Pants: Shock and Awe

[wallflower]

I will disagree that when modesty is on the surface it is just a show. Not always anyway.

Here is a simple way to think about. An interiorly modest person will by extension naturally dress modestly. If they aren't, then really they aren't interiorly modest yet, or they aren't steady in it, or there is some extraordinary circumstance preventing them (a necessity of some type). An exteriorly modest person does not have to be interiorly modest. They can do it out of pride, convention, ignorance, etc. It could be a show, or it could be real. Now only that person and God know the real story because the exterior appearance can be the same. Unless you have the grace of reading souls, you're running off of incomplete data. The same can be said of prayer and any exterior acts of religion. That's why we have charity. Our Lord had a lot to say, however, for people who put on show in fasting and many-worded prayers and such like, who did not have the internal aspect with these.

Absolutely, that's why both exterior and interior are encouraged together.

Sometimes the effort to practice virtue even when we don't want to stimulates the growth in that virtue.

The effort is virtuous in itself. You'd never try if you didn't have some virtue already.

Practice the virtue and the interior life will catch up eventually.

If you really are practicing virtue, then the interior is leading that. What is happening is the feedback from outside is coming back in, and you are rather resisting the increase of virtue.

I agree. Which is why I mentioned that the first step lies in the interior docility of being open to virtue. From there, the two foster each other.

The first will go back home to all her revealing clothes but at least she has the respect to put that aside where she knows it is offensive. It's a surface change but it still suggests something good as in respect for others is on the inside.

I would suggest that she is not being modest per se, but being considerate or kind. It's not bad, but it is a show in one respect, but genuine in another. Someone can have an interior movement in one respect, and an exterior show in another. When someone equivocates, they can have a truly noble interior motive in one respect (seal of confession, for example?), but put our an exterior show on another respect (not lie, but change the subject). It doesn't have to be bad. What someone once said to me is don't be judgmental, but be judicious. You don't have to judge their subjective state, but you can be judicious about their objective appearance. Any good act has something good inside working. We need to encourage that.

I agree again. Although I insist she was modest per se exteriorly and objectively. It may not have transfered interiorly but making the effort does show some level of goodwill. Which was kind of the point, that not all exterior modesty is a false show. It is in fact revealing something good about her, even if it is a surface change. Sometimes it is a mark of goodwill to be docile even if the interior modesty is not quite there.

People are complex.        [Read Lost in the Cosmos by Percy.]

[Su]

su, I will disagree that when modesty is on the surface it is just a show. Not always anyway.

What I wrote was:

Interior modesty is the Christian virtue and the external modesty is merely the surface (literally and figuratively), and it can be a result of interior modesty or it could just be a show, an act, which is not a virtue.

Exterior modesty is just the surface. It is either the result of interior modesty or it is just a show. It is the physical interpersonal manifestation of the interior virtue in one's being. Or, it is just an external show.

For example, are people more modest in winter (in PA)? Externally, yes, they most certainly are. Is it spiritually beneficial? No. It is just an accident of the environment. Does it have some benefit at all? Yes, it does reduce scandal, but that is a different aspect. Internally, nothing has changed. They are covering their bodies because it is cold.

Your example is more one of love, love of others to the extent one works to avoid scandalising others. It is not a matter of modesty as interiorly nothing has changed. They are altering their behaviour because of personal affection of some sort:

For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?

One alters her behaviour in your presence, but would she for the presence of others whom she does not love?

[Su]

I agree again. Although I insist she was modest per se exteriorly and objectively. It may not have transfered interiorly but making the effort does show some level of goodwill. Which was kind of the point, that not all exterior modesty is a false show. It is in fact revealing something good about her, even if it is a surface change. Sometimes it is a mark of goodwill to be docile even if the interior modesty is not quite there.

Yes, she was modest externally, but in terms of being modest, she was not.

It was an accident of the situation.

It is a good start, so to speak, but it is not really virtuous.

[INPEFESS]

Exterior modesty is just the surface. It is either the result of interior modesty or it is just a show. It is the physical interpersonal manifestation of the interior virtue in one's being. Or, it is just an external show.

That is not true. Again, this overlooks the Church's utilization of rituals, gestures, and outward reflections of our Faith as external means by which we adopt the correct internal dispositions. The postures we assume at the beginning of prayer are not usually the natural manifestations of interior virtue. All those who kneel at the beginning of the rosary are not suddenly compelled to genuflect by interior virtue. One does not commonly begin prayer in ecstasy. The newly-ordained priest does not prostrate himself before the altar because it is a natural manifestation his interior virtue. His external posture is a means by which he reminds himself of the virtue he desires to have. The body follows the soul. This is why the saints have recommended assuming certain postures (such as prostration) during prayer when our wills are feeling particularly rebellious or lacking in humility. The external signs of our will reflect inwardly on the soul and force it into realization of its place in the natural order.

As I said earlier, the virtue of modesty (as with all external professions mentioned in my former post) is similar to a positive feedback loop. An external expression of modesty reflects upon and conditions the interior habit of modesty in the soul, which in turn externally expresses itself more modestly, which in turn increases and conditions the interior habit of modesty in the soul, which in turn increases and deepens its external expression of modesty, etc.

There is more to the question than merely the internal disposition of modesty and how it expresses itself in the external forum. In most cases, this internal disposition is first cultivated by the external expression of what we know our internal dispositions should be. This is how growth in all virtue begins: conditioning our interior dispositions by performing something exteriorly that is initially disagreeable to it (e.g. being outwardly patient when we feel inwardly impatient, being outwardly charitable when we feel inwardly uncharitable, being outwardly temperate when we feel inwardly intemperate, etc.). 

[wallflower]

I agree again. Although I insist she was modest per se exteriorly and objectively. It may not have transfered interiorly but making the effort does show some level of goodwill. Which was kind of the point, that not all exterior modesty is a false show. It is in fact revealing something good about her, even if it is a surface change. Sometimes it is a mark of goodwill to be docile even if the interior modesty is not quite there.

Yes, she was modest externally, but in terms of being modest, she was not.

It was an accident of the situation.

It is a good start, so to speak, but it is not really virtuous.

Modesty is both internal and external. Analyzing from a purely objective point of view she was modestly dressed, period. The virtue was incomplete but it does not negate that she met one aspect of it which was the external one and she met it in goodwill. I already said she was not acting from internal modesty. I am perfectly aware of that. However, she did have honorable motives and that external change shows that. In other words, externals mean something. Whether they mean something good or bad is one thing and often too much for us to discern, which is why judgement is left to God, however they do mean something and cannot be ignored as simply superficial and inconsequential. Neither are they accidents.

[Su]

This discussion is about the image/caption about which my comments were made is it not? My statements were about making modesty purely external, ie, unattractive people are always modest.

Of course people will have various internal states. I am not claiming one has to be perfectly modest internally for any external modesty to be virtuous. But if external appearance is an accident, such as when there is a completely different reason other than modesty, it is not the virtue of modesty.

[Scriptorium]

That is not true. Again, this overlooks the Church's utilization of rituals, gestures, and outward reflections of our Faith as external means by which we adopt the correct internal dispositions. The postures we assume at the beginning of prayer are not usually the natural manifestations of interior virtue. All those who kneel at the beginning of the rosary are not suddenly compelled to genuflect by interior virtue. One does not commonly begin prayer in ecstasy. The newly-ordained priest does not prostrate himself before the altar because it is a natural manifestation his interior virtue. His external posture is a means by which he reminds himself of the virtue he desires to have. The body follows the soul. This is why the saints have recommended assuming certain postures (such as prostration) during prayer when our wills are feeling particularly rebellious or lacking in humility. The external signs of our will reflect inwardly on the soul and force it into realization of its place in the natural order.

What you seem to miss here is that these things are still preceded by an internal aspect. A prevenient grace precedes human action. Kneeling for the rosary itself can be virtuous. That is a first act of virtue there. A priest being ordained has to choose to show up, to approach, and prostrate himself. These are all virtuous activities with virtues lying behind them. They are beginnings. In everyday life the interplay between body and soul, and exterior and interior, is constantly going on. But we know through our theology, and reason for that matter, that prevenient grace and the primacy of the soul place the interior aspect of human acts in a primary position. The body is a lifeless gathering of particles without the soul. So the exterior aids and signs are there to increase virtue, not to initiate it. The beauty of the Mass, for instance, is there for people who are already there. The aids are there to lift people who already have expressed some virtue in showing up. It is the grace of God which begins the process, the soul taking up that divine proposal, and the exterior conforming to that interior virtue, which itself feeds back into the soul through grace (God presents the grace now of proposing an increase in virtue), which can then again be taken up by the soul, etc. etc. Even the signs and rituals of the Church are proof of this. God does not make them happen automatically, but men participate in the process through their free will. That is why the rituals and gestures are weak in our time, because man's free will is not cooperating with the grace of God, and his external signs are reflecting this, which itself is having a negative feedback influence, but in this case man is obstinate in resistance to grace by exerting his will over God's.

[Crusading Philologist]

I think we in the modern West often have too great a focus on interiority in ethics. It seems to me that this was not at all the case for the great tradition of premodern moral philosophy and theology from Plato to St. Thomas. For instance, look at the Greek emphasis on the necessity of paideia. In order to become virtuous, one must first develop the habit of virtue, which requires performing actions related to a specific virtue before one actually obtains the virtue (which isn't to say that one can necessarily posses one virtue without possessing all of the others). This means that educating people into the virtues through external practices can lead to the possession of real virtue. So from this angle, the relationship between body and soul is not so one-sided. Even St. Thomas in his discussion of human law notes that laws can develop virtue in those subject to them because although they might first obey the law only to avoid punishment, this can still lead to the development of good habits that lead to true virtue.

It also seems to me that an ethics of virtue serves as a middle way between deontology, which focuses solely on the will behind the action, and consequentialism, which focuses on the consequences of the action. Against both of these, a virtue ethics focuses primarily on the action itself and the skill with which the action is performed. For example, someone who intends to be just still does not posses the virtue of justice if he is unable to act justly in everyday life. Rather, one must also become adept at performing just actions skillfully before one can truly be said to be just. So, aside from the Stoics, I think the classical and medieval tradition of ethical thought balances exteriority and interiority in a way that modern traditions of ethical thought have been unable to reproduce.

[Scriptorium]

You often see the juxtaposition of mouth and heart in the NT. Another is fruit and tree. We can use these as stand-ins for external conduct and internal state. But notice that the interior is the source of the exterior, but also that the interior is known by the exterior. I think we have to have a balance, because how many of us are so in tune with our souls, and so in mastery of our senses, that we can simply just express our virtue? My original email was pointing out that we traditionalists, and many conservatives in general, are way to biased on the exterior side, so quotes like below seem to contradict our rule based methods of evangelization. I personally have seen much more success in the modesty topic with a sort of 80/20 approach, in which the 20% is charitable reminders of modesty standards, that the current social arguments are guided by other standards, and reminders that the Faith is a 24/7 path of transformation. The fact that almost every modesty thread has run aground should show us that a message which is too focused on exteriors can often give out the impression of entrapment, and the person either rebels, or acquiesces. Connecting the dots of the Faith should have people ascending the mountain of modesty, and getting excited about sharing that with others. Sort of like, I found this hidden treasure, and I want to share it with you.



Rm 10:8-10

But what does the scripture say? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart. This is the word of faith, which we preach. For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.


Lk 6:44-45

For every tree is known by its fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns; nor from a bramble bush do they gather the grape. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Mt 15:18-20a

The things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man.

Mt 12:33-35

Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of a good treasure brings forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure brings forth evil things.

[Su]

I think we in the modern West often have too great a focus on interiority in ethics.

Again, this topic was started by an image and a caption. All I wrote was based on that image and its implications.

For those in the Church, I think the focus should be on the inner life, as it should be assumed we have the basics of the externals already.

Yes, for raising children, starting to grow in the faith, etc, less perfect motivation for action can, and will, lead to a good end, but I think for an adult forum for traditional Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that we are held to be a little past that.