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

[EmilyAnn]

It was a woman with her breasts exposed. Pius the XII said women are not to have there clothing lower then 2 fingers below the pit of the throat, or tight clothing, as it could cause lust. The woman in the picture is completely naked. Yes one can choose to look and not lust, just like a i can look at a real woman and choose not to lust, but it certainly puts one in a unnecessary situation to be tempted with sin.

Provide a citation where Pius XII said that, as a doctrinal statement. 

[Nihil Obstat]

It was a woman with her breasts exposed. Pius the XII said women are not to have there clothing lower then 2 fingers below the pit of the throat, or tight clothing, as it could cause lust. The woman in the picture is completely naked. Yes one can choose to look and not lust, just like a i can look at a real woman and choose not to lust, but it certainly puts one in a unnecessary situation to be tempted with sin.

But the context of art is different from ordinary contexts. Nudity is licit in art. Erotic nudity, perhaps less so, at least for church, but you have not demonstrated that it is inherently erotic.

[jim111]

Provide a citation where Pius XII said that, as a doctrinal statement. 

 

 

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/files/twsg_booklet.pdf

 

on August 23, 1928 for a

"Crusade Against Immodest

Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious."13

As partof that Crusade, on September 24 of the same year, by order of

the Pope, Cardinal Pompili (Pius XI's Cardinal-Vicar) issued a

letter in which the following standard was given:

 

"In order that uniformity in understanding prevail...we

recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut

deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat;

which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and

scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore,

dresses of transparent materials are improper."

(Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church)

"

[jim111]

But the context of art is different from ordinary contexts. Nudity is licit in art. Erotic nudity, perhaps less so, at least for church, but you have not demonstrated that it is inherently erotic.

 

It might not be intended to be erotic, but I am saying the artist should not create art that can be an occasion for sin.

[arfink]

 

 

Provide a citation where Pius XII said that, as a doctrinal statement. 

 

 

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/files/twsg_booklet.pdf

 

on August 23, 1928 for a

"Crusade Against Immodest

Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious."13

As partof that Crusade, on September 24 of the same year, by order of

the Pope, Cardinal Pompili (Pius XI's Cardinal-Vicar) issued a

letter in which the following standard was given:

 

"In order that uniformity in understanding prevail...we

recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut

deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat;

which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and

scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore,

dresses of transparent materials are improper."

(Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church)

"

 

 

Not infallible ^^

[EmilyAnn]

 

 

Provide a citation where Pius XII said that, as a doctrinal statement. 

 

 

http://www.catholicmodesty.com/files/twsg_booklet.pdf

 

on August 23, 1928 for a

"Crusade Against Immodest

Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious."13

As partof that Crusade, on September 24 of the same year, by order of

the Pope, Cardinal Pompili (Pius XI's Cardinal-Vicar) issued a

letter in which the following standard was given:

 

"In order that uniformity in understanding prevail...we

recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut

deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat;

which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and

scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore,

dresses of transparent materials are improper."

(Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church)

"

 

That is not the original source. I know that because I found the original source and a) it is not infallible and b) it does not actually include those "standards". It is found here on pages 26-28 so you can look it up yourself. 

[PhuturePriest]

It might not be intended to be erotic, but I am saying the artist should not create art that can be an occasion for sin.

 

Well, that means I shouldn't express any opinions. After all, some of them might offend people, and if they are angry because of my opinion, that's my fault. I also should no longer sing or make music videos, because some people might not like my music and will fall to hatred because of me.

[jim111]

Not infallible ^^

 

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

• he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Jim, art is not the same as reality. The same rules of modesty do not apply in art as they apply in real life.

 

Nudity is allowed in art, but not generally allowed in reality, unless in the proper situation (bathing, marital embrace, etc). 

[PhuturePriest]

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

• he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

But here's the funny part: Pope Pius never said that. A Priest under him said that, and Pope Pius is always attributed to saying it.

[jim111]

That is not the original source. I know that because I found the original source and a) it is not infallible and b) it does not actually include those "standards". It is found here on pages 26-28 so you can look it up yourself. 

 

If it does not say that, then how it that the original source?

[EmilyAnn]

If it does not say that, then how it that the original source?

That is the original source for the letter that you quoted, and it does not include the "standards" that you are claiming it does. 

[jim111]

Jim, art is not the same as reality. The same rules of modesty do not apply in art as they apply in real life.

 

Nudity is allowed in art, but not generally allowed in reality, unless in the proper situation (bathing, marital embrace, etc). 

 

this should probably be a new thread, but why is it different?
 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

this should probably be a new thread, but why is it different?
 

Because it's not reality.

[arfink]

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

• he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

 

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

Keep in mind that while he has the right to do so, it does not make his word infallible in that regard.

 

Infallibility if for doctrines, not for practicum. The Church's stance on the immorality of pornography is not changed one iota whether you cover the Sistine Chapel in fig leaves or not.