Matt Fradd PRESSES Christopher on Modesty. (And Learns Something New...)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- Matt Fradd presses Christopher on the topic of modesty. The both explore the nuances of the concept in dress and its implications. Join us as we delve into whether intentional immodesty constitutes sin, the role of intentionality in modesty, and practical considerations for addressing inappropriate dress. Learn from insightful perspectives on how cultural norms and personal intentions intersect with moral principles.
Watch the full discussion here: • A Deep Dive Into John ...
============================================
🔥 Get 3 FREE sessions of our flagship course on Theology of the Body: www.tobforfree.com/
🎤 Check out the Ask Christopher West Podcast where Christopher and his beloved wife Wendy share their humor and wisdom. It's available on all streaming platforms. askchristopherwest.com/
⚡️ Click the link to join our Patron Community! Your monthly gift helps us continue to put out the message of Theology of the Body to the world. Thank you! www.tobpatron.com/
📚 Want to attend a course at the Theology of the Body Institute online or in person? Click the link to view our schedule: tobinstitute.org/programs/tob...
📍 We might be coming to a city near you! Check out our Made for More event schedule: tobinstitute.org/live-events/
🏔️ Want to join us on one of our pilgrimages? Click here: tobpilgrimages.com/
🛍️ Check out our store! shop.corproject.com/
🌟 For professional Catholic Life Coaching, including Porn Recovery: www.stevemotylcoaching.com/
============================================
Social Media:
📸 TOBI Instagram: / tobinstitute
🟦 Facebook: / tobinstitute
📸 Christopher's Instagram: / cwestofficial
🟦 Christopher's Facebook: / cwestofficial
📸 Discerning Marriage Instagram: discerningm...
Culpable negligence of duty or obligation to others is absolutely a sin. Even if you do not intend to arouse lust in them, being grossly negligent of the impact your attire and behavior has on others is wrong. Perhaps it is a sin of a different sort, but that doesn’t make it permissible.
Christopher is mistaken. Culpability depends on the intention, but something can be materially sinful even if not formally sinful. It is still immodest even if not intended.
I have this discussion with my wife often. She dresses modestly: never shows cleavage, nor does she have her rear end hanging out of her shorts. It is the man’s job to practice self-control, yes, absolutely. However, I believe it is also the responsibility of the woman to intentionally think about what she is going to wear out in public. You cannot tell me that a woman walking around with a very loose fitting crop top and skin tight gym shorts is not asking for attention from men…
😮😮😮😮😮 women dress for themselves or other women. She's not asking men for anything by how she dresses. Clothes are there to support the visual display of the soul.
I very much agree that women, in particular, should have a care for their attire in public. But provocative clothing is not necessarily about "asking for attention" from men. - even if that's admittedly the predictable result. More often, I suspect, the point is status in the eyes other women. Or just using other people's eyes and faces as a mirror.
the distinction is that there is culpable and inculpable ignorance. Some may dress inappropriately in order to attract attention on a subconscious level. What makes it sinful is when it is done with a degree of consciousness. Now, only God knows whether a person is culpable or inculpable in their ignorance. What we, as brothers and sisters, ought to do is to gently and charitably inform and guide those who may or may not be aware that they're dressing (or acting) in an inappropriate way, which attracts attention and lust in the opposite sex.
@@tesskelly6647I have heard this argument many times, and it makes absolutely no sense. There may be truth to women dressing for other women to achieve a sense of status, but it seems impossible to make the argument that it is not for attention. Women may not dress solely to get attention from men, but then why do their clothes leave so little to the imagination so often? This argument just seems like a rationalization to fit in with modern and secular culture. If I was a heavy drinker, could I make the argument that I’m not doing anything wrong? Could I say “Oh, I don’t drink because it’s a vice, I just like the social aspect. I like to be with my friends and we like to drink together.” Does that make heavy drinking right? I think the clothes argument needs to be boiled down to whether it is right or wrong, not just whether it’s for the attention of men or not.
@CatholicBell the church teaches that modesty is about the proper expression of the soul through the body. That means that modesty has to do with one's attitude, body language, and attire. A nun in full habit can be immodest if she's expressing an attitude that offends her personhood or dignity. "The problem with porn is that it shows too little." (Christopher West talking about JPII's Theology of the Body)
Additionally, the belief/ attitude that certain types of outfits are "asking for attention from men" improperly puts the onus of culpability fully on women. The verb "ask" implies full consent and full knowledge of what it means to engage one's body with another man's eyes.
It's just a programming of women that they can wear everything they want. They say it's not their fault but others who look at them immodestly. But there is still accountability on the individual who wears revealing clothes. What are your intentions? Because people will react and if you don't like it, why would you put yourself in a position that you are going to be disrespected?
I've got to disagree with Christopher West on this one. The moral species of an act is taken from the object--not the intention. Yes, for a person to be subjectively guilty of sin, they must have knowledge and freedom as well, but the moral species, *from which the action is named,* comes from its object.
Absolutely agree, this sort of logic can be extrapolated to lead to all kinds of moral relativism, and can excuse things that would be unacceptable otherwise. Without intention, the sin is venial at most, but the sin still exists, and we should seek to avoid venial sins just as diligently as mortal sins.
True... but I don't think you're really disagreeing with anything he said. What's the "object" when it comes to modesty and immodesty? Try and define it apart from the intention of the wearer and you'll discover immediately that you can't, because the concept of "appropriate clothing" is culturally relative. Some tribal peoples wear nothing. Is that immodest? Not for them, but it certainly would be in Afghanistan, where women can't even show their faces in public. The object of immodesty cannot be defined apart from the intention to arouse lust in others. Arousing lust in others just IS the object of immodesty, at least as it pertains to dress. (The object of any act is an intentional object anyway.)
You just repeated what he said using different words. A baby who hits someone is not sinning even if the act of hitting someone is objectively speaking a sin. Thus, you should stop the baby from hitting someone else, but you cannot fault the baby because s/he still is not aware of what s/he's doing. The situation becomes different when the child gets older. It's the same act, but now the child is guilty of the sin.
@@LaserFace23 All he's saying is if you didn't understand or know that something is a sin when you did it, you have not sinned. He didn't say the sinful act was not a sin, only that the person cannot be guilty of it. For example, if a baby hits someone, then you cannot say the baby is guilty of a sin, even if, objectively speaking, the act of hitting someone is a sin, because a baby still doesn't know what s/he is doing.
@krdiaz8026 Matthew 12:26-37, Jesus says "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” My "careless words" might not have intended harm, I might not have known they would cause harm, but even in my ignorance and lack of intention I will still be held to account. "Was it really worth it to say that? Could I have gone without the personal satisfaction of telling a funny joke if it came at the unintended cost of making someone else who heard the joke feel bad?" So clearly, "intentions" don't outright negate any guilt on my part, at least if Our Lord is someone worth taking seriously (though my intentions may arguably at least mitigate my guilt). Similar logic applies to how we dress -- "Was it really worth it to dress that way? Could I have gone without the personal satisfaction of feeling attractive and eye-catching if it came at the unintended cost of causing someone to sin in their heart?" So when Chris says "Sin is always in the intention", he's simply wrong -- the sin is always there and if it was caused by us, intentionally or otherwise, we will have to account.
For your baby example, the baby isn't guilty of sin, not because of his knowledge, but because of his will; he hasn't reached the age of reason yet, and is not in full-enough control of his faculties. To make the comparison more appropriate, bump up the age to about eight or so. If he hits someone, he has sinned against them. If it was intentional and willful, the sin could be called mortal, but if it was unintended and therefore could be called venial, the harm still happened. If he's a good kid, he'll be quick to "account" for his harmful actions by apologizing and trying to make up for it. To say "well he didn't mean it, so he doesn't have any guilt and therefore doesn't owe an apology" wouldn't sit right with most, and I think the same logic can apply to this discussion on modesty.
An action can absolutely still be sinful even if the intention is not there, there are objective rights and wrongs. This is why we have categories of mortal and venial sins, and should absolutely use them. If an addict indulges in their destructive vice, the addict may not have a full consent or even a full knowledge of the grave matter, but objectively speaking, there is grave matter and they ARE sinning against themselves and God, and also anyone around them whom the addiction affects. The sin may or may not be mortal (depends on who you ask, really), but the sin is still there.The same logic can be extrapolated to clothing, even if the intention of inciting lust isn't there, the action can still be sinful. This applies to both men and women, and not just to dress, but to our speech and body language as well -- any way we present ourselves should be as modest as we reasonably can be, and that reason needs to be formed by a conscience that is actively aware that some things are unacceptable even if we didn't intend to offend.
I don't think that's quite right. You can't sin without on some level knowing you're doing something wrong. Sin is wrong action plus knowledge plus liberty to do otherwise. Lack of knowledge can of course be culpable, in which case it doesn't excuse you. But if it isn't culpable - if you're acting out of genuine ignorance and/or genuine constraint - then you're not guilty of sin. This is why, in criminal law, you have to prove intent. It's not enough to show I killed someone. That's wrong, obviously, but it's not a crime unless I understood what I was doing and wasn't acting out of compulsion. It's the same thing with sin.
@johndeighan2495 Yes, you can sin without knowing -- "the righteous man falls seven times" meaning that in this life nobody can achieve a sinless existence. Remember the word for "sin" actually comes from archery, and basically means "to miss the mark." Maybe someone didn't *intend* to miss the mark, which would make it a far worse "sin", but the "sin" still exists regardless and should be actively worked against as best as is reasonable.
@@LaserFace23 I'm going to push back again. I argued that the concept of sin is analogous to the concept of crime in law, in that it requires knowledge and consent. You didn't give any argument against that. It isn't just that knowledge and consent are exacerbating factors in determining the severity of the sin. They are prerequisites for sin, whatever the severity. Severity of sin is affected by the gravity of the matter, the extent of knowledge and the quality of consent. But where one of the elements is entirely and quite innocently lacking - where there is no consent or no knowledge - then there is no sin. Yes, there's a harmful act. A wrong act. An act that, in itself, is offensive to God. But no personal sin.
@johndeighan2495 "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is a well-known legal principle for a reason; pleading that I didn't know I couldn't park somewhere won't get me out of a ticket, I'll still need to pay the fine. To be "vincibly ignorant" about the parking violation still incurs a punishment, because I had a responsibility to know where to park my car. By the same token, we are our brothers' keepers -- as much as it is reasonable, we should be looking out for others and not causing them to stumble. If we don't give this its due consideration, that vincible ignorance will be counted against us as a sin of omission, which will incur at least a temporal punishment. Frankly, I don't think someone choosing to wear a salacious outfit can really claim much ignorance -- we know interiorly when an outfit looks good and might draw some attention to ourselves, and the moral law is also written on our hearts, so there's only so far we can claim ignorance, especially when, thanks to the internet, modesty standards and general guidelines on dress codes are so easily available to us.
@@LaserFace23 I have already acknowledged that, if you're culpably ignorant, you can be held guilty of the sin. But you haven't acknowledged the converse, ie, if you're innocently ignorant, then you can't be held guilty of the sin.
The bathing suit example isn’t extreme. I recently saw a girl wear a “dress” to Mass that was so short with spaghetti straps that it really could have passed for a bathing suit. She also had three or four inch heels. No one said anything to her. Yes, she should have been corrected. Years and years of no correction is what has led to those women not even realizing what they are doing is immodest. Correct.
I think that’s a good point. As the cultural standards have shifted regarding modesty (or else fallen away completely), a lot of Catholics are going by the cultural norms and not even thinking of what the Church has to say. On occasion, I’ve seen signs at the entrances to churches explaining the dress code and I think that’s a good idea. I also think it would be helpful if every church had a small supply of things like cardigans, maxi skirts, and even shirts for men so that if they show up in a sports jersey or something, they have an alternative. I imagine that if more parishes did this, over time they would see an improvement in the attire of the parishioners. Also more homilies on such topics would be very helpful.
Before I properly came back to practicing my Catholic faith, I was doing fitness/bodybuilding competitions. My intent was empowerment and the sport as an art form. However, I left that world behind because God convicted me... Even though my intent was NOT to cause men to lust, unfortunately that was the risk by my participation in the competitions. I do not believe that just because it's not one's intent, we are not culpable. We need to take responsibility for our own actions and realize that whether or not our intentions were pure, immodesty *can* cause others to sin, which makes it sinful on our end (IMHO). I highly regret and pray for those eyes that saw me on that stage ... Praise God for His mercy on my soul.
I’m very into bodybuilding and as much as I want to say this is a sport about hard work and dedication, the reality it is a sport about appearance. You can see this by how people pushed Nick Walker to do a totally useless surgery on his calves to remove those varicose veins
@@icarojose6316 Exactly.
Yoga pants in church …. Not good.
TBH, yoga pants anywhere except in the personal gym.
We just had a cantor at church this passed Sunday walk into the sanctuary to sing the responsoral psalm while wearing a crop top.
Goodness
My cantors had a written dress code. For THIS reason. If they had trouble affording appropriate attire, I talked with my husband and was prepared to pay for it, though I never had to.
If we believe that God has written his morality in our heart, and people can choose to suppress it, then someone is definitely guilty of immodestly even if they claim they aren’t aware.
I go to the gym and I have some muscles, I know women don’t have as much testosterone as men do so they won’t be so touched by my muscles but If I try to hard to have girls attention on my body I will feel weird about it. I think it’s God’ moral written in my heart fighting with the culture that promotes showing the body
I believe there is a level of awareness that has to be gained by maturity. If a young woman is harshly corrected and doesn't understand or there is not enough if a relationship with the person doing the correcting, then there is a likelihood that it will do more harm than good
100%! The problem is often the relationship part - they just don't happen like they used to anymore.
I agree. When Matt said that the priest ought to correct a woman, I thought, "That woman's not coming back." And not because she's rebellious. But because she's mortified ... and possibly very confused, afraid to cross a line when she doesn't even know where it is.
Men often seem to think that women KNOW that they're doing something to a man. Some do. But many of us are clueless until we're told. It's not instinctive.
Those of us who really do care are often confused. The examples that are given ... wearing a bikini or speedo to church ... Really? Why such obvious extremes? How about something that actually tells us where the line is? Or does anyone know? Christopher tried to ask that and Matt didn't (and possibly couldn't) answer. So why are WE blamed? How are we supposed to know what men can't even tell us? I'm not sure there is an answer. Is there? OR is every man different and so we're supposed to be careful of every possibility? Then, please, tell us what those possibilities are. Many of us DO want to and try to be modest. Sometimes, I feel like guys just want to be able to complain, so they keep us in the dark. (I don't mean that as an accusation; but it's very frustrating. I think what it really is, is that men think we know more than we actually do.) Hopefully you (whoever is reading this) can hear the frustration in my words. I seriously feel condemned if I do, condemned if I don't half the time.
@@SufferingWell-dtwakr I can tell you that when I was a girl and young woman I definitely did not intend to be a problem for anyone by my dress. And it did not pave the way for me into the church when I was 'corrected.' I had a long ways to go yet. That may have made it longer.
I love what Dan Burke says."love builds a bridge over which truth can pass."
@@bobandkelly I so agree!
Many women grow up learning that it’s ok to dress provocative, even sometimes as a sign of virtue of how you don’t care of what the society think.
If you find a catholic woman who grew up with this mindset and you show her with kindness and care Matthew 5:28 where Jesus says that if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery in his heart.
And tell her that she shouldn’t dress this wait cause she’s helping men to sin.
If she still doesn’t care, then in this case it’s not only a sin of lack of modesty, but also of pride.
One thing that was a bit of a culture shock for me was finding that other people view sleeveless clothing as immodest. I never thought a halter neck blouse, for example, would be provocative or immodest. There are such huge variations in standards of dress across cultures and settings.
Ok then, fair enough. But what if a woman dresses "immodestly", not with the goal of inciting lust in other men, but with the goal of calling atention to herself, while also knowing that it is possible that her image might incite lust in other men?
That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.
what kind of mental gymnastics is this? what's crazy is you aren't even in the minority with this logic, this is actually how a LOT of people think
This could be a reflection of vanity. She should be aware of her ability to insight lust in others. Most women are.
That would be pride and vanity. And most likely with some immodesty thrown in as well.
A more interesting question to me is: When and to what extent is it okay to emphasize one's own sexual desirability? For me, the answer probably lies in the ultimate intent. That is, if my intention is to find a spouse, or to delight a spouse, it's perfectly okay - as long as it doesn't spill over into immodesty. But absent that "spousal" intention, it is probably not okay. I am probably doing it for a bad reason and it's probably sinful to some degree.
Same, same, but different, but still the same.
This breaks down to situational awareness and intention. Once you understand something is sinful, then you become culpable.
In my opinion, context dictates what is appropriate. “Modesty” comes from “measure” in Latin. So the context provides the measure to what is appropriate and it is relevant to morality. If you dress in a provocative way it is ocasión of sin for others. So it is a sin of scandal, whether you do it intentionally or not only dictates the gravity of the sin
I'm Catholic, but from a Muslim majority country and we never have a problem with immodest clothing at church there. I really think both men and women in the West can take a leaf out of Muslim's book when it comes to modest attire.
Very true. Muslim women especially, and Nune in traditional habit, dress a lot more like Our Lady.
@@amdg672 yes. In the West, the bar sometimes is just sooo low.
Yes ,because women are looked at as property ( still) - as was from 12th century Muslims, when they use to until recent times ( may be still do in some cases) do female genital mutilation.
Very respectable religion. Lol
@@BA-mf4gisometimes literally too low, and at other times, too high… haha
My impression is that Muslim modesty codes are partly about (male) control and/or fear of women. For that reason, I'd be hesitant about holding Muslim culture up as a great example of what modesty ought to look like.
In a pornified and hypersexualized society, I don't think there is such thing as ignorance in clothing.
I would say the exact contrary. Precisely because society is this way, people can have twisted ideas of what modesty is.
The problem is when a woman does not know she is dressing to provoke lust in others. Ignorant is part of sin; she needs to be aware of the sin.
That's why children need mothers and fathers. If a girl sees her mother wearing modest clothing, she will likely favor those styles too. Later, as a teen, if she asks why her friends are allowed to wear short shorts and crop tops, but she isn't, her parents, especially her father, can explain to her why. Without parents, a girl has to learn these things the hard way, or even not at all.
What about the object of choice?
A person that intends to bring peace and end to suffering via euthanasia, is still choice a specific species of action that is sinful and against human flourishing.
I know it get’s messy speaking about how culture effects dress but replace dress with abortion, or trans gender issues.
Culture is not a cop out. Culture is the handing on of the appreciation of goods from on generation to another. These appreciation of goods can still be sinful.
I’m hispanic, and the aztec culture had human sacrifice. Why would culture be an appropriate cop out for modesty and not other issues?
Seems inconsistent.
Yea I’m with Matt on this one.
Maybe we could have a video of Catholic men and women, 2 married and 2 not married and of different cultures or age group, sit down and have an honest roundtable discussion about it. It's possibly better than theorizing. It would help get a mutual understanding of one another. What do you guys think?
Moral decisions are still going to objectively true, in the sense that they will be objectively good or not good, regardless of how many opinions or perspectives you hear out. Fradd and West are debating a moral issue, not a subjective opinion based argument, so we’re not going to slowly build the truth through a conglomeration of perspectives. But it is important to love everybody, no matter where they’re coming from, and like CW said, approach the topic with genuine care and love for the individual that feels the need to dress in a way that is compromising to others.
@@kateblawas1178 I'm not saying that morality would be established in that way, but an honest explanation would be an eye opener to both parties - men and women - helping them understand better why such and such is not right. My guess is that sometimes it might be influenced by what is available at the shops, based on the fashions of a particular place and time. I'm being charitable when I say these.. I actually side with Matt out of my common sense, but many might not.
Immodesty has unfortunately not been trained into young people anymore today. They dress immodestly as a course of habit, not sin. It doesn’t make it any less inappropriate. We need to bring back standards for all again. Modest dress, no tats, normal hair, appropriate voice level, no cursing, etc.
A woman who dresses immodestly without knowing is committing a sin, they are just not to be held accountable for it because they didn’t know better, so I think this was mostly an argument over semantics.
It sounds like it would be a venial sin at best.
A sin can be grave or even veinal even if you don't know it's a sin, it would just stop it from it being mortal.
So basically most women nowadays are modest.... Since most of them don't see anything wrong in the way they dress or the bikinis they use.
I learned a lot today.
They are most likely lying. They know what they are doing but are lying when corrected.
@@ellisfrancisfarros3935 🧢
No. Women often do try to get men's attention by dressing sexy, although they don't admit it, even to themselves.
Bikini vs. swimsuit dichotomy is dated; there are quite a few very modest two-piece swimsuits, and very revealing onesies.
@@Hanna-vq6sb 🧢
Fairly amazing how we generally knew what modesty was before Vatican 2
Did we?
The entire cultural norms of society were different
Vatican II made it impossible for my wife to find capris to wear instead of short shorts.
What do you think about the German and Finnish practice of co-ed naked sauna?
I can’t find the quote but I think I remember Saint John Paul II saying something about how modesty is a product of function. I think Matt was hitting on that. I think we need to combine the function and intention insights.
Also, there is some degree of variation on what is considered modest according to different cultures, but I do think there must be some kind of universal standard in terms of limits. CCC 2521 says that modesty “means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden.” No matter where you’re from, without grace, for males it’s hard to not indulge in lust when a woman is dressed in a way that accentuates or reveals certain parts of her body. Of course, we are called to self-control and modesty of our own eyes and intention and it by no means gives us a right to lust or treat women in a way that violates their dignity. But we all need to work together to help one another. God bless you all.
"intetion" is the in the video title lol
Thank you for catching the producer's back! 😬
I disagree with the way JPII frames it because it is not the way St. Paul frames it or St. Teresa of Avila.
1. Physical sins do not become permissible because of a good interior reasoning, except in cases of grave necessity(such as "stealing" when to not do so would lead to your death), if I have sex with my girlfriend because I have genuine charity towards her and I am ignorant of the commands against fornication and I just want to make her happy and bless her, I may have good intentions, and on the basis of my ignorance I may not be as culpable, but I have still committed the sin of fornication. The same is true of immodesty
2. Immodesty according to both St. Teresa of Avila and St. Paul is primarily about vanity, not scandal. While it is true that Immodesty can cause scandal and dressing in a way that is inappropriate with the intention doing so is a mortal sin of scandal, when St. Paul and Teresa of Avila talk about female immodesty, they are actually talking more like the soup kitchen example Matt Fradd is using. St. Paul doesn't say women ought not to adorn themselves with lace bikinis, he says they ought not adorn themselves with gold braids so as to draw attention to themselves(attention that I would guess is primarily female NOT male). I am not suggesting that either of them would be ok with overly sexual dress.
3. It is true that modesty is subject to cultural standards and circumstances, that does not make it wholly subjective or only in the intention
4. Dressing inappropriately is dressing immodestly again if I wear gold braids, flaunting my wealth in Church or on the street, even if that's not what I intend to do is immodest because it is inappropriate. and wearing compression shorts and a sports bra to a college class room is immodest even if you are wearing that because you have a gymnastics class after
5. There are degrees of immodesty. Even if it is not modest to wear tights to the gym it is certainly more modest to wear tights than compression shorts and it is more modest to wear either to the gym than either to the grocery store. This is true *Prima Facie*
Again I am using the Biblical definition of modesty, I love Theology of the Body and St. Pope John Paul II is a wiser holier and smarter man than I will ever be, but you can't argue with the Biblical definition without good reason.
I think we as Catholics need to lean more on the Bible and Scared Scriptures than we normally do
St. Paul and St. Teresa also didn’t write The Theology of the Body
@@StarlitScimitar That's a bad argument. A better argument would be something like "why not both." I don't think anybody who's read St Paul would argue against what he's saying, and I think what CW is saying doesn't oppose what St Paul said.
I actually was saying in a sense"why not both?". This is why I said in my original comment " I am not suggesting that either of them would be ok with overly sexual dress." What I am saying is that immodesty is not only in the intent but also in the action itself. Again if I sleep with my girlfriend motivated by charity for my girlfriend, it is still fornication
Where is the link for the full video
Here it is! ua-cam.com/video/lam1RoxznhQ/v-deo.htmlsi=5oofg27CSr0jSZX6
if she was ignorant its venial - if she was conscience of it and had bad intention - mortal
If you know something is immodest, and don't have a 'lustful' intention, but wear it anyway, you have to realize you could be
1. inciting lust, 2. setting a bad example. Why even wear it? Vanity? In one way or another, sin is involved.
It chaps me that girls in Catholic school wear uniforms but then are given short shorts & boyish t-shirts for sports.
It's a contradiction, and one of the many many reasons Catholics come across as hypocrites.
Christopher West should NOT be considered a suitable interpreter of JPII. Look into the his background and you’ll never take him serious. His sexually suppressive upbringing caused him to pervert JPIIs work and use it inappropriately.
I’ve followed Christopher West for many years and he expresses himself extremely well. People have deliberately misinterpreted him, but I am very grateful for his ministry.
@@lindathompson5472 Nah…he’s grossly misinterpreted JPII and presents him as a rupture from historical Church teaching. JPII is a Thomist that uses other methods to explain what has always been taught and understood. CW does not interpret him this way and that is wrong.
There is no such thing as a morally neutral human act. A human act is either morally good or evil. If dressing a certain way is JUST inappropriate, and not immodest, is it good or is it evil? This distinction between immodest and inappropriate is not Thomistic. Dressing one way or another is either right or it is wrong. We either need to concede that it is not wrong to dress according to common norms, simply because it is normal, and what is normal does not tempt the average man, or we need to admit that we are showing too much skin to be able to recover modesty without higher and stricter standards.
The Catholic Church has laid out guidelines for modesty, so his comment about if she needs to have her neckline up her neck is just stupid.
This guy makes it all about himself. My spirit doesn't take to him at all. I used to dress immodestly because it was the fashion as in body con dresses. And I wore it to church a few times in summer, before Jesus Christ came to me. It was just fashion to me. Now I dress like a nun.
Ok so my friend wears bike shorts and crop t shirts to the kids baseball games isnt imodest? She parades around all the dads in full makeup and hair?? Thats ok?
No, that would be immodest. Tight biker shorts show your butt and a crop top shows way too much skin and possibly under boob.
@@stephaniehowe997 so based on what hes saying if she dresses this way around the little boys' and dads but her intent isnt to incite lust then she isnt sinning?
If she honestly doesn't realize that she's doing something wrong, then by definition it's not a sin, but that applies to anything.
@@st.patty1416 I would argue that her objective behaviour is showing that at least at some level, she is intending to point male attention towards her body.
@michaelmicek Not quite, it's not a MORTAL sin, or at the very least not one she's as culpable for. But it IS a sin, harm was done by inciting lust in those who didn't want that, whether intentional or not. This is why we have distinctions of mortal and venial sins -- for a sin to be mortal, it has to be grave matter (i.e. something serious), done with full knowledge, and full consent. If the intention or knowledge isn't there, the sin is not mortal, and the sinner has less culpability, but the sin is objectively still there and has done harm.
I think all CW is doing is making a distinction between the object + circumstances (inappropriate dress for a particular situation) and the intention itself(immodest intent). I don't think he's being a relativist. It's the same as the distinction between killing an innocent person (= immoral object) and the intention involved (e.g. murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.)
I don't agree with this. I think there's plenty of women that dress immodestly that don't intend on causing lust (most teenage girls). I don't think you can call it inappropriate because she doesn't know. But I'm also confused because people can sin and not know it-isn't that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.
I know they mentioned men once, but the thumbnail shows only women and the conversation was more around women and the comments are mainly about women. Modesty should be taught for men and women.
Women are more likely to dress immodestly at Church
To be fair, they’re specifically talking about showing too much skin at mass. When do you ever see men showing too much skin at mass? Not that I disagree with your statement, it’s just not relevant to talk about the way men dress in this context
@@winter-wb7cf well, you definitely don’t live in Florida.
Thanks for the feedback! We'll certainly consider making a video on modesty for men.
West is off here. His argument is that it’s only immodest if there is intention behind it being immodest but that leads to the conclusion that certain types of clothing cannot be objectively immodest which is just crazy.
Most of this discussion is very centered on post-Christian culture. The distinction and understanding is much more intuitive in places where women still nurse their babies openly.
I was born in Brazil, and I used to spend many days of my childhood in public hospitals, and I saw countless women, bresstfeeding their babies and infants in public. And men always did their best to ignore, sometimes even awkwardly ignore, while in most cases women would be the ones that would comment on privetly.
As a small boy I still knew that boobies weren’t supposed to be seen and I turned my head.
Intetion
It depends on who is wearing the outfit. We have objective standards of beauty and quite frankly, even if those people wore a garbage bag, they would still arouse interest in the opposite sex.
Well no, because then you’re saying that SHE is the problem, not the clothes.
I go to mass where we have people of different cultures from all over the world. African women often wear brightly coloured long (or short) sequins covered dresses with lavish hairstyles and impossible steletto shoes. English women wear creased trousers or shorts, grey t-shirts, sleevless tops, leggins etc. There is a whole range of other styles in between. Where would Matt draw the line who is committing a sin? Would he stand in front of the church examining everybody's clothes according to what HE and HIS CULTURE perceives the correct dress code and then ban most people from entering the church?
IMO, poorly worded question. How strongly does an individual's culture influence his sources of arousal. You may have heard before "you don't aspire to reach the nose." They're not discussing whether an individual would criticize which shoes people wear to Mass. They're discussing biological programming. I can think of examples of non-religious commentary about what a man is biologically programmed to do, and how natural it is. Let me tell you, it's not looking at somebody's sandals that incites the biological urge to propagate the species. There may be something to say about culture if you want to talk about somebody who would claim a high ponytail or layered clothing may be immodest, but the visibility of vital child-rearing organs is not a cultural thing.
I was going to leave it there, but I think it's way too funny to think about what it would be like if different cultures around the world used different body parts for procreation or feeding. Like, some variant human lived somewhere that long ago required them to feed newborns while standing, so their teats are on top of their shoulders or on the arms somewhere near the bicep. LOL
You should know better to wear yoga pants to church
They should know better than practice yoga if they're Catholic, but then, lots of Catholics are ignorant of that too.
Oh man... Thank you Christopher West for your sanity here! But the obsession with what a woman wears in Church and how to respond is so troubling. Oftentimes, if a woman doesn't know how to dress appropriately in church it's because she's probably new or returning, and there is likely some trepidation or fear or wounds for her to even be there. The idea that she must be confronted by a pastor would only ensure she would never return. If the pastor knew a woman in the parish who would be a good friend to that woman - and by friend, I mean authentic friend, someone who would be genuinely interested in that woman as a person - then maybe MAYBE he could ask that woman to befriend, learn her story, and model for her from a place of deep respect and love. Shame does not transform, only isolates, and this kind of obsession with what to do about immodest women in church only perpetuates that shame.
I don't entirely agree. Church should be a safe place for ALL, meaning as much as possible none of us should be a distraction to others. The main focus should be bringing all glory and honor to God, and one way of doing so is by dressing our best. We would never show up to meet a monarch (like the queen of England) in the things some wear to Mass.
Yes I like your suggestion about having someone who is close speak to the woman. It should all come from a place of love and charity. Every now and then our Pastor will announce before his sermon a reminder of the parameters for appropriate dress.
Ig my main problem is just not doing it simply because we're afraid of how it will be perceived. If we really care and love the person and approach it from that manner we've done the best we can.
It's going to come down to Pride. People who let their phone ring in church, dress however they want without considering the people around them, bicker to themselves during Mass. The toxic individualism where everybody becomes their own world at the expense of everyone else. We are at Mass for the Eucharist and the Word of God, not everyone else's worldly preferences. There are plenty of ways to express yourself while still being more selfless towards others.
I thought it was the man's responsibility to not lust? women can wear whatever they want
and its the responsibility of every christian to keep their fellow christians from stumbling.... so its not all about "I can do whatever I want". That's selfish
My neighbor has a responsibility not to steal my wallet, so I should be able to leave my wallet wherever I want. I have no responsibility in the matter.
As a woman I disagree. Women absolutely cannot wear whatever they want. Many women show off cleavage and then try to convince people she's doing it for herself. Please, I'm a woman, you ain't fooling anyone. Women don't show cleavage so we can look at our own breasts 😉😉😅😅
@@thankyou62 I'm not saying you are responsible for their sin. But if there's something you can do to help prevent your neighbor from falling into sin, that is the loving thing to do. This isn't my opinion by the way, it's the literal words of Jesus. "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:1-2)
In practice, that's true.
Unless it's your wife or your daughter you think is dressing inappropriately, there's not much as a man you can do.