Nude Art

[arfink]

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. The reason I am saying bodies in art should be covered is because it is an occasion for sin. My reasoning my be false, but that's how i see it.

 

I can look at naked people in real life and see the beauty and dignity of the human body, this does not make it OK to look at naked women.

 

Don't ever get married. Don't ever have sex if you do get married. Don't ever change diapers if you have a baby girl.

 

^^ Do you see how messed up the above saying are? Yet they are the direct result of your saying women are an occasion of sin.

 

Women are not an occasion of sin. I am very disappointed in you for saying so.

Edited May 1, 2013 by arfink

[arfink]

Also I think your notion of an occasion is sin is flawed too. An occasion of sin is different from a regular temptation. An occasion of sin is a situation in which you are so weakened that you are led into sin, and will vary from person to person. For example it may very well be true that a hardcore alcoholic who has only been sober for 1 week will find it literally impossible not to drink if you place him alone in a room with a bottle of Jack and a glass. That is an occasion of sin for him, and he is obligated to avoid such situations not because they are merely tempting, but because he WILL SIN if he wanders into it. His negligence in that situation is his own downfall, and he is then culpable for not avoiding the near occasion of sin.

 

However, we cannot be culpable for other people's near occasions of sin.

[EmilyAnn]

It is my understanding is that the reason women are to keep covered is because they are an occasion for sin. 

Say that to a woman's face and I can pretty much guarantee you that she will slap you. If you said that to my face I would. 

Woman are not "an occasion for sin". Learn some respect. 

[jim111]

The human body is not inherently sinful to look upon. That is why your argument is unsound.

 

I thought original sin made it very potentially sinful to look upon the opposite sex when they are naked. Yes it is possible to not, but it is an unnecessary occasion for sin.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Don't ever get married. Don't ever have sex if you do get married. Don't ever change diapers if you have a baby girl.

 

^^ Do you see how messed up the above saying are? Yet they are the direct result of your saying women are an occasion of sin.

 

Women are not an occasion of sin. I am very disappointed in you for saying so.

Arfink, you're very right but I think his argument is actually interesting. What we consider "art" nowadays is so broad. A painting of a nude model is okay but is a picture of that same model? How about a painting of two models engaged in sexual activity? Would you consider that okay? How about a picture of those two models? 
If this all passes, then maybe some might consider a porn movie to be art. It is, afterall, just a bunch of moving pictures. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[jim111]

Say that to a woman's face and I can pretty much guarantee you that she will slap you. If you said that to my face I would. 

Woman are not "an occasion for sin". Learn some respect. 

 

If your body is not covered you are, according to a woman I have talked, men with their shirts off can be an occasion for sin.

[EmilyAnn]

If your body is not covered you are, according to a woman I have talked, men with their shirts off can be an occasion for sin.

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought original sin made it very potentially sinful to look upon the opposite sex when they are naked. Yes it is possible to not, but it is an unnecessary occasion for sin.

Consider yourself like an alcoholic. Alcohol is great. It is tasty and it is a 'social lubricant'. But it is also dangerous. You can have too much, or you can let it influence you into doing stupid things.

For a normal person, this is a danger that they can face without being led into sin. For an alcoholic, perhaps they do not have the strength to avoid those temptations. So the alcoholic should avoid alcohol. That is not something to be ashamed of. Everyone has their particular temptations, and must overcome them.

But you are saying that everyone should avoid alcohol at all times, because you have a problem with alcoholism. That is the issue here. Maybe for you it is that bad. For most, not at all.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[jim111]

Also I think your notion of an occasion is sin is flawed too. An occasion of sin is different from a regular temptation. An occasion of sin is a situation in which you are so weakened that you are led into sin, and will vary from person to person. For example it may very well be true that a hardcore alcoholic who has only been sober for 1 week will find it literally impossible not to drink if you place him alone in a room with a bottle of Jack and a glass. That is an occasion of sin for him, and he is obligated to avoid such situations not because they are merely tempting, but because he WILL SIN if he wanders into it. His negligence in that situation is his own downfall, and he is then culpable for not avoiding the near occasion of sin.

 

However, we cannot be culpable for other people's near occasions of sin.

 

There are undoubtedly times where it is our responsibility. However the church clearly teaches they sin if they cause others to lust after them, the same is true for the artist.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem. 

EmilyAnn, I don't think he's intending to do that. It's probably just really bad word choice. The fact that he's concerned about not lusting after women probably means he doesn't want to objectify them. If you (jim) have problems with this, then you might have an inflated sex drive or you're over thinking things. 

Edited May 1, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[jim111]

You clearly have some issues with women. If you can't look at a woman without objectifying her, then that's your problem.

 

It does not matter what I think, if they provide the temptation then they sin regardless of weather or not I lust.

 

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."

[arfink]

There are undoubtedly times where it is our responsibility. However the church clearly teaches they sin if they cause others to lust after them, the same is true for the artist.

 

No, you are wrong. I believe you what you mean to say is "The Chirch clearly teaches they sin if they knowingly and intentionally cause others to lust after them." This should be obvious from reading St. Thomas Aquinas' description of sin, which requires that sinful acts be consented to and done with knowledge of their sinful nature.

 

Yes, despite what you may think, intent actually does mean something!

 

[AnneLine]

I only have a few seconds, but I want to get this into the discussion... but won't be back until LATE tonight....

 

 

Jim, I think perhaps you need to pray about this a little more.  And perhaps discuss it with your spiritual director or a confessor.

 

Your concerns about the human body -- male or female -- your belief that it is ugly, sinful or in any other way an 'evil' thing. I don't think that is correct.

 

By definition, we were created by God - 'male and female He created them' -- and God looked (!!!LOOKED!!!) at all He had created and found it GOOD.

 

All that God creates is GOOD.... However, from OUR standpoint, created things are by deinition NEUTRAL. They are designed (by a Most Intelligent Creator!) to lead us to God; we can corrupt them but they don't start that way.  So we can use them for good or evil... but of themselves, they are NEUTRAL.

I was reading a very interesting book on the spirituality of St. John of the Cross  this morning.  No one would accuse John of the Cross of not being aware of the dangers of things leading people astray.... and he is a Doctor of the Church) -- and he was a fairly good artist and poet.

 

This quote from the book seems relevant:

 

NOTE:  John routinely refers to the soul as 'she' - that will help make sense of the imbedded quotes from St. John's book, The Ascent of Mt. Carmel....

 

###########

 

For John, created beauty is beautiful -- people, art, nature. What concerns him is not so much the people or the things being loved, as the loving heart. That is where freedom and slavery are played out.

 

'We are not talking here about giving up things, because that does not strip the soul if her affective drive remains set on them. We are talking about stripping away the craving for gratifiation (gusto, apetito) in those things. That is what leaves the person free and empty in their regard, even though she still owns them. Because it is not the things of this world that take up space in the person or do her harm. [...] No, it is the will and the hunger for them that dwells inside her.' [1 Ascent 3.4]

 

The focus is on desire: if this gets out of place -- 'disordered' -- it curls in on itself and chokes the person's openness to the other. Then the 'bonds of ownership' 'occupy the heart'. At stake, then, is our ability to love; and the stakes are high:

 

'The person has only one will, and if this gets caught up in a particular thing, it will not be free, complete, single or pure -- yet that is what is needed if God is to transform it.' [1 A 11.6]

 

When people, things, events are loved within God, there is harmony.  When they get set alongside God -- 'set in a balance with God' -- a process is begun in which affectivity groans under the violence it is inflicting on itself.

 

 

From The Impact of God, Fr. Iain Matthew, OCD pg. 40-41)

 

==============

 

There is more there, but I don't want to make TOO long a post.  The reason I post it is that I can understand you want to focus on God and worry that the human body might distract you from Him.   I think that is happening because you are setting your sight on something(s) (created things) rather than Someone (the Lord).    If something is distracting you, John would be the first to tell you to leave it behind... but he would also tell you that you are missing MANY beautiful things and that their purpose is to lead you TO Him.

 

And.... we are all here to help each other to find God and it's important, I think for ALL of us to remember that no one has the full repository of TRUTH except God.... and we can all help each other by searching for His Truth together.

 

Praying for all....

 

Edited May 1, 2013 by AnneLine

[jim111]

EmilyAnn, I don't think he's intending to do that. It's probably just really bad word choice. The fact that he's concerned about not lusting after women probably means he doesn't want to objectify them. If you (jim) have problems with this, then you might have an inflated sex drive or you're over thinking things. 

 

I over think things. I believe men and  women should have to dress a certain way, so as not to cause lust, or they sin. I don't see how I can have theses stirct standards for women, but then approve of these paintings where they are naked.

[Nihil Obstat]

I over think things. I believe men and  women should have to dress a certain way, so as not to cause lust, or they sin. I don't see how I can have theses stirct standards for women, but then approve of these paintings where they are naked.

Perhaps because you are considering the body to be inherently shameful, when it actually is not.