Well I looked boxing up and it seems like Catholic Moral Theologians are divided about it. Some think its bad, some think its good. Some think Amateur Boxing is fine but Professional Boxing not so good. I tend to think we have to careful not sucking all the joy out of life. Not to be Catholic Puritans. For instance I love a game of Poker and a bet on the horses and a nice cigar. A whiskey and a few beers etc etc. Many Protestant Evangelicals would frown on this like crazy and even regard these things as sinful. But I wonder if God may care more about the things we don't care about and care less about the things we do. There may be a danger of trying to go to God through and endless series of do do and don't do's. An endless series of rules. One of my favourite films is, 'Friendly Persuasion' , about a Quaker family caught up in the American Civil War . Quakers of course are pacifists but the son and father go out to fight anyway. So a strict rule was broken. But you can see how strict rules don't always work out.
Unfortunately the Vatican also had pachama in the vatican and recently welcomed same couple people in the vatican while there was never a word of inviting them to confesion, rosary, etc. and changing their lifestyles directed to God. Unlike Adam and Eve, who had the gift from God to be in control of their passions before the fall, people now no longer have that gift as a result of the fall and are tempted when others do not wear proper clothing. Please cover up for the sake of others and for children.
Recently back from holidays. Had some nice times by the sea. I felt sorry for the Muslim women having to be completely covered up. Is it being suggested on this thread that all the other people enjoying themselves swimming and sunbathing and playing in the sand should have done the same?
Was the question directed at me? Theres no need to cover your face if you are a women like some muslim women do. Just because your at the beach does not mean you cant have fun by covering up your body. If I went to the beach, as a man, i would wear nylon jogging pants and a nylon t shirt with longer short sleeves. I dont like those "in style "short, short, sleeves. I like the 1990's longer cut t shirt sleeves. Nylon wind pants and a nylon t shirt is quick drying and keeps you cool while still allowing for me to have fun and play in the sand. Women also can take appropriate measures to cover themselves. You can still have fun and not sin. However, as a Roman Catholic there probably will be instances where trying to have fun requires some sacrifice for the good of others. Thats what being Roman Catholic is about anyhow.
I'm not sure where I read that the gradual uncovering of our bodies was brought in by freemasonry. It started with the sleeves decades ago.
By that logic, then every church is living in sin, as is every home indeed, the entire Catholic Church because we all have crucifixes, the symbol of Christianity, on which Jesus is practically naked. In fact, He was probably completely naked in reality, since the Romans used nudity as an additional means of humiliating those they crucified. So is the crucifix a source of sin because Christ’s body is exposed or is it a symbol of salvation? The human body is perfect, just like everything God created. It is absurd to equate nudity with sin. It is lust that makes something sinful; otherwise, every doctor would be committing a sin while examining a patient of the opposite sex. And what about athletes, dancers, or simply going swimming? What matters is the context, the intention, and whether you see another person merely as an object for your own pleasure rather than as a human being with inherent dignity. I agree that inappropriate clothing is a major problem today, as is the hypersexualization of society. But there is a huge difference between people deliberately presenting themselves as objects of sexual attention and someone simply going for a swim.
Jesus was stripped of his clothes not of His own free will. It was the evil intent of others. Going to the beach and not covering yourself is of your own will not others stripping you for your humiliation. Jesus does have little clothing on our Crucifixes at home to remind us of the humiliation He faced for our salvation. That is the reason Jesus is not fully dressed on our crucifixes. That is a LEGITAMITE and BENEFICIAL reason for us as Roman Catholics to have Jesus on the crucifix without long pants or a shirt. What is your beneficial reason that helps aid our salvation for men to go walking around without longer pants and a t shirt?
Then what about St. Francis of Assisi? He deliberately and voluntarily stripped off his clothes in public, in front of his father, the bishop, and others, as a sign that he was renouncing everything to follow Christ. Nobody forced him to do it. By your logic, would St. Francis have committed a serious sin simply because he voluntarily exposed his body? Of course not. The Church remembers that act as a powerful sign of his complete renunciation of worldly possessions, not as an act of immorality. And that is precisely my point: nudity itself is not inherently sinful, nor does the fact that it is voluntary automatically make it sinful. Context, intention, purpose, and whether the human body is being deliberately sexualized all matter.
You mean “hearsay” like the Bible and the Resurrection of Jesus, which were proclaimed on the basis of witness testimony? Very few Christians personally saw the risen Christ. The vast majority of Christians throughout history have believed the testimony handed down by others, just as we do today. As for St. Francis of Assisi, this is not some obscure modern legend. His voluntary public stripping is one of the best-known episodes of his life and is recorded in the early Franciscan sources, including Thomas of Celano, his earliest biographer, as well as St. Bonaventure. Francis deliberately removed his clothes in the presence of his father, the bishop, and others, returning everything to his father as a sign that he was renouncing worldly possessions in order to follow Christ. Nobody forced him to strip. And there is an even stronger example from the end of his life. As Francis was dying, he voluntarily had his habit removed and asked to be laid naked on the bare ground. Early Franciscan tradition connects this explicitly with his desire to follow Christ in complete poverty and to be conformed to the poor, suffering, and naked Christ. The tradition even records his wish that his body remain naked on the ground for a time after his death. So St. Francis voluntarily exposed his body not once, but at two profoundly important moments of his spiritual life: when he renounced his worldly possessions and again as he approached death in imitation of Christ. Obviously, the Catholic Church does not regard either event as a sexual sin. And that is exactly my point: voluntary nudity cannot be inherently sinful simply because it is voluntary. Context, intention, purpose, and whether the body is being sexualized matter. Otherwise, we would have to condemn actions of one of the greatest saints in Catholic history.
Well it looks like your not going to convince me or me convince you that exposing your body to others is harmful and a sin. At the very least, since you believe in nudity, please keep your clothes on when you are around young girls and boys.
You make sensible distinctions, but it was only about 60 years ago that the type of modest dress which Marc speaks of was in vogue. I can remember my Dad would wear a tee shirt at the beach before and after swimming. We have to agree that the standards reflecting the virtue of modesty have been overly-modified. Here's a definition I came across which I like: Modesty is the virtue that perfects the freedom to both reveal and conceal the treasure in the appropriate way at the appropriate time. Consider the crucifixes in our Churches. Most do not depict the horrible spectacle of Christ's mangled body as does The Passion of the Christ. That would be too much, especially for little children. But in a similar fashion, I believe the standards of modesty of dress have been stolen by our over-sexualized culture in the wrong direction. I'm no Puritan, but today's standards are not suitable for public display. Ultimately, I think that is what Marc intended to express.
