Is getting a tattoo a sin?

[CatholicHockey7]

Is getting a tatoo a sin ??

OF COURSE !!!

I’m assuming this is your own opining, because - as has been pointed out several times in this thread and others before it - the Church has no official opinion as to whether or not a tattoo is sinful.

Tattoos are not considered “intrinsically evil,” so the sinfulness of getting a tattoo is up for debate. Here are some things that would make it sinful:

• Images which directly promote behavior/beliefs contrary to the Church
• Images of Demons
• Using money which should be going to responsibilities like food, housing, etc.

This is not a comprehensive list, but the point is the action of getting a tattoo is not sinful.

Well, I wonder if people get tattoos to look good for themselves…what are the motives invovled?

I can only speak for myself, I see pretty girls that I find attractive, but tattoos sure don’t help, and I usually think, she would be way more appealing without that one tattoo or multiple tattoos.

I still maintain that it could be construed as mutilation, but mutilation is a cultural construct, so it can be defined differently depending on one’s world view, it seems.

Let me just google it:: mutilation-

***: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)

: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)***

courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

Jamal, I see girls with tattoos that I find more attractive because of their body art, and girls I find less attractive because of it. Ultimately, that part is in the eye of the beholder.

As to the mutilation claim, the Church seems to favor the first and third definitions you listed. It only considers something mutilation if it prevents a body part from functioning properly (excluding life saving medical procedures, obviously)

I’m not dead set against them, mind you.

It would not be a deal breaker, if my bride to be had one or two.

However, I would say that if one is convicted in their heart that it is a sin, then that is not good if the person gets one anyways , but I know many people do not intend to offend God by doing this, so there’s a lot worse things.

I agree with this one. If you’re truly convinced in your heart of hearts that a tattoo or piercing would be offensive to God, it’s best not to do it.

Off the wall:

Anyone know of a priest with a tattoo??

I’ve actually met a couple of priests with tattoos. I can’t remember them now because it was last summer when I met almost 40 different priests over the course of a month, but they’re out there.

This is a forum. People are free to speak their mind here. The truth is that if a woman wants to marry a virtuous devout Catholic it’s going to be a liability for her to get a tattoo. If you don’t like my view or opinion. That’s fine.

The fact is that the jury seems to be out on whether it’s a sin or not. I think there are a lot worse sins out there.

But if you want to say I’m rude because I’ll tell a woman what I think about her getting a tattoo, so be it.

I’m not saying that if a woman has a tattoo she is disfigured necessarily, but I’m not going to lie to the women reading this thread and say it doesn’t matter at all.

Jamal, I’m glad you’re being honest with your opinion. I agree that it does matter. I disagree, however, with the part I underlined.

My last job was working for a Catholic missionary group serving on college campus around the US. There are roughly 500 active missionaries in this group, with slightly more females than males. At summer training I noticed several women had tattoos, and many were dating, engaged, or married to other missionaries or former missionaries from the organization, or to otherwise “virtuous, devout, Catholic” men.

Like I said, it does matter. I’m okay with tattoos (I have two myself) but not all tattoos are equal. I wouldn’t date a girl who tattooed her face, for example. And I certainly wouldn’t date a woman with satanic or demonic symbols on her body.

Having said that, tattoos are not what does or does not make someone a virtuous, devout Catholic. Nor do they automatically disqualify you from relationships with virtuous, devout Catholics.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

As Catholics, tattoos are part of a subculture in this country that is very much opposed to holiness and very much opposed to walking with the Lord. We are called to be a holy people. Before we throw out the Lord’s rules with the bath water, we might take a step back and carefully listen to His Word.

Would you consider a tattoo of the Cross to be opposed to holiness and walking with the Lord? What about a Rosary. or the Blessed Virgin? What about some other classic Christian symbols like a Chi-Ro or a fish?

As Catholics, I think we are sometimes too quick to dismiss the rules in the Torah…

I think you’re forgetting the Church actually teaches their are parts of the Mosaic Law which no longer apply under the New Covenant in Christ.

“Throwing out” (as you called it) the verse in Leviticus about marking one’s skin is one of those laws. (check out the link, it discusses tattoos about halfway down the page)

It’s okay to disagree on this issue, because the Church has not formally defined whether tattoos are sinful. However, we should all be cautious presenting our own opinions as fact. Especially in cases where our personal opinions are not completely in agreement with the Magisterium.

 

[Larry1700]

This is not regarding the OP’s question, but I just wanted to throw this in:

I’m a sleep tech, and some folks sleep shirtless. I had a guy with tattoos on his chest, his arms, the back of his head, and his back.

The one on the back of his head was a dragon. On the upper right of his back was a heart with a banner wrapped around it (nothing written on the banner), On the upper left of his back was the head and torso of a naked girl.

First, why put anything at all on your back, where you will never see it?

Second, why a naked girl on your back? Not that I’m advocating having nudity displayed anywhere at all, but if you are, in fact, the sort of person that goes for nudity, wouldn’t you want it in a place where you could see it?

Some things just baffle me.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I’ve posted parts of this before, but I want to reiterate some important things to consider if you do decide you want a tattoo:

Do your homework!

Research different shops to make sure they are clean work environments. Study the artists portfolios both online and in book format. Very few artists who only show their work online are really worth it. I’d only choose one if they came recommended by a friend and I’d seen work the artist did for my friend. Don’t be afraid to ask people who have tattoos about their experience getting one. Most of us aren’t shy about telling the stories.

Cleanliness is especially important because the machines can spread all kinds of wonderful things from everyday bacteria to viruses like Hepatitis and HIV. Some of these things (especially Hepatitis) can lead to cancer.

It’s not a bad idea to ask if you can watch an artist work sometime. Some shops won’t let you because of privacy/insurance reasons, but some will. Watch how they prepare their station, how they engage with the client throughout the process, how they work (changing needles, gloves, etc.), and how they clean up afterwards.

Be Prudent!

Names are almost never a good idea, especially if it’s a boyfriend/girlfriend. There are also financial costs to consider, and even if you have the money for a tattoo it may still be more prudent to hold off for awhile.

Choose placement carefully

Personally, I recommend nothing above the shirt collar or below the elbow. I say this because sometimes tattoos can prevent you from being taken seriously in a job interview or business meeting. Even if it’s not a problem with someone’s negative opinion or corporate image it may still be a distraction in the work environment.

I’ve also heard that women who get tattoos too close to their spine cannot have an epidural during childbirth. I don’t know all the reasons (guys don’t have to worry as much about those things), but there are actual medical reasons why hospitals won’t do it. So if you plan to have children someday, keep that in mind.

Also for women to consider is whether you want the tattoo showing in your wedding photos. I have four older sisters and several cousins. I’ve been to a lot of weddings and seen a lot of wedding dresses. I’m not going to give an opinion on tattoos and wedding dresses because I don’t have one (haven’t encountered it yet), but I will say I haven’t seen a dress which completely covers a woman’s back or arms, and few completely cover the chest all the way to the neckline. Odds are a shoulder or arm tattoo is going to show. Are you okay with that?

Last point on placement is, some places hurt more than others. My first tattoo was on my chest, and I barely felt anything (almost fell asleep a couple times). My second was the back of my arm, and especially when the needle was closer to my armpit it hurt a lot more. Ankles and ribs are also places which, I’m told, can be very painful.

Think long and hard about the design

Whatever you get is most likely going to be there forever. So be 100 percent sure you want it there. I thought about my first tattoo for years and changed my mind several times before settling on the final concept, then waited another couple years before actually doing it. My second tattoo was also about a year of waiting after I decided to get it. I’m not disappointed with either one. They represent me perfectly. Who I am and who I want to be as a man of God.

The final decision is ultimately up to each individual person. I’m not trying to advocate for or against tattoos. I have equal respect for those who do and those who don’t. I provide this advice based on my own experiences and those of others I’ve spoken with to help those who think they want a tattoo make an informed decision.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Would you consider a tattoo of the Cross to be opposed to holiness and walking with the Lord? What about a Rosary. or the Blessed Virgin? What about some other classic Christian symbols like a Chi-Ro or a fish?

If you’re asking my opinion, I would take the Creator at His Word. He doesn’t provide “exceptions to the tattoo rule” in Holy Writ.

“Throwing out” (as you called it) the verse in Leviticus about marking one’s skin is one of those laws. (check out the link, it discusses tattoos about halfway down the page)

It’s okay to disagree on this issue, because the Church has not formally defined whether tattoos are sinful. However, we should all be cautious presenting our own opinions as fact. Especially in cases where our personal opinions are not completely in agreement with the Magisterium.

First, the article you cite is not official Church doctrine. It’s not even from the Vatican.

If one takes the Creator with any level of seriousness, one would realize that the Creator’s rules, laws, and commandments are not transitory. The rule book, as outlined in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers), doesn’t have to “get with the times”.

While you may not like the Creator’s rule book, it still exists. The Creator still calls us to follow His laws and commandments irrespective of any counter-interpretation to the contrary, regardless of denomination, affiliation, (or any other ungodly agenda). Unfortunately, too many of us haven’t taken the time to study His rules.

I think you’re forgetting the Church actually teaches their are parts of the Mosaic Law which no longer apply under the New Covenant in Christ.

The prohibition against tattoos had nothing whatsoever to do with ceremonial law. It was a direct commandment in a call to holiness. The directive to holiness has not been abrogated.

You cannot separate tattoos with the modern day subculture associated with it, which is the furthest from holiness.

I find it somewhat comical how we Catholics have this arrogant attitude that we don’t have to follow the Creator’s commandments because somehow Christ dismissed the Law. Really? I thought He came to write the Law into our hearts, to make us even more zealous than the Pharisees. Encouraging a fellow Catholic to get a tattoo seems to fly in the face of any zealotry towards holiness.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Are you aware that Ethiopian Orthodox and Catholic Christian women often tattoo the cross on their forehead as a sign of their faith? Are they wrong to do so? We are not under the Jewish law, I have no reason to obey anything other than the moral aspects of it as i am not a Jew.

Again, it doesn’t change the rule book, which the Creator has provided for us to follow for our own benefit. We might not like the rules. We might not even understand them. But we are all called to follow them. In truth, we are all descendants of Adam, and the Creator’s laws were in place long before Adam came into the picture.

How exactly is a modern day tattoo the equivalent of any semblance of moral expression?

Are you able to cite any Holy Writ - New Testament or Old - that encourages us to wear tattoos?

Has any Catholic saint ever admonished the faithful to wear tattoos? Any Pope, monk, nun?

 

[StGerardMajella]

The rules you cite are not applicable to us, is a Maori wrong for having tatoos, I’ve worked with a Maori deacon years ago who was an extrordinarly holy man who had them all over his face as is common in some Maori tribes still. You are citing rules as though they were absolute when they are not.

In some circles, this is referred to as “cafeteria Catholicism”, where we pick and choose what rules we want to follow. Just because some refuse to listen, doesn’t negate the rules.

As for Maori holy men, the original poster wasn’t interested in joining a Maori tribe. They were inquiring as to whether a modern day tattoo is sinful. We have evidence in Holy Writ that we are called to holiness, and we have a direct command from the Creator Himself to not tattoo our bodies.

It certainly is not my place to cast judgment on any holy person. We are all sinners. But again, just because we are sinners does not mean the Creator has abrogated His Laws.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

First, the article you cite is not official Church doctrine. It’s not even from the Vatican.

That’s because there no “official Church doctrine” when it comes to tattoos.

If one takes the Creator with any level of seriousness, one would realize that the Creator’s rules, laws, and commandments are not transitory. The rule book, as outlined in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers), doesn’t have to “get with the times”.

While you may not like the Creator’s rule book, it still exists. The Creator still calls us to follow His laws and commandments irrespective of any counter-interpretation to the contrary, regardless of denomination, affiliation, (or any other ungodly agenda). Unfortunately, too many of us haven’t taken the time to study His rules.

So let me ask you, do I have to become circumcised before I can be baptized? Circumcision is one of those OT rules.

And should we prevent those with physical and mental disabilities from participating in the Eucharst? After all, Leviticus clearly states those with defects should not serve as priests:

"The LORD said to Moses:
Say to Aaron: None of your descendants, throughout their generations, who has any blemish shall come forward to offer the food of his God. Anyone who has any of the following blemishes may not come forward:j he who is blind, or lame, or who has a split lip, or a limb too long, or a broken leg or arm, or who is a hunchback or dwarf or has a growth in the eye, or who is afflicted with sores, scabs, or crushed testicles.

No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such blemish may draw near to offer the oblations of the LORD; on account of his blemish he may not draw near to offer the food of his God." Leviticus 21:16-21

Also, if we are going to follow the Levitical law, then we have to abstain from the Eucharist. After all, “Anyone from the house of Israel…who eats any blood, I will turn against that person who eats blood and cut him off from his people.” (Leviticus 17:10)

And how much of your income do you contribute to the church? It better be 10 percent of your gross income, otherwise I think you’re in danger of violating the Law again:

“I am giving you all the best of the fresh olive oil, new wine, and grain, which the Israelites give to the Lord as their firstfruits. The firstfruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, belong to you. Look, I have given the Levites (priests of the Old Covenant) every tenth in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work they do, the work of the tent meeting.” (Numbers 18:12-13, 21)

The prohibition against tattoos had nothing whatsoever to do with ceremonial law. It was a direct commandment in a call to holiness.

This is your opinion, and it is not in agreement with Church teaching on the issue. I recommend you do a lot more reading about the difference between moral law and ceremonial law according to the Church.

You cannot separate tattoos with the modern day subculture associated with it, which is the furthest from holiness.

Again I ask you, how is a tattoo of Jesus, Mary, any of the Saints, a Bible verse, quote from the Early Church Fathers, prayer of the ECF’s (or later Bishops and Saints), Rosary, Chi Ro, or other distinctly Christian symbol “the furthest from holiness”?

Also, what subculture are you talking about?

I find it somewhat comical how we Catholics have this arrogant attitude that we don’t have to follow the Creator’s commandments because somehow Christ dismissed the Law. Really? I thought He came to write the Law into our hearts, to make us even more zealous than the Pharisees. Encouraging a fellow Catholic to get a tattoo seems to fly in the face of any zealotry towards holiness.

We as individual Catholics have the attitude you describe because we follow the Church which Christ established. If we were subject to the entire OT Law, then Christ would have told the apostles to continue to hand on the Law as it was written to Moses. The apostles would have told their successors, and also would have written it down when they began to write the NT scriptures.

We would also see references to keeping the entire Law in the writings and teachings of the Early Church Fathers. As it is, we do not.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Again, it doesn’t change the rule book, which the Creator has provided for us to follow for our own benefit. We might not like the rules. We might not even understand them. But we are all called to follow them. In truth, we are all descendants of Adam, and the Creator’s laws were in place long before Adam came into the picture.

The Laws you refer to that existed before Adam were the moral/natural law which is written on our hearts. Adam had only one rule given to him: don’t eat from the one tree!

How exactly is a modern day tattoo the equivalent of any semblance of moral expression?

I have a tattoo on my chest of a Celtic Cross, and at the intersection of the Cross is the Sacred Heart. I chose this tattoo as a daily reminder of who I live for. How is this not a symbol of moral expression?

Has any Catholic saint ever admonished the faithful to wear tattoos? Any Pope, monk, nun?

Have any expressly forbid it?

 

[StGerardMajella]

So let me ask you, do I have to become circumcised before I can be baptized? Circumcision is one of those OT rules…

You recite, at length, multiple Old Testament laws, too numerous to expound and explain with any clarity and substance in this forum.

Each individual chooses how seriously they take the Creator and how closely they personally choose to follow His commandments. Christ certainly never admonished His followers to obtain tattoos.

This is your opinion, and it is not in agreement with Church teaching on the issue. I recommend you do a lot more reading about the difference between moral law and ceremonial law according to the Church.

If you can cite any Catholic saint, monk, or nun that advocates wearing a tattoo, I am all ears. There is no scriptural basis for advocating for tattoos, only admonitions against.

Also, what subculture are you talking about?

The modern media glorifies the tattoo industry, from TV shows promoting tattoo parlors to heavy metal rock stars wearing tattoos. There is a whole massive tattoo subculture as evidenced in the media. That subculture is contrary to holiness.

If we were subject to the entire OT Law, then Christ would have told the apostles to continue to hand on the Law as it was written to Moses.

We are subject to Christ - the “living Torah” as Pope Benedict calls Him. Christ came to write the Law into our hearts, and to make us more zealous than the Pharisees. Nowhere does Christ, nor the Law, admonish us to wear tattoos, not even for “religious” reasons.

The Laws you refer to that existed before Adam were the moral/natural law which is written on our hearts. Adam had only one rule given to him: don’t eat from the one tree!

The living Torah - Christ - existed before Adam, as did the written Torah. The Torah is timeless.

I have a tattoo on my chest of a Celtic Cross, and at the intersection of the Cross is the Sacred Heart. I chose this tattoo as a daily reminder of who I live for. How is this not a symbol of moral expression?

Good grief, brother. Feel free to express yourself to your heart’s content.

Have any expressly forbid it?

The Creator forbids it. The Church hasn’t expressly ruled on eating certain bugs, either, which are forbidden in the Torah. That doesn’t mean eating bugs should be encouraged.

 

[DarkLight]

You recite, at length, multiple Old Testament laws, too numerous to expound and explain with any clarity and substance in this forum.

Each individual chooses how seriously they take the Creator and how closely they personally choose to follow His commandments. Christ certainly never admonished His followers to obtain tattoos.

If you can cite any Catholic saint, monk, or nun that advocates wearing a tattoo, I am all ears. There is no scriptural basis for advocating for tattoos, only admonitions against.

The modern media glorifies the tattoo industry, from TV shows promoting tattoo parlors to heavy metal rock stars wearing tattoos. There is a whole massive tattoo subculture as evidenced in the media. That subculture is contrary to holiness.

We are subject to Christ - the “living Torah” as Pope Benedict calls Him. Christ came to write the Law into our hearts, and to make us more zealous than the Pharisees. Nowhere does Christ, nor the Law, admonish us to wear tattoos, not even for “religious” reasons.

The living Torah - Christ - existed before Adam, as did the written Torah. The Torah is timeless.

Good grief, brother. Feel free to express yourself to your heart’s content.

The Creator forbids it. The Church hasn’t expressly ruled on eating certain bugs, either, which are forbidden in the Torah. That doesn’t mean eating bugs should be encouraged.

There are many things that we are not admonished to do, that are nonetheless licit. I have pierced ears, as many western women do. You will find no one admonishing us to do this, yet who would question that it is licit? Many other things that were forbidden in the Torah are clearly allowed to us. The very same verse as that passage about tattoos, forbids cutting the beard, yet we do not say that a clean-shaven man is sinning. Nor do we refrain from pork, or from wearing garments of mixed fibers, or from such other things as are prohibited in the ceremonial law.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

You recite, at length, multiple Old Testament laws, too numerous to expound and explain with any clarity and substance in this forum.

Each individual chooses how seriously they take the Creator and how closely they personally choose to follow His commandments. Christ certainly never admonished His followers to obtain tattoos.

Most of the OT Law I chose were things where the Church has offered a clear teaching on. You couldn’t take the time to look them up?

Circumcision? Not required.
Charitable giving? Give according to your means.
Eucharist? YES!
Disabled priests? Allowed.

The way you’re talking, it seems like you’d be okay if my mother allowed our town to stone me to death for talking back to her as a child.

Should we also put men and women caught in adultery to death? That’s also part of the Law.

If you can cite any Catholic saint, monk, or nun that advocates wearing a tattoo, I am all ears. There is no scriptural basis for advocating for tattoos, only admonitions against.

There is only one admonishment against. As far as evidence from Saints and religious, at this time I cannot provide any. However, the fact that I cannot does not prove your point in any way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The modern media glorifies the tattoo industry, from TV shows promoting tattoo parlors to heavy metal rock stars wearing tattoos. There is a whole massive tattoo subculture as evidenced in the media. That subculture is contrary to holiness.

Again, I ask you to prove it is contrary to holiness. There are many tattoo artists who specialize in religious tattoos, some of whom even refuse to work on projects which are counter to their Christian faith.

Your mistake here is overgeneralization. Because what you see, which is a small fraction of the entire industry and culture, is morally questionable at best, then it must all be wrong. The reality is there are multiple subcultures within tattoo just as there are multiple subcultures within Catholicism.

To your point on the media, they also glorify warfare. Should we avoid just wars because of this?

The Creator forbids it. The Church hasn’t expressly ruled on eating certain bugs, either, which are forbidden in the Torah. That doesn’t mean eating bugs should be encouraged.

Nor does the fact they are forbidden in the Torah expressly forbid them, according to the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of truth.”

 

[CatholicHockey7]

From “People on the Move - Supp. N° 93, December 2003, pp.281-288”

Adi-Vasi dress, tattoos, etc. will make a colourful and lively scene in India.

In the fuller context, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya advocates keeping as many tribal customs as are practical and compatible with Christianity for the sake of helping these groups maintain their historical identity in a rapidly changing region. Tattoo is specifically mentioned as one of these practices to be kept.

 

[DarkLight]

On a lighter note:

 

[pensmama87]

On a lighter note:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e2/d7/a7/e2d7a73251e118f765c7a01136b47cef.jpg

 

[StGerardMajella]

The way you’re talking, it seems like you’d be okay if my mother allowed our town to stone me to death for talking back to her as a child.

Should we also put men and women caught in adultery to death? That’s also part of the Law.

This is not a debate on Mosaic law. The original query concerned whether we have evidence as to whether or not getting a tattoo is sinful. There is sufficient evidence in the Creator’s commandments that we are not to get tattoos. Whether we choose to follow that admonition (or not) is a whole other story.

As far as evidence from Saints and religious, at this time I cannot provide any.

Exactly.

There are many tattoo artists who specialize in religious tattoos, some of whom even refuse to work on projects which are counter to their Christian faith…The reality is there are multiple subcultures within tattoo just as there are multiple subcultures within Catholicism.

There are many people in the gambling industry that are good people deep down inside. That doesn’t mean Catholics should encourage gambling.

The very same verse as that passage about tattoos, forbids cutting the beard, yet we do not say that a clean-shaven man is sinning. Nor do we refrain from pork, or from wearing garments of mixed fibers, or from such other things as are prohibited in the ceremonial law.

Kosher laws are not “ceremonial” laws. They were designed for holiness, not ceremony. The same with rules concerning wearing a beard, and prohibitions against wearing tattoos. These have nothing whatsoever to do with the ceremonies instituted in Mosaic law, but rather with holiness, and how to keep holy. They were designed to separate a holy people - physically and spiritually - from outsiders that didn’t believe in the Creator.

As Catholics, we have many ceremonial laws ourselves that we have taken directly from Mosaic Law. Washing of the hands by the priest (and parishioners upon entering the church) is one simple example. The sacrifice of the Mass incorporates many, many aspects of Mosaic Law. To suggest that Catholicism ditched Mosaic ceremonial law is a gross misunderstanding of Catholic liturgy, which came directly from our earliest Christian saints, all of whom were well-versed in Mosaic law.

To this day, many of our holiest Catholic monks wear long bears and eat a vegetarian diet much along the lines of a kosher diet. They do not wear tattoos, nor do they eat pork, and their clothing is very plain, not of mixed fibers. We have much evidence within the Church that the holiest among us still do very much follow the Law — even a much higher, spiritual understanding of the Law.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

This is not a debate on Mosaic law. The original query concerned whether we have evidence as to whether or not getting a tattoo is sinful. There is sufficient evidence in the Creator’s commandments that we are not to get tattoos. Whether we choose to follow that admonition (or not) is a whole other story.

Actually, the OP was asking if they are sinful. Not if there is evidence they are sinful. Secondly, you made it a debate about Mosaic Law when you continued to bring it up as your evidence and then chided others who do not follow the Law. I and others have shown you a combination of Church teaching on this subject which contradicts your very claims, and questions about other parts of the Mosaic Law which you refuse to acknowledge.

Exactly.

See the posts which have come up in the interim. And remember the other part of what I said, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

There are many people in the gambling industry that are good people deep down inside. That doesn’t mean Catholics should encourage gambling.

And are you aware of the Church teaching regarding gambling?

“Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. the passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.” CCC 2413

Kosher laws are not “ceremonial” laws. They were designed for holiness, not ceremony. The same with rules concerning wearing a beard, and prohibitions against wearing tattoos. These have nothing whatsoever to do with the ceremonies instituted in Mosaic law, but rather with holiness, and how to keep holy. They were designed to separate a holy people - physically and spiritually - from outsiders that didn’t believe in the Creator.

Kosher laws were dietary laws made void by Christ himself when he declared all foods clean.

You are also confusing the usage of “ceremonial.” In this case, “ceremonial” or “ritual” does not refer to an actual ceremony. It refers, as you’ve pointed out, to the personal conduct of the people of Israel. These people were under the Old Covenant, and were given specific instructions from God as to how they should behave in a land filled with other cultures worshipping other gods.

The Law itself was done away with by the institution of the “New and everlasting” Covenant in Christ. What we are bound by is the moral law summed up in Christ’s words, “love the Lord with all your heart…and love your neighbor as yourself.”

As Catholics, we have many ceremonial laws ourselves that we have taken directly from Mosaic Law. Washing of the hands by the priest (and parishioners upon entering the church) is one simple example. The sacrifice of the Mass incorporates many, many aspects of Mosaic Law. To suggest that Catholicism ditched Mosaic ceremonial law is a gross misunderstanding of Catholic liturgy, which came directly from our earliest Christian saints, all of whom were well-versed in Mosaic law.

Again, the key here is understanding the usage of “ceremonial.” Yes, we have incorporated practices referenced in the OT. The very offering of Bread and Wine can be traced to Melchizadek. Does the fact that we offer bread and wine make us pagans like him?

To this day, many of our holiest Catholic monks wear long bears and eat a vegetarian diet much along the lines of a kosher diet. They do not wear tattoos, nor do they eat pork, and their clothing is very plain, not of mixed fibers. We have much evidence within the Church that the holiest among us still do very much follow the Law — even a much higher, spiritual understanding of the Law.

What evidence do you have that their holiness is greater than mine?

Your argument is that because they do these things they are holier than those who do not. But who are you to judge how “holy” a person truly is? And how do you compare Person A with Person B?

Many of the orders of monks you refer to live lives of contemplation in communities which separate themselves from the rest of the world. Does this make them holier than Mother Theresa, who insisted on being out in the world actively working to care for others regardless of their religious beliefs?

Also, many of those historical monks cut their hair in a way which left the crown exposed. This goes directly against Leviticus 21:5 - “The priests shall not make bare the crown of the head, nor shave the edges of the beard, nor lacerate the body.” So are they still holy? They directly violated a command from God regarding the holiness of priests, and applying the same logic as you’ve applied to tattoos, it would seem they weren’t.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Actually, the OP was asking if they are sinful. Not if there is evidence they are sinful. Secondly, you made it a debate about Mosaic Law when you continued to bring it up as your evidence and then chided others who do not follow the Law. I and others have shown you a combination of Church teaching on this subject which contradicts your very claims, and questions about other parts of the Mosaic Law which you refuse to acknowledge.

If the original post wants to know if getting a tattoo is sinful, then we are obligated to respond with evidence. I have already provided that evidence numerous times now. As you have shown no evidence to the contrary, I’ll let the readers decide for themselves which argument has more weight.

Again, this is not a debate on Mosaic law, but whether we have any indications as to the sinfulness of tattoos. The Creator has already given a clear, written indication.

See the posts which have come up in the interim.

Christ nor the saints have ever advocated getting tattoos, and certainly not in the modern sense of the term - i.e., tattoos for secular reasons. There has been no evidence presented to the contrary.

And are you aware of the Church teaching regarding gambling?

The Church does not encourage gambling, nor does it encourage getting tattoos.

The Law itself was done away with by the institution of the “New and everlasting” Covenant in Christ. What we are bound by is the moral law summed up in Christ’s words, “love the Lord with all your heart…and love your neighbor as yourself.”

Every teaching from Christ came directly from the Torah, including your quote above. Christ was quoting from the Torah when he made this particular admonishment.

The Law was perfected in Christ - not removed. The Law was to be engraved on our hearts, and we are commanded to be more zealous than the Pharisees in its adherence and fulfillment.

Goodness forbid if Christ came to abolish the Creator’s laws! I couldn’t think of a more twisted interpretation of Christ’s message.

The very offering of Bread and Wine can be traced to Melchizadek. Does the fact that we offer bread and wine make us pagans like him?

Melchizedek was not a pagan. My point is that the Catholic liturgy is replete with ceremonial law adopted quite clearly from the Mosaic Law.

The Catholic Church didn’t wholesale “do away” with ceremonial law as found in the Torah, as evidenced in our liturgy. As I noted before, many of our holiest saints still kept many aspects of the written Torah, whether knowingly or unknowingly, due to their ascetic lifestyle.

Your argument is that because they do these things they are holier than those who do not. But who are you to judge how “holy” a person truly is? And how do you compare Person A with Person B?

I didn’t pass judgment on who was more holier than who. The level of a person’s holiness is in direct correlation to their adherence to the Torah - both the written Torah, and the living Torah, which is Christ.

Does this make them holier than Mother Theresa, who insisted on being out in the world actively working to care for others regardless of their religious beliefs?

No, I never made qualifiers that monks were holier than Mother Teresa. I simply pointed out that many of our holiest saints, monks, and nuns all adhered to the tenets of the Creator’s commandments, including mundane commandments, such as not eating pork.

So are they still holy? They directly violated a command from God regarding the holiness of priests, and applying the same logic as you’ve applied to tattoos, it would seem they weren’t.

Many holy men have violated the Creator’s commandments. This is nothing new, and hardly a surprise to find historical evidence where Christians violated commandments laid out in the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean the rules were abrogated. It means we weren’t very good at following His Word.

Again, this is not about passing judgment. It’s simply stating categorical fact as to what the Creator has laid down as His Law. Whether we choose to follow His Law is a whole other discussion.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

If the original post wants to know if getting a tattoo is sinful, then we are obligated to respond with evidence. I have already provided that evidence numerous times now. As you have shown no evidence to the contrary, I’ll let the readers decide for themselves which argument has more weight.

This entire thread is filled with evidence of Church teaching on the issue.

The Church does not encourage gambling, nor does it encourage getting tattoos.

It also does not prohibit gambling. Just because you don’t encourage something doesn’t mean you prohibit it. The church also does not encourage jumping out of an airplane for fun, nor does it encourage drinking alcohol (other than the Eucharist).

Every teaching from Christ came directly from the Torah, including your quote above. Christ was quoting from the Torah when he made this particular admonishment.

Be careful with the word, “every.” In this case it’s flatly untrue. When Christ taught on adultery, murder and divorce He added to what was already written. And the woman caught in adultery He should have condemned according to the Torah. Instead, He says to her, “then neither do I condemn you.”

He also allows his disciples to do what is “unlawful on the sabbath.” The Law prohibited them from gathering grain, but Jesus not only allowed it, He defended it! And He defended it using an example of someone else who had done something unlawful!

The Catholic Church didn’t wholesale “do away” with ceremonial law as found in the Torah, as evidenced in our liturgy. As I noted before, many of our holiest saints still kept many aspects of the written Torah, whether knowingly or unknowingly, due to their ascetic lifestyle.

I didn’t pass judgment on who was more holier than who. The level of a person’s holiness is in direct correlation to their adherence to the Torah - both the written Torah, and the living Torah, which is Christ.

No, I never made qualifiers that monks were holier than Mother Teresa. I simply pointed out that many of our holiest saints, monks, and nuns all adhered to the tenets of the Creator’s commandments, including mundane commandments, such as not eating pork.

Many holy men have violated the Creator’s commandments. This is nothing new, and hardly a surprise to find historical evidence where Christians violated commandments laid out in the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean the rules were abrogated. It means we weren’t very good at following His Word.

Again, this is not about passing judgment. It’s simply stating categorical fact as to what the Creator has laid down as His Law. Whether we choose to follow His Law is a whole other discussion.

I have never said the Church did away with the law “whole sale.” But it has consistently stated that as Christians we are no longer under the Law of Moses. We see this in Scripture and in modern teachings. Most of Paul’s writings were opposing those who claimed we had to keep the Law to be saved.

And you have twice now presented a system of holiness which contradicts official Church teaching and presumes to say who is holier than someone else.

You say personal holiness is in direct correlation to keeping the Law of Moses, which the Church has said has no bearing in light of the revelation of Christ. This does not mean the Law is bad, wrong or has no meaning, but it is understood differently and whether or not we follow every precept does not directly affect our holiness.

And the entire tone of your posts, especially when talking about personal holiness, is passing judgment. You’re saying a person who does X is holier than a person who doesn’t. A person who does Y isn’t as holy as a person who doesn’t. That’s judgment which is far beyond our pay grade.

I know men and women with tattoos who are far holier than some without, and vice versa. There is no direct correlation between the two.

 

[His_angel]

The Church hasn’t expressly ruled on eating certain bugs, either, which are forbidden in the Torah. That doesn’t mean eating bugs should be encouraged.

Actually bugs and insects are a good source of protein and are eaten in many parts of the world. I have a scorpion lollipop I intend to eat, but haven’t had the courage to yet.