Introducing: Joseph Like Modesty Standards!

[MarysLittleFlower]

I understand that we must walk the line. But to my way of thinking, you're always going to wind up with a solution that is too far towards "the body is a stumbling block" whenever you treat ANY part of the body as an inherent stumbling block.

 

Let me be very very blunt. The reason we do not show our genitals in public should NOT be because it's a stumbling block, but because our reproduction is sacred, and it meant to be given only in a free, faithful, total, and fruitful way.

 

Everything else is mere practicum from that point, and "standards" become meaningless outside the context of social norms. We could (and have so far done so on Phatmass) fight about what those standards are until the sun has become a cold, dark lump of actinide ash and it no longer matters because we will be incapable of seeing.

 

Maybe I should clarify something.... the body can be a stumbling block not  because of the body itself, as a creation of God, but because of our fallen state and concupiscence. It's not an insult to say, that we can be temped. Or distracted. Or that we're imperfect and should help one another to holiness. I think a perfect society, we'd help each other to be Saints.

 

The reason we shouldn't show areas of the body that are proximal to the genital areas, seem to be because people's minds can easily jump from one to the other.

 

I'm trying to think about it but based on what i understand now, it makes sense to me that there's something objective - I don't quite know what... but it's not just social norms. Social norms are either more perfectly or less perfectly aligned with it, or they break it completely. It seems to me like Mary-like modesty is just aiming at something higher than just the minimum our society offers. As to the full explanation, I still don't know it fully, but it makes sense to me on another level.

 

Maybe just pray about it, if you want to :) see if God would show anything. I will pray too.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Read my other post. I am saying you can't call any part of the body a stumbling block, because that is not what the body is, and to do so undermines the dignity of the human body, and thus of the human person.

 

What I am trying to say is, if you don't start with the proper understanding of what modesty is for, it will be twisted into a form of objectification no matter how many times anyone says the standards are reasonable.

 

I'm not saying the body is a stumbling block. I'm saying it can *cause* a stumbling block, which is in the mind and guided by concupiscence. There's a difference between the two, imo.

 

Do you agree that certain images of the body can cause lust? It's not the body's fault... it's our fallen state.

Edited May 11, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

I dress mostly according to said standards, just because I want to and it's how I've been raised. It's not that I think it's awful to do otherwise, it's just that I do not want to wear tight or low-cut clothing myself, and I really prefer skirts. (I normally wear jeans, however, since I use my bike to get around very often and don't want to either have my skirt either caught in the chain or flying up far too high, both of which seem extremely possible.) I would feel awkward in clothing that did not cover at least a quarter of my arms (like normal t-shirt length) or was very much above my knees (and I want to be able to run and climb trees and basically do whatever I jolly well want to in my skirts, so they're almost always long and wide). But this is neither to say that I want to wear anything approaching a gunny sack (I tailor my clothes (yes, I sew my skirts, dresses, and the shirts I wear most) to be pretty fitted) nor that I think others are any less [insert noun here] because they dress differently (goodness, some of my best friends do so on a regular basis, and I respect them no less for it).

 

Oh, and I really don't care if you or any other man would want to date me. In fact, I would prefer that nobody did. (Which is not the case.... Sigh.) :P

 

Thanks for your post :) yea I just don't like to wear anything tight or low-cut and I prefer skirts too. I don't think that someone is an awful human being if they don't follow exactly the same thing. I think there is a line somewhere, but beyond that, I just felt inspired (through someone's example) to try to dress more like Our Blessed Mother. I just find that it brings peace to do this and brings me closer to her.

 

My clothing isn't tight but it's not like a sack either, it's just normal kind of clothing, only I like longer skirts and wear cardigans over my dresses. :) I hang around people all the time who dress differently and we're friends. I just want to do what has brought me more peace and closer to Our Lady.

[Nihil Obstat]

My philosophy with regards to modesty is this:

 

The primary purpose of modesty is to bring glory to God through respect for one's own body and one's own sexuality. It is a recognition that we ultimately belong to God, and therefore must care for the gifts he has given us. It is a recognition that the body is fundamentally good, beautiful, and worthy of great respect. So the primary purpose is ultimately personal, and it should be noted that it is a positive obligation. It is a 'do this', rather than a 'do not do this'. I believe this primary sense is the one which is most frequently forgotten or left unsaid.

In a secondary sense, by recognizing the inherent goodness and beauty of our own bodies and sexuality, we recognize the same in those around us. No problem there, simply transitive property. This is also a positive obligation - to respect our brothers and sisters.

The tertiary sense of modesty, in my opinion, is the one which is most abused. This is the sense in which we recognize that, through our fallen nature, we can lead others into temptation. That leading a neighbour into temptation is possible is simply a fact of life. As always prudence, as the mother of all virtue, is key here. We exercise prudence in discerning what we might reasonably do to mitigate temptation we present for others. This third meaning of modesty is abused when it is overemphasized, and also when it is underemphasized or denied. To overemphasize it leans towards Jansenism or Manichaeism, and to deny it leads to forgetting our obligation to each other as a community. This sense imposes a negative obligation which again must be discerned through prudence. But all its negative obligations will ultimately be derived from the principles of the primary and secondary sense of modesty, which is respect for and recognition of the inherent value of our bodies.

The tertiary sense of modesty is derived from the primary and secondary. Ultimately all modesty and purity is rooted in a proper understanding of the inherent goodness of the created world, and especially our bodies (which, not being dualists, we hold to be integral to our being).

 

I think that by this understanding modesty can be characterized as follows: the primary and secondary sense is a recognition of the goodness of creation and the inherent beauty of our bodies and sexuality, being created in the image and likeness of God. The tertiary sense of modesty is a recognition of the temporal effects of sin, and a resignation to the fact that we do not live in an ideal world. And I believe that by this understanding we might characterize the primary and secondary senses as being essential to modesty as a concept, and the tertiary sense as being an accidental characteristic.

 

Postscript: this is my own opinion which I have been developing in my head for some time, and is certainly open to criticism and revision.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think that's a good reflection :)

 

I just wanted to clarify.... let's say I'm trying to see if my outfit is modest enough. Of course, it's important to ask oneself: would it cause temptation to anyone? But I think much of my point in this thread is that if we feel led to this, we don't have to stop there, nor do we have to compare ourselves with our culture and assume that since everyone is used to immodesty already, we don't have to be as careful. But it's not like a fearful, Jansenistic thing, at least I hope not. It's not like going through the streets worrying if showing an elbow is going to tempt someone to sin. I'm talking about the second question we can ask: not just "what is the minimum"? but what is the maximum? we should ask: would this tempt others? but then we can also ask: "what would Mary think of my clothing?" if we think of how an internal innocence is pleasing to God - that is worth most, what is internal and we should take care of that first (so we're not like the Pharisees only caring about external purity, not internal) - but then, after this, we can also try to express that outwardly. Not in a Jansenistic way, but just wanting to be a daughter of Mary to the fullest, in emulating her. Her innocence, purity, modesty, all comes from within - but it radiates outwards, so we can be this way too. Not that I've mastered it or anything. It's just an idea.. and I'm still thinking/praying... again this is all just ideas. :)

[arfink]

I'm not saying the body is a stumbling block. I'm saying it can *cause* a stumbling block, which is in the mind and guided by concupiscence. There's a difference between the two, imo.

 

Do you agree that certain images of the body can cause lust? It's not the body's fault... it's our fallen state.

 

The image does not CAUSE lust. You misunderstand. Even pornography does not cause lust. Pornography encourages it, and is designed to be lusted after, but pornography itself does not inherently override the will of the person viewing it. It is the will of the person consenting to lust which causes lust. Concupiscence would actually reduce the culpability of the act in proportion to the weakening of the will.

 

Body parts do not cause lust. They do not cause a stumbling block.

 

Now, I am perhaps not being fair to you, being so philosophical. Let me be clear on a few more things then. I believe that standards of modesty are a good thing, and we ought to have them. But we must not have them out of a sense that our body can cause other people to sin, because that is simply not true, and is an objectification of the human body.

 

It is fair to say that we should be aware that there are people with such incredibly weakened wills that they would involuntarily lust after a doorknob, and we should try to accommodate them out of charity where prudence allows it.

 

Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's for a good reason. These Mary Like Standards are often put forth as an objective standard and even a binding obligation when they are nothing of the kind, precisely because they are based on this flawed understanding of the dignity of the human body and the purpose of modesty.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think that's a good reflection :)

 

I just wanted to clarify.... let's say I'm trying to see if my outfit is modest enough. Of course, it's important to ask oneself: would it cause temptation to anyone? But I think much of my point in this thread is that if we feel led to this, we don't have to stop there, nor do we have to compare ourselves with our culture and assume that since everyone is used to immodesty already, we don't have to be as careful. But it's not like a fearful, Jansenistic thing, at least I hope not. It's not like going through the streets worrying if showing an elbow is going to tempt someone to sin. I'm talking about the second question we can ask: not just "what is the minimum"? but what is the maximum? we should ask: would this tempt others? but then we can also ask: "what would Mary think of my clothing?" if we think of how an internal innocence is pleasing to God - that is worth most, what is internal and we should take care of that first (so we're not like the Pharisees only caring about external purity, not internal) - but then, after this, we can also try to express that outwardly. Not in a Jansenistic way, but just wanting to be a daughter of Mary to the fullest, in emulating her. Her innocence, purity, modesty, all comes from within - but it radiates outwards, so we can be this way too. Not that I've mastered it or anything. It's just an idea.. and I'm still thinking/praying... again this is all just ideas. :)

See, I think my idea implies that we approach it slightly differently. If we are going to ask if an outfit is modest, first we ask how it fits within the primary sense of modesty, i.e. respect and admiration for one's own body and sexuality. Are we wearing it for the right reasons, or the wrong ones?

I think we should consider that first, then ask with all due prudence and reason if we might inadvertently be posing a problem to someone else.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Arfink, I agree that it's not just seeing something, but consenting to evil thoughts or actions. For example if I'm walking on the street and see something sinful, if I don't consent to it, I haven't sinned. This is an example a priest used in a sermon. Maybe we're getting really technical talking about whether the image causes lust or not, - I actually didn't mean that the image itself (as in an image of a body) is the stumbling block - I meant that it's in the will... but the image is involved. What i'm trying to say is simply that if the image were not there, the person wouldn't have to fight the temptations that come from their concupiscence. So no I'm not saying that it's the body itself that is responsible,- I'm just trying to say that seeing certain things might introduce certain thoughts, because of concupisence.

 

If a guy sees an immodestly dressed girl and has lustful thoughts that he consented to: the sin of consenting to them, is his sin and his responsibility. What i'm trying to say is the girl was not correct to introduce this whole battle to the guy in the first place. If she had dressed modestly, he would not have had to fight the temptation at all. It's about limiting occasions of sin for others. Presenting an occasion of sin.. is a sin. If the girl doesn't know and didn't intend this, or just doesn't think about modesty, obviously that's not the same as her intending to encourage someone to lust after her. But still, we affect one another (guys affect girls too and should be modest as well), and I just think we should not present occasions of sin to one another. Even though the sin comes from the will, but the whole process of fighting with it: we can minimize those times. Isn't it placing someone in danger, to place them into a situation where they might be tempted? not because of the body itself, but the concupiscence.

 

Anyways... I never meant to say that body parts themselves (on their own) cause stumbling blocks. I meant, that seeing them, could trigger certain thoughts because of concupiscence, which the person then needs to fight, and this is placing them in an occasion of sin, - and what if they lose the battle? isn't it better to avoid the battle altogether, if we can help it? certain things we can't help, but here, we can at least help one another.

 

I just think that you misunderstood what I meant (maybe I wasn't clear), because you are telling me that the body doesn't cause lust on its own, but I never intended to say that it does :)

 

btw, I was talking about normal regular people. Not about people who would lust after everything, and trying to minimize it for them. I was talking about the basic reasonable level of helping the regular guys especially those who are trying to be chaste (not looking for temptation everywhere).

 

I know there's the question then: if I'm talking about avoiding tempting normal guys, why are the standards so strict? especially if the guys might be used to immodesty around them? and maybe it's perhaps that point exactly: they are used to it, but as a society, we should not be. So there's more to it, and that's why I mentioned customs being more or less perfected. I don't think it's only about "would this tempt a guy on the street" - it's also about our society, about morals, and about what Nihil Obstat said regarding dressing in a way that highlights your dignity as a human being. In addition to this, we receive God within us: if the Holy Spirit dwells in a soul in a state of grace, - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it might simply be better to strive to reflect that, - not just stop at "is this causing others to sin".

 

...I just noticed, many of the criticisms of the standards are that they're so focused on temptation. But actually I'm talking about something more - because we know that our culture isn't very modest, and people are used to immodesty, so maybe are desensitized a bit. I think the reason people like St Padre Pio were so against the new types of fashions is not just because they might tempt someone, but because they might lead to this desensititzation, or at least a - weakening of customs, which could be more or less perfected... this part is just my own thinking, I'm just thinking aloud :)

 

The image does not CAUSE lust. You misunderstand. Even pornography does not cause lust. Pornography encourages it, and is designed to be lusted after, but pornography itself does not inherently override the will of the person viewing it. It is the will of the person consenting to lust which causes lust. Concupiscence would actually reduce the culpability of the act in proportion to the weakening of the will.

 

Body parts do not cause lust. They do not cause a stumbling block.

 

Now, I am perhaps not being fair to you, being so philosophical. Let me be clear on a few more things then. I believe that standards of modesty are a good thing, and we ought to have them. But we must not have them out of a sense that our body can cause other people to sin, because that is simply not true, and is an objectification of the human body.

 

It is fair to say that we should be aware that there are people with such incredibly weakened wills that they would involuntarily lust after a doorknob, and we should try to accommodate them out of charity where prudence allows it.

 

Yes, I'm nitpicking, but it's for a good reason. These Mary Like Standards are often put forth as an objective standard and even a binding obligation when they are nothing of the kind, precisely because they are based on this flawed understanding of the dignity of the human body and the purpose of modesty.

 

[the171]

We need theology of the body.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Maybe if I give an example, it would be clearer, what i mean :)

 

let's say there's a society that has high modesty standards. Their conscience is properly formed in this way. They are sensitive to immodesty, which would be good, not bad. Desensitization shows an impoperly formed conscience, perhaps.

 

Then, fashions begin to be introduced that change this. Maybe they're not extreme like tiny little bikinis. Maybe they don't yet deal with - showing the more 'private' parts of the body, meant for a spouse. But they introduce some ideas nonetheless:

 

- change in gender roles (which was a criticism of the Pope about pants - no I'm not starting a debate on this, just saying that the Pope talked about this, - he talked about gender roles and not only what is more modest visually).

 

- the idea that these things are relative and subjective

 

Maybe it's the second one that's most relevant here. Soon, more and more immodest clothes are introduced - excuses are given like: comfort, sport, ETC. Eventually, we get to bikinis. First everyone opposes them, and they can't even find models for them. But in a few decades, mostly all girls wear them. How did this change? desensitization happened... so now, the conscience of the indivdiuals is harder to form on this issue. That's more what I'm talking about when I  mentioned customs... hope this makes more sense.

 

I'm actually trying to describe what did happen... there's the question: why did it just keep going from there? some people say that there's a letter from the Masons showing that they had a plan to destroy the Church and its morals and actually orchestrated all this. For all I know, this could be. Here's the letter for anyone interested: http://www.michaeljournal.org/corruptionfashions.asp

 

Maybe some may laugh at this... but if you feel that way I recommend just taking it to prayer first :) see what God says... He knows all things, we do not (and I do not).

 

That's why I said it's not as simple as asking "would this tempt someone?". Because if a society is used to immodesty, it might be harder to tempt, but that's actually a problem, not a solution... it means a weakening of conscience, and a corruption of morals... maybe that's why people like St Padre Pio spoke so firmly about these new fashions that were coming in? simply because of the effects. We can see the effects today.... without the changes that took place then, we would not have the extremely immodest fashions either. It would not have developed that far. Maybe that's what the Popes, etc, tried to stop, when they spoke on  immodestly. For example, one Pope talked about avoiding gymnastics, public bathing etc, - it relates to temptation I think, but if we don't see it as temptation, could it be because our consciences have been not perfectly formed, or we have been desensitized? would a society with better morals, be shocked at things that we accept? that's why I said, why stop at the bare minimum, why not fully emulate Our Lady? She shows the perfection of modesty... it seems extreme to us because we are comparing it to the world... but the world is going astray. If we just close our eyes to the world for a bit and think about it in terms of eternity.... maybe it would make more sense to us then. I think in the end, it probably does relate to sin and temptation too, but also the conscience, and what Nihil Obstat said - our dignity as human beings... and if we consider how the body of a Christian in grace is a temple of the Holy Spirit: doesn't that add even more to our dignity? i'ts not like hiding our body cause it's bad.... but something else... the standards don't say "cover as much as you can", like we must cover everything except our eyes. We can see Mary and the Saints, show their faces. Our Blessed Lord does too. But the standard also goes beyond the minimum of what would tempt our current culture.

[MarysLittleFlower]

See, I think my idea implies that we approach it slightly differently. If we are going to ask if an outfit is modest, first we ask how it fits within the primary sense of modesty, i.e. respect and admiration for one's own body and sexuality. Are we wearing it for the right reasons, or the wrong ones?

I think we should consider that first, then ask with all due prudence and reason if we might inadvertently be posing a problem to someone else.

 

Sure, maybe :) that can be related to the same idea of - not just doing the bare minimum of our society. I think that's the main point I'm trying to describe here. I don't know... that's just my current understanding. If I'm wrong about something, or if anything should be added, then I hope God helps me see that.

 

There is something I remember reading.... when Adam and Eve fell, they covered themselves with leaves, but God actually made garments for them. What were the garments like? I'm sure they must have been truly modest, and encouraged virtue and a proper view of human dignity.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I almost forgot!  Modesty also requires a weapon.  St. Peter and the Apostles had swords.  A true Joseph Like man must have a sword in possession at all times unless he marries a policewoman, or has a bodyguard.  A dispensation may be requested of proper Church authorities if none of these apply to the man's circumstances.

 

 

Aha i thought this was going to be a serious thread. Your one of them stuck in the sar chasm. Hope you get out of that abyss. 

Edited May 11, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just something to consider :)

 

 

"Religion does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene, health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practice nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the shoulders, etc. etc."

International Review on Freemasonry, 1928

http://www.michaeljournal.org/corruptionfashions.asp

 

 

that's what I've been trying to describe, about the conscience, and people getting used to immodesty. So I wouldn't say the standards are a simplistic argument of thinking the body is evil and every part of the body can tempt others equally. It's not equally... but there are perhaps more perfect and less perfect customs, which shape our conscience, which affects whether we're sensitive to this or not, and if we are not, then fashions can easily become more and more immodest... haven't we seen a great change from early 20th century to today? WHY is that? it's never been that in the Christian world, women would dress the way women sometimes dress today. Why did SO MUCH change?

 

Bl Jacinta said, - Our Lord has no fashions, He is always the same. She said, people who follow God should not follow current fashions. It's easy to just dismiss that as "one Saint's opinion" without asking why she thought this...

 

I think in the end, I'd rather question our society, culture, our times, - than Popes, Saints, priests... in the past, it seems people were more sensitive to modesty. I think those are just the people to listen to, when there is desensitization happening. :) doesn't this affect the conscience? am I correct? this is just my undestanding!

[the171]

Modern women do more than those in previous centuries. Fashions change for a reason. I agree. Some of the fashions aren't too savory, but some of the changes are necessary.

I run, I swim, I work, and I do a lot more. Fashions have changed. We can follow the fashions without being immodest. We must be dynamic.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Something else...

 

"

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) continued the Modesty Crusade during his pontificate. In an allocution of May 22, 1941 to young Catholic girls during World War II, he urged them not to fall for fashions that had, until then, been worn only by "women of doubtful virtue." His words are a sobering reminder that the Church is ever mindful of the salvation of souls.

"Numbers of believing and pious women. . . in accepting to follow certain bold fashions, break down, by their example, the resistance of many other women to such fashions, which may become for them the cause of spiritual ruin. As long as these provocative styles remain identified with women of doubtful virtue, good women do not dare to follow them; but once these styles have been accepted by women of good reputation, decent women soon follow their example, and are carried along by the tide into possible disaster."

The Canadian bishops followed suit in the Spring of 1946, this time admonishing men to wear shirts in public-even at the beach-and to avoid tight trousers.

That summer, 1946, the first bikini strutted its way down the runways of Paris. Coco Chanel came back onto the fashion scene in 1954 and reintroduced her designs from the 1930’s.

That summer, Pope Pius XII said, "Now many girls do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles, like so many sheep. They would surely blush if they could only guess the impression they make and the feelings they arouse in those who see them." (Allocution to Children of Mary Immaculate, July 17, 1954.)

Pope Pius XII cautioned women that, if certain styles were an occasion of sin for others, it was their duty not to wear them. He also warned mothers to make sure their children were dressed modestly. His timeless admonition sounds as though it could have been written today!

"The good of our soul is more important than that of our body; and we have to prefer the spiritual welfare of our neighbor to our bodily comforts... If a certain kind of dress constitutes a grave and proximate occasion of sin, and endangers the salvation of your soul and others, it is your duty to give it up...

"O Christian mothers, if you knew what a future of anxieties and perils, of ill subdued doubts, of hardly suppressed shame you prepare for your sons and daughters, imprudently getting them accustomed to live scantily dressed and making them lose the sense of modesty, you would be ashamed of yourselves and you would dread the harm you are making for yourselves, the harm which you are causing these children, whom Heaven has entrusted to you to be brought up as Christians." (Allocution to the Girls of Catholic Action, May 22, 1941.)

http://www.michaeljournal.org/corruptionfashions.asp

 

 

 

that first part - about how women began wearing fashions that used to be worn by women of "doubtful virtue"... I've heard a priest say, that the clothing the prostitutes wear, later becomes the mainstream fashion. Instead of just going along with the flow, why not go the other direction, to Our Lady? :)

 

If I wear a mini skirt... today, it's worn by the majority of young women. But at some point in the past, it was only worn by prostitutes. If we keep going back, - it was not even worn by prostitutes. I think we're taught to just reject everything from the past as "it's just the past, things change" - but WHY did this happen? I think that's a valid question... how come women began showing MUCH more skin than ever before in Christian civilization? I don't think that's just a coincidence or something normal and harmless... especially when we see that it just keeps  going further and further, just like the Pope said it would. I dunno, I'd rather question our society than Pope Pius XII :)