On Modesty and Bikinis

This was a guest post for Elizabeth Hillgrove's "Bikini, Biki-no" series on Startling the Day. Thank you for hosting!

Coming from a (beginner's level) Theology of the Body perspective, I seek to point out the general reason and purpose of modesty, and how it fits into deciding on a swimsuit.

 

At times, when the topic of modesty comes up in discussion, it quickly becomes a debate over which gender bears the most responsibility. Should the most modest women walk around completely covered? Or, should the most honorable men walk around blind-folded? What about modesty for men? Should they be covered too? I think that this “responsibility debate” both dodges and underplays the real issue at hand, which is the intrinsic value of our bodies.

Our bodies are intrinsically valuable because we are human persons. The value of our bodies does not come from ourselves or from others. The value of our bodies comes from our creator, in whose own image we are made. To deny the dignity of our body is to deny God. Our dignity is directly derived from God, and without God, there is no source for human dignity.

It is appropriate to consider the proper treatment of our bodies in light of this very fact. Because our bodies have such value, Karol Wojtyla tells us, “the role of ... the means to an end determined by a different subject is contrary to the nature of a person.”(1) This means that the use of one person’s body by another for the purpose of pleasure or gain is contrary to the dignity of the person. We are told in Theology of the Body that the opposite of love is, in fact, not hate, but use. It is our responsibility not to encourage the use of our own body or that of another as a mere object. To do so is a profanation of the human body. Lust is the common name of that act of using the human body as an object.

What does it mean to use the body as an object? “Objectification” is defined (dictionary.com) as “to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense.” In this definition, the first emphasized sense is that of sight. I think one of the easiest and most clear means of presenting one's body as an object occurs in situations in which that body is scantily clad. Scant clothing automatically sexualizes the body, and invites others, people you don't even know, to use your body for pleasure. It makes the body into a tool for a purpose, a means to an end. Use is still use, even if it is visual rather than physical. Our bodies are too inherently dignified to be subjected to such a purpose.

Modesty is not about shame. It is not about being ashamed of our bodies, as if they should not be admirable. Modesty is about dignity and reverence. We are created in the image and likeness of God. Our bodies are so very admirable, that they cannot and should not be reduced to common usage as objects. When we clothe our bodies, we need to take this fact into consideration. Are we presenting our bodies in a way that conveys as well as engenders respect, or are we presenting our bodies as objects for use?

Modesty is not about whose responsibility it is to cover up or not to look. Modesty is a recognition and a declaration of one's own dignity; the sanctity of one's own body.  The holiest part of the Jewish temple was always veiled, not because of shame, but because of reverence.  Likewise with our bodies, which we cover, not by reason of shame, but by reason of reverence.  Fulton Sheen called it "reverence for the mystery" and lamented its loss in the modern world.  To present the body in a bikini may risk unveiling what should be hidden and inviting for use and profanation that which should be reverenced. 

---

(1) Karol Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 28.

Obstacles to Understanding NFP

NFP part 2

(Thoughts continued from NFP Part 1)

One main obstacle to understanding NFP is that it is constantly compared to and considered as an alternative to contraception. NFP is not contraception, nor is it an alternative to it. Contraception is contrary to Natural Law, and is against the sacrament of marriage itself. Morally, it is simply not even relevant in a discussion on NFP. It would be as if during a discussion on hospital vs. home care for the terminally ill, someone was to chime in and say, "Well, what's wrong with euthanasia?" NFP is not "Catholic contraception," any more than annulment is "Catholic divorce." Approaching it with a contraceptive mindset is an obstacle to properly understanding both marital sexuality and Natural Family Planning.

NFP exists as an effective, scientifically-based alternative to complete abstinence. It is not an alternative to contraception. NFP allows a married couple to still have sex in their marriage, because sex is part of marriage. This brings us to the second obstacle to understanding:

The second obstacle is to forget that sex is an integral part of marriage. Sex is not just something that is only allowed once you're married. (You can't even validly get married if you can't physically consummate- that's how intrinsically important it is.) It is literally part of living the sacrament of marriage, which was given to us by God, not designed by man. It is unitive, and procreative, and also, of course, pleasurable. However, if all three of these characteristics are not present, it falls to an act of lust, rather than love. Lust is defined as "self-seeking sexual desire," or the use of another for self-gratification.[1] One should not want sex only for the pleasure, nor only for unity, nor only for procreation. Contraception is against natural law and Church teaching because it intentionally severs the connection between sexuality and one of its major purposes.

A third obstacle to understanding NFP is that is it too often confused with the "rhythm method" or some other out-dated or ineffective means of spacing pregnancies. This confusion always calls into question the actual effectiveness of NFP. I would like to think that this obstacle may be the easiest to clear up, since use of NFP is not necessary in order to simply understand and acknowledge the facts about it. The fact is that NFP is based on science. It is based upon knowing how the female body properly works, and using that knowledge prudently. If NFP users follow the rules of their method diligently, it can be highly effective in avoiding pregnancy if necessary. The highly convenient corollary is that it is also very helpful when a couple begins trying to conceive.

Additionally, the information that NFP helps its users to establish can be useful to everyone, not only Catholics. For instance, many contraceptive users also employ fertility awareness as a means of knowing when they will "need" to use contraception in order not to conceive. This is the difference between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and the Fertility Awareness Method (FAM). The book we used to learn NFP was actually a book on FAM. I had seen it recommended numerous times on the Catholic Answers Forum before I bought it (FAM simply becomes NFP by abstinence). It is a highly informative book about women's bodies and fertility cycles. The fact that this book is written for a primarily secular audience is a testament to how useful the benefits of fertility awareness really are for all women, not only Catholics who are using NFP. [2]

Along with a few other bloggers who have recently expressed their opinions, I think that NFP does need to be evangelized. It needs to be evangelized effectively. In order for it to be effective, information about NFP needs to cover all of its facets, though, not only the ones most relevant to us Catholics. There must be an appropriate balance between Natural Law, and Catholic teaching and morality, and facts about the female body and fertility awareness that are informed by medical science. If the scientific information is spread as well as the Catholic information, perhaps it could correct some of the misinformation that is out there. I think that more people will be open to at least hearing facts based on science, especially people who are completely engrossed in secular culture. NFP is like many other moral issues that can be supported both by theological and secular arguments. We need to be well-versed in both in order to get our information across.

---

[1] Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2009), 26, 131.

[2] Toni Weschler, Taking Charge of Your Fertility (New York: Collins, 2006)

The method Weschler teaches is essentially sympto-thermal NFP. While her FAM method allows for use of barrier methods, she does say that abstinence is most effective. She also lists a number of Catholic NFP resources in the back of the book.

The Paradox Surrounding Conception

“This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat 1/3/11 (1)
.

This quotation is a pretty concise observation of what is so very disturbing about the attitude of mainstream culture toward the conception of human life. In mainstream society we observe not only a rejection of the sanctity of human life, but also a rejection of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage (which in turn causes a distortion of sexuality’s proper context as well as a degradation of the value of the family) and most of all, a rejection of God.
 .

Rejecting God inherently becomes a rejection of at least some aspect of human dignity. Fulton Sheen has said, “…a person is a person only when seen in an image of God” (2). If God does not exist, then man cannot possess His image. The connection between sexuality and the sanctity of life exists because of that image of God, the imago Dei, which we all not only possess but are also called to uphold in our own lives (3). The revelation of the imago Dei, as Anderson and Granados explain in Called to Love, begins in the family (4). The basis of the family is the covenant of marriage, which itself is the vocation to having a family. What has been happening in recent decades though, has been the separation of sexuality from marriage, and the rejection of God from human love.
 .

Mainstream culture has become a culture of using our bodies to suit personal desire, especially where sexuality and conception are concerned. The way conception is viewed in society is often very distorted by personal desire, and that desire is usually toward one of two extremes. The more obvious extreme is the view of the conception of children as a burden to be avoided, in favor of engaging in non-marital and contracepted sex (A previous topic of mine). At the other extreme, the mindset seems quite the opposite. Once a couple has decided that they want to conceive children, they may develop a sense of entitlement that they believe allows them to pursue conception as an instrinsic right and by any means necessary (or desired). The general attitude seems to view the conception (or contraception) of children as some sort commodity, which can merely be either acquired or rejected upon desire. It is insisted that children are something that can be avoided at will through an abuse of sexuality, and also insisted that children may also be produced at will by an imitation of sexual function. Thus, medical science has developed a myriad of technologies that offer us both the ability to falsify the correct reproductive aspects of our bodies, and to imitate the biological function of sexuality.
.

I have been casually following a series of articles on NPR entitled “Making Babies: 21^st Century Families” (Found here). The articles are about various situations surrounding the use of IVF. These articles show a human sexuality that is becoming increasingly consumerized, an attitude partly permitted by advances in technology. The scenarios show the mindset that conception is primarily something for parents to procure for themselves. These behaviors are not symbolic of how God calls us to love, but are a sign of the misunderstanding of His call, which results in a distortion of the means of following it. Marriage is the vocation to family, and it is right that married couples should wish to become parents. The problem arises when the means by which they try to fulfill that vocation becomes an inappropriate one. IVF is immoral is not just because it is something artificial, but because of what it is specifically an artificial simulation of. It is an artificial simulation of the very means by which a husband and wife are called within their love to be co-creators with God of the human person (which bears the imago Dei).
.

The "cafeteria style" set of sexual ethics that has developed is based upon want, desire, gratification, selfishness, use, and most of all, subjectivity. People are quick to take from sexuality whichever of its single aspects that suits their purposes at the moment, but are strikingly hesitant to recognize sexuality as the whole of all its facets and to accept it in its proper context: as a physical expression of the vows of matrimony, being together “free, total, faithful and fruitful” (5).

Notes:

(1) A good quotation printed in one of the parish bulletins for "Respect Life Month." I tried, but can’t find the actual article.

(2) Fulton Sheen. Three to Get Married. (New York: Scepter Publishers, 1996), 7

(3) Cf. The explanation of the imago Dei: the imago Dei includes not only the image of God, but also the likeness. The “likeness” is the dynamic part of the imago Dei, which man is called to continuously perfect: “man is born as God’s image, but he has to complete the imago Dei through his free yes to God.”

Carl Anderson and Jose Granados. Called to Love: Approaching John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 85.

(4) ibid., 86.

(5) Christopher West. Theology of the Body for Beginners. (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2009), 89.