Question about modesty

[Scriptorium]

Public areas are also meant for adults, so would it be appropriate for me to wear something immodest if I warned people first? Furthermore, you place the burden on the reader of the material and not the writer. Are then the writers of these lurid letters in magazines justified if they give a warning first? Of course not. If it is charitable to not expose others to an occasion of sin, and reading explicit accounts (as yours) is an occasion of sin, then you have not acted charitably, and the warning is no more justification than the brown paper covering a Playboy.
Also, Christ may set what is reasonable, but he has not set standards of dress for either sex.

I don't think you understood my arguement. This forum is like walking in a store or a community center. It is a private establishment which is open to the public. The public sphere in which people must engage is not the same as an internet forum. We are obliged not to engage in occasions of sin, but the public sphere is held to the highest standard available because so few can avoid it. The teaching of occasion of sin is clear on these points. Is a frank discussion with a priest sinful? Is a frank disussion of, say, a church group sinful with proper precautions? What about the Bible talking about practicing coitus interruptus, having sex with prostitutes, and the Song of Songs going on about breasts (do the monks sin when they read it?). Clothing is not a sin per se, and neither is frank discussion of sins. It is the context. I think I spoke in the proper context.

There is a big difference between looking at a picture of a Bavarian beer lady and writing a very long post on how to undress women in your mind. Only one of them is incredibly creepy. 

Oh, I thought we were interested in mature discussion and not sound-bites.

You are sick.

Okay, reality check. Turn on a TV and see our society. Is it sick to point out to fellow Catholics common sins of the flesh in regard to the guidelines of dress given? have you ever read a book on lust and how to help men? Some of them are pretty detailed. I said this in the context too, unstated, that women seem to not understand the lusts of men. My wife says she never understands why men have problems with dress (but for her part keeps modesty, God bless her). And I admit that sin is sick. The human body isn't sick, though.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS SLEEVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I widened the scope of the discussion in my posts.

[Walty]

Scriptorium,

I understand that you're trying to make a point, but it's probably not the time or place to make such revealing and graphic comments.  Some of your fellow Catholics have been scandalized so perhaps it's best to leave things be for the moment until Vox can come and moderate the thread.  Just a head's up, as this has obviously become a controversial thread.

[Scriptorium]

Scriptorium,

I understand that you're trying to make a point, but it's probably not the time or place to make such revealing and graphic comments.  Some of your fellow Catholics have been scandalized so perhaps it's best to leave things be for the moment until Vox can come and moderate the thread.  Just a head's up, as this has obviously become a controversial thread.

Thanks for your tip. I am willing to let it be.  :(

[Walty]

Scriptorium,

I understand that you're trying to make a point, but it's probably not the time or place to make such revealing and graphic comments.  Some of your fellow Catholics have been scandalized so perhaps it's best to leave things be for the moment until Vox can come and moderate the thread.  Just a head's up, as this has obviously become a controversial thread.

Thanks for your tip. I am willing to let it be.  :(

Thanks, man.  I think people will appreciate it until Vox can come and clean things up (if she wants).

[verenaerin]

Scrip.

No one is defending immodesty. No one is saying short skirts and skimpy clothes are ok. The entire subject has been about sleeves, or lack there of. I don't need a reality check. I don't have TV for a reason. I am perfectly able to understand lust and know smut when I see it (like your post). Also, what guidelines are you talking about?  Stop making straw man arguments about some fictitious person advocating slutty clothes, and address the subject at hand- which is modest sleeveless clothes.

[Anastasia]

Public areas are also meant for adults, so would it be appropriate for me to wear something immodest if I warned people first? Furthermore, you place the burden on the reader of the material and not the writer. Are then the writers of these lurid letters in magazines justified if they give a warning first? Of course not. If it is charitable to not expose others to an occasion of sin, and reading explicit accounts (as yours) is an occasion of sin, then you have not acted charitably, and the warning is no more justification than the brown paper covering a Playboy.
Also, Christ may set what is reasonable, but he has not set standards of dress for either sex.

I don't think you understood my arguement. This forum is like walking in a store. It is a private establishment which is open to the public. The public sphere in which people must engage is not the same as an internet forum. We are obliged not to engage in occasions of sin, but the public sphere is held to the highest standard available because so few can avoid it. The teaching of occasion of sin is clear on these points. Is a frank discussion with a priest sinful? Is a frank disussion of, say, a church group sinful with proper precautions? What about the Bible talking about people mastubrating, having se with prostitutes, and the Song of Songs going on about breasts (do the monks sin when they read it?). Clothing is not a sin per se, and neither is frank discussin of sins. It is the context. I think I spoke in the proper context.

Did you realize that you compared the forum to a public area (stores), and then said that it's NOT like a public area? Because you can choose to avoid evil things that are written does not negate the guilt of the writer. In this case, I think you did not understand my argument: if we are obliged through charity to not cause others to sin, whether or not the sinner might have avoided them is irrelevant to the guilt of the one who provoked the occasion of sin.
There is also no question that you did not write in the proper context when discussing how to lust after a woman and take pleasure in it. Those were not guidelines from Church teaching on modesty, it was a description of how to commit multiple sins, delighting over the graphic details. It is not even slightly comparable to a sober, chaste discussion of sexual morality with one's priest. When the Bible speaks of sexual immorality, it is something to be avoided altogether, and so succinct  as to not give sexual thrills from thinking over the sin. Remember the examinations of conscience which forbid dwelling on the thoughts of sexual sin? That whole post was one long dwelling on such things. And it is absolutely out of place on a Catholic forum.  

[Someone1776]

There is also no question that you did not write in the proper context when discussing how to lust after a woman and take pleasure in it. Those were not guidelines from Church teaching on modesty, it was a description of how to commit multiple sins, delighting over the graphic details. It is not even slightly comparable to a sober, chaste discussion of sexual morality with one's priest. When the Bible speaks of sexual immorality, it is something to be avoided altogether, and so succinct  as to not give sexual thrills from thinking over the sin. Remember the examinations of conscience which forbid dwelling on the thoughts of sexual sin? That whole post was one long dwelling on such things. And it is absolutely out of place on a Catholic forum.  

This

[Vetus Ordo]

My $0.2,

Nudity isn't a sin in itself, neither is the human body something inherently dirty. As a matter of fact, we all come to this world fragile and naked. As you remember from Scripture (Genesis 3:7), clothing came on as a consequence of original sin because Adam and Eve lost their innocence and became ashamed of their own nakedness. This sorry state is not what God originally intended for us but that's what happened and we all have to live and deal with its consequences. Now, I'm not saying we should walk around naked or barely clothed - I'm pretty reserved myself when it comes to that by southern mediterranean standards - and there's certainly some (flexible) standards of modesty to be observed as a matter of prudence and dignity but it's better to keep in mind that the human body is not something shameful in itself, a lure that inevitably entices lust on the opposite sex. Rather, the human body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. If we start perceiving things more in a spiritual way, we will instinctively feel less drawn to the afflicitons of the flesh that haunt many a poor soul to the point of scruples and loss of faith.

Remember that "it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing." (John 6:64) First and foremost men and women are people with souls created in the image and likeness of God. The more we objectify the body, the less we will pay attention to the spirit and the more we will foster this sort of bestial behaviour in society where everything is judged and analysed in a sexual way. It's pretty revolting.

Of course, we can say that a woman scantly dressed is not showing herself (and others) respect but that doesn't mean she ceased to have that dignity that belongs to every human being. The best way to deal with that is to treat each and everyone with godly respect, even if they're poorly dressed. Certainly, love and respect don't exclude reproof and correction of others but that medicine requires wisdom to apply and not everyone is capable of doing it effectively. Let's not use the fact that a woman is scantly dressed as an excuse for enganging in sinful thoughts or to set ourselves up as judges of her soul. Let's not fall for that devilish trick. The fact is that, during our lifetime, we will likely encounter lots of people improperly dressed, although the standards vary according to situation and time. As always, the remedy in such a case is to seek Christ in others, not to fall for judgementalism or victimisation. For instance, how can we be vehicles of God's grace if we can't look at an immodestly dressed woman as a woman and not as an object?

Clothing must signity our dignity as human beings. But that doesn't mean that naked human beings, even when they are at fault, have no dignity.

[Someone1776]

My $0.2,

Nudity isn't a sin in itself, neither is the human body something inherently dirty. As a matter of fact, we all come to this world fragile and naked. As you remember from Scripture (Genesis 3:7), clothing came on as a consequence of original sin because Adam and Eve lost their innocence and became ashamed of their own nakedness. This sorry state is not what God originally intended for us but that's what happened and we all have to live and deal with its consequences. Now, I'm not saying we should walk around naked or barely clothed - I'm pretty reserved myself when it comes to that by southern mediterranean standards - and there's certainly some (flexible) standards of modesty to be observed as a matter of prudence and dignity but it's better to keep in mind that the human body is not something shameful in itself, a lure that inevitably entices lust on the opposite sex. Rather, the human body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. If we start perceiving things more in a spiritual way, we will instinctively feel less drawn to the afflicitons of the flesh that haunt many a poor soul to the point of scruples and loss of faith.

Remember that "it is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing." (John 6:64) First and foremost men and women are people with souls created in the image and likeness of God. The more we objectify the body, the less we will pay attention to the spirit and the more we will foster this sort of bestial behaviour in society where everything is judged and analysed in a sexual way. It's pretty revolting.

Of course, we can say that a woman scantly dressed is not showing herself (and others) respect but that doesn't mean she ceased to have that dignity that belongs to every human being. The best way to deal with that is to treat each and everyone with godly respect, even if they're poorly dressed. Certainly, love and respect don't exclude reproof and correction of others but that medicine requires wisdom to apply and not everyone is capable of doing it effectively. Let's not use the fact that a woman is scantly dressed as an excuse for enganging in sinful thoughts or to set ourselves up as judges of her soul. Let's not fall for that devilish trick. The fact is that, during our lifetime, we will likely encounter lots of people improperly dressed, although the standards vary according to situation and time. As always, the remedy in such a case is to seek Christ in others, not to fall for judgementalism or victimisation. For isntance, how can we be vehicles of God's grace if we can't look at an immodestly dressed woman as a woman and not as an object?

Clothing must signity our dignity as human beings. But that doesn't mean that naked human beings, even when they are at fault, have no dignity.

Well said. 

[jovan66102]

Well, I've read this thread in some detail and all I can say is Scriptorium, you are one sick puppy! I strongly advise good spiritual direction hand in hand with therapy under a good, orthodox Catholic therapist. You need HELP!