Is It Wrong For Men To Be Shirtless In The Presence Of Women?

[jim111]

You're just posting things and not responding to what I say.  

 

The only reason why someone would give another person poison is to kill him, so there is explicit intention to cause grave harm.  That intention is sinful, which is the only thing that your quote illustrates. 

HERE IS THE FULL TEXT

 

You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment. . . When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion?
You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the soul.
And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride.'
St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church

 

  

Here is an even better one.

 

 

     "Miserable is the man that gives scandal! Our Lord says: He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Is there the least glimmer of hope for a man who is cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck? The Gospel appears to say that there is no greater hope for the salvation of the authors of scandal.
      St. John Chrysostom writes that the Lord is more inclined to show mercy to those who commit other more grievous sins, than to those who are guilty of the sin of scandal. What! says the Lord to the authors of scandal, are you not satisfied with offending me by your own sins? Do you wish to induce others also to insult me? In the Mirror of Examples, it is related that Jesus Christ said one day to a scandalous sinner, "Accursed wretch, you have despised what I have purchased by my blood."
     A mortal sin of scandal is committed by women who go about with their bosom immodestly exposed, or who expose their limbs improperly. Also by actors in immodest comedies, and still more by the persons who compose such comedies; also by painters who paint obscene pictures, and by the heads of families who keep such pictures in their houses. The father who speaks obscenely, or blasphemes the saints, in presence of his children, and the mother who brings into her house to live among her daughters young men who are in love with them, or betrothed to them, or other suspected persons, are guilty of a still more grievous sin of scandal. Some mothers say: do not suspect any evil. I answer, that it is their duty to suspect; otherwise they will have to render to God an account of all the sins which may follow.
     Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. Listen to a horrible thing that happened in the city of Savona in the year 1560. I have read it in the chronicles of the Capuchins, and it is also related by Father Ardia. There was a woman who, even after marriage, did not cease giving scandal. This woman one day fell into a fit, and while she was in a state of unconsciousness, she saw the Lord condemning her to eternal fire. When she recovered the use of her senses, she did nothing but cry out, "Alas! I am damned, I am damned!" A confessor came to comfort her, but she answered, "What have I to do with confession? I am damned." Then her daughter approached the bed, in order to encourage her, but she cried out: "Ah, accursed child! on your account, too, I am damned: for through you I have given scandal to others." After these words the devils, in presence of all who were in the apartment, raised her up to the ceiling, and then dashed her so violently against the floor that she instantly expired.'
(St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church)

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[jim111]

And, for what it's worth, it's not inherently sinful for a man to be shirtless. 

 

A man only sins if he is shirtless with the intention to incite lust in others, because the intention is sinful. 

 

However, it's prudent for men to not be shirtless without good reason, as an act of charity to others.  

 

Have you read about the sin of scandal?
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Look, I have given you the benefit of the doubt just because we are both traditionalists, Jim. But you are not debating, nor are you responding when we refute some of your arguments. You just keep repeating yourself. We have addressed these things already, but you refuse to take that into account.

[jim111]

Look, I have given you the benefit of the doubt just because we are both traditionalists, Jim. But you are not debating, nor are you responding when we refute some of your arguments. You just keep repeating yourself. We have addressed these things already, but you refuse to take that into account.

 

which one specifically

[Nihil Obstat]

Basically everything.

[Lil Red]

which one specifically

 

:doh: 

[Basilisa Marie]

Have you read about the sin of scandal?
 

 

Hon, you know I have.  :)  

 

Like I said before, maybe things would go a bit better if you tried articulating your points yourself instead of dropping a bunch of quotes.  People aren't convinced by simply reading what a random priest or even a Church Father  has to say about a subject.  It's not about who can drum up the biggest number of authoritative quotes.  You have you use your rhetoric to really convince people that what you're saying is right. :)   

[jim111]

Hon, you know I have.   :)

 

Like I said before, maybe things would go a bit better if you tried articulating your points yourself instead of dropping a bunch of quotes.  People aren't convinced by simply reading what a random priest or even a Church Father  has to say about a subject.  It's not about who can drum up the biggest number of authoritative quotes.  You have you use your rhetoric to really convince people that what you're saying is right. :)   

 

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.

 

 

My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

Edited May 2, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.


My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

Once again, you cannot demonstrate an inherent link between nudity and lust.

[Basilisa Marie]

Personally i am more likely to listen to a saint or pope then someones opinion.

 

 

My reasoning is that if one tempts a nother with lust, they are not only failing to be charitable, but they are committing the sin of scandal.

 

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

He is guilty of the sin of scandal who without positively pledging or inducing to sin nevertheless performs an act evil in itself which will be an occasion of sin to another.

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.  :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

[jim111]

Which is understandable, but here where people have pretty strong views, a little more "umph" is needed to get people to agree with you.  

 

Are we talking about active or passive scandal? Direct or indirect? 

 

From New Advent, an Encyclopedia you probably find suitable:

 

Wearing clothes with necklines lower than 2 fingers below the throat hollow (whatever that means, as it could be my fingers, your fingers, or the pope's fingers) is not an action evil in itself.   :)  Ergo, not scandal!  

 

On the contrary

 

 

ST,II-II,43,A1

Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?

 

Reply to Objection 2. A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Corinthians 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

 

 

  

 

 

[jim111]

On the contrary

 

 

ST,II-II,43,A1

Article 1. Whether scandal is fittingly defined as being something less rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall?

 

Reply to Objection 2. A thing is said to be less right, not because something else surpasses it in rectitude, but because it has some lack of rectitude, either through being evil in itself, such as sin, or through having an appearance of evil. Thus, for instance, if a man were to "sit at meat in the idol's temple" (1 Corinthians 8:10), though this is not sinful in itself, provided it be done with no evil intention, yet, since it has a certain appearance of evil, and a semblance of worshipping the idol, it might occasion another man's spiritual downfall. Hence the Apostle says (1 Thessalonians 5:22): "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." Scandal is therefore fittingly described as something done "less rightly," so as to comprise both whatever is sinful in itself, and all that has an appearance of evil.

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

Not exactly. If I brought a group of men over from a small city in Saudi Arabia, I'm willing to bet at least half of them would get turned on by clothes we'd consider modest. Modesty isn't a fixed thing. Neither is arousal. In fact, there are psychology methods of training someone not to get aroused by a certain stimulus. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Plus, we have to be careful with this sort of reasoning. I remember watching an interview with a rapist in Jordan. He claimed the woman's immodest clothing (she wore a skirt) as justification for his actions. Even in the United States, there is the tendency to blame rape victims using similar logic. 

Edited May 2, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[ploomf]

I did not comment sorry, but if women's immodesty causes a stumbling block for men, they sin, regardless of their intention.

 

I know men who consider extremely modest women to be arousing because they represent a challenge. And I'm sorry but any man who considers a women's collar bones, shoulders, or knees to be a stumbling block has an extremely warped view of the human body.