D
DrewC
Guest
Ok Im thinking about getting a religious tatoo on my leg. Would that be a sin? Thanks in advance.
God Bless you all,
Drew
God Bless you all,
Drew
- Status
K
Karin
Guest
Drew…
They are not a sin…also there are numerous threads on this topic already on the forums.
They are not a sin…also there are numerous threads on this topic already on the forums.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Not a sin, certainly. But can you imagine Jesus or the Blessed Virgin wearing one, especially where many people wear them now-a-days? :bigyikes:
My **PERSONAL **opinion as a 48-year old normal, hispaniic, married, working man, devout Catholic and father: I think they’re vain, frivolous, juvenile, and low class. But that’s just me.
My **PERSONAL **opinion as a 48-year old normal, hispaniic, married, working man, devout Catholic and father: I think they’re vain, frivolous, juvenile, and low class. But that’s just me.
P
Peterdiago
Guest
From the CCC:
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
(emphasis mine)
This is the usual paragraph cited against tattoos. They are felt by some to fall under the definition of mutilation.
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
(emphasis mine)
This is the usual paragraph cited against tattoos. They are felt by some to fall under the definition of mutilation.
K
Karin
Guest
if that where the case then ear piercing would be considered a mutilation
,…but it is not and neither are tattoos:thumbsup:
P
Peterdiago
Guest
Any specific reference on that? i.e. any Church writing on what “mulitation” does and / or does not mean? It seems to me that the word needs to be defined somewhere. In the paragraph immediately preceeding that one, it refers to “disabling mutiliation” - which suggests that that the RCC considers mutilation to be a continuum; with disabling mutilation at one end and lesser mutilations following on from that.if that where the case then ear piercing would be considered a mutilation
The “disabling mutilation” occurs in a paragraph devoted to organ donation and is in specific reference to not being allowed to remove organs in a manner which will cause such a mutilation.
So, my question would be - how does the piercing of ears, circumcision, ritual scarification, tattoos and so forth differ from the removal of a limb or kidney, except in scale? To ritually scar oneself is a mutilation - it is not disabling in that it does not render one less-able to do anything. I would, however, argue that any form of physical modification is a mutilation.
Can you offer an official Church document which defines what is a mutilation and what is body modification or whatever? I have been unable to find one, and must therefore fall back on my own logic.
K
Karin
Guest
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XkAzG0zfx-8J:www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp%3FffID%3D233+Canon+Law,+Tattoos&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
and here is another article worth reading
Mutilation, in the canonical sense, is the separation from the body of one of its principal members or of some part of the body having a distinct office, as a hand or a foot or an eye. He, therefore, who cuts off a finger is not a mutilator, unless it be the index finger or thumb, which, for a priest, are accounted principal members. Those who mutilate themselves or procure mutilation without just cause incur irregularity. In practice, these two points are to be observed concerning homicide and mutilation: first, in doubt as to the fault where the fact is certain, a conditional dispensation must be obtained; and second, in every case of homicide, even accidental, a priest must abstain from the altar until the case be passed on by proper authority. newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
and here is another article worth reading
Mutilation, in the canonical sense, is the separation from the body of one of its principal members or of some part of the body having a distinct office, as a hand or a foot or an eye. He, therefore, who cuts off a finger is not a mutilator, unless it be the index finger or thumb, which, for a priest, are accounted principal members. Those who mutilate themselves or procure mutilation without just cause incur irregularity. In practice, these two points are to be observed concerning homicide and mutilation: first, in doubt as to the fault where the fact is certain, a conditional dispensation must be obtained; and second, in every case of homicide, even accidental, a priest must abstain from the altar until the case be passed on by proper authority. newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
P
Peterdiago
Guest
Those two things are very interesting, but they are not in accord with each other. The first suggests that a mutilation is that which renders the organ useless, while the second suggests that mutilation is dismemberment.
Also, the first - while saying that tattooing is not always a Sin - does not actually specifically reference a single Church document with reference to tattooing in the general culture. It is the opinion of a number of people. The single document which does reference tattooing is about Indians. There is a Bible verse which prohibits it, but which is rejected.
At that stage, I am not entirely sure if there is a definitive Church teaching on this matter. While that website is certainly well thought-out and very persuasive, it is not official Church teaching (or, at least, does not reference any official teaching which is applied for the whole world).
Now, if the defintion of the second is taken as being accurate, then obviously tattoos are not a sin - as they do not separate members from the body. However, I find it interesting that the CCC suggests that amputations and mutiliations are different - and that there is no mention of harm which does not lead to full mutilation / dismemberment as being a Sin.
EDIT: Whoa! I just read this on the second page you gave me;
With respect, that document is dangerously out of date and not in accord with the teaching of the Church.
Also, the first - while saying that tattooing is not always a Sin - does not actually specifically reference a single Church document with reference to tattooing in the general culture. It is the opinion of a number of people. The single document which does reference tattooing is about Indians. There is a Bible verse which prohibits it, but which is rejected.
At that stage, I am not entirely sure if there is a definitive Church teaching on this matter. While that website is certainly well thought-out and very persuasive, it is not official Church teaching (or, at least, does not reference any official teaching which is applied for the whole world).
Now, if the defintion of the second is taken as being accurate, then obviously tattoos are not a sin - as they do not separate members from the body. However, I find it interesting that the CCC suggests that amputations and mutiliations are different - and that there is no mention of harm which does not lead to full mutilation / dismemberment as being a Sin.
EDIT: Whoa! I just read this on the second page you gave me;
What the . . . ?
With respect, that document is dangerously out of date and not in accord with the teaching of the Church.
K
Karin
Guest
this was the second page I gave you (with an excerpt from it regarding mutilations)…
newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
The first page I gave you was this…
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XkAzG0zfx-8J:www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp%3FffID%3D233+Canon+Law,+Tattoos&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
Neither spoke about Indians …so I am a bit confused as to what you are reading. …also neither mentions anything about male fetus
newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm
The first page I gave you was this…
64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XkAzG0zfx-8J:www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp%3FffID%3D233+Canon+Law,+Tattoos&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
Neither spoke about Indians …so I am a bit confused as to what you are reading. …also neither mentions anything about male fetus
P
Peterdiago
Guest
1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp. 281-88), a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html.
Except that bit
That was the SINGLE reference in the whole article - the only reference that was a Church document (with the exception of the Bible verses). It is a document which specifically speaks about a nomadic Indian culture.
And, yes, I read both those pages - including the bit in the first one which seemed to suggest that babies aren’t human or animate until 40 or 80 days later! The bit I refer to is above the section you quoted (you quoted section (B) - but section (A) refers to the animation of children.)
K
Karin
Guest
Ok…and where did you pull this link from?? It was not one I gave you1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp. 281-88), a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html.
Except that bit
That was the SINGLE reference in the whole article - the only reference that was a Church document (with the exception of the Bible verses). It is a document which specifically speaks about a nomadic Indian culture.
And, yes, I read both those pages - including the bit in the first one which seemed to suggest that babies aren’t human or animate until 40 or 80 days later!
LOok at post #9…those where the two links I gave you regarding tattoos and mutilation…nothing about Indians or male babies
P
Peterdiago
Guest
Yes, it was - read that whole article. It is in the reference section near the bottom, just prior to the “recommended reading” section. It is, in fact, the whole of the reference section (i.e. that document is the only one, other than the Bible, cited by that article). Given the fact this document is specifically geared towards a single culture, and is used to only support a single point that if tattooing is considered a manhood rite etc. it is acceptable (which is not the matter either we or the article you gave me are discussing), I tend to feel that the whole article isn’t actually relevant. Certainly, if one is getting a tattoo as a rite of passage in this Indian culture then it is acceptable. That article does not provide a single concrete piece of evidence to conclude anything else.Ok…and where did you pull this link from?? It was not one I gave you
That does not mean that there isn’t such evidence - just that that article does not provide it.
And, as I have said before, the reference to male babies is there in the (A) section of that article to which you posted the (B).
So . . . erm . . . I’m a loss what to say now. It appears as if you haven’t read the articles you posted for me to read . . .
K
Karin
Guest
it was in the Further reading section
…and the link (1) refers to this sentence …
“**Catholics must also consider the common good when they decide whether to be tattooed or have their bodies pierced. In certain instances—for example, in indigenous cultures in which tattooing is a rite of passage to adulthood—the common good practically demands that a person be tattooed.1” **
and it is referenced at the bottom of the article to this paper…
*1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp. 281-88),a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See *http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html
K
Karin
Guest
actually i have read both articles…
…it would seem that you missed that the article about Indians was in reference to ONE sentence in the WHOLE article…it did not apply to the whole article
K
Karin
Guest
Is there any moral teaching of the Church regarding tattoos?
There is no direct specific teaching of the Church about this matter as far as I know. However, there may be some general moral principles which could apply. For instance, a minor child (in the U.S.A. any one under 18) would be morally obliged to obey his or her parents when they forbid a tattoo. Also unnecessary bodily mutilation is forbidden by the fifth commandment. If a tattoo or body piercing or other practices done for aesthetic reasons were to entail what most people would call mutilation, these things could be sinful. If a tattoo were particularly repulsive to most people, obtaining it could also be a violation of Christian charity.
Reprinted April 23, 1999
dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/misc/misc10.htm
There is no direct specific teaching of the Church about this matter as far as I know. However, there may be some general moral principles which could apply. For instance, a minor child (in the U.S.A. any one under 18) would be morally obliged to obey his or her parents when they forbid a tattoo. Also unnecessary bodily mutilation is forbidden by the fifth commandment. If a tattoo or body piercing or other practices done for aesthetic reasons were to entail what most people would call mutilation, these things could be sinful. If a tattoo were particularly repulsive to most people, obtaining it could also be a violation of Christian charity.
Reprinted April 23, 1999
dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/misc/misc10.htm
K
Karin
Guest
Question from andrew white on 3/9/2006: ewtn.com/images/printer.gifWhat is the churches teaching about body tattoos? Is there biblical references for the favourable/unfavourable practice of marking one’s body?
You might consider consulting the moral theology forum for this question, but I will attempt to answer.
The Scriptural reference is from Leviticus 19:28: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”
The prohibition, however, had specific purposes in circumventing any tendency for the people of ancient Israel to lapse into idolatry and assorted forms of pagan worship. It is important to note, of course, that this Old Testament prohibition on marking one’s body does not apply to Christians because the Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians.
Having said that, I would add that while the Church certainly teaches against any form of self-mutilation and encourages modesty, there are no specific teachings against tattoos of which I am aware. One might remember, however, that modesty should be followed, as should respect for the integrity of the human body; in considering a tattoo (I am not in favor of them), questions can be asked as to whether it is offering a vulgar or obscene image or message, is it worth risking various infections and diseases, has a parent forbidden the action, and what are the underlying motives for seeking it? Finally, respect should be paid to those cultures where tattooing is specific to their customs and social structure, such as New Zealand and parts of Oceania, and also some tribal communities in Africa and Asia.
COPYRIGHT 2007
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=463499&Pg=Forum3&Pgnu=1&recnu=7
You might consider consulting the moral theology forum for this question, but I will attempt to answer.
The Scriptural reference is from Leviticus 19:28: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”
The prohibition, however, had specific purposes in circumventing any tendency for the people of ancient Israel to lapse into idolatry and assorted forms of pagan worship. It is important to note, of course, that this Old Testament prohibition on marking one’s body does not apply to Christians because the Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians.
Having said that, I would add that while the Church certainly teaches against any form of self-mutilation and encourages modesty, there are no specific teachings against tattoos of which I am aware. One might remember, however, that modesty should be followed, as should respect for the integrity of the human body; in considering a tattoo (I am not in favor of them), questions can be asked as to whether it is offering a vulgar or obscene image or message, is it worth risking various infections and diseases, has a parent forbidden the action, and what are the underlying motives for seeking it? Finally, respect should be paid to those cultures where tattooing is specific to their customs and social structure, such as New Zealand and parts of Oceania, and also some tribal communities in Africa and Asia.
COPYRIGHT 2007
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=463499&Pg=Forum3&Pgnu=1&recnu=7
P
Peterdiago
Guest
Great - does this mean that you now accept the fact that the two quotes I gave you appear in them? and that the errors regarding animation of children appear in one, and that the single reference (if you notice, the words “Recommended reading” appear after that quote - not before - and that the reference is preceeded by a number which shows that the work is referenced in the text; this makes it a reference, NOT further reading, in my book!) has nothing to do with either the topic under discussion or the main thrust of the article.actually i have read both articles…
To make my point very clear;
You posted two things. One was a quote from a larger article which you provided a link to. That larger article contains a grave error which is in direct contravention to the Church’s current understanding of the nature of the human person - which leads me to question the authority of the whole work. There appears to be no natural distinction between section (a) and (b), and so I can only assume they are meant to be read as a whole.
The other thing you posted was an article which addressed the very question we are addressing - but it does not address it with any references, save one, which has nothing to do with the matter in hand. The single reference is to a Church document which speaks about tattoos among a nomadic group of Indians, and which point can be extrapolated to refer to rites of passage tattoos. Although that article draws many conclusions, it does so in a vacumn of references. It has no official grounding in the Church’s teaching.
So, I am left with no option but to ask for better articles and references. I don’t say they don’t exist, I say that those you have provided are insufficient. I don’t know if tattoos are a sin - right now, I can’t say if they are. Frankly, given my reading of the CCC (which is the only document I currently have which I trust) they are,
I suppose they are not - but I cannot find a single thing which suggests they aren’t. Which is a shame.
EDIT: Thank you to the posters who have given the two articles above, which contain the fact that there is no specific Church teaching. Which means its a matter for the individual Christian.
Personally, I’d call it a Sin because it changes that which God made without a very good reason. Your body is not your own, and to change it is rather an afront to the one who made you, isn’t it?
K
Karin
Guest
Peterdiago;
you made an error in reading the article (the first link I gave to you).
and the link (1) refers to this sentence …
“**Catholics must also consider the common good when they decide whether to be tattooed or have their bodies pierced. In certain instances—for example, in indigenous cultures in which tattooing is a rite of passage to adulthood—the common good practically demands that a person be tattooed.1” **
and it is referenced at the bottom of the article to this paper…
*1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp. 281-88),a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See *http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html
The above VATICAN document is not in contradiction to anything that the church teaches…you misread the article and misread what the above linked article applies to.
you made an error in reading the article (the first link I gave to you).
and the link (1) refers to this sentence …
“**Catholics must also consider the common good when they decide whether to be tattooed or have their bodies pierced. In certain instances—for example, in indigenous cultures in which tattooing is a rite of passage to adulthood—the common good practically demands that a person be tattooed.1” **
and it is referenced at the bottom of the article to this paper…
*1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp. 281-88),a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See *http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html
The above VATICAN document is not in contradiction to anything that the church teaches…you misread the article and misread what the above linked article applies to.
K
Karin
Guest
your welcome
P
Peterdiago
Guest
Nope - but you made an error in reading my posts
Agreed - but the OTHER article posted (the one which discusses mutilation) in an earlier paragraph suggests that babies are not human or animate from conception. That is a false notion which has since been repudiated. It was a scientific, not a moral, teaching - and hence can change.
Also, my issue with the single reference was not that it was wrong - far from it. It was that it wasn’t relevant to the matter in hand, and was a single reference for the work. If someone quotes the CCC with reference to how a ball game should be played it is irrelevant; it is not wrong.
- Status