Do you think this is the male equivalent of "ladies, don't breastfeed in public"?

In other words, something Americans have a problem with, not for any reasons of Catholic morality, but because they have a Puritan ethos dating back several centuries?

It's a fact that America was founded by Puritans, and that the Puritans, being heretics, distorted various items of dogma and morality.

So what, if anything, should we Americans not be concerned with because it is a Puritan taboo only?

Matthew

This is very much a question of Catholic art in general, as it appears, in very deed, on the walls and ceilings of many very old churches.

More than just shirtless men, the fact that the men sometimes have nothing on at all is a question of even bigger importance, because today indeed the minds of men are so polluted that we really must wonder whether we should allow such things to be displayed as is (and not perhaps creatively covered, even if only until a purer age, if we may hope for one to someday arrive), or whether it is purely a matter of the minds, and therefore not of the arts.

That the human body is something good and beautiful (unless distorted by either the death of age or the gross intemperance of the glutton) is a fact which no Catholic can or should deny. That the lack of clothing can and does incite human beings to have sinful thoughts, is another fact which no Catholic can or should deny. It is, after all, one of the reasons why we wear clothes. And if the human beings in the real world must wear them, I can't imagine why people ever came to decide that people in paintings, painted more or less "photo-realistically," ought for some reason to be excused from wearing them.

That the Church should have allowed such statues or paintings in it's own buildings, REALLY remains a mystery to me. I think that if it makes sense for human beings to wear clothes, it certainly should hold true that we shouldn't see them in any case (outside of the profession of physician) without them. But perhaps there is something I, being a product of this puritan culture, may be overlooking.

I dare say that shirtless men have had far less effect upon ladies than the other way around typically does. If it's a matter of a man without a shirt, I think you'd have to go pretty far to argue the young ladies will be in danger... except perhaps when the young ladies have given themselves to reading the same kinds of dirty stories and looking at the same kinds of dirty pictures that men once ogled of women. By that standard, all of us should at all times remain locked in their houses, as mutes and blindfolded, because today, literally ANYTHING can be made into something filthy, by the minds thoroughly corrupted by modern media and modern *ahem* "arts" ... >tries to retain her breakfast<. But if you're talking about something that as a matter of course leads even normal, ordinary people into sin... now red flags should go up. And that's why this question I think is very bewildering to a LOT of people.

People without clothes is an occasion of sin. Why don't we think it's true when those people are mere paint? I have NO idea...

To address the issue of the paintings.  There was a pope who had fig leaves painted onto the private areas of all the nudes .. as well as had the statues covered.  I heard that the Japanese were called upon a number of years ago to restore the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and other areas inside and subsequently they removed much of the modest coverings.

A large majority of the Vatican's objects d'art are from pagan cultures and therefore the large number of nudes.  The ancient Greeks and Romans were obsessed with nudity.  

I don't know that regular parish chuches would have nude images on their walls, ceilings or on their statues.  Under what context would a statue (which would either be of the Holy Family or of a Saint) be uncovered?

As far as I know, saints are always well covered and with good reason.  They are holy and pure.

The Michelangelo painting is of Adam .. who was naked before the Fall ... but subsequently was corrupted because of the Fall and had to be covered for the sake of decency and to avoid lust.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Men should wear shirts.  There's no reason for them not to in public, and even as far as swimming, I don't believe that "mixed bathing" is appropriate for people who are trying to live a good and moral life.

Men can wear colored tee shirts for swimming and long swim trunks.  

I, personally, have always felt uncomfortable around men not wearing shirts .... It seems obvious in retrospect that would be because they're half dressed!  Not to get too detailed here, but the very presence of under arm and chest hair seems to be an indication that this part of the body is to be under wraps when in public.

God Bless,
MrsZ

Do you think this is the male equivalent of "ladies, don't breastfeed in public"?

No, breastfeeding serves a purpose to nourish your baby. unless your at the beach men should be wearing shirts in public.  why do they need to take off their shirts high temp? or do they have some perverse need to walk around half naked? modesty should apply to everyone.  i  think women should take care to cover themselves when nursing in public.
i find it ironic usually the same men who find it so distasteful to nurse in public,have no issue with women whose breasts are pouring out the top of their shirts.

In art, it depends.  Some statues are so noble and dignified in their composition, any low-thinking would be on the part of the person, not the statue.  

In art school I read a book about it, maybe called 'In Nuditas Veritatis' about the portrayal of purity in classical art-but it is highly doubtful the author was writing a a Catholic...

I've always disliked the Sistine Chapel!  :dwarf:

As I've said, this is NOT just about whether art excites the carnal passions.  It's about the tug of war between the spiritual and the carnal which largely defines our spiritual lives.  If we emphasize the carnal, we start to lose the spiritual.  Why do you think that the religious dress the way they do?  When I see an NO nun wearing a shorter-length skirt, it's gross to me.  Were the same nun dressed in a traditional habit, I'm sure she would be quite edifying. Frankly, I'm not even particularly interested in looking at this stuff and if I look at Michaelangelo's works, for instance, my stomach actually just starts to turn.  It's hardly edifying.  God puts a reflection of His own glory and His own beauty into creation, so if art leads our minds and souls up to God, then it's good.  If art drags the mind and soul down towards consideration of the carnal, then it's bad.  So most of these nude statues are simply vulgar and disedifying.  In other words, I am no more edified by them than I would be of a painting of fecal matter in a toilet bowl, nor do I feel that such a painting would be much worse than what's currently on the Sistine chapel.

A thorough sandblasting would be just the thing.  They spent a fortune in restoration recently , if I recall.  :cry: