quote]

It doesn't matter what's "acceptable" to me. If God was standing there would he wish that your boobs be exposed? I don't think so. Bikini's are unnecessary.

[quote]And remember I can put the exact same bathing suit on two different people with drastically different results.[/quote]

But the results will vary with the audience. I might not find an overweight person attractive (that is I believe what you were hinting at), but others do.

An exposed partial breast is an ocassion to sin no matter how "ugly" the person is (whatever "ugly" may mean).

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='pinstripes' date='Apr 21 2004, 12:19 PM'] these are all standards of modesty in the 20th century...

how do these aply durring the oppresive victorian era?

it's apple and oranges...

my standard of morality is outlined in the CCC. in that curcumfrence i train my conscience. with that conscience, i make my decisions. that's how i have a standard and how theres an allowence of my personal preference.

how do you fold your hands when you pray? how ever you prefer. [/quote]
Pius XII was hardly a Victorian.

Your personal prefence is not personal at all. In fact, it is indistinguishable from the culture around you, which, I might add, is about the most morally depraved culture in human history.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Apr 21 2004, 12:29 PM']

None.



Tight Shirt or not shirt? Really there is no issue. Men don't have "private" parts on their chest. To wear no shirt isn't scandelous for a man. I agree it could be immodest. But when it gets sweltering hot, I like to take my shirt off to be cooler.

Women have to protect their modesty for other reasons - like their private parts are right there. Tight clothes on women, bottom or top, reveals their sex organs / private areas. Yes, tight pants on men is not good. Tight shirt or no shirt, that's really no prob. We have nothing to hide there.





To get stronger for certain things, like maybe work... To be healthy, feel better. Not necessarily to show off the goods.

This issue becomes a lot more subjective with men. Not because I'm a man. Just logically. We have much less of a sexual / privat region to cover and guard.





And does this justify a bikini? Does it justify a woman showing her breasts basically? A girl can get wet and have fun and be "seen" modestly.

So can a guy.




It doesn't matter what's "acceptable" to me. If God was standing there would he wish that your boobs be exposed? I don't think so. Bikini's are unnecessary.



But the results will vary with the audience. I might not find an overweight person attractive (that is I believe what you were hinting at), but others do.

An exposed partial breast is an ocassion to sin no matter how "ugly" the person is (whatever "ugly" may mean). [/quote]
Jake,
We are seeing eye to eye on this. I agree with you one hundred percent.

[Jake Huether]

I'm by your side bro.

[popestpiusx]

The Following was written by Fr. Bruno Pelagia, CATHOLIC PRIEST, THEOLOGIAN & DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY:

YOU CANNOT MAINTAIN AN UPRIGHT, UNSEARED CONSCIENCE, AND BE SO THOUGHTLESS!

Do not say, What evil is there in the way I dress?

For would that not be a naive question? You must suspect that exposing a woman's body as you do can be terribly provocative.

Do not say, Those who see me this way are not forced to sin.

For we admit that. But should we not wish to reduce the offenses our Divine Lord receives when we can? Woe to us if we are indifferent about this! Woe to us if, from this indifference, our conduct coaxes others into sin! We know that some good men will so successfully resist any woman's provocativeness that they will not sin in the least, but will gain merit. However, some others, being weak, will consent to what is forbidden; and according to the Scriptures, you will share in their sin for unnecessarily giving them a lure to it. (Matt. 18:7)

Do not say, All the other girls dress this way!

For we admit the sad fact that many are that thoughtless. But even if all were so thoughtless, you should not follow such an example. You consider yourself capable of making wise decisions of your own in personal matters. Seeing that you have the freedom, the privilege, and the duty to pursue virtue and heaven, would you unthinkingly follow the herd like sheep do? "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction: and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (Matt. 7:13-14). Let a sense of responsibility and uprightness distinguish you from the herd.

Do not say, I do not mean to do evil.

For I can believe that. But the mischief you are doing by dressing without due care of the consequences is an evil you will be responsible for.

Do not say, I feel I should be in style and up-to-date.

For there are good women and girls who, using a bit of resourcefulness, manage to dress with a modest attractiveness and charm. But beware of a style which, luring men toward corrupt morals, serves only vanity and the devil; for it is a tragic deception. No matter how styles change and popular tastes change, the moral law does not change.

Do not say, Often it is hard to judge if a dress is modest or not.

Reflect: If you suspect that a dish of food is poisoned, you do not serve it to anyone, for fear of doing harm. Even more so should you not wisely play safe when you have any prudent suspicion that your manner of dress will be a source of harm? Does not an upright conscience look upon sin as the greatest of harms?

Do not say, I refuse to be a bigot and a hypocrite!

For how can it be wrong to act upon an upright conscience, which tells you that an offense against the all-holy God is truly the greatest of evils? A bigot and a hypocrite is one who pretends to hate sin and love God when he does not really care about these things. But I ask you to care, and how is that wrong? Uprightness, which at times requires sweat and tears and courage, is never the same as bigotry and hypocrisy. And the Saints who fought valiantly against immodesty, were they bigots or hypocrites?

Do not say, Men want me this way.

That may be true of men who prefer a bit of pleasure to God's friendship; but it is not true of men who live by a right conscience. Furthermore, it is to God that you must one day render an account, not to men.

Do not say, Beauty is supposed to be seen.

I could reply that "When bodily beauty is shown off a great deal, it loses its loveliness." But there is a physical beauty that cannot be displayed without becoming a lure to tempt men to forbidden satisfactions. On the other hand, if you thought that there was beauty in displaying your legs, why is there not beauty in showing Christian modesty and a concern for the good of souls?

Do not say, But I feel hot!

You know how to put up with the heat when you want to. Surely a good conscience is worth suffering a bit of heat for. Many good souls bear the heat willingly in order to offer it as a penance to God. But - sad to say - some women in hot weather go scantily clad to Mass and other church gatherings who dress modestly when they must work in an office where they receive all kinds of clients, or when they must teach school, or when they must work as salesclerks where they have to satisfy all kinds of customers.

Do not say, There are bigger problems and bigger sins than this.

Yes. Some sins are worse than others (John 19:11). But even the less grave ones are real sins. One need not be a hunted outlaw in order to go to hell. And I have the strongest objections to seeing you go there. I will go there myself if I do not try to keep others from going there.

YOUNG LADY, LET NOTHING CHEAT YOU OUT OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE AND YOUR ETERNAL DESTINY!

If you want to be Christian in fact and not just in name, if you want to help and not hinder the work of grace to reform consciences, if you do not want to feel remorse tomorrow and bear a weight of guilt, then put forth the effort to dress with Mary-like modesty,

... so that you may prove yourself a Christian woman and not a mere man-trap;

... so that you uplift and inspire chaste love, and not enkindle forbidden pleasure.

[popestpiusx]

One can not sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for such apparel as for a grave fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to exhibit themselves on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity.

Pope Benedict XV

[Azriel]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Apr 21 2004, 10:55 AM'] Look folks, despite popular opinion NO MORAL STANDARDS ARE BASED ON CULTURE!!! Despite what Azriel said, the CCC does NOT teach such nonsense. [/quote]
woah woah woah.

I did not.

I was referencing Pinstripes post that stated the following from the CCC:

"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. "

I said that MODESTY was culturally based, not MORALITY.

Specifically, I said:

[quote]The catchechism statest that modesty is culturally based[/quote]

Watch throwing those acusations around.

[CreepyCrawler]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Apr 21 2004, 11:29 AM']

Tight Shirt or not shirt? Really there is no issue. Men don't have "private" parts on their chest.
Women have to protect their modesty for other reasons - like their private parts are right there. Tight clothes on women, bottom or top, reveals their sex organs / private areas.

This issue becomes a lot more subjective with men. Not because I'm a man. Just logically. We have much less of a sexual / privat region to cover and guard.

And does this justify a bikini? Does it justify a woman showing her breasts basically? A girl can get wet and have fun and be "seen" modestly.

An exposed partial breast is an ocassion to sin no matter how "ugly" the person is (whatever "ugly" may mean). [/quote]
I would like to make a distinction because I'm a nerd

Breasts aren't sexual organs. Their purpose is to produce milk for babies. It is society that has over-sexualized these glands (this is what they are). But since we live in a society where breasts are over-sexualized, then it's best to cover them up. If you were an American and went to a place where part of the culture was for women to go topless (b/c breasts were seen as functional things, like ankles), then it wouldn't be causing men there to sin if you walked around topless. But if you were a woman from that culture and went to America, you should not walk around topless, even at the beach, because breasts can cause men to sin in the States (and Europe, for that matter. though Europeans think they're all okay with the body because they plaster them everywhere, they're just as horny as Americans, they just don't deny it. Maybe they're not hypocrites but they're just as dirty. Sorry.. couldn't help adding that). Basically, an exposed breast is not always an occasion to sin, depending on the culture. But if we're simply talking about America, then you're right.

I would like to add that a 'hot chest' and 'tight abs' are becoming more sexualized in men and so I'd please ask you men out there to take your own advice and cover up (no shirts off in the summer!) -- better safe than sorry and causing someone else to sin!!

[popestpiusx]

Azriel,

You state"The catchechism statest that modesty is culturally based ... back up there in pinstripes post."
Modesty is inseperable from morality. Morality is the foundation for modesty. If modesty is culturally based so is morality.

My point was, though, that the CCC does not say modesty is culturally based. It said modesty varies from culture to culture. There is a difference.

To your specific point though: I meant to say modesty, not morality when attributing the statement to you. To many 'M' words. Sorry about that.

To furthur clarify my point, let me again quote Pius XII in an address entitled "Moral Problems in Fashion Design" to the Congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion on November 8, 1957 (hardly the victorian time period):

This second virtue, modesty - the very word “modesty” comes from modus, a measure or limit - probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity [...] Yet no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin. [...] An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. [...] It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization.

Edited April 21, 2004 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 21 2004, 01:12 PM'] I would like to add that a 'hot chest' and 'tight abs' are becoming more sexualized in men and so I'd please ask you men out there to take your own advice and cover up (no shirts off in the summer!) -- better safe than sorry and causing someone else to sin!! [/quote]
I agree that the responsibilty goes both ways.

[Lil Red]

you know what makes me mad about reading this thread? that there is a general feeling in arguments about how it is "the woman's fault." "the woman's responsibility." Do we really want to go back to the time where the woman was the sinner, the lustful one, the tempter, etc and the man was blameless? Where the woman has all the responsibility and the man has none? Give me a break.

CreepyCrawler, "I would like to add that a 'hot chest' and 'tight abs' are becoming more sexualized in men and so I'd please ask you men out there to take your own advice and cover up (no shirts off in the summer!) -- better safe than sorry and causing someone else to sin!! "

I totally agree. Come on, let's make this equal.

And btw, it gets pretty hot here in the summer too, and I'll wear sleeveless tops and shorts.