As often happens, the modern world frames every debate wrong.

I saw an article on CNN today, wherein a young mother rebuffed someone who criticized her use of a 2-piece bikini at a public pool while still "recovering" from a pregnancy.

So the 2 sides of this debate have been framed for you. Which side are you on?

A) The young mother "proud of her body" and the baby she produced, wearing a 2-piece bikini in public 1 month after delivering a baby

B) The people who tell her that it would be better for her to put on a 1-piece swimsuit, given the current state of her belly: flabby, stretch marks, etc.

Obviously, the Catholic answer is NEITHER. The Catholic answer goes BEYOND the question and re-frames the entire debate.

The real issue is modesty.

It's not about body-shaming, it's about shaming ALL OF THOSE who immodestly and inappropriately display their bodies for all and sundry. Anyone who wears a bikini should be shamed, from the morbidly obese Wal-mart creature, to the magazine model, to everyone in between.

But I find this especially interesting and even fascinating, as an example of how the Jєωιѕн media does its thing. They are subtle and they used advanced techniques of psychology. See how they operate? They frame the debate and come up with a false dilemma, and basically force you to choose a side, but their choices are a lot like "Heads I win, tails you lose" insofar as ALL OF THE CHOICES are an attack on Catholic morality.

So they can even be "objective" and let you choose -- because for them, it doesn't matter which side you choose.

Just like Democrat and Republican, or Capitalist and Communist. All of them violate God's law, just in different ways.

Modesty is the most important question. However, in the spirit of the "debate," even though it is badly framed, there is unfortunately a real cultural movement in the 21st century which seeks to glorify and excuse another vice, namely, that of gluttony.

In our society we live in a very difficult situation, because our usual mode of existence presupposes that we actually do very little physical work and movement, compared to our ancestors, in most cases. On the other hand, we have access, in the developed world, to almost endless cheap, easily prepared or preprepared food, most of which is scientifically engineered to taste delicious, and is full of additives which aid even more to make us fat. So I think the so-called "fat shaming" is typically an expression used by feminists and other promoters of vice (gluttony) to stigmatize and condemn the healthy and normal repugnance that exists in any healthy society for those who habitually overindulge, to the point that it affects their appearance and health. The body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and we do have a duty to look after it, and to keep it up, while tempering our own appetites, for the sake of both good health, and the command of God to fast and do penance.

The sad thing is that as Matthew points out, the discussion today is geared around another vice, of lust, so it's essentially framed as "Which vice means the most to you? Your desire to be sɛҳuąƖly attractive to the whole world? Your desire to show off what sɛҳuąƖ attraction you may or may not have? Or your desire to stuff yourself and make your unappealing figure the standard of beauty, feeding your pride and narcissism?"