|
Published: June 3, 2008
“They’re trying to make nudity at San Onofre illegal”
California parks chief pressured to allow people to go naked at state beach
A state parks official has come under siege by people who want to be left free to cavort naked on a public beach in the far northern reaches of San Diego County, a few miles south of San Clemente.
 Yesterday, rangers at San Onofre State Beach began warning nude bathers they were breaking the law, and that, after Labor Day, they would be cited for the violation if they continue. The new policy is the result of a decision by Ruth Coleman, director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Coleman, citing complaints from her own employees that nudity at San Onofre has created a “sexually charged atmosphere” in which they were not comfortable, ordered rangers to begin the crackdown. For many years, rangers had ignored the public nudity.
But the beach has become much more popular than in the past, with nearly 2.5 million visitors last year – twice as many as in 2000, according to state parks officials – and is no longer a remote enclave that may have made it suitable for “naturalists.”
Last year, according to the Orange County Register, a man was arrested for the alleged sexual molestation of a 12-year-old girl near the beach.
The decision by Coleman has produced howls of protest from nudists and their allies. “Beach lovers: They’re trying to make nudity at San Onofre illegal. Please take action,” says a post on the San Diego BDSM message board.
A group calling itself “the Naturist Action Committee” issued an “action alert” to its members, urging them to “contact the Director of CA Parks to express your vigorous opposition to this disastrous change in policy.”
According to the Naturist Action Committee, Coleman is undoing a policy that had been in effect since 1979 when former Parks and Recreation director Russ Cahill issued a memo to his senior staff members telling them they should not designate clothing-optional areas in state parks, but at the same time that citations for nudity should be issued only after a complaint and a failure to comply following a warning from rangers.
In issuing the new regulation, however, Coleman is apparently relying on a request from rangers on the scene, who report not only nudity, but frequent illegal public sexual activity as well.
The nudists and their supporters have begun sending emails and making phone calls in an effort to get Coleman to return to the previous policy. Says the Naturist Action Committee’s alert: “Send a letter, a fax or an e-mail, or make a phone call. Director Ruth Coleman, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95816. E-mail: director@parks.ca.gov; Director’s office telephone: (916) 653-8380; Director’s office Fax: (916) 657-3903.”
Supporters of Coleman’s decision have asked people to use the same information, but to send messages approving the action instead.
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 AM By Bill Schroer
Your article, while not inaccurate is substantially incomplete and misleading. Public nudity at San Onofre has been an established tradition for years by nudists who do not "cavort naked" but who do enjoy the opportunity to be clothes free. Nudists do not approve of public sex or any lewd or lascivious behavior and have aggressively policed the beach to ensure public sex or that kind of activity does not happen. In fact, many nudists are Catholic and have as strong a sense of appropriate behavior as any of the readers of this magazine.
The problem stems from the fact that the San Onofre beach is immediately adjacent to the nearby Marine Corps beach. Although fenced that beach is accessed by non-nudists who wish to have public sex or otherwise behave inappropriately. Since the Marine Corps base is off limits to the rangers they are doing the "next best thing" by attempting to eliminate the non-offensive nudity at San Onofre. Even if successful in their efforts to eliminate nudity at San Onofre the Parks Department will still have the problem on the Marine Corps side of the beach.
Additionally, the Naturist Action Committee is not "some group calling itself". The NAC is a 501c4 non-profit organization that has consistently advocated for nudist rights since 1973. As part of the Naturist Society the NAC works to help demonstrate social nudism is a positive family friendly lifestyle that actually reinforces the values that this magazine suggests it supports.
As a member of the Board of the NAC I can tell you that we don't approve of inappropriate behavior or public sex on any beach anywhere. At the same time what is happening here is a smokescreen designed to eliminate a proactive and positive clothes free beach experience that thousands of people enjoy each year.
William J. Schroer
Naturist Action Committee
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:37 AM By EAB
Why not arrest the illegal sexual activity? - which is already illegal?
Our economy could use money from European tourists that do not view nude beaches from a sexual perspective.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:20 AM By Grisha
Do California Catholic Daily reporters check out the San Diego BDSM Messege Board on a regular basis?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:45 AM By John L. Sillasen
And all this under a Republican president and governor! Gov Schwartzeneger recently said, "Let there be home schooling"; now it would be, "Let there be naked beaches" ... after all Adam and Eve were naked until they sinned; however, in modern times when there is no longer any sin, there is no reason to wear clothing. So, kings have nothing to fear by being seen without their clothes.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:26 AM By Fr. M.P.
How refreshing to see a public official try and implement some decency! Pray extra for this true leader.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:22 AM By John L. Sillasen
The official nudist: defined as a nudist who espouses rules after having proven by the act of public nudity that they cannot follow rules. Naturally the official nudists blame others for their nude behaviors. There are no Catholic nudists ... it's an oxymoron. "... do not view nudity from a sexual perspective ...": that would be called repressed sexuality while being nude. Essentially it is a plot to use naked publicity to take over the extremely valuable land known as Camp Pendleton, and make enormous profits off it. It's a nude landrush.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:58 PM By Lisa T.
WHY THE OUTRAGE, ISN'T PUBLIC NUDITY IN CALIFORNIA LEGAL? HOW IS IT IN SAN FRANCISCO PERVERTS LEGALLY ORGANIZE AN ANNUAL EVENT CALLED THE FOLSOM STREET FAIR WHERE MEN (MOSTLY HOMOSEXUAL MEN) AND WOMEN WALK AROUND NUDE AND ENGAGE IN PUBLIC SEX ACTS (ALL ON PUBLIC STREETS) BUT HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IT'S ILLEGAL?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:43 PM By okwithorwithoutcloth
Why don't we just let the park rangers be park rangers? With the budget cuts in Ca. the skyrocketing fuel cost and everything else. Is this the right time to be adding to the responsibilities of an already stressed department of public service?
NUDIST! (Pa says in shock).......are they homosexuals ma? Comical, what world do you people live in that you'll relocate rapist priest from church to church in an effort to hide them from justice (here on planet earth)?
Adams and eves….they’s neked b’for da apple and sinnin' and such.
By the way LISA T. STOP SHOUTING! It's hard to hear you when your screeming. =)
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:53 PM By Anne
As a native Californian, I find myself getting more and more angry at how some people have ruined my state. It was not always thus. Since when is nudity allowed on a public beach. It is bad enough at Santa Cruz, which means the Holy Cross, that wizened old men try to pick up on young women, who are not very modestly dressed, but now this.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:18 PM By Anne
By the way, I do expect people to wear swimwear at beaches, but when a wizened old man wears a bikini, that is a bit much. Some of the others need to cover of a little more too. And don't give me the old carnard that the "body is beautiful" because quite a few of them are not.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:37 PM By John F. Maguire
It would seem that the consensus of theologians is that although nakedness can never be regarded as immodest in itself, certain circumstances and certain motives might well make it so, for example, had the bathing Bathsheba situated herself within the purview of King David with deliberate intent. Still, as Pope Pius XI described the contemporary situation, "The pagan tendencies in present-day life afflict all open and attentive eyes." The "naturist" or "recreational nudist" movement, however, professes complete innocence regarding such affliction, but only to profess instead a different kind of innocence: namely,
Adamite innocence. Marcello Festaggiante, the president of Sicilia Naturista, when he declares, for example, that his beach parties are "open to all who want to get to grips with the history and philosophy of our movement," very much wants his invitees to convert to his movement's philosophy, which, however secular, is Adamite in the sense that it regards nudity as a means of regaining the primeval innocence enjoyed by Adam and Eve. See Francis Harvey, "Adamites," _The Catholic Encyclopedia_, 1907 ("An obscure sect, dating perhaps from the second century, which professed to have regained Adam's primeval
innocence" by means of nature-worshiping in the nude).
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:51 PM By Claudis
Stupid!! This varies greatly by jurisdiction. In Germany you will find people legally sunbathing nude in city parks. In Denmark, all but two beaches are clothing-optional (that is to say, nudity is permitted). In most western jurisdictions (including Canada) it is legal to be nude on private property so long as you can't be seen by others outside the property. Consequently, all naturist clubs are legal.
It's the many public, clothing-optional beaches which need further discussion. There are many traditionally clothing-optional beaches in Canada which are not being challenged by the authorities. In Canada, the courts have determined that "mere nude sunbathing is not of sufficient moral turpitude to support a charge for doing an indecent act" (R. v. Beaupré, 1971, British Columbia Supreme Court). General public nudity is illegal under Section 174 of the Criminal Code, but the courts have found that "this offence is not aimed at conduct such as swimming nude at an isolated beach, even where the accused misjudges the loneliness of the beach" (R. v. Benolkin, 1977, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench).
In December 1996, a female former University of Guelph student was acquitted of a charge of indecency for walking top free in public. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned her conviction because "there was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her. [The court] cannot conclude that what the appellant did exceeded the community standard of tolerance when all of the relevant circumstances are taken into account." There is a difference in nudism or naturalism and pornography. Nudism believes in the freedom from the restrictions of clothing, Porn is for sexual gratification. Naturist looks like you and I and come from all walks of life. You will find it to be a relaxing lifestyle that is free of the daily stress we all experience. Naturist groups like naturistmingle.com are looking for people who are open minded and want to enjoy the company of others of a like mind.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:46 PM By Denise
There is nothing immoral about public nudity. You do not have to go to San Onofre if you do not want to. Please leave other people alone and stop trying to impose your conservative ideology on the rest of the population.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:02 PM By Eillen
I have been going to San Onofre for years. my 13 year old son learned to surf there at old man's there was no nuditiy at that time. he is now 26. and that is simply not apprpriate. it used to be a very family oriented beach. what happened?
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:22 PM By John L. Sillasen
Good to see that the nudists all congregate in select places far from the real beauties of nature. Some day there may be million nudist marches on the national capital, whereat the president and first nudist will greet them from the balcony. By that time it may even be that the first couple is same sex, or both transexuals. Yep, exciting times in store for America. There may be a direct correlation with the rise of the scimitar across the globe, especially in the western world.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:26 PM By Anne
Claudis, you are totally wrong. If you and others want to take your clothes off take them off in the privacy of your own home, or in an enclosed area where others and their children don't have to look at your nakedness. No wonder the Muslims consider many countries decadent because they are. Then because of the decadence, the tide swings back to total prudishness. There needs to be a sane middle ground. I know that people in hotter climates usually wear less clothing, but let's keep it sensible.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:46 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that preoccupation with nudity is a sure sign of Demonic activity.
For those of you who tout pagan Europe, In Holland they now have unisex public bathrooms. Is this what you want for America?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of Ameirca, Inc.
www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:17 AM By Lisa T.
John Sillasen, You're absouletely right, very exciting times ahead for America, I can hardly keep from retching. California and Massachusetts are leading the way into the wonderful world of perversity.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:11 AM By Mark Ashworth
It's interesting to read all the positive comments for the beach. A post a few days ago showed a person mad because "as a tax payer" he should have the right not to view nude sunbathers. Guess the nude sunbathers who pay taxes too don't have rights. If this person is so incensed by nude recreationists why doesn't he and his family pick one of the other trails to get to the beach?
Funny that there are more parling spaces (and more usage) at Trail 6.
Kind of tells me they should make the whole beach clothing optional and expand the parking in the other lots!
Nudist taxpayers only request that their taxes are used (rightfully) for their interests too. Responsible nudists and sufficient law enforcement presence will curb the lewd behavior. Making a blanket ban on nudity not only isn't fair to the naturist/nudist population (which is quite large in California), it won't solve the problem and will reduce park revenues.
I'm a frequent visitor to Miami to attend Haulover Beach. The beach north of the nude area and south of the nude area are void of people. A busy weekend at Haulover can see as many 10,000 people on the three-fourths mile strip of beach behaving appropriately.
Let people enjoy their preference, they pay to do so.
Mark Ashworth
Land O Lakes, FL
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:24 AM By Rich Pasco
Anyone who is offended by the sight of a natural human body should complain to its designer.
Actually, 90% of San Onofre beach is reserved for such people. Shouldn't those who celebrate the beauty and naturalness of God's divine creation be allowed their own 10%?
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:38 AM By Bruce
The effort to stop nude use of the beach at Trail 6 is a great example of a couple of state employees choosing to use tax payer funds to attempt to enforce their personal attitudes and beliefs on others.
In a situation where 30 years of use by nudists has resulted in very little need for enforcement activity, why the change now? The answer is clear in the appointment of a new area supervisor….intent on making his mark (is that a measure of success?) on the public.
Trail 6 should be left as it is. It is not a problem. There are other California parks lands that need far more enforcement….to eliminate illegal fires, motorcycles in closed areas, and assault. These are not evident at trail 6.
State enforcement resources should be used to solve real problems that threaten lives and property. Trail 6 does not meet that test.
brucereno
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:43 AM By Anne
What if the park rangers and police don't want to look at some your ugly bodies.? Especially if they are called there because of an emergency. Many people already do not take their children to Disneyland or San Francisco on certain days because they don't want to see all this stuff.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:52 AM By John L. Sillasen
It is the depraved mind which sees all this nudity as beautiful.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:12 PM By Surfpipe
I have surfed at Trail 6 for many years. The nudist hang out in an area that is far to the south. Most of us see the nudist beach as an interesting oddity, but they do not bother us and keep to themselves. I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of people weighing in on this issue have has never been to trail 6, and will never go to trail 6. Even if you do go to trail 6, you don't see the nudists unless you go looking for them. Give them a break, they aren't bothering any one. This is yet another misguided waste of already limited taxpayer money.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:42 PM By Steve
Sounds like the Parks People have the comments, herein, running against them. When the readership of this staid publication so easily see through the trumped-up justifications cited by "Parks" as their reason to proceed its pretty telling. Obviously, this is an effort being pushed by someone trying to build their miserable bureaucratic career at the expense of a group the see as an easy target.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:11 PM By David ND
Dear Denise, Please do not push your liberal ideaology on us. In addition, please do us all a favor and put down that old Bob Dylan album because he can't save you.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:29 PM By Mikesbosox
A man was arrested for sexually molesting a 12 year old.... Is this the only time this has happened in the state of California? Ever? What else was shut down?
This is an obvious attempt at a grandstand play. Let the Rangers do their real job and not waste time on innocent naturists.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:05 PM By Anne
When I use the term "ugly" bodies, what I am trying to express is that no decent woman wants to see a bunch of exposed male bodies, other than her own loved one (in my case husband). The naturalist might think that they are exposing any children to danger, but how do you know that there is not a "deviant" among you. The fact is you don't know.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:29 PM By Marc Welter
Having been a nudist for years, this is not the first time I've seen this situation come up. It is unfortunate that the uninformed (concerning the Naturist Movement) have the power to do whatever they want with the Nude Beaches that are currently in existence. It is also unfortunate that those who frequent the nude beaches are not more pro active in trying to retain them. We have lost most of the "free beaches" over the years due to this apathy. The Nudist community that I am a part of wants to work with the sheriffs, community and government to insure freedom for ALL beach goers. We police the beaches ourselves and try to stop any problems before they arise including lewd activity, drug use, aggressive gawking or whatever may come up. It would be an ideal situation to be able to call the police in when a problem occurs, without worrying about being ticketed ourselves. Yes, there will be occurrences from time to time at a nude beach but no more than in any other segment of the population. Surely with California’s entire coastline there is room for a legal nude beach with appropriate signage for those not expecting while strolling the beach? For more info see NudeBeachAlliance.com
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:30 PM By Kent
It would be refreshing if a Public Servant left their personal beliefs and biases at home and did the job that they are paid to do. If there is a law on the books prohibiting nudity at San Onofre then prohibit it. If there is a precedent for nudity but an excessive number of complaints and or instances of public sexual behavior then prohibit it. If there is a precedent for nudity but no excessive number of complaints and no public sexual activity then let it be and handle complaints and inappropriate activity on a case by case basis. There seems to be no reason to punish appropriately behaving responsible people for the actions of a few or for a single persons personal beliefs.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 6:03 PM By Anne
A correction to my last e-mail: I meant to say that a naturalist might "not" think they are exposing children to danger, instead of a naturalist might think they are exposing children to danger.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 6:10 PM By Stevo
I frequent the trail six beach and it has never been shut down while I was there. The existing policy makes provisions for this, but they are not being exercised. That being said, the general public is not being offended by the users of the beach. Most people don't know where this obscure location is and if you find it offensive, don't look for it. If you want to surf "Old Mans", go ahead, you couldn't see the nude people with a telescope. If you weren't aware of the nude beach, don't be offended, just go about your lives and the nudists wont bother you. If you open minded about the human body and want to go to beach where there are many regulars in an environment where you can feel safe in the nude. Give it a try.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:27 PM By Rey
There was sex and molestation within the churches - for years. There was no nudity; churches were not closed. Finally, the law and the church went after the perpetrators.
Rangers & police are there to stop/catch criminals. Allow them to do their jobs and allow the nudists and others to enjoy the beaches. Michaelangelo said it best: Man is designed in God's image. (Thus,) there is nothing obscene about the nude body - only in the mind of the observer. .
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:51 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
In reading the comments on this blog It is obvious that the lack of sound catechetical teaching for the last 40 years or so has had its effect! God have mercy on us!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of Ameirca, Inc. www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
Like the devil tempting Jesus with partial truths, it is nothing less than people making believe that there is nothing wrong with public nudity. When quoting or paraphrasing Holy Scripture, the first thing necessary is to respect it, and not try to manipulate it for one's own short sighted or blind aims.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:37 PM By Judy Williams
To Eillen, Anne who believes "no decent woman wants to see a bunch of exposed male bodies," and to Kenneth M. Fisher who calls upon God to "have mercy on our us!" May you take comfort in the following words of a very wise man. I rest my case for living in harmony with nature, as nature intended and raising our children to show respect for themselves, for others and for the environment!
""Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve its splendor and its beauty . . . Sexual modesty cannot in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness . . . Nakedness, as such, is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person. The human body is not in itself shameful . . .Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person."
Author: Pope John Paul II.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:35 AM By Tony Wilkinson
Thank you Judy Williams! When I attended Mayfield Junior School in Pasadena in the 1940s, I was beginning a journey in a Roman Catholic tradition that, in retrospect, seems to have been much more thoughtful, open-minded and inclusive than the church of today. The increased participation of laity in church affairs has come about partly because of a sad decline in vocations. With it have come attitudes that are much like those of fundamentalist protestant churches. Zealous individuals try to force others to accept their own personal view of religion or burn in hell.
To some extent, that is exactly what is happening in San Onofre. A newly assigned park ranger and his boss, the state Director of Parks and Recreation, appear to share a personal aversion to nude use of an isolated public beach. Without any public hearings or input, they have agreed to make this segment of the public burn in hell.
Whether you agree with the supervising ranger and parks director or not, you should be very concerned about a system that allows two individuals to set public policy for a public resource used by thousand of taxpayers with not even a half-hearted attempt at gaining public input.
It is useful for the California Catholic Daily to provide a public forum for issues where Catholics may have differences of opinion. This particular issue, however, is one of public policy. It is religious only to those who think that everyone must share their personal view that it is. Simple nudity is neither sinful nor shameful. Sure, that's *my* opinion. It's nice to have, thanks to Judy Williams, evidence of at least one noted Catholic who agreed.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:42 AM By John L. Sillasen
Judy Williams, read my post immediately above yours. You fall exactly into the category of manipulating and distorting words. Nowhere in the quote from the late Pope, assuming you've at least done that correctly, is there any reference to public ... public ... public nudity. The late Pope is explicating Church tradition; he is not saying "if it feels good do it". All you are doing is attempting to justify your sin and hiding your shame ... neither of which is Catholic. You could quote anything and come up with your same conclusion, because it is not based on what you quoted.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:51 PM By Kath Rooney
I've been a naturist for 16 years, and when I always smile when I see families at nude beaches, nude resorts, or other nudist events. The children are learning body acceptance, and they are comfortable with what they and other humans look like. Their daughters will not have eating disorders and Playboy will not have a hold on their sons. I wish that those who condemn naturism could experience it as I do, for then they might share my joy at this God-given, simple, and innocent pleasure.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 6:52 PM By John L. Sillasen
I've been a nature lover all my life, and one of the most amazing things about nature is that all animals wear clothing, in the form of fur or scales, or thick hide, or feathers. Their dynamics, ie the way they move and gesture, is not like the suggestive or subtle nature of humans; they inhabit another moral realm and thus make no problem for moral humans. It's the same lie that homosexuals give by claiming that animals are sometimes homosexual. The big lie proclaimed by nudists is that they learn to accept human nakedness and find that it has no ill effect on them ... anyone remember the concept of what is called "the big lie"? In the case of nudism, the big lie is that the effect is their continued nudist practices. It is the same sort of thing that we were treated with a few presidential terms back, when then prez Bill Clinton boldly lied to us when we could see the lie. It got him lots of votes. Evil can beget more evil ... and when it is advertized by further lies, then the evil often gets worse. Eventually it will backfire on the deceivers, and those of them who can will slink back into the darkness.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 7:14 PM By SNoel
Adam and Eve's bodies did not grow old or ugly in the Garden of Eden. It was only after the sin that God had to clothe their nakedness. I agree with Anne and think beauty is in the eyes of the beholder because we love someone and can look beyond their imperfections (even when we become old and our bodies deteriorate). For myself, I would find it very disgusting looking at a bunch of naked bodies roaming free on a public beach as was the case when I was very young, my cousin took me to Black's Beach having no knowledge of naked people there thinking that we were just going to a day at the beach and there was an older, large man fully naked, flaunting himself and struting about in front of us letting it all hang out. Needless to say it was not a pleasant experience for me at all and it is bored in my memory.
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:30 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
"There are none so blind as those who have eyes to see yet will not see" I believe Our Lord had those who ignore the clear admonitions of His Word in mind when He said this!
SNoel., thanks for beating me to the punch by quoting from Genisis.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman Concerned Roman Catholics of Ameirca, Inc. www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:57 PM By John L. Sillasen
SNoel, the world, the flesh and the devil will tell you that you can overcome your unpleasant memory by ogling naked women ... but it is a ploy employed by such perverts as the old man who exposed himself to you and your friend. It is a grooming step, done either directly or indirectly to initiate a change in your focus on life. The remedy begins with prayer and the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and can become total in its healing aspect. Faith operates in Christians and moves us into the unseen where we find joy; but for the unfaithful, they are so used to being wary of the dark that they won't go anywhere unless they know what awaits them. One of the reasons they hate Christianity is due to their abject terror of darkness ... they've seen so many false lights, each one of which pulls them further into misery, that they grow reluctant to open their eyes to any light at all, even true light. That is why they cannot see what you can see; yet, they are not permanently lost yet, and sometimes will peek into the light of Christ. That is why it is important, even critical, that Christians constantly radiate the grace given them by God ... so that when the unbelievers peek, they don't see us in our lapses, but at our most reflective.
|
Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 12:01 AM By John L. Sillasen
Tony Wilkinson, you may be an old self proclaimed Catholic with sentiments worthy of the best of the maudlin, which was a big thing in those days you speak of. But the devil is even older, and he too started out sinless ... but look what his opinion did to him.
|
Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:36 PM By John L. Sillasen
I like these terms, such as "nudist", "naturist", "body beautiful", "nakedism", etc ... but it all boils down to "streaker".
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 12:07 AM By Scott
The new director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Ruth Coleman is trying to set
new policy in the San Onofre State Beach by stirring up emotions with misleading facts and deception. What they don’t tell you is that the “sexually charged atmosphere” and other items that they site as reasons to “crack down”, have little or nothing to do with the Nude Beach it self. It has a lot to do with the parking lot where Non-nudist and pleasure seekers hang out to “hook-up’ and have sex in their cars. Is this truly the fault of the nude beach goers, or is it a lack of security and enforcement by the Parks Department. Are they the ones who aren’t doing their job and keeping the public safe?
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:50 AM By Allen Baylis
Pope John Paul II said the following about non-sexual nudity:
"There are circumstances in which nudity is not impure. If someone uses it to treat the person as an object of pleasure - even if it is by bad thoughts - he alone is the one who commits an impure act. Impurity of body only occurs when nudity plays a negative role with respect to the value of the person."
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:22 AM By Fr. M.P.
Don't you nudists recall that Jesus said that any man who only looks at a woman with lust already commits the grievous sin of adultery in his thoughts? And you who go nude are also guilty of those sins of that type which you cause by your nudity. And today there is the high risk of homosexual lust too, especially in CA, All people are to avoid not only the sin, but also avoid the near occasion of sin. This is all because of our concupiscence.
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 2:09 PM By Jesse
As a Catholic, I'm completely ashamed of the lack of tolerance for this alternative lifestyle/hobby presented in some of these comments. This is an act of persecution towards that which is not understood by you or I. In addition, as someone who has studied Christian apologetics, I assert that the petty arguments in which Bible verses are used as weapons are inappropriate (actually, this goes for both sides). The book of Genesis is widely understood amongst theologians as more figurative than literal. Therefore, the nudity in the book is more widely accepted as a metaphor for human condition than the literal shame of nakedness. Also, lets not forget that when the Renaissance came about, the human body was celebrated by the church through art. That brings me to a previous comment by one California native about the human body: No one is able to judge the beauty or worth of a human body but God...shame on you for calling a creation of God ugly...the word arrogance comes to mind!
Ultimately, I would like to say that I'm ashamed to call myself a Catholic after reading some of these comments. The nudist visitors of this site who don't understand the religion must have a completely off-kilter view of the Catholicism. The church should a safe haven of tolerance, not judgment. Who are any of us to judge? Who has been there to see these acts? Is this other lifestyle really affecting your life and practice as a "Catholic?" How about focusing your energy on something worthwhile, like the millions suffering overseas, both American and foreign. How about volunteering for something instead of judging that which doesn't affect you? Are you without sin enough to judge another human being? I know I'm not.
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 7:52 PM By Anne
Jesse, it would be lovely to be able to help those overseas, without having to fight this battle in California. Do you have any children or grandchildren? I doubt that very much. For those of us who do, it is not very much fun to have to be careful when and where to take them. I had a friend who was coming back from Northern California. She and her friends were driving through San Francisco in a car. They were caught in traffic in the so-called "gay and lesbian" parade down there. She told me that she was glad there were no children in the car. Not only nudity was taking places, but actual sado-masochistic acts were being performed right out in the open. I, quite frankly, doubted some of what she was telling me, until I saw for myself online some pictures of the debauchery that was taking place during the parade there. The last time they wanted to have such a thing, Mayor Newsome finally cleaned it up somewhat because so many people complained. I am old enough to remember when California was a decent place to live. Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren? Well I don't. And contrary to what you think, I am not a prude. Nude art is not always bad if it is kept in check and if it is not pornography, but some people with warped minds can no longer tell the difference.
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:50 PM By Anne
Jesse, the genital area was almost always covered up in Renaissance art. Never-the-less, many Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic Churches think our Western art, including religious art, is too provacative. They always have the religious figues on their icons well covered. Now I will get off this blog, I have had enough!
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 8:10 AM By John L. Sillasen
Concupiscence versus "lust is in the eye of the beholder": I'm glad Fr. M.P. has brought into play this one word which really is the key to this issue of nudism. The nudists will argue that it is ok because their is no sin in public nakedness, but that the sin is in some people when they see others naked. This claim is false, however. The Church teaches that concupiscense (lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, pride of life as the Scriptures put it) is part of human nature; each human being has it. To claim, then, that some people don't, is nothing but a launchpad for relativism. It is saying that each of us is essentially different in composition. Some religious currents teach that we can empower ourselves to be anything we want, that we are "blank slates" and thus can self create; other religions teach that we can tap into a superior power which will do essentially the same thing, make us different from others in all respects. But the Church teaches that man is a sinner, and can overcome his sins only partially without God, yet completely with God. Concupiscense is in the heart of man, and that is why man cannot keep from lusting after nakedness ... not completely. With God he can completely keep from this lust, but God says to cover up. This is the way God provides for man to resist the concupiscence of nakedness, to wear clothing and keep from sinning. So, when a nudist claims they do not sin in this regard, they have launched into a religious current which opposes the Word of God.
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 11:51 AM By Dave Bitters
Judy Williams’s posting merits extension. The Gospel of Thomas (saying 37) offers this: “His disciples said, ‘When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?’
“Jesus said, ‘When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.’ ”
Naturists (including users of the San Onofre nude beach) will understand that the meaning of this passage is transparent. Columnist Burr Snider captured the sense of it some years ago in an editorial in the San Francisco Examiner: “… the real nude beach wonders aren’t the young, hubris-ridden gods and goddesses with the flawless hardbodies and the cocoa-butter ultratans. As terrific as it is watching beautiful naked people flipping Frisbees or frolicking in the waves, it’s those less-than-perfect folks whose egos transcend fleshly matters and who can bare themselves unself-consciously, warts and wattles, sags and cellulite and all, who make nude beaches such a joy.
“Like the old people you sometimes see naked on the beach, wrinkles-be-damned – those great, wonderful free birds who fly their own route and gulp deeply of the fount of life and who will probably never end up pushing a walker to the Safeway for an afternoon’s torturous exercise.”
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 1:16 PM By Grisha
Having had a melanomia removed, let me remind everyone to take appropriate precautions (hat, sunscreen etc.) naked, semi naked or whatever, when going out into our California sun!
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 3:10 PM By Anne
Thank you, Fr. M.P. and John Sillasen for explaining the issue far better than I. I probably should not have used the word ugly about the human body; never-the-less, it was a young man who drew my attention to the old man in a bikini on the beach. The younger man was incensed because the young woman did not want the old man's attention, but was having it somewhat forced upon her. This, also, is what some of these nudists are suggesting when they say the beaches should be clothes optional, and we all know that. We would then be force to watch them even if we did not want to do so.
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 6:27 PM By John L. Sillasen
The word "modest" is, at root, a word for "mode". It means something that defies legal definition. An example is when a US Supreme Court justice said of pornography, "You know it when you see it". The spurious gospel of thomas even in the above quote does not legitimate nudism ... it is a way of saying that He is never going to appear to those people. To get to an even more profound level of Scripture, consider that the Second Coming of Jesus will be when there is a whole lot of imitation of goodness, such as anti-christ, beast, whore of babylon, false prophet, and more exciting characters. Nudism is beyond question immodest, and associated with deception ... just as the gnostic post reveals.
|
Posted Sunday, June 08, 2008 9:33 PM By Wm. Hamilton
I have seen no one so far mention the obvious: going naked in public is AGAINST THE LAW. I understand that nudists have many private clubs where they can enjoy their exhibitionism. Fine with me if they confine their behavior to private enclaves, but when they cross the line onto public property, they become lawbreakers. Instead of putting the onus on an administrator like Ms. Coleman, who as part of the executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, the naturalists should take their appeal to the state legislature and get the laws changed. Let the legislature designate clothing-optional beaches, or give the authority to Parks & Rec. to do so. Otherwise what the nudists are asking for is that they be permitted to break the law with impunity. There is no underlying moral issue here that warrants civil disobedience, so I repeat, their relief is in the legislature -- not from Ms. Coleman. What they amount to now are nude squatters on clothing-mandatory public beaches. They deserve to be ticketed. By the way, what's the fine for this anyway?
|
Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 8:13 PM By Mona
In response to the ignorant assertion that the nudity at San O was illegal...
...I present the Cahill Policy-
"the Cahill policy written in May 1979 prohibited California State Park staff from enforcing the nudity statute. The Cahill Policy, written by then director of California Department of Parks and Recreation Russell W. Cahill, allowed this “clothing optional” beach to “free up enforcement people to concentrate on other pressing duties.”
"Clothing Soon Required at Trail 6"
San Clemente Times
June 05, 2008
Vol. 3, Issue 23, June 5-11, 2008
...please educate yourself, there was nothing illegal at this beach, and it was in fact protected.
|
Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 9:57 PM By Wm. Hamilton
MONA: "Ignorant assertion"? Whether you like it or not, going naked in public is illegal. That Russell Cahill told his staff NOT TO ENFORCE the law does not change the law. Illegal, illegal, illegal. No way around it. Change the law, but don't break the law.
|
Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 11:18 PM By John L. Sillasen
If there are children present among the nudists, then the arrests of the nudists would include charges of child endangerment, and sex offender charges ... these sorts of things are felonies.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:10 AM By Rich Pasco
Simple beach nudity is not "against the law", despite Wm. Hamilton's wishes.
California's law against "indecent exposure" (PC 314) applies only where there is an intention to create affront or sexual arousal, not to innocent sunbathing and skinny-dipping. This was affirmed by the California Supreme Court decision "In re Smith" (1972).
Even the State Parks regulation (CCR 4322) allows nudity in places designated for the purpose. The California Appellate Court decision "California v. Bost" affirmed that said designation can be by informal acceptance, such as has been the case for many years at San Onofre south of Trail 6.
Thus, Cahill's policy was not one of non-enforcement, but of appropriate enforcement given an accurate understanding of the law.
|
Posted Friday, June 13, 2008 10:20 AM By SpiritMatter
The U.S. Constitution recognises the equality of all citizens and that they are granted by their creator not the government certain unabridgable rights. The Constitution requires that the government not attempt to establish any particular religion with its' associated religious morals as the law of the land. The concept of religious freedom incorporates the presumption that citizens do not all agree about which church and its' doctrines are correct. By protecting people's rights to associate with the church of their choice, peace in the land is established. It took European nations thousands of years to learn this. The Middle East has not learned it yet. Baptists, who believe drinking alcohol is a sin, do not have the right to harass or have Catholics arrested who are legally drinking adult beverages at a church picnic. Whether the human body is sinful and must be covered is a religious moral belief. Both siders have a right to their beliefs and a right to have a place to practice those beliefs. San Onofre Beach Trail 6 was one of a few places where naturists could exercise their Constitutionally protected beliefs. It should remain that way.
|
Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 3:09 AM By Jerry
The "land of the free"... yeah...sure.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:57 PM By Celtfire
John Paul II on modesty:
"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 total 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 the person... The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the individual."
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 12:33 PM By BlueEgyptian
I'm already feeling manipulated .... Was it a 12 year old BOY or a 12 year old GIRL who was supposedly molested NEAR the beach?
This is the first "shocker" in this article, and it is not even consistent.
It is SAD that this FREE COUNTRY is concentrating SO much energy in taking freedoms AWAY. Nudity is not lewd behaviour.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:34 PM By BlueEgyptian
By the way…
Thanks Jesse, for reminding people (Christian people I presume) to concentrate on what is really important. I noticed Anne’s response to what you said…noting that we could help children overseas if we didn’t have to “fight this battle” here in California. Then she focuses on a gay parade in San Francisco, something that occurs once a year. I’m not too sure what a gay parade in San Francisco has to do with a nude beach in So Cal, however I’m not surprised by the association…it’s far too convenient.
You see, it’s the GAY thing that scares people beyond description, and some can’t seem to figure out how to express it without convincing themselves that there is some kind of FIGHT to be won…. I didn’t realize there was still a FIGHT.
Anne, do YOU have children and grandchildren?
Everyday YOUR CHILDREN are affected by the air quality of California, something we all impact and are responsible for. (Exposed breast on a beach didn’t pollute the air)
Everyday YOUR CHILDREN are affected by the increasing amount of growth hormones and genetically modified crap in our foods. (The used condom in the trash at the beach had nothing to do with this)
Everyday YOUR CHILDREN are affected by an ever increasing threat of even more terrorism because of the lack of responsibility we continue to exhibit in a very unpopular war. If you educated yourself, I guarantee you would be more concerned with how to protect your offspring and family from exposure to Depleted Uranium. (If you saw the birth defects many soldiers wives are encountering now…and since the FIRST Gulf War, you would realize that the occasional uncovered penis on a beach that you have to WORK to travel to is fairly insignificant!!!)
No disrespect intended at all, but what are you doing about any of these issues Anne? Are you FIGHTING the important fight still? Or are none of these as important as preventing a kid from seeing a man in a dress? Respectfully, I know you are more enlightened than that!
Thanks Jesse, for putting this into perspective. I DO read here to see where people’s heads are with respect to faith… Some people are quite enlightened on here, and I find all h
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:34 PM By Jenny
Are you serious???
The naturalists are NOT the problem at this beach. It's the few idiots who use nudity at the beach as an opportunity to cruise for illicit, illegal, and lewd sex. Punish them, not the naturalists. The Friends of San O take stringent efforts to prevent and stop lewd behavior, they certainly do NOT condone it.
And before any one else goes on and on about the arrest made last year, please consider all the other arrests made at public beaches for the same illegal acts and explain what the connection to nudity is??? There isn't one, just because people choose to take off their clothes to enjoy the sun, doesn't mean they are lewd, disgusting, or have illegal sex in public!!
Stop being small-minded or bigoted when it comes to nudists - we aren't perverts.
|
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 8:24 PM By eab
For those not familiar with San Onofre... the bathrooms in the parking lot near trail 6 (where the illegal behavior is alleged) are approx. 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the nude beach.
|
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 9:47 PM By Kay
One comment! If you see God's creation as an abomination just don't do to San Onofre.
|
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:08 AM By sub
If the Good Lord saw to make us fittin for Him, we oughta be good enough for each other. Point is, don't judge. I am God's creation, Nature's creation, and your ridiculous morals won't affect me from being proud of thousands of years of Creation, or billions of years of evolution.
The Good Lord loves you even without your clothes. You weren't born naked, dummies.
|
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:17 AM By SBN
The venom in the tone of you so called "religeous" people is astounding. Try judging a little less will you! Other people don't need YOU imposing YOUR perceived "morality" on the masses. If people want to strive for purity, so be it. And if people don't like seeing the "evil" nude body (that God created), they don't have to go to nude beaches. And judging naturists as "evil doers" is wrong in God's eyes - especially when you have no clue what the naturist lifestyle is all about, or what life at that beach is actually like.
|
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:58 PM By franklin
why do u want to do that, i think when jesus was out to preach he did not do anything of that sort.
|
Posted Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:53 PM By JLS
SBN, no matter how the Church judges you, it is minimal compared to the final judgment you will face. The Church judges in order to prepare you for a successful outcome. *** Also, nudists need to realize that God created clothing. You nakedness worshipers will be shocked when you find that along with your clothes you also shucked Heaven.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|