How Culture Shapes Our Perception of Modesty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Explore the complexities of modesty across different cultures with insights from John Paul and an amusing story from a missionary priest in Africa. This video delves into the nuances of cultural perceptions of nudity and modesty, highlighting how context and intention play significant roles. Join us as we discuss the principles that hold fast and how their applications can vary.
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...
🎤 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. askchristopher...
⚡️ 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....
📚 Want to attend a course at the Theology of the Body Institute online or in person? Click the link to view our schedule: tobinstitute.o...
📍 We might be coming to a city near you! Check out our Made for More event schedule: tobinstitute.o...
🏔️ Want to join us on one of our pilgrimages? Click here: tobpilgrimages....
🛍️ Check out our store! shop.corprojec...
🌟 For professional Catholic Life Coaching, including Porn Recovery: www.stevemotyl...
============================================
Social Media:
📸 TOBI Instagram: / tobinstitute
🟦 Facebook: / tobinstitute
📸 Christopher's Instagram: / cwestofficial
🟦 Christopher's Facebook: / cwestofficial
📸 Discerning Marriage Instagram: www.instagram....
Give you another example of cultural differences in modesty. My family and I lived in Florida for over 20 years. When at the beach, it was as always easy to spot the German tourists. Just look for the 50-year old guy with the beer belly and the Speedo. 🤣
Germany has been a conquered nation since the end of WWII, those whom God calls adversaries of all men (1 Th3ss. 2:14-16) spread pornography and destroyed the morals of the nation through it. In fact, it was in Weimar Germany that the first institute of sexology was run by Magnus Hirschfield (a member of 1 Th3ss 2:14-16|Rev: 2:9 | 3:9) promoting the homosexual lifestyle, transgenderism, contraception, etc. It was in no small part this depraved moral climate in the 1919-33s that gave rise to certain book burnings when the N@zi party rose to power.
In Germany, they also currently go to mixed-gender spas where it is culturally normal for both sexes to go nude. Surely, someone will see this is incompatible with Jesus's teaching in Matthew 5:27-30, and the Church's teaching of avoiding the near occasion of sin, keeping good custody of the senses, etc. given the wounds of original sin in man. And not dismiss it as a mere 'cultural difference' concerning modesty. But rather the result of a culture where the adoration of the true God has been almost completely wiped out through social engineering.
Archbishop Albert G. Meyer, May 1, 1956
"For, modesty, by its very definition, is looked upon as the shield and safeguard of purity. The breakdown in modesty is due fundamentally to a disregard of the virtue of purity as a necessary virtue for all.."
"EVERY HUMAN being, except the Immaculate Mother of God, has through original sin INHERITED A TAINTED NATURE, which MANIFESTS ITSELF MORE INTENSIVELY perhaps IN INCLINATIONS TO IMPURITY than in any other way. The resulting battle with concupiscence is not limited to a given age or state of life; it must be waged by all and at all times. It is the teaching of our Faith that through Original Sin man's nature has been wounded. The wound in our nature is experienced through the struggle which we have to control our imagination and our passions. Imagination by it self, we know, is simply a picture making power."
"The world does not use prudence in the matter of purity... It provides a constant flow of incentives to lust, completely heedless of the intimate and necessary connection between modesty and purity, and indeed often denying the sin of impurity itself."
"With regard to clothing, MODESTY REQUIRES especially two things: first, care that one does not make purity difficult for oneself, or for others, by one's own MODE OF DRESS; and, second, a prudent but firm and courageous RESISTANCE TO THE STYLES AND CUSTOMS, no matter how popular or widespread, or adopted by others, which are a danger to purity.
Pope Benedict XV, Sacra Propediem, 1921
"One can not sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and station. Made foolish by a desire to please, they do not see to what degree the indecency of their clothing SHOCKS EVERY HONEST MAN and offends God. Most of them would formerly have BLUSHED for such apparel as for a GRAVE fault against Christian modesty. Now it does not suffice to EXHIBIT THEMSELVES on public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of churches, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table, where one receives the Heavenly Author of Purity. And We speak not of those barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty." [Par. 19]
So much clarity and authority
Pope Pius XII, in an address to a group of Catholic Action girls on October 6, 1940. stated: 'MANY WOMEN ... give in to the tyranny of fashion, be it even immodest, in such a way as to appear not even to suspect that it is unbecoming. They have lost the very concept of danger; they HAVE LOST THE INSTINCT OF MODESTY.'
I'm opposed to subjectivizing or relativizing the virtue of modesty, part of temperance.
True. If that's the case, why not just ease the boundaries for practically everything.
Have you read the catechism?
_Any_ virtue is related to the individual's intentions. So they're subjective (i.e. related to the individual, but not relative! they're also objective as they are directed at the objective good and justice). And Christopher is not relativizing virtue - quite the opposite, he puts the virtue where it actually lies: in the will and intention and a choice of the indivial. Not in the external _cultural_ norms and customs.
Modesty is an issue of the heart propriety is subject and about the physical. Not to mention adam and eve walked around naked and God had n problem with it the body isn't a stumbling block our perverse view of it is.
@@joane24 When judging or deliberating about any moral action as Catholics we must look not only at the intention.
We must look at three factors: object, intention, and circumstances. And all three must be good for an action to be said to be truly morally good.
Yes, I have read multiple Catechisms (600+ pg tomes), including the most recent one promulgated by St. John Paul II. You sort of claimed or pretended to cite it, but did not provide a number.
I'll give you precisely where this is discussed CCC 1749-1761 (Article 4 - The Morality of Human Acts).
*Some relevant quotes from the CCC*
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
I will say though, in an over sexualized culture, where people kind of entertwine or replace the sexually attractive with all of attractiveness, people might on even believe they are trying to bring about lust in others because it is so confused with attraction.
This also makes it hard to tell the difference of, am I wearing this to cause list, or am I wearing this because everyone is and it’s fashionable. Even so the intent can bring about the same choice of dress
can you explain what do you mean by "intertwine or replace the sexually attractive with all of attractiveness", and could you give an example?
@@joane24 the idea that for something to be attractive it has to be sexually attractive. Example: someone might always wear bakinis because one pieces are seen as lesser because they don’t show as much.
It’s a very all over the place comment ima be honest. Terribly formed
@jackcallahan1848 can correct me if I'm wrong but @joane24 I think he's getting at something like this: it's not inherently bad to dress to look good, or even, in a certain state of life, to be attractive. If a young man wears a good button up shirt, that may be attractive- and not necessarily in a sexual way. It seems like for a woman, she may wear a nice dress, and, in the proper context, may even wear it to look good, but it's harder to tell if it is worn to be generally attractive or specifically sexually attractive. Or, she may absolutely intend it just to look good and not be sexually attractive, but it gets conflated that any woman that dresses to look nice is necessarily dressing to be sexually attractive
@@michaelreyes2758 I’m not disagreeing with him, I’m just adding to the conversation. It’s a very sporadic comment. He touched on it in a recent clip where he talks about the difference between immodesty and inappropriateness I just watched
For a pure heart everything looks pure.
"Nothing coming outside a person can defile them by going into them."
But we live in a practical world, not in an ideal world.
@@monkaZETTA But we are to live by the spirit not by the flesh. We are to strive towards the ideal good (even though we know we won't achieve the perfection, which is God alone, we still need to strive there) not just settle on the 'practical world'.
And what @Destassan wrote is the very heart of purity, actually. 'For the pure heart everything looks pure'. It's very true, and that's a good test to see if one's own heart is pure or is it prone to disordered passions. Purity is to be looked for, first and foremost, in one's own heart and how one look at others. Not in 'how impurely _they_ dress'.
@@monkaZETTA That's true. And in this practical world we have a choice to either try to change customs and rules so that modesty is easy or to change our hearts so that it can remain pure in all circumstances. Although I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do.
@@joane24 sounds good on paper but doesn't work very well in real life. You can't be pure if you see naked women everywhere, unless you are Jesus. There's equal responsibility for women to dress modestly. To clap, you need both hands, not just one.
@@monkaZETTA I disagree. We have countless examples of the saints - known and unknown - and of other virtuous people. Is it really that unfeasible for you that someone may look at another without lust?
As for another point, I nowhere said that women shouldn't be dressing modestly.
Our Church is the Church of the West. Therefore we see everything out of a western lens.
Just because someone doesn’t have the intention of immodesty doesn’t mean they aren’t immodest.
God probably won’t judge them as if they had the intention, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be corrected and taught how to dress with modesty.
God is the same then now and forever. Why would His view on what is appropriate dress change over time?
We were walking around naked in the Eden. Let that sink in
@@Destassan that was before sin was brought into the world. We now live in a fallen world with lust and other sins that deem nudity and underdressing as inappropriate and likely occasions to sin.
In our resurrected bodies if God willing we make it to heaven, it is possible we will be naked and without shame once more, but till then we are in this world where we must guard against sin.
@@ajluciYes but in some cultures don't deem that as inherently sexual and thats alright if anything one is perversing their minds to a corrupt view of the human body.
@@carolinpurayidom4570exactly the puritanical view of the human body is precisely why the sexual revolution occurred.
@@airinkujo3207 That's not entirely true. It was a result of the two World Wars, the withering of the former Christian branches cut off from the trunk (and thus from the Sacraments of the Church) by the Protestant Revolution, and the psychoanalysts and 'scientists' serving the idol of scientism in the 20th century who came in to 'replace' priests and the Sacraments such as Magnus Hirschfield, Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Kinsey, Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, etc. They (psychoanalysts) could and can listen to people's semi-confessions, but they cannot absolve them. And very often they end up confirming people in their s1ns and thus the rampant mental health crisis of our days.
Only one can heal the psyche (soul) and that is its Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Pius XII, July 17, 1954
"Now many GIRLS do not see anything wrong with following certain shameless styles (fashions) like so many sheep. They WOULD surely BLUSH IF THEY COULD ONLY GUESS the impressions they make and THE FEELINGS THEY EVOKE (arouse) IN THOSE WHO SEE THEM."
Pope Pius XII, August 15, 1954
Delegated Cardinal Ciriaci to issue a letter on modesty.
"Everyone knows that during the SUMMER MONTHS particularly, things are seen here and there which are certain to PROVE OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE WHO HAS retained some respect and REGARD FOR Christian virtue and human MODESTY. On the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in private and public places, and, indeed, often in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed. Because of this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, are exposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, the most beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can be called adornment, FEMININE CLOTHING, 'if that can be called clothing which contains nothing to protect either the body or modesty.' (Seneca) are at times of such a nature that they seem to SERVE LEWDNESS RATHER THAN MODESTY. What we are discussing here is obviously most serious, since it vitally concerns not only Christian virtue but also the health and vigor of human society . Well did not the ancient poet say of this matter: 'Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity' (Ennius)."