The argument in favour of Naturism

There are many reasons why Catholics should support Naturism, but I will list what I believe to be the most important reasons: 1.) Naturists feel more comfortable about their bodies and think of the human body in less sexual terms when they grow up. 2.) Naturists are less likely to masturbate or watch pornography. 3.) Naturists are less likely to feel uncomfortable with their bodies. 4.) Naturists are more likely to live healthy lifestyles. 5.) Naturists are less likely to support abortion or euthanasia.

I don’t see the point of naturism. It’s too cold where I come from for a start!
Joking aside, the way you posit the benefits, one could be forgiven for thinking that such benefits occur as a*** result ***of becoming a naturist!
Our bodies are a God-given gift. We should not vainly display them.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.:slight_smile:

The reasons to support naturism are based on research done which compares naturist individuals to non-naturist individuals. You are right that our bodies are a God-given gift, all the more reason to support naturism. You claim that naturism is an act of vanity, however since naturists are more likely to feel more comfortable about their bodies and the bodies of others they are less likely to be vain.

Perhaps, but they’re not less likely to indulge in sexual impurity, whether in mind or in action, because that is human nature (concupiscence.) You’ll notice in Genesis, when Adam and Eve had fallen, their first act was to clothe themselves because they “saw” that they were naked. Certainly they knew this before; but after the fall, the flesh began to war with the spirit, and both were pulling in opposite directions. God approved of their moderation of this desire through clothing by fashioning them garments of animal skin, symbolizing the downward pull of concupiscent nature.

Exposure to temptation will not lessen the temptation, but weaken our will to resist it or, God forbid, lead us to believe it isn’t temptation to evil at all, but a kind of “natural good.”

It is irrelevant if there are any so-called studies that show that this is not the case, because in this time of post-modern insanity, we can find studies promoting all manner of immorality as normal, good, and decent.

Naturism has never been a Catholic ideal in any way. We are supposed to cover our bodies with dignity, and treat them with respect, not put them on display for all to see like animals in the wild.

As a Catholic, I cannot support naturism, and I don’t think anyone should, especially not Catholics.

However it runs contrary to chastity, at best, it puts others at risk of grave sin.

-Prophesy

Naturism is a fancy word for go nekkid.

God bless,
Ed

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee257/rozzi88/raptorjesus.jpg

:rotfl:

  1. Evidence? I wear clothes and feel perfectly comfortable with my body.

  2. Evidence?

  3. Same as #1, no?

  4. Why would this be?

  5. :confused: Because…

They have to live healthy lifestyles to keep those nekkid bodies buff!

So did the Greeks but they aren’t bulwarks of the life I want to have. =p

-Prophecy

ROFL, I grew up around “naturalist” and they contradict all your points. ROFL t

thanks for a good laugh.

Not under our boardwalk, we’re naturists
10 August 2005

AMSTERDAM — The Dutch Naturists Federation (NFN) has called on the government to set aside certain beaches for people who like to have sex in public.

Naturists feel that displays of public sex do not belong on regular nudist beaches, a spokesperson for the NFN said in a radio interview on Wednesday morning.

expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/not-under-our-boardwalk-were-naturists-22672.html

Abstract
This study aimed to investigate how people manage their sexuality when practicing naturism in the United Kingdom (UK). Thirty-nine self-identified naturists from across the UK were interviewed. Sexuality, when practicing naturism, was found often to be suppressed through the use of rules, geographical isolation and thoughts and behaviour. Some participants found ways of exploring and enjoying their sexuality by keeping feelings hidden and/or seeking out more sympathetic naturist environments. Naturist environments may offer a unique space in which to explore aspects of our sexuality that are currently pathologised, criminalised or commercialised. This has important implications for sexual health policy and promotion.

sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH5-4T9VPC8-2&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d6ee7a982b5e266a8af7cada50316a81

Paul Okami, the Nudists, the Naturists, NAMBLA and the Pedophiles and the Children

Paul Okami, Ph.D, is Consulting Editor of The Journal of Sex Research, and author and co-author of numerous sexuality studies. Okami’s studies are often selectively quoted by nudists and naturists and he is frequently quoted by William D. Peckenpaugh as well. What the nudists and naturists don’t report about Paul Okami is that his studies also say adults sleeping with children and having sex with them is not necessarily harmful either. --Nikki Craft

nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Okami.html

Well, I’ve looked at this and as a naturist of mature years AND a Catholic, I do NOT think there is any conflict for the following reason:-
Quote" Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing,nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness.There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is only present when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of a person,when its aim is to arise concupiscence,as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object of enjoyment. The human body is neither in itself shameful,nor for the same reason sensual reactions,and human sensuality in general.
Shamelessness(just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.There is a certain relativism in the definition of what is shameless…due to the differences in makeup of particular persons-a greater or lesser sensual excitability,a higher or lower level of moral culture - or to different world views. It may equally be due to differences in external conditions-in climate for instance…in prevailing customs social habits etc. Dress is always a social question,a function of… social customs. In this matter there is no similarity in the behaviour of certain people even if they live in the same age and society.
The principle of what is truly immodest is simple and obvious, but its application in specific cases depends on the individual,the milieu and society.
There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment(even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness…not the other"
And WHO wrote the above? none other than the late great Karol Cardinal Wojtyla(Pope John Paul11 in his thesis on “Love and Responsibility”
As a practising naturist I believe in the wholesomeness of the body and its relation to the earth. It is only man that has invented clothes. In the time of Jesus on the earth it was quite common to bathe naked in the rivers, the disciples fished naked in their boats and it is almost certain that Christ was crucified naked.
So considering all of the above does true naturism conflict with being a Catholic? I cannot see how!

Of course he goes on to say in that same book:

“But, man is not such a perfect being that the sight of the human body, above all of the opposite sex, does not awaken within him more than an innocent complacency and innocent love. In reality, it provokes concupiscence.”

And:

“On the contrary, the use of clothing which uncovers the body without objective reason is impure and should be considered so.”

Moreover, he also says:

“It is not against purity to bathe in a bathing suit, but it is [against purity] to wear [such garb] on the street or for a walk.”

By the way, you do know why they crucified people naked, don’t you? To humiliate them, because nakedness was considered utterly unacceptable in the society of Christ’s time.

Again the tedious assertions that up is down, wrong is right and black is white.

I wonder if the OP can point to any saints or doctors of the Church who embraced nudism (let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?)?

(BTW, St. Francis doesn’t count, his single episode was a renunciation of all the material wealth bestowed on him by his family, not any nudist sentiment.

it is not very practical to go naked.

Thinking through my day… OUCH when the cats leap on me… Even greater OUCH when I work in the garden… thorns, brambles… NETTLES!! Allergic to them…once got stung while seeking relief behind a bush and not something I would ever want to risk again.

And even greater OUCH when , bare legged, I got badly stung by a wasp the other day. Days of agony that simple clothing would have saved me from…

And the midges we get here in ireland; reminds me of the old saying, Like a flea in a nudist colony…They would not know where to start…YUM!

I am old now and my battered body needs the gentle veiling of loose fitting clothes. And the warmth of them, and the protection from sun and wind and snow.

The disciples wore clothes; good enough for me…

A deceased Francisian Priest of our parish once mentioned the fact that St Francis wanted to be buried nude but was turned down by chuch authorities

figleafforum.com/ good all Christian all text site about the Bible and nudity. very interesting site

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.