Are tatoos a sin?

[Andruschak]

From the CCC:

2297…

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.

I note the words “Strictly Therapeutic Medical Reasons”. Who decides that? The person who wanted the surgery, the Doctor who performed the legal surgery, a medical board of some kind, a Catholic board of some kind, or the Priest who will hear my first confession?

 

[Peterdiago]

I note the words “Strictly Therapeutic Medical Reasons”. Who decides that? The person who wanted the surgery, the Doctor who performed the legal surgery, a medical board of some kind, a Catholic board of some kind, or the Priest who will hear my first confession?

God

Although I suspect that “all of the above” should be consulted if at all possible. Although, often the decision will be taken out of your hands - as you will be incapacitated or otherwise incapable of making a choice as a result of drugs, injury, pain etc. when the matter comes. You cannot really be expected to make a rational decision when dopped to the eyeballs on morphine and your leg is crushed.

 

[rpp]

For those who have been saying that tattoos are okay, Leviticus 19:28 has some bad news for you.

Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28, NAB)

Sorry, tattos are stricky taboo.

 

[Karin]

For those who have been saying that tattoos are okay, Leviticus 19:28 has some bad news for you.

Sorry, tattos are stricky taboo.

actually you are wrong…the Church does not have a stance on tattoos

References to this verse are not present in important magisterial documents and in the principal writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is the consensus of Catholic biblical commentators that this prohibition is not part of the unchanging moral law, but part of the ritual law specific to the Old Testament. Many commentators believe that this prohibition was intended to separate Israel from its Canaanite neighbors; some believe that the cuttings in the flesh and tattoo marks to which the verse refers were part of idolatrous Canaanite worship.
The context of the verse favors this interpretation. The preceding verse reads, “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard” (Lev. 19:27)—this prohibition is certainly not applied to members of the Church.
The Church does not teach that Sacred Scripture forbids tattooing and body piercing, but the Church does offer principles by which to discern whether, in particular situations, it is sinful to be tattooed or have one’s body pierced

 

[rpp]

actually you are wrong…the Church does not have a stance on tattoos

References to this verse are not present in important magisterial documents and in the principal writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is the consensus of Catholic biblical commentators that this prohibition is not part of the unchanging moral law, but part of the ritual law specific to the Old Testament. Many commentators believe that this prohibition was intended to separate Israel from its Canaanite neighbors; some believe that the cuttings in the flesh and tattoo marks to which the verse refers were part of idolatrous Canaanite worship.
The context of the verse favors this interpretation. The preceding verse reads, “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard” (Lev. 19:27)—this prohibition is certainly not applied to members of the Church.
The Church does not teach that Sacred Scripture forbids tattooing and body piercing, but the Church does offer principles by which to discern whether, in particular situations, it is sinful to be tattooed or have one’s body pierced

Well it would not be the first time I was wrong. :yup: Still, I will not be rushing to my local tattoo parlor.

A related question is, how does a tattoo glorify God?

 

[Karin]

Well it would not be the first time I was wrong. :yup: Still, I will not be rushing to my local tattoo parlor.

that is ok rpp…no harm no foul or something of that sort.

A related question is, how does a tattoo glorify God?

here is another related question…how do pierced ears glorify God?

 

[rpp]

that is ok rpp…no harm no foul or something of that sort.
here is another related question…how do pierced ears glorify God?

That is a fair question., even if it is a bit diverting. I will try to keep my answer on topic.

Tattoos and pierced ears are, of course, culturaly significant. In some cultures, like Japan, in the recent past, only those who were in the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) got tattoos. Im American culture, generally only those who are sexually loose and immoral get them. While of course, not everyone who gets tattooed is sexually loose, that is something a guy on prowl always looks for. A “tagged” girl is always an easier mark than a “clean” one.

Pierced ears do not send the same message.

(I know I am going to get creamed for this answer. But hey, that’s what a tattoo tells me, and my non-Christian 21 year-old son.)

 

[Karin]

That is a fair question. It is of course culturaly significant. In some cultures, like Japan, in the recent past, only those who were in the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) got tattoos. Im American culture, generally only those who are sexually loose and immoral get them. While of course, not everyone who gets tattooed is sexually loose, that is something a guy on prowl always looks for. A “tagged” girl is always an easier mark than a “clean” one.

Pierced ears do not send the same message.

(I know I am going to get creamed for this answer. But hey, that’s what a tattoo tells me, and my non-Christian 21 year-old son.)

LOL!
Good thing then that my dh is the only one that can see my tat’s …

 

[Peterdiago]

actually you are wrong…the Church does not have a stance on tattoos

The words you quote are NOT an indication that the Church does not have a stance - those words say that there are no references to it in the Church Father’s writtings. There are also no references to stem cell research or human cloning in the Church Father’s writings - yet the RCC does have a stance on them.

Of course, your point is accurate - but your logic arriving at it is flawed. The Church does not have a teaching on tattoos and we know this because there is no teaching - not because they are not mentioned in the writings of the Fathers.

And, I think the question is a fair one - how does any form of body modification glorify God? And with the aspect of the ritual tattoos and rites of passage . . . are such rites Christian in any sense?

 

[Karin]

The words you quote are NOT an indication that the Church does not have a stance - those words say that there are no references to it in the Church Father’s writtings. There are also no references to stem cell research or human cloning in the Church Father’s writings - yet the RCC does have a stance on them.

Of course, your point is accurate - but your logic arriving at it is flawed. The Church does not have a teaching on tattoos and we know this because there is no teaching - not because they are not mentioned in the writings of the Fathers.

And, I think the question is a fair one - how does any form of body modification glorify God? And with the aspect of the ritual tattoos and rites of passage . . . are such rites Christian in any sense?

Oh please…I sure hope your wife does not have her ears pierced by your theroy that is mutliation.

 

[Peterdiago]

Oh please…I sure hope your wife does not have her ears pierced by your theroy that is mutliation.

Yes, she has pierced ears. She’s also told lies, and she’s had lustful thoughts, and she’s taken the Lord’s name in vain, and missed Mass and done a whole HOST of things which are Sins! Some of them, gasp, shock, horror! she did with full knowledge, full consent of the will and they were grave matter!

So have I. So have you. So has every single person on this board.

The fact of the matter is so simple I am almost ashamed to type it - we are all sinners and we all sin. That is what Jesus died on the cross for, to redeem us. That is what He instituted the sacraments for.

So, to answer your unspoken question, do I think that she committed a sin in having her ears pierced? Yes. Does that make me love her any less? No. Does that mean I didn’t marry her because of this? No.

You appear to be operating under the mistaken idea that humans can’t or shouldn’t love sinners, or that I shouldn’t be able to point out that things which many people do are sins. Yeah, I can - it’s a spiritual work of mercy. Admonish the sinner. I expect the same from anyone else - I expect the same from her.

You are reacting here by saying “Well, having pierced ears is common and the Church has never ruled on it therefore it is okay!” And I am saying, “Nope - it says mutilation, implies that mutiliation is different from amputation or sterilization, and says that mutiliation is a sin.”

Is it as serious as murder? As missing Mass? As denying the basic tenets of the Faith? No.

Is it a sin? Yes.

Christ and the Church demand that we be perfect, and Christ and the Church recognize that we cannot be - so we have the Sacraments to bring us back.

A question was asked, which you and I answered. We came to different conclusions, and I said your decision-making process was flawed. You have yet to actually suggest that mine is wrong - all you have done is post the same articles which I have already discredited and said carry no weight in determining whether or not something is a sin.

You don’t like the idea of it being a Sin - perhaps because you have done it, and therefore don’t want it to be a Sin. I haven’t done it, but I know people who have. Do they regret it like women regret abortions or men reject womanizing? No - but do I think it is a Sin and will still separate you from God even by a tiny fraction?

Yes - because God is perfect and the smallest Sin offends an infinite God infinitely.

As we have discovered, the Church has not ruled on this - so it becomes a matter of the conscience for the individual Christian. I have posted my logic, I have yet to see yours - what I have seen is an emotional defence and a completely illogical and irrelevant comment about my wife.

P’dI

 

[Karin]

Yes, she has pierced ears. She’s also told lies, and she’s had lustful thoughts, and she’s taken the Lord’s name in vain, and missed Mass and done a whole HOST of things which are Sins! Some of them, gasp, shock, horror! she did with full knowledge, full consent of the will and they were grave matter!

So have I. So have you. So has every single person on this board. NEver said otherwise

The fact of the matter is so simple I am almost ashamed to type it - we are all sinners and we all sin. That is what Jesus died on the cross for, to redeem us. That is what He instituted the sacraments for. YUP

So, to answer your unspoken question, do I think that she committed a sin in having her ears pierced? Yes. Does that make me love her any less? No. Does that mean I didn’t marry her because of this? No.
**See that is where you and I differ…I do not view her ear piercing as a sin. **

You appear to be operating under the mistaken idea that humans can’t or shouldn’t love sinners, or that I shouldn’t be able to point out that things which many people do are sins. Yeah, I can - it’s a spiritual work of mercy. Admonish the sinner. I expect the same from anyone else - I expect the same from her.Not at all…what I dont like is someone telling me somehting is a sin when the Church is nuetral on the topic…hence this leads me to believe that getting a tattoo or having my ears pierced is not a sin…

Is it a sin? Yes. Wrong…the Church has no stance /teachign either way…it is neutral on this topic…I have shown you numerous articles regarding this fact…
**Now if you are Jewish it is a sin…by the way **

Christ and the Church demand that we be perfect, and Christ and the Church recognize that we cannot be - so we have the Sacraments to bring us back. **YUP feel bad for that poor guy that is missing his leg/arm etc. he sure is not perfect **

A question was asked, which you and I answered. We came to different conclusions, and I said your decision-making process was flawed. You have yet to actually suggest that mine is wrong - all you have done is post the same articles which I have already discredited and said carry no weight in determining whether or not something is a sin.
Perhaps you should write our blessed Pope and get his final opinion on this matter…that way we can lay it to rest
You don’t like the idea of it being a Sin - perhaps because you have done it, and therefore don’t want it to be a Sin. I haven’t done it, but I know people who have. Do they regret it like women regret abortions or men reject womanizing? No - but do I think it is a Sin and will still separate you from God even by a tiny fraction?** I have done it …more than once…and have my ears pierced too…and not even when I went through RCIA and told my Priest about them did he have any issues with my tattoos or pierced ears…I was not forced to confess these things either…they where not a sin.**

---

As we have discovered, the Church has not ruled on this - so it becomes a matter of the conscience for the individual Christian. EXACTLY…
I have posted my logic, I have yet to see yours - what I have seen is an emotional defence and a completely illogical and irrelevant comment about my wife. The comment /question about your wife was to find out if you viewed tats and pierced ears as the same thing…sins…since the Lev. verse everyone likes to quote also applies to piercings…it was not meant as an insult

P’dI

WOW…

 

[Peterdiago]

The difference here is a matter of application of logic - you are working on the premise that if the Church has not ruled on it, then it must be okay. I work on the principle that if the Church has not ruled definitively on it the individual Christian must work out his own opinion based on the existing framework.

Both of these are acceptable policies, and lead to different conclusions.

As for asking the Priest . . . I’ve heard Priests say that contraception is okay So, I wouldn’t entirely trust the word of a single Priest . . . Then again, he is your personal confessor and so his voice carries much weight.

Just a couple of points - you posted four (not numerous)articles, one of which contained errors, one of which had no support from the Church except a single, unrelated document, and the other two which were basically a single person’s opinion, again without Church foundation. These are, essentially, worthless for the debate. They show what a single person thinks - not the magesterium of the Church thinks.

We have yet to find a defintion of mutilation which chimes with the implication in the CCC - when we do, then I suppose this will be easier to determine.

Secondly, as you are well aware, your comment about the person who is missing limbs is entirely inappropriate. These people are not Sinners unless they have chosen to have their limbs removed for a reason other than a genuine thereputic medical one. Thus, if they were born without a limb, or have lost it in an accident, there are innocent. In fact, they will doubtless receive special Graces because of their suffering.

 

[Karin]

Peterdiago:

The difference here is a matter of application of logic - you are working on the premise that if the Church has not ruled on it, then it must be okay. I work on the principle that if the Church has not ruled definitively on it the individual Christian must work out his own opinion based on the existing framework totally agree

Both of these are acceptable policies, and lead to different conclusions. totally agree

As for asking the Priest . . . I’ve heard Priests say that contraception is okay So, I wouldn’t entirely trust the word of a single Priest . . . Then again, he is your personal confessor and so his voice carries much weight…
**Hey now …Father George is the best…very orthodox etc. to even suggest that he would lead me astray **

Just a couple of points - you posted four (not numerous)** when you have kids anything over 1 is numerous** articles, one of which contained errors, one of which had no support from the Church except a single, unrelated document,(it was not unrelated…it related to that one sentence in the article) and the other two which were basically a single person’s opinion, again without Church foundation. These are, essentially, worthless for the debate. They show what a single person thinks - not the magesterium of the Church thinks.

We have yet to find a defintion of mutilation which chimes with the implication in the CCC - when we do, then I suppose this will be easier to determine**. OK still looking**

Secondly, as you are well aware, your comment about the person who is missing limbs is entirely inappropriate. These people are not Sinners unless they have chosen to have their limbs removed for a reason other than a genuine thereputic medical one. Thus, if they were born without a limb, or have lost it in an accident, there are innocent. In fact, they will doubtless receive special Graces because of their suffering.
Yes I know it was uncalled for…I do apologize /quote]
You know I liked you better when you did not argue so much… (just kidding)

 

[Peterdiago]

You know I liked you better when you did not argue so much…

Everyone says that

 

[rpp]

You don’t like the idea of it being a Sin - perhaps because you have done it, and therefore don’t want it to be a Sin.

This is very true with many sins. That is why so many people claim contraception, fornication, masturbation, sodomy, homosexual acts, pronography, LWL (“little white lies”), drinking to excess, smoking marijana, and many other popular activites, are not sins. They like to do them, they do not want to give them up.

Women getting their ears pirced is an ancient tradition that, despite what one poster has, is not against sinful (unless you do it as part of worshiping the dead.) The real difference between pierced ears and tattoos is simple. At any moment, a woman can choose to no longer wear earings. Tattoos are a form of permanent mutilation. It takes a medical procedure to remove them and it usually leaves a scar.

Personally, Karin, you will not convince me that it is not sinful to permanently mutilate your body with a tattoo. That you have done this notwithstanding. Nor will you convince me that ear-piercing is somehow equivalent.

Peterdiago, you will not convince that ear-piercing is a sin (well, perhaps for men it may be.)

These conclusions are based on European derived cultural norms. Cultural norms are an important consideration. In some cultures, a woman walking around with no shirt is normal (okay, we are talking rain-forest dwellers here.) That would not be sinful for her. For a woman to do that in America it would be seriously sinful.

DrewC, please do not desecrate your body with a tattoo.

 

[Karin]

This is very true with many sins. That is why so many people claim contraception, fornication, masturbation, sodomy, homosexual acts, pronography, LWL (“little white lies”), drinking to excess, smoking marijana, and many other popular activites, are not sins. They like to do them, they do not want to give them up.

Women getting their ears pirced is an ancient tradition that, despite what one poster has, is not against sinful (unless you do it as part of worshiping the dead.) The real difference between pierced ears and tattoos is simple. At any moment, a woman can choose to no longer wear earings. Tattoos are a form of permanent mutilation. It takes a medical procedure to remove them and it usually leaves a scar.

Personally, Karin, you will not convince me that it is not sinful to permanently mutilate your body with a tattoo. That you have done this notwithstanding. Nor will you convince me that ear-piercing is somehow equivalent.

Peterdiago, you will not convince that ear-piercing is a sin (well, perhaps for men it may be.)

These conclusions are based on European derived cultural norms. Cultural norms are an important consideration. In some cultures, a woman walking around with no shirt is normal (okay, we are talking rain-forest dwellers here.) That would not be sinful for her. For a woman to do that in America it would be seriously sinful.

DrewC, please do not desecrate your body with a tattoo.

if we are basing the worthiness of a sin on Lev.19 then ear piercing falls into that category too…I agree with you though that ear piercing is not a sin.
Also while a woman can chose not to wear earings at any time…you are still left with a hole(s) in your ears…I have gone without wearing earings for months/years and the holes do not close up they remain…hence my ears aer permantly mutliated…by your reasoning