Matt Fradd PRESSES Christopher on Modesty. (And Learns Something New...)

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...

[@BA-mf4gi]

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.

[@brianmurphy9570]

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.

[@fr.ryantruss]

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,

[@nickw7125]

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.

[@veronicakerin9379]

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

[@LaserFace23]

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.

[@aenigmatica8]

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.

[@eleazarpalma6917]

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.

[@bobandkelly]

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

[@user-dl4et8tf5c]

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.

[@genevieveg5058]

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.

[@GC-bk1mv]

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…

[@pointlesskid7779]

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?

[@rickdiana532]

Yoga pants in church …. Not good.

[@icarojose6316]

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.

[@JewelBlueIbanez]

We just had a cantor at church this passed Sunday walk into the sanctuary to sing the responsoral psalm while wearing a crop top.

[@icarojose6316]

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.

[@Dan.S.A.]

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?

[@santiagogarcia5023]

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

[@Forthygreaterglory]

This breaks down to situational awareness and intention. Once you understand something is sinful, then you become culpable.