Nudity and Nakedness

[AveMaria12]

Hello,

I am wondering whether certain public activities, such as attending a nude beach, or posing for nude art or nude photography is morally permissible, provided that there is no intent on sexual arousal.

Thanks!

[Melkor]

[Bernadette]

It's immodest.

[Instaurare omnia]

is morally permissible, provided that there is no intent on sexual arousal.

That's like asking whether driving 100 mph with one's hands off the steering wheel entails no "intent" for a serious accident.

Partaking of a nude beach or posing nude as an artist's model both entail forethought and purposeful action, yet for no sufficient and reasonable cause, e.g., needing to undress for a medical exam. Traditional Catholics expect modest dress of both women and men for the sake of avoiding any "near occasions of sin" -- that little phrase that one recites in the confessional as part of an Act of Contrition in order to receive absolution. Near-occasion-of-sin is not merely one's own but with consideration of other persons too. Sure, one could argue that anyone who chooses to be present at a nude beach or in front of a "life model" fully consents, but such "consent" goes against the traditional teaching of the Church as to the virtue of personal temperance -- it invites a "taking pleasure in imaginative representations of impure acts." [Prümmer, Dominic. Handbook of Moral Theology. (508, 527).]

[andy]

Troll?

[AveMaria12]

is morally permissible, provided that there is no intent on sexual arousal.

Partaking of a nude beach or posing nude as an artist's model both entail forethought and purposeful action, yet for no sufficient and reasonable cause, e.g., needing to undress for a medical exam. Traditional Catholics expect modest dress of both women and men for the sake of avoiding any "near occasions of sin" -- that little phrase that one recites in the confessional as part of an Act of Contrition in order to receive absolution. Near-occasion-of-sin is not merely one's own but with consideration of other persons too. Sure, one could argue that anyone who chooses to be present at a nude beach or in front of a "life model" fully consents, but such "consent" goes against the traditional teaching of the Church as to the virtue of personal temperance -- it invites a "taking pleasure in imaginative representations of impure acts." [Prümmer, Dominic. Handbook of Moral Theology. (508, 527).]

Thank-you for your answer. This sufficient and reasonable cause clause is exactly what I am pondering. I guess a follow-up question would be what this entails. Could one not argue that furthering the arts is reasonable cause? Also, many traditional cultures accepted public nudity in restricted situations for reasonable cause, such as in the saunas, the Greco-Roman baths, Japanese baths. Nudity is still the norm in many public shower rooms as well.

[AveMaria12]

Troll?

I mean no offense. I just really want to wrestle with the question of modesty and what it requires and entails

[diaduit]

Troll?

I mean no offense. I just really want to wrestle with the question of modesty and what it requires and entails

There is no wrestle to be fair.  Choosing to go to a nude beach and take your clothes off is cut and dry ....immoral and I would wager a mortal sin.  Getting undressed for a Doctors examination for a diagnosis....not immoral and not sinful.

Posing naked for an artist especially to earn money, immoral and mortal sin considering there are a million billion other ways to pose modestly for an artist.

Are you new to Catholicism?

[Justin Martyr]

The nude beach would be sinful, the photography likely would be as well but it's more grey. As to the last part;

Why would posing nude for an artist be immoral? I mean, look at the Sistine Chapel! I doubt Michelangelo did all of that without any help from nude models both male and female.

[Elizabeth]

This is a topic dear to my heart, Ave.  I was extremely impressionable and we all worked and studied like mad all night and weekends, etc.  We had a gorgeous semi-cycle and were taught, if you can learn to draw the human form, it will be the foundation of all your work.  The setting was all kind of grand, the models were really good... There was a (then) famous book by Sir Kenneth Clark about the beauty and purity the human form in classical art, which strongly influenced me.  Then there were Pre-Raphaelites, who married and made ladies of their models, adding legitimacy to the idea. 

It is all about worshiping creatures, not Our Creator, for some time now in what passes for Art. The dark art overlords HATE God, and use paintings for money laundering human trafficking and drugs, etc.

(Many years ago Father had me burn everything and start over, thank God.)

Pretty sure Michelangelo used cadavers as models, so...am I the only one who never really liked the Cistine Chapel in the first place?

Do not go anywhere near a nude beach, or any photographer.  Or ever take/send nude or suggestive photos of yourself or anyone, ever.   Your intentions do not matter even slightly to the Ancient Enemy; here is how a demonic portal is loosened. 

[Instaurare omnia]

Could one not argue that furthering the arts is reasonable cause? Also, many traditional cultures accepted public nudity in restricted situations for reasonable cause, such as in the saunas, the Greco-Roman baths, Japanese baths. Nudity is still the norm in many public shower rooms as well.

Furthering the arts is "reasonable cause" only if one's frame of reference is the secular world. In Trad Cath land, arts that do not promote due deference to God, the saints, and the Church are not considered a reasonable cause (the Catholic Memes section of this forum notwithstanding  ). For example, one of the points of dispute with the Novus Ordo is the extent of "wreckovations" done to churches worldwide beginning in the mid-1960s. Why was it suddenly necessary to wield sledgehammers -- for real -- at the ageless consensus as to ecclesial beauty?

"Traditional" in Catholicism has a very specific meaning apart from its generic use in worldly terms. There are all sorts of "traditional" practices; one could even claim that the nude Pachamama statue is a "traditional" art form. (If you are not aware of the implications of the Pachamama for a forum such as this one, please do a topic search in the upper right corner of the screen -- it will prove interesting.) One of my favorite books pre-reverting was Junichiro Tanizaki's In Praise of Shadows, written in 1930's Japan. I don't recommend it to anyone here unless one were sure to skip the chapter about the aesthetics of a "traditional" Japanese brothel.

The point is just because something is the "norm" in any given historical or cultural context does not give it license in a traditional Catholic context. Important little phrase to note: Error has no rights. Deciding to adhere to this way of life entails distancing oneself from much of the widely-accepted secular way of life, no two ways about it. I'm still on that path, it isn't easy, but it is worth it.

[Instaurare omnia]

I mean no offense. I just really want to wrestle with the question of modesty and what it requires and entails

Physical modesty is only one subset of a larger set of Catholic virtues. Earlier I mentioned temperance, basically the capacity to recognize necessary limits to one's thoughts and behavior. Just because something is possible does not mean that one should do it.

PS: If you haven't already seen it, here's a long thread of relevance to your question, not on nudity per se, but on the modesty/immodesty of tattoos: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21370.0

[Instaurare omnia]

Why would posing nude for an artist be immoral? I mean, look at the Sistine Chapel! I doubt Michelangelo did all of that without any help from nude models both male and female.

The cities where it is possible to take life drawing classes also are packed full of museums. If one really wanted to practice, it's easier to sit by some Greco-Roman statue than it is to ask a person to pose nude -- statues don't fidget, don't take rest breaks, and don't have corruptible souls. Way back in my '30s I took studio art courses, and I can't say that the folks who signed up to be models were of the sort one would find in the pews on a Sunday morning. As for Michelangelo, some biographers say he was celibate and saintly while others note that he wrote amorous sonnets to his male models. Whatever temptations he experienced, we'll at least appreciate the good that may have ultimately resulted for the Sistine Chapel. The same can't be said for every other person on earth with artistic inclinations. Is it really necessary? Or is it just one more worldly affectation?

[Justin Martyr]

Why would posing nude for an artist be immoral? I mean, look at the Sistine Chapel! I doubt Michelangelo did all of that without any help from nude models both male and female.

The cities where it is possible to take life drawing classes also are packed full of museums. If one really wanted to practice, it's easier to sit by some Greco-Roman statue than it is to ask a person to pose nude -- statues don't fidget, don't take rest breaks, and don't have corruptible souls. Way back in my '30s I took studio art courses, and I can't say that the folks who signed up to be models were of the sort one would find in the pews on a Sunday morning. As for Michelangelo, some biographers say he was celibate and saintly while others note that he wrote amorous sonnets to his male models. Whatever temptations he experienced, we'll at least appreciate the good that may have ultimately resulted for the Sistine Chapel. The same can't be said for every other person on earth with artistic inclinations. Is it really necessary? Or is it just one more worldly affectation?

Certainly, ones intention would play a great deal in the morality of the situations, both on the part of the artist and model, but I don't see how it's intrinsically immoral. There is such a thing as a healthy appreciation for the human form as distinct from lust, and often nudity in art can represent a greater metaphysical point (such as the symbolic and poetic use of nudity and marital themes in the Canticle of Canticles).

[andy]

Troll?

I mean no offense. I just really want to wrestle with the question of modesty and what it requires and entails

Okay, I take it back. It was confused considering it was your first post. Good question though.

For me an absolute minimum in public is: "And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons."