arfink Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I would want to be able to say to my girlfriend or wife, "I think your body is beautiful, and I do not want you to hide it under a bushel-basket-dress." There has to be a middle ground. Beauty is one of the 3 primary ways we encounter God in the world, and we are the only things in the world made in His image. We have bodies, and they are beautiful, and they reflect God. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone else around us not to hide that beauty. It must be protected, to be sure, but we must not treat it as a stumbling block. These kinds of modesty standards do not reflect that reality. They are guided by the idea that the body is inherently a stumbling block for everyone except, as if by magic, married couples. There is a world of difference between protecting our dignity (with a reasonable standard of modesty that is in line with our circumstances and cultural norms) and subtly but surely subverting our dignity with unreasonable standards driven by a false notion that the body is nothing more than an occasion of sin.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 It has been pointed out that that kind of website has an agenda. Most MLM materials supposedly quote a Pope's decree on modesty. That claim has been debunked. The Latin version found in the AAS doesn't mention a single "Mary like standard". MLM leaflets and books also quote the anonymous "Cardinal Vicar". Again, the burden of proof is on them because no reputable scholar has found such a document. if one actually existed, it has no legal weight because the guy is merely a vicar. To me, using suspect materials to claim that there is a moral obligation to follow their rules is a work of propaganda. Worse, it deforms instead of forms consciences, which is one of the worst sins you can commit. What we do have right now is a sign at St. Peters which indicates that shorts, slacks, and short sleeves are acceptable and "modest" in the Basilica! Don't you think the thousands of priests, cardinals, bishops, nuns, and faithful would have protested to the Pope (or Vicar!) had they been scandalized by the scanty clothing? personally, the standards of modesty that I try to follow aren't solely based on that one website or that singular decree. For me, it's the ideas that make sense - not whether the statement has legal weight, etc. I don't think it deforms consciences, I think our present norms in society deform consciences. I know that for myself, for the longest time I was desensitized to immodesty: simply from seeing it everywhere. And when you see people wearing bikinis, then yes skirts just to the knee seem modest: that's why people aren't scandalized, at St Peter's: but I'm talking about our society, as a whole. Maybe my post before, could help to explain my position more. I guess I'm arguing from customs and how they can be more or less perfect. I think we're talking about this website in particular but we don't have to - we can just talk about the ideas behind it all... if we look at Our Lady: is she not the perfection of modesty, chastity? So if this is the perfection, it's not just a question of "does this clothing cause lust" but a question of more perfect customs, or less perfect customs, based on how they relate to something more objective. I tried thinking about whether modesty can just be subjective, but to me it makes sense to think that there is something objective: because Our Lady said, modesty would be rarely found in women, in our age (Our Lady of Good Success apparitions, and they're approved by the Church if anyone is wondering, they were from several centuries ago, and everything else Our Lady said came true to the letter, including specific prophesies about Pope Pius IX and a Catholic President).
ploomf Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Can I just say that as a women I very much resent it to have my body described as a stumbling block. I really really resent it. I mean I seriously resent it. These debates always make me think of this.
arfink Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I don't think women who dress this way thinks that the body is evil. Nor is it so simple as "showing your elbow is equal to being naked". That's an oversimplicification, imo. I think that showing certain parts of the body can indeed tempt to lust, and some of our fashions encourage showing these parts of the body. but I don't think that of ALL parts of the body. If I wear a dress that goes to my feet, and if the sleeves cover my elbows, that's not because I think every part of the body is equally "tempting" to others: I mean, to regular guys, which is really what we're concerned about here - not those who seek out temptations or are tempted by everything. I think we should do what is reasonable. But if I cover more than this, the reason is a bit different. For example at church, it just seems proper somehow. I can't explain it fully. But I think the way you described it, that's simplifying the view and I don't think it's how people with these standards believe :) For example (I'm only posting this to reply to your post, I don't want to have a debate about this on the thread) - I read about how traditionally, there are parts of the body that are considered "shameful" to show (not because they're bad, but because they're more private to be shown to a spouse, not the whole world) - nowadays people think that's just the areas the bikini covers, but actually it's proximate areas too like upper thighs. At most, this could be a stumbling block to others in terms of lust, or if people are really used to it, it could still be a distraction (I'm a girl and even I'm distracted by girls wearing short shorts in church, not for the same reason as guys of course). Then there are other parts of the body that are "semi shameful" to show, - so they wouldn't really tempt to lust directly or equally, but they can be covered just for decorum or to uphold a certain standard of values in society, so we don't go down this slippery slope that we see happening today with people baring everything. That's my understanding at least. Then lastly, the face, hands, and feet, are not on any list - and we see Our Lady shows her face, hands, and feet, in representations of her. So it's not like all is equal or all leads to lust directly or equally. It's more complicated than this... what I just wrote is based on what I remember from an excerpt from a theology textbook. Disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. But somehow, it made sense - it's maybe connected to customs. Our Lady of Good Success said today would be an almost total corruption of customs and modesty would be rarely found in women - and Mary also said at Fatima that fashions would be introduced that would greatly offend God. When bikinis were made, they couldn't even find models for them and had to hire strippers. How times have changed, now almost everyone wears them. Do you see what I mean? Following the standards given there isn't like saying that wearing a skirt just at the knee is the same as wearing a bikini. It's trying to uphold certain customs. Also, personally, I've found that some types of clothing are not that bad when you're just standing, but if you walk, or sit down, bend over, etc, - people can see more and then it becomes more immodest. So the idea about wearing a longer skirt - it's also so that when a lady sits down, she's still covered. I don't think the standards are that extreme though... at first they kind of seemed that way... but mid calf skirts or floor length skirts are easier to find these days, and as to the rest, it just takes some creative thought :) maybe ti's a change from our society, but it can be done using modern clothing too. Sorry for this gigantic post :o I'm finding it hard to describe this in few words. I understand that we must walk the line. But to my way of thinking, you're always going to wind up with a solution that is too far towards "the body is a stumbling block" whenever you treat ANY part of the body as an inherent stumbling block. Let me be very very blunt. The reason we do not show our genitals in public should NOT be because it's a stumbling block, but because our reproduction is sacred, and it meant to be given only in a free, faithful, total, and fruitful way. Everything else is mere practicum from that point, and "standards" become meaningless outside the context of social norms. We could (and have so far done so on Phatmass) fight about what those standards are until the sun has become a cold, dark lump of actinide ash and it no longer matters because we will be incapable of seeing.
the171 Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I am so much more than a stumbling block. I am more than an occasion of sin. I am a woman, the crown of creation.
ChristinaTherese Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) I dress mostly according to said standards, just because I want to and it's how I've been raised. It's not that I think it's awful to do otherwise, it's just that I do not want to wear tight or low-cut clothing myself, and I really prefer skirts. (I normally wear jeans, however, since I use my bike to get around very often and don't want to either have my skirt either caught in the chain or flying up far too high, both of which seem extremely possible.) I would feel awkward in clothing that did not cover at least a quarter of my arms (like normal t-shirt length) or was very much above my knees (and I want to be able to run and climb trees and basically do whatever I jolly well want to in my skirts, so they're almost always long and wide). But this is neither to say that I want to wear anything approaching a gunny sack (I tailor my clothes (yes, I sew my skirts, dresses, and the shirts I wear most) to be pretty fitted) nor that I think others are any less [insert noun here] because they dress differently (goodness, some of my best friends do so on a regular basis, and I respect them no less for it). Oh, and I really don't care if you or any other man would want to date me. In fact, I would prefer that nobody did. (Which is not the case.... Sigh.) :P Edited May 11, 2013 by Christina Thérèse
Nihil Obstat Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 This strikes me as somewhat non-parallel to its counterpart. :P
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 There are millions of women in burqas and they are married. if I were a guy, I wouldn't want to marry one. I'd like one to enjoy the freedom of being a cherished daughter of God with clothing to match. Conversely, there are men out there who do follow Joseph Like Modesty rules. they are typically Arabs and I don't see a huge rush for Catholic men to follow their dictates for modesty in their culture. I don't know much about why they were burqas. I only have my own ideas for my own modesty standards. I don't feel "enslaved", I feel much more free than I did before. Mary-like modesty doesn't mean exactly copying Mary's dress (though it's beautiful and I would be glad to, personally) - it can be done with today's clothing it might just take a bit of work (but for example, a longer dress with a cardigan, is Mary-like, imo.) The MLM standards on the website aren't talking about dressing in burqas - they are much, much more relaxed than that... I don't see how they are extreme. I would want to be able to say to my girlfriend or wife, "I think your body is beautiful, and I do not want you to hide it under a bushel-basket-dress." There has to be a middle ground. Beauty is one of the 3 primary ways we encounter God in the world, and we are the only things in the world made in His image. We have bodies, and they are beautiful, and they reflect God. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone else around us not to hide that beauty. It must be protected, to be sure, but we must not treat it as a stumbling block. These kinds of modesty standards do not reflect that reality. They are guided by the idea that the body is inherently a stumbling block for everyone except, as if by magic, married couples. There is a world of difference between protecting our dignity (with a reasonable standard of modesty that is in line with our circumstances and cultural norms) and subtly but surely subverting our dignity with unreasonable standards driven by a false notion that the body is nothing more than an occasion of sin. I have tried to explain in my post before, that it's not about every part of the body being a stumbling block at least not equally. It's not that simple. Nor does it talk about dressing in burqas. Take a look at the standards... just cover knees and a bit lower, shoulders... doesn't seem that intense :) I think it's just reasonable... there's nothing unreasonable there, imo. Take a look at Mary... is she not the most beautiful of God's creatures? :) I think if we want to see what feminine beauty is, what perfected feminine beauty is, we should look at her example. She is covered, her dresses are very modest, this doesn't take away from her beauty at all. In fact, it highlights her innocence and internal modesty. I think beauty comes from within... I don't think we need to show a certain level of skin, to be beautiful. Isn't there a reason, why Mary dresses as she does? In her apparitions, she has different clothing, but it's always equally modest. Why not look to Mary? why to our culture? What is more of God? :) and the modesty standards don't even tell us to dress as modestly as her - for example, head coverings or sleeves to the wrists are not mentioned, and skirts are approved to be mid calf... it seems to me like it's kind of the minimum... and Mary is the perfection of virtue. Nuns' habits are similar to what she wears as well :) but in our culture, the minimum is the bikini.... I just ended up questioning our culture after thinking through all this. I don't want to just debate, I can tell you what I believe but I can't make you think like I do, - that's not my job anyway. Just maybe ask Jesus for light on this :) I'm not saying I FOR SURE have it right either...I just hope, that I understood it correctly. But I noticed, it's brought me peace, and before I never even thought much about modesty.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Can I just say that as a women I very much resent it to have my body described as a stumbling block. I really really resent it. I mean I seriously resent it. These debates always make me think of this. I think it's like that not because our bodies are bad but because we are all fallen human beings. The guys around us, are fallen, like us. So yes we can cause others to stumble, because of sin in us, not because of the body itself, which is not evil. It's not because of the body. I think we should all help each other: guys are responsible if they consent to a sin, but if a girl presents that battle to his mind, that's a problem too... I just think it's loving, to dress modestly :) it doesnt mean you can only wear a bag... we can wear normal clothes, - not tight doesn't mean - a shapeless bag. Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower
arfink Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Read my other post. I am saying you can't call any part of the body a stumbling block, because that is not what the body is, and to do so undermines the dignity of the human body, and thus of the human person. What I am trying to say is, if you don't start with the proper understanding of what modesty is for, it will be twisted into a form of objectification no matter how many times anyone says the standards are reasonable. Edited May 11, 2013 by arfink
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I understand that we must walk the line. But to my way of thinking, you're always going to wind up with a solution that is too far towards "the body is a stumbling block" whenever you treat ANY part of the body as an inherent stumbling block. Let me be very very blunt. The reason we do not show our genitals in public should NOT be because it's a stumbling block, but because our reproduction is sacred, and it meant to be given only in a free, faithful, total, and fruitful way. Everything else is mere practicum from that point, and "standards" become meaningless outside the context of social norms. We could (and have so far done so on Phatmass) fight about what those standards are until the sun has become a cold, dark lump of actinide ash and it no longer matters because we will be incapable of seeing. Maybe I should clarify something.... the body can be a stumbling block not because of the body itself, as a creation of God, but because of our fallen state and concupiscence. It's not an insult to say, that we can be temped. Or distracted. Or that we're imperfect and should help one another to holiness. I think a perfect society, we'd help each other to be Saints. The reason we shouldn't show areas of the body that are proximal to the genital areas, seem to be because people's minds can easily jump from one to the other. I'm trying to think about it but based on what i understand now, it makes sense to me that there's something objective - I don't quite know what... but it's not just social norms. Social norms are either more perfectly or less perfectly aligned with it, or they break it completely. It seems to me like Mary-like modesty is just aiming at something higher than just the minimum our society offers. As to the full explanation, I still don't know it fully, but it makes sense to me on another level. Maybe just pray about it, if you want to :) see if God would show anything. I will pray too.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Read my other post. I am saying you can't call any part of the body a stumbling block, because that is not what the body is, and to do so undermines the dignity of the human body, and thus of the human person. What I am trying to say is, if you don't start with the proper understanding of what modesty is for, it will be twisted into a form of objectification no matter how many times anyone says the standards are reasonable. I'm not saying the body is a stumbling block. I'm saying it can *cause* a stumbling block, which is in the mind and guided by concupiscence. There's a difference between the two, imo. Do you agree that certain images of the body can cause lust? It's not the body's fault... it's our fallen state. Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I dress mostly according to said standards, just because I want to and it's how I've been raised. It's not that I think it's awful to do otherwise, it's just that I do not want to wear tight or low-cut clothing myself, and I really prefer skirts. (I normally wear jeans, however, since I use my bike to get around very often and don't want to either have my skirt either caught in the chain or flying up far too high, both of which seem extremely possible.) I would feel awkward in clothing that did not cover at least a quarter of my arms (like normal t-shirt length) or was very much above my knees (and I want to be able to run and climb trees and basically do whatever I jolly well want to in my skirts, so they're almost always long and wide). But this is neither to say that I want to wear anything approaching a gunny sack (I tailor my clothes (yes, I sew my skirts, dresses, and the shirts I wear most) to be pretty fitted) nor that I think others are any less [insert noun here] because they dress differently (goodness, some of my best friends do so on a regular basis, and I respect them no less for it). Oh, and I really don't care if you or any other man would want to date me. In fact, I would prefer that nobody did. (Which is not the case.... Sigh.) :P Thanks for your post :) yea I just don't like to wear anything tight or low-cut and I prefer skirts too. I don't think that someone is an awful human being if they don't follow exactly the same thing. I think there is a line somewhere, but beyond that, I just felt inspired (through someone's example) to try to dress more like Our Blessed Mother. I just find that it brings peace to do this and brings me closer to her. My clothing isn't tight but it's not like a sack either, it's just normal kind of clothing, only I like longer skirts and wear cardigans over my dresses. :) I hang around people all the time who dress differently and we're friends. I just want to do what has brought me more peace and closer to Our Lady.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 My philosophy with regards to modesty is this: The primary purpose of modesty is to bring glory to God through respect for one's own body and one's own sexuality. It is a recognition that we ultimately belong to God, and therefore must care for the gifts he has given us. It is a recognition that the body is fundamentally good, beautiful, and worthy of great respect. So the primary purpose is ultimately personal, and it should be noted that it is a positive obligation. It is a 'do this', rather than a 'do not do this'. I believe this primary sense is the one which is most frequently forgotten or left unsaid. In a secondary sense, by recognizing the inherent goodness and beauty of our own bodies and sexuality, we recognize the same in those around us. No problem there, simply transitive property. This is also a positive obligation - to respect our brothers and sisters. The tertiary sense of modesty, in my opinion, is the one which is most abused. This is the sense in which we recognize that, through our fallen nature, we can lead others into temptation. That leading a neighbour into temptation is possible is simply a fact of life. As always prudence, as the mother of all virtue, is key here. We exercise prudence in discerning what we might reasonably do to mitigate temptation we present for others. This third meaning of modesty is abused when it is overemphasized, and also when it is underemphasized or denied. To overemphasize it leans towards Jansenism or Manichaeism, and to deny it leads to forgetting our obligation to each other as a community. This sense imposes a negative obligation which again must be discerned through prudence. But all its negative obligations will ultimately be derived from the principles of the primary and secondary sense of modesty, which is respect for and recognition of the inherent value of our bodies. The tertiary sense of modesty is derived from the primary and secondary. Ultimately all modesty and purity is rooted in a proper understanding of the inherent goodness of the created world, and especially our bodies (which, not being dualists, we hold to be integral to our being). I think that by this understanding modesty can be characterized as follows: the primary and secondary sense is a recognition of the goodness of creation and the inherent beauty of our bodies and sexuality, being created in the image and likeness of God. The tertiary sense of modesty is a recognition of the temporal effects of sin, and a resignation to the fact that we do not live in an ideal world. And I believe that by this understanding we might characterize the primary and secondary senses as being essential to modesty as a concept, and the tertiary sense as being an accidental characteristic. Postscript: this is my own opinion which I have been developing in my head for some time, and is certainly open to criticism and revision.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I think that's a good reflection :) I just wanted to clarify.... let's say I'm trying to see if my outfit is modest enough. Of course, it's important to ask oneself: would it cause temptation to anyone? But I think much of my point in this thread is that if we feel led to this, we don't have to stop there, nor do we have to compare ourselves with our culture and assume that since everyone is used to immodesty already, we don't have to be as careful. But it's not like a fearful, Jansenistic thing, at least I hope not. It's not like going through the streets worrying if showing an elbow is going to tempt someone to sin. I'm talking about the second question we can ask: not just "what is the minimum"? but what is the maximum? we should ask: would this tempt others? but then we can also ask: "what would Mary think of my clothing?" if we think of how an internal innocence is pleasing to God - that is worth most, what is internal and we should take care of that first (so we're not like the Pharisees only caring about external purity, not internal) - but then, after this, we can also try to express that outwardly. Not in a Jansenistic way, but just wanting to be a daughter of Mary to the fullest, in emulating her. Her innocence, purity, modesty, all comes from within - but it radiates outwards, so we can be this way too. Not that I've mastered it or anything. It's just an idea.. and I'm still thinking/praying... again this is all just ideas. :)
arfink Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I'm not saying the body is a stumbling block. I'm saying it can *cause* a stumbling block, which is in the mind and guided by concupiscence. There's a difference between the two, imo. Do you agree that certain images of the body can cause lust? It's not the body's fault... it's our fallen state. The image does not CAUSE lust. You misunderstand. Even pornography does not cause lust. Pornography encourages it, and is designed to be lusted after, but pornography itself does not inherently override the will of the person viewing it. It is the will of the person consenting to lust which causes lust. Concupiscence would actually reduce the culpability of the act in proportion to the weakening of the will. Body parts do not cause lust. They do not cause a stumbling block. Now, I am perhaps not being fair to you, being so philosophical. Let me be clear on a few more things then. I believe that standards of modesty are a good thing, and we ought to have them. But we must not have them out of a sense that our body can cause other people to sin, because that is simply not true, and is an objectification of the human body. It is fair to say that we should be aware that there are people with such incredibly weakened wills that they would involuntarily lust after a doorknob, and we should try to accommodate them out of charity where prudence allows it. Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's for a good reason. These Mary Like Standards are often put forth as an objective standard and even a binding obligation when they are nothing of the kind, precisely because they are based on this flawed understanding of the dignity of the human body and the purpose of modesty.
Nihil Obstat Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 I think that's a good reflection :) I just wanted to clarify.... let's say I'm trying to see if my outfit is modest enough. Of course, it's important to ask oneself: would it cause temptation to anyone? But I think much of my point in this thread is that if we feel led to this, we don't have to stop there, nor do we have to compare ourselves with our culture and assume that since everyone is used to immodesty already, we don't have to be as careful. But it's not like a fearful, Jansenistic thing, at least I hope not. It's not like going through the streets worrying if showing an elbow is going to tempt someone to sin. I'm talking about the second question we can ask: not just "what is the minimum"? but what is the maximum? we should ask: would this tempt others? but then we can also ask: "what would Mary think of my clothing?" if we think of how an internal innocence is pleasing to God - that is worth most, what is internal and we should take care of that first (so we're not like the Pharisees only caring about external purity, not internal) - but then, after this, we can also try to express that outwardly. Not in a Jansenistic way, but just wanting to be a daughter of Mary to the fullest, in emulating her. Her innocence, purity, modesty, all comes from within - but it radiates outwards, so we can be this way too. Not that I've mastered it or anything. It's just an idea.. and I'm still thinking/praying... again this is all just ideas. :) See, I think my idea implies that we approach it slightly differently. If we are going to ask if an outfit is modest, first we ask how it fits within the primary sense of modesty, i.e. respect and admiration for one's own body and sexuality. Are we wearing it for the right reasons, or the wrong ones? I think we should consider that first, then ask with all due prudence and reason if we might inadvertently be posing a problem to someone else.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Arfink, I agree that it's not just seeing something, but consenting to evil thoughts or actions. For example if I'm walking on the street and see something sinful, if I don't consent to it, I haven't sinned. This is an example a priest used in a sermon. Maybe we're getting really technical talking about whether the image causes lust or not, - I actually didn't mean that the image itself (as in an image of a body) is the stumbling block - I meant that it's in the will... but the image is involved. What i'm trying to say is simply that if the image were not there, the person wouldn't have to fight the temptations that come from their concupiscence. So no I'm not saying that it's the body itself that is responsible,- I'm just trying to say that seeing certain things might introduce certain thoughts, because of concupisence. If a guy sees an immodestly dressed girl and has lustful thoughts that he consented to: the sin of consenting to them, is his sin and his responsibility. What i'm trying to say is the girl was not correct to introduce this whole battle to the guy in the first place. If she had dressed modestly, he would not have had to fight the temptation at all. It's about limiting occasions of sin for others. Presenting an occasion of sin.. is a sin. If the girl doesn't know and didn't intend this, or just doesn't think about modesty, obviously that's not the same as her intending to encourage someone to lust after her. But still, we affect one another (guys affect girls too and should be modest as well), and I just think we should not present occasions of sin to one another. Even though the sin comes from the will, but the whole process of fighting with it: we can minimize those times. Isn't it placing someone in danger, to place them into a situation where they might be tempted? not because of the body itself, but the concupiscence. Anyways... I never meant to say that body parts themselves (on their own) cause stumbling blocks. I meant, that seeing them, could trigger certain thoughts because of concupiscence, which the person then needs to fight, and this is placing them in an occasion of sin, - and what if they lose the battle? isn't it better to avoid the battle altogether, if we can help it? certain things we can't help, but here, we can at least help one another. I just think that you misunderstood what I meant (maybe I wasn't clear), because you are telling me that the body doesn't cause lust on its own, but I never intended to say that it does :) btw, I was talking about normal regular people. Not about people who would lust after everything, and trying to minimize it for them. I was talking about the basic reasonable level of helping the regular guys especially those who are trying to be chaste (not looking for temptation everywhere). I know there's the question then: if I'm talking about avoiding tempting normal guys, why are the standards so strict? especially if the guys might be used to immodesty around them? and maybe it's perhaps that point exactly: they are used to it, but as a society, we should not be. So there's more to it, and that's why I mentioned customs being more or less perfected. I don't think it's only about "would this tempt a guy on the street" - it's also about our society, about morals, and about what Nihil Obstat said regarding dressing in a way that highlights your dignity as a human being. In addition to this, we receive God within us: if the Holy Spirit dwells in a soul in a state of grace, - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it might simply be better to strive to reflect that, - not just stop at "is this causing others to sin". ...I just noticed, many of the criticisms of the standards are that they're so focused on temptation. But actually I'm talking about something more - because we know that our culture isn't very modest, and people are used to immodesty, so maybe are desensitized a bit. I think the reason people like St Padre Pio were so against the new types of fashions is not just because they might tempt someone, but because they might lead to this desensititzation, or at least a - weakening of customs, which could be more or less perfected... this part is just my own thinking, I'm just thinking aloud :) The image does not CAUSE lust. You misunderstand. Even pornography does not cause lust. Pornography encourages it, and is designed to be lusted after, but pornography itself does not inherently override the will of the person viewing it. It is the will of the person consenting to lust which causes lust. Concupiscence would actually reduce the culpability of the act in proportion to the weakening of the will. Body parts do not cause lust. They do not cause a stumbling block. Now, I am perhaps not being fair to you, being so philosophical. Let me be clear on a few more things then. I believe that standards of modesty are a good thing, and we ought to have them. But we must not have them out of a sense that our body can cause other people to sin, because that is simply not true, and is an objectification of the human body. It is fair to say that we should be aware that there are people with such incredibly weakened wills that they would involuntarily lust after a doorknob, and we should try to accommodate them out of charity where prudence allows it. Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's for a good reason. These Mary Like Standards are often put forth as an objective standard and even a binding obligation when they are nothing of the kind, precisely because they are based on this flawed understanding of the dignity of the human body and the purpose of modesty.
MarysLittleFlower Posted May 11, 2013 Posted May 11, 2013 Maybe if I give an example, it would be clearer, what i mean :) let's say there's a society that has high modesty standards. Their conscience is properly formed in this way. They are sensitive to immodesty, which would be good, not bad. Desensitization shows an impoperly formed conscience, perhaps. Then, fashions begin to be introduced that change this. Maybe they're not extreme like tiny little bikinis. Maybe they don't yet deal with - showing the more 'private' parts of the body, meant for a spouse. But they introduce some ideas nonetheless: - change in gender roles (which was a criticism of the Pope about pants - no I'm not starting a debate on this, just saying that the Pope talked about this, - he talked about gender roles and not only what is more modest visually). - the idea that these things are relative and subjective Maybe it's the second one that's most relevant here. Soon, more and more immodest clothes are introduced - excuses are given like: comfort, sport, ETC. Eventually, we get to bikinis. First everyone opposes them, and they can't even find models for them. But in a few decades, mostly all girls wear them. How did this change? desensitization happened... so now, the conscience of the indivdiuals is harder to form on this issue. That's more what I'm talking about when I mentioned customs... hope this makes more sense. I'm actually trying to describe what did happen... there's the question: why did it just keep going from there? some people say that there's a letter from the Masons showing that they had a plan to destroy the Church and its morals and actually orchestrated all this. For all I know, this could be. Here's the letter for anyone interested: http://www.michaeljournal.org/corruptionfashions.asp Maybe some may laugh at this... but if you feel that way I recommend just taking it to prayer first :) see what God says... He knows all things, we do not (and I do not). That's why I said it's not as simple as asking "would this tempt someone?". Because if a society is used to immodesty, it might be harder to tempt, but that's actually a problem, not a solution... it means a weakening of conscience, and a corruption of morals... maybe that's why people like St Padre Pio spoke so firmly about these new fashions that were coming in? simply because of the effects. We can see the effects today.... without the changes that took place then, we would not have the extremely immodest fashions either. It would not have developed that far. Maybe that's what the Popes, etc, tried to stop, when they spoke on immodestly. For example, one Pope talked about avoiding gymnastics, public bathing etc, - it relates to temptation I think, but if we don't see it as temptation, could it be because our consciences have been not perfectly formed, or we have been desensitized? would a society with better morals, be shocked at things that we accept? that's why I said, why stop at the bare minimum, why not fully emulate Our Lady? She shows the perfection of modesty... it seems extreme to us because we are comparing it to the world... but the world is going astray. If we just close our eyes to the world for a bit and think about it in terms of eternity.... maybe it would make more sense to us then. I think in the end, it probably does relate to sin and temptation too, but also the conscience, and what Nihil Obstat said - our dignity as human beings... and if we consider how the body of a Christian in grace is a temple of the Holy Spirit: doesn't that add even more to our dignity? i'ts not like hiding our body cause it's bad.... but something else... the standards don't say "cover as much as you can", like we must cover everything except our eyes. We can see Mary and the Saints, show their faces. Our Blessed Lord does too. But the standard also goes beyond the minimum of what would tempt our current culture.
Recommended Posts