E
Exporter
Guest
I have 4, A Celtic Cross, A Set of Initials, An Airforce Insignia & a Japanese Symbol for Samurai.
- Status
N
Nichevo
Guest
Advice from my friend Josh, a tattoo artist:
“I give this advice to anyone who is considering their first tattoo in particular. If you are considering a tattoo, I recommend that you get a small picture of whatever it is that you want to have done. Carry it around with you and look at it every day for 6 months to a year. If you still like it that much, go ahead. Otherwise, you just saved yourself a lot of pain and money at the cost of a few months.”
“I give this advice to anyone who is considering their first tattoo in particular. If you are considering a tattoo, I recommend that you get a small picture of whatever it is that you want to have done. Carry it around with you and look at it every day for 6 months to a year. If you still like it that much, go ahead. Otherwise, you just saved yourself a lot of pain and money at the cost of a few months.”
R
rayne89
Guest
Excellant advice!
My hubby wanted the black rose since he was 16, he was 20 when he got it. I’m sure some of the other ones he considered (and I was able to talk him out of) he would have regretted later. Quality makes a huge difference too, other wise it could turn into an ugly discolored smuge.
L
littleitaly
Guest
In the Bible that i have, Leviticus Chapter 19 verse 28 reads “do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves. I am the Lord.” as for a priest to have a marking on his body he would be in the wrong all the more for it is written in Leviticus chapter 21 verse 5 “The priests shall not make bare the crown of the head, nor shave the edges of the beard, nor lacerate the body.” Many people tend to think that these laws of the old testament holds no ground for todays people. you might want to read St Matthew Chapter 5 verse 17 thru 20. do ask for forgiveness of what you may have done to yourselves and do it no more. have a blessed day.
M
michaelp
Guest
Nice. Way to show your wisdom and guidence.
E
edwinG
Guest
Hi Dominvs Vobiscvm,
The point being, that the poster does not have a Tat and is asking for opinions or advice. This is not a matter of making the poster feel guilty for doing something, as the tat has not taken place.
Maybe you have a Tat. And that is the crux of your advice or maybe you are speaking for people who already have one.
Well, why would a person wearing a tat enter this thread if they thought it may harm their conscience. As Paul says re eating meat sacrificed to animals,dont ask and your conscience wont be bothered. It is up to the individual person, whether to come and read the postings on this thread.
May Christ fill you
walk in love
edwinG
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
I don’t have a tattoo, not do I plan on ever getting one.
The poster simply asked whether or not getting one would be sinful. He didn’t ask our opinions about whether or not he should go ahead and do it.
For someone to make idiotic, flippant remrkrs like “if you want to desecrate your body, go on ahead” or “why would you want to put graffiti on God’s art” is irresponsible, and possibly scandalous to the one inquiring as to whether or not getting a tattoo is a sin.
One oster, without a shred of documentation, said the Church once forbade this. This isn’t true either, per se. It just so happens that most Catholics in the past lived in parts of the world where this was not acceptable, and so getting one was immodest. It was this immodesty that was sinful, not the marking of one’s body itself, as it was under the Old Covenant.
The fact is, in our Western society today, tatoos are not always a scandal or considered immodest, so we cannot make absolute statements on this issue. What we can say is:
The poster simply asked whether or not getting one would be sinful. He didn’t ask our opinions about whether or not he should go ahead and do it.
For someone to make idiotic, flippant remrkrs like “if you want to desecrate your body, go on ahead” or “why would you want to put graffiti on God’s art” is irresponsible, and possibly scandalous to the one inquiring as to whether or not getting a tattoo is a sin.
One oster, without a shred of documentation, said the Church once forbade this. This isn’t true either, per se. It just so happens that most Catholics in the past lived in parts of the world where this was not acceptable, and so getting one was immodest. It was this immodesty that was sinful, not the marking of one’s body itself, as it was under the Old Covenant.
The fact is, in our Western society today, tatoos are not always a scandal or considered immodest, so we cannot make absolute statements on this issue. What we can say is:
- Immodesty is a sin.
- Getting a tattoo can be immodest, but is not intrinsically evil.
- There is historical precedent in the Catholic Church for religious tattooing (and even non-religious, as I’m sure any missionary can tell you. I don’t know of any Church mandats that forbids tribesmen from wearing traditional tattoos, or piering their bodies in ways we in the West think is odd).
L
littleitaly
Guest
If you feel that what is written in the bible is just a matter of opinions, then maybe you should pick the book up once again to confirm that they are words that were passed down to the people from the Holy Spirit thru Moses. The book of Levitcus is truelly part of our laws to keep our souls and body spiritually clean so the Lord can use our bodies as vessels of peace, and as guides, same as the the apostles were for Jesus, so we too can all become as one. Peace to you and all who read. It would be wrong for me or anyone else to give info that contradicts what the Holy Spirit had passed on to us. Mark Chptr 9 verse 41 " And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,it were better for him if a great millstone were hung about his neck,and he were thrown into the sea." Now I’m not that great of a swimmer and i believe a millstone would not help much. God Bless
A
Adam_D
Guest
The Church may not have spoken on tattoos in particular, but she most certainly has spoken, regarding our relationship to the old law. We are not bound to it. This is seen even in the New Testament where the apostles confronted the Judaizers and declared that Christians do not need to be circumcized.
Thomas Aquinas summarizes the reasons we are not bound by the old law in the summa theologica.
I think Dominus Vobiscum has given good advice here, and I second his words. Christians are not bound to the Levitical law as the good doctor Aquinas explains in the link above.
C
CatholicCrusade
Guest
The Old Law has three parts: the judicial, the ceremonial, and the moral. We are not bound to the Old Law in judicial or the ceremonial.
The Book of Leviticus is not teaching either in the judicial or the ceremonial. It is teaching in the moral law.
Moral law can never be overturned or changed (hence abortion is wrong today, it was wrong for all the past up to today and will be wrong for all time–an immoral act can never become a moral act).
The Church, of course, can change disciplines, for the immorality not fasting on the Ember Days, for example, was not in that it was intrinsically evil but in that the person would be disobedient to the Church.
Unfortunately there are no Ember Days in the Novus Ordo, and I fear that even if there were and the fast were still in place, few would abide by it, just as few abide by the practice of abstinence on Fridays.
The Book of Leviticus is not teaching either in the judicial or the ceremonial. It is teaching in the moral law.
Moral law can never be overturned or changed (hence abortion is wrong today, it was wrong for all the past up to today and will be wrong for all time–an immoral act can never become a moral act).
The Church, of course, can change disciplines, for the immorality not fasting on the Ember Days, for example, was not in that it was intrinsically evil but in that the person would be disobedient to the Church.
Unfortunately there are no Ember Days in the Novus Ordo, and I fear that even if there were and the fast were still in place, few would abide by it, just as few abide by the practice of abstinence on Fridays.
A
Adam_D
Guest
Catholic Crusade,
Indeed, the moral law is universal. But what makes you think this is a moral law? I’d be happy to talk more about Leviticus, law and tattooing. Please explain why you think this proscription falls under moral law.
Jimmy Akin (a respectable scholar and all-around ‘da man’ at Catholic Answers) disagrees with you on his blog.
Indeed, the moral law is universal. But what makes you think this is a moral law? I’d be happy to talk more about Leviticus, law and tattooing. Please explain why you think this proscription falls under moral law.
Jimmy Akin (a respectable scholar and all-around ‘da man’ at Catholic Answers) disagrees with you on his blog.
P
papadon
Guest
Not to be a prude here, but I really have a problem with this post, especially in an apologetics forum. People come here to get answers, according to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Just because a Pastor has a tatoo does not make it without sin. Pastors are men prone to sin, just like the rest of us.It is not a sin to get tattooed. I know a Pastor who has one on his upper arm. I have several. One is of the Immaculate Heart of Mary on my right arm and another is the Sacred Heart of Jesus on the left arm, and then I have several Celtic tats as well. The Pastor loves them!!
What we need to provide is sound, thoughtful answers based on what the Church teaches.
I apologize for sounding terse, but it really gets my goat when I see people looking to Man for examples instead of “keeping our eyes on the prize.”
L
littleitaly
Guest
Adam D:
The only good advice for one to accept in this world is that of the Holy Scriptures. Any other means of advice is that of deception from the anti christ. Keep in mind that Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For Amen I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall be lost from the Law till all things have been accomplished. Therefore whoever does away with with one of these least commandments, and so teaches men, shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whoever carries them out and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your justice exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5 17:20
T
tom.wineman
Guest
A
Adam_D
Guest
Little Italy, there’s no reason to accept your opening statement. It’s overly extreme, and the bible itself won’t agree with your assertion.
As I mentioned before, we see in the book of Acts that Christians are not obliged to observe old testament laws (we needn’t circumcise believers, we baptise them and we needn’t observe the Sabbath – which is still Saturday! but we observe the Lord’s day, Sunday, and we can eat shrimp etc.)
Also, Aquinas’s teachings are not to be brushed aside lightly. He has been declared a saint and universal doctor of the church. Though his writings are not infallible, they are used often, by the ordinary magisterium, as a theological ground from which the Church’s teachings are articulated, which gives Aquinas’s words substantial authority.
Getting a tattoo (and personally, I don’t reccomend anybody get one, but this thread is simply about its liceity) is just not necessarily a sinful act.
G
galatians5_1
Guest
I have a couple of tattoos from my earlier, wilder days. I certainly don’t hold that they are intrinsically evil, there are few great posts on here that back that up.
That being said, from the viewpoint of the Theology of the Body, wherein your body speaks a “language”, it is my firm belief that a tattoo is speaking a redundant one. My tattoos have frozen me in a particular time period of my life that simply does not reflect who I am now. I am not embarrassed nor ashamed of my tattoos, but they do require explaination. Sometimes they have served as great evangelization tools (people approach me to ask about them who would never think that I will share Christ with them), and the Lord uses all things for His glory, but if I could go back I would have foregone them altogether.
Choose wisely.
That being said, from the viewpoint of the Theology of the Body, wherein your body speaks a “language”, it is my firm belief that a tattoo is speaking a redundant one. My tattoos have frozen me in a particular time period of my life that simply does not reflect who I am now. I am not embarrassed nor ashamed of my tattoos, but they do require explaination. Sometimes they have served as great evangelization tools (people approach me to ask about them who would never think that I will share Christ with them), and the Lord uses all things for His glory, but if I could go back I would have foregone them altogether.
Choose wisely.
L
littleitaly
Guest
Adam D:
Adam, it is indeed a sin to mark ones body in any way, shape, or form. You sound as if you are in deep denial of the trueth for which the Bible speaks of. What is written in Leviticus should not be taken lightly by anybody. These are the words of the Holy Spirit, He passed on this info to all and generations to come. Jesus, himself, said "Do not think that i have come to destroy the Lawor the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For Amen I say to you, till Heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall be lost from the Law till all things have been acomplished. Matthew 5, 17-20 God bless and good luck in life
G
Ghosty
Guest
littleitaly: Are we or are we not bound to circumcise infant boys eight days after their birth? Are we or are we not bound to abstain from consuming any blood from animals? Are we or are we not bound to abstain from eating shellfish?
This is not a distraction from the tattoo issue, but absolutely critical to it. Are we as Catholics bound by these things I’ve listed? Please explain your answer.
This is not a distraction from the tattoo issue, but absolutely critical to it. Are we as Catholics bound by these things I’ve listed? Please explain your answer.
L
littleitaly
Guest
Hello Ghostly, It is true that in the new testiment it is written “circumcision, indeed, profits if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a transgressor of the Law, thy circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the precepts of the Law, will not his uncricumcision be reckoned as circumcision?” Also that circumcision is a matter of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter. His praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2,25-29. As for consuming blood from animals, we should follow the words of God stating that ( Lev 3,17)-You shall not partake of any fat or any blood. (Genesis 9, 4) But flesh with its life-that is, its blood-you shall not eat. Blood is sacred to the Holy Spirit and we should honor that always, not occasionally. As you know that Jesus, himself stated “What goes into the mouth does not defile a man ; but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a man.” Mat 15,11. Please do not misunderstand me when I talk of not marking the body. I am not condemming anyone for their actions. They have only God to answer to on that. Our body is to be a tool (temple) for the Holy Spirit and should be clean and pure in every way as the Holy Spirit sees fit. Jesus said to them “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. Thisis the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it, *Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. *On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Mat. 22, 37-40. God Bless and Peace to you and all who reads and hears.
G
Ghosty
Guest
littleitaly: Then what do you make of Acts 10:9-19? It seems pretty clear that God declared all foods clean, while Leviticus contridicts that. Furthermore, your response to circumcision doesn’t really answer my objection to your stance. If Leviticus is inviolable, then why do the writtings of Paul say otherwise? Why do the actions of Peter say otherwise? Why does the entire tradition of the Catholic Church say otherwise?
- Status