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

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.

Or they might like your voice too much and fall into sin. 

[PhuturePriest]

Or they might like your voice too much and fall into sin. 

 

Precisely. And with an exterior as fine as mine, how couldn't they? I fear I will be forced to wear a Franciscan habit all my life with the hood over my head, glancing downward always and never singing another note for the rest of my life.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

:offtopic:

 

Thread: "Is it wrong for men to be shirtless in the presence of women"

 

Thread is not: "Is nudity in art allowed?"

 

I admit my participation in the de-railing. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Edit: Off topic. :|

 

On Topic:
 

Men should be conscious of the fact that women are indeed turned on by visual stimuli.  But women don't demand that men be scrupulous about their clothing because we've learned that WE, first and foremost, are responsible for our own sin.  It's nice if the boys want to help us, but it's our responsibility to deal with it.  

Edited May 1, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[jim111]

Edit: Off topic. :|

 

On Topic:
 

Men should be conscious of the fact that women are indeed turned on by visual stimuli.  But women don't demand that men be scrupulous about their clothing because we've learned that WE, first and foremost, are responsible for our own sin.  It's nice if the boys want to help us, but it's our responsibility to deal with it.  

 

I know see why we disagree on this. This is not about helping out the other sex with sin. If i dress immodestly, I sin. It does not matter if I am lusted after or not. The very fact I provide a cause for sin, causes me to sin. The reason I do not want to dress immodest is not just because I am tempting others, but because I myself sin.

 

 

 

 

"We must emphasize in the strongest possible
language that it is Catholic teaching, based on the most clear
words of Christ Himself, that impure thoughts and desires

freely indulged in are serious sins. To invite such impure
thoughts and desires through dress ... [one] cannot help but
participate of the grave sin of scandal and cooperation." Pius XII

 Our Lady of Fatima
told Blessed Jacinta Marto in 1919:
"Certain fashions are to be introduced which will offend
Our Lord very much. Those who serve God should not
follow these fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our
Lord is always the same."

St. John Chry
sostom, Doctor of the
Church, taught:
"When you have made another sin in his heart, how can
you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn?
Whom do judges in court 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."

Pope Pius XII concluded that if a certain
kind of dress"becomes a grave and proximate danger for the
salvation of the soul...it is your duty to give
it up."
Address of Pope Pius XII to young girls of Catholic Action of Rome,
members of the Crusade for Purity, on May 22, 1941.

 

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

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Precisely. And with an exterior as fine as mine, how couldn't they? I fear I will be forced to wear a Franciscan habit all my life with the hood over my head, glancing downward always and never singing another note for the rest of my life.

You might as well become a Carthusian monk.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

:offtopic:

 

Thread: "Is it wrong for men to be shirtless in the presence of women"

 

Thread is not: "Is nudity in art allowed?"

 

I admit my participation in the de-railing. 

I think I know where they're getting at.

Many have referred to my upper body as proof of intelligent design. I don't know if I'd qualify it as "art", though. Unless God is a painter or something.

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Nihil Obstat]

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.

It is not the artist's fault if someone's peculiar hang-ups cause licit artistic expression to become an occasion of sin. If someone cannot handle The Birth of Venus, just as a random example, then they should avoid it, but that is just too bad for them. Do not go covering up Botticelli's masterpiece just because of a personal problem with purity.

[jim111]

It is not the artist's fault if someone's peculiar hang-ups cause licit artistic expression to become an occasion of sin. If someone cannot handle The Birth of Venus, just as a random example, then they should avoid it, but that is just too bad for them. Do not go covering up Botticelli's masterpiece just because of a personal problem with purity.

 

I will address this on another thread.
 

[jim111]

Matter of Expiation of Scandal from Immodest Paintings

Extracts from 'Purgatory' by Rev. F.X. Schouppe, S.J.

 

THOSE who have had the misfortune to give bad example, and to wound or cause the perdition of souls by scandal, must take care to repair all in this world, if they would not be subjected to the most terrible expiation in the other. It was not in vain that Jesus Christ cried out, Woe to the world because of scandals! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh! (Matt. 18:7)

Hear what Father Rossignoli relates in his Merveilles du Purgatoire. A painter of great skill and otherwise exemplary life had once made a painting not at all conformable to the strict rules of Christian modesty. It was one of those paintings which, under the pretext of being works of art, are found in the best families, and the sight of which causes the loss of so many souls.

True art is an inspiration from Heaven, which elevates the soul to God; profane art, which appeals to the senses only, which presents to the eye nothing but the beauties of flesh and blood, is but an inspiration of the evil spirit; his works, brilliant though they may be, are not works of art, and the name is falsely attributed to them.

They are the infamous productions of a corrupt imagination.

The artist of whom we speak had allowed himself to be misled in this point by bad example. Soon, however, renouncing this pernicious style, he confined himself to the production of religious pictures, or at least of those which were perfectly irreproachable. Finally, he was painting a large picture in the convent of the discalced Carmelites, when he was attacked by a mortal malady.

Feeling that he was about to die, he asked the Prior to allow him to be interred in the church of the monastery, and bequeathed to the community his earnings, which amounted to a considerable sum of money, charging them to have Masses said for the repose of his soul. He died in pious sentiments, and a few days passed, when a Religious who had stayed in the choir after Matins saw him appear in the midst of flames and sighing piteously.

"What!" said the Religious, "have you to endure such pain, after leading so good a life and dying so holy a death?" "Alas!" replied he, "it is on account of the immodest picture that I painted some years ago. When I appeared before the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge, a crowd of accusers came to give evidence against me. They declared that they had been excited to improper thoughts and evil desires by a picture, the work of my hand. In consequence of those bad thoughts some were in Purgatory, others in Hell. The latter cried for vengeance, saying that, having been the cause of their eternal perdition, I deserved, at least, the same punishment. Then the Blessed Virgin and the saints whom I had glorified by my pictures took up my defence. They represented to the Judge that that unfortunate painting had been the work of youth, and of which I had repented; that I had repaired it afterwards by religious objects which had been a source of edification to souls.

"In consideration of these and other reasons, the Sovereign Judge declared that, on account of my repentance and my good works, I should be exempt from damnation; but at the same time, He condemned me to these flames until that picture should be burned, so that it could no longer scandalise any one."

Then the poor sufferer implored the Religious to take measures to have the painting destroyed "I beg of you," he added, "go in my name to such a person, proprietor of the picture; tell him in what a condition I am for having yielded to his entreaties to paint it, and conjure him to make a sacrifice of it. If he refuses, woe to him! To prove that this is not an illusion, and to punish him for his own fault, tell him that before long he will lose his two children. Should he refuse to obey Him who has created us both, he will pay for it by a premature death."

The Religious delayed not to do what the poor soul asked of him, and went to the owner of the picture. The latter, on hearing these things, seized the painting and cast it into the fire. Nevertheless, according to the words of the deceased, he lost his two children in less than a month. The remainder of his days he passed in penance, for having ordered and kept that immodest picture in his house.

If such are the consequences of an immodest picture, what, then, will be the punishment of the still more disastrous scandals resulting from bad books, bad papers, bad schools, and bad conversations?

Vae mundo a scandalis! Vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit! -- "Woe to the world because of scandals! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh!

Scandal makes great ravages in souls by the seduction of innocence. Ah! those accursed seducers! They shall render to God a terrible account of the blood of their victims.
 

 

READ THE BOOK HERE

 

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[Nihil Obstat]

Do you have a Cliffnotes version?

[Basilisa Marie]

 

I know see why we disagree on this. This is not about helping out the other sex with sin. If i dress immodestly, I sin. It does not matter if I am lusted after or not. The very fact I provide a cause for sin, causes me to sin. The reason I do not want to dress immodest is not just because I am tempting others, but because I myself sin.

 

 

Wait, no, that's not how it works. 

 

If I walk around in a swimsuit in order to incite lust, then I'm sinning.  If I walk around in a swimsuit because I am at the beach, will engage in swimming, and it's hot out, I am not sinning.  

 

Clothing, in itself, is not inherently sinful.  It's what I do with it and what my intentions behind my clothing choices are that may or may not be sinful. 

[jim111]

Wait, no, that's not how it works. 

 

If I walk around in a swimsuit in order to incite lust, then I'm sinning.  If I walk around in a swimsuit because I am at the beach, will engage in swimming, and it's hot out, I am not sinning.  

 

Clothing, in itself, is not inherently sinful.  It's what I do with it and what my intentions behind my clothing choices are that may or may not be sinful. 

 

St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, taught:
"When you have made another sin in his heart, how can
you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn?
Whom do judges in court 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."

Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111

[Basilisa Marie]

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. 

[Basilisa Marie]

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.