Jewelry, makeup, etc. Vanity?

[PodunkMommy]

Woman have worn make up and jewlery for centuries. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is done in moderation, like everything else. When done too much and for the sake of pleasure, then it becomes a sin.

Many women wear make up as self esteem boosters, trust me!! Not all women even care about clothes, hair, makeup, etc., but they try to dress up a bit so as to help their self esteem a bit.

Why would a tattoo be wrong? Many people have tattoo’s that are dedications to God and their family. And as others have said, they are conversation starters. God can use anything to spread His Word.

Blessings.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Of course wearing makeup and jewelry is an exercise in vanity, and there’s nothing wrong with saying so. There are other religions and cultures that don’t wear makeup and jewelry and they are counter-cultural to this surrounding culture of death. Many Catholics blend right in, along with many other practices. That said, being ‘salt and light’ in the world has more to do with your conduct at the workplace, at school, with the neighbors. Your honesty, your integrity, your humility, your wisdom, your kindness. That’s where the rubber really hits the road!

I wear lipstick, may wear earrings (my hubby gave me diamond earrings for my wedding day and he likes to see them once in a while.) My ‘greatest’ vanity is getting blond highlights in my hair. It’s absolutely vain and I admit it. I also admit that my hubby asked me to get blond highlights and after a number of askings, I agreed to please him. Now I’m ‘attached’ to my dyed hair when initially I would have preferred a shaved head than to follow this practice of the world. I have greater faults than vanity I admit as well. This is a fault but not so great a sin as failing to love God with my whole heart, my whole mind, my whole strength. This I fall short greatly and hope for the mercy of God.

Beards on men? We joke in our Eastern church circle that a shaven man look “too much like a girl”.
Maybe *shaving *is vanity??? Not touching that question. lol

 

[EasterJoy]

Is is sinful for people to wear jewelry or makeup? What about piercings, or tattoos? I even wonder about growing beards sometimes. I have trouble seeing why these don’t amount to vanity, unless they are more or less demanded by custom.

Jewelry, make-up, and so on can be an occasion to commit an offense against modesty, but they are not sinful, per se, no. Piercings have to stay within the boundaries of avoiding self-mutilation and putting your body at excessive risk, too, depending on what you’re getting pierced. (Ask a doctor for specifics on that.)

I can see how a man can be vain about how he keeps his facial hair, but it is beyond me how someone can think a beard is vain, per se. It’s kind of like having big muscles. You could get vain about it, but it’s a fight for a man to keep God from giving him any at all.

Christianity demands modesty, but it doesn’t totally prohibit individuality in appearance. If it did, how could St. James say, “My brothers, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here, please,” while you say to the poor one, “Stand there,” or “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?” James 2:1-4 Note that he didn’t chide the Christians he was writing to because some were rich and some were poor, or because it was possible to tell by their dress who was in what social class. Rather, he chided them from treating each other differently based on whether they dressed richly or poorly. That implies that there is an extent to which dressing more richly than others was permissible. (We also know this author did not mince words about what was and was not behavior becoming a Christian!!)

Yes, St. Paul cautioned against being noticed for your fashions, just as he barred being argumentative: “It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument. Similarly, women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds.” 1 Tim. 2:9-10 Note that no one thinks men should not be attorneys, because Christian men aren’t allowed to argue. Rather, he was saying that if these things are what you are known for, instead of your good deeds, something is amiss. Even an excellent attorney can be more famous for his good deeds than for his arguments!

I think that is a good rule for deciding what is and isn’t modest. If your choice of fashion or faction is a more noticeable thing about you than your holiness and good deeds, something is very much amiss. Again, though, he wasn’t saying that women could not style their hair or wear any jewelry. He was saying that this had better not be your main adornment. There is a big difference.

 

[smichhertz]

Is is sinful for people to wear jewelry or makeup? What about piercings, or tattoos? I even wonder about growing beards sometimes. I have trouble seeing why these don’t amount to vanity, unless they are more or less demanded by custom.

Not really. It certainly CAN be, same with clothes.

The bottom line is just to be modest in how you dress and then you’re fine.

We usually think about modesty in terms of not wearing revealing clothing, but it also applies to vanity as well. We shouldn’t wear clothes that are excessively flashy or draw attention to us in the wrong way.

Hope that helps!

 

[Portrait]

Even through your eloquence your how judgmental you are shines through. I am a woman with a few tattoos and I have even had my priest tell me that they were “really cool”. I think that it depends on what tattoos you have. Mine are of Catholic symbols and I see them as a form of mortification, which most people in the church see as just fine. To say that someone is ill-bred because they have tattoos is presumptuous and shows that you judge by appearances rather than looking to see the man(or woman’s) heart. I think that it is sinful to come to such conclusions about people you know nothing about.

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your reply to my post above.

May I first say that I am truly sorry that you found what I said respecting tattoos to be “judgemental”. Whilst no offence was intended to you personally, it is extremely difficult if one takes an opposing viewpoint not to come across as being judgemental, unless one simply states that they disagree with something and leaves it at that. However, the moment they begin to explain why it is that they disagree, then they are very likely to offend those who see things differently, especially if they entertain strong opinions about a particular issue.

Tattoos express a certain anti-establishment attitude and convey an ostentatiously assertive outlook that is diametrically opposed to the “imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet. 3: 4). Thus tattoos, irrespective of whether or not they are of “Catholic symbols”, are inseparably wedded to this unsavoury and uncouth image and such an image is unbefitting of those who profess religion. Unfortunately, tattoos cannot shed their distasteful image and thus the fact that the tattoo may be of a religious object does not justify the practice. Exhibitionism is intrinsically un-Catholic since it falls short of the virtue of humility. Can you envisage our dear Lord having a tattoo? or our Our Lady? Why, of course not.

Tattooing is regarded in Sacred Scripture as a pagan practice: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19: 28). It is considered to be a mutilation of the body in contravention of the fifth Commandment.

Moreover, there is another argument against the practice, which apertains to the fifth Commandment, which forbids any unnecessary harming of the body, the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, as St. Paul calls it. Catholic moral theology teaches that by the Principle of Totality, a man is not permitted to authorize the mutilation of his own body except for the benefit of the whole body by the Principle of Totality. Mutilation of the body can only be justified on the supposition that it is necessary or useful towards obtaining some physical benefit (for example, amputation of a limb say to prevent gangrene).

Finally, whilst our Church may not take an official position on so called body enhancements, such as tattoos, our own Christian conscience ought to tell us that such unseemly body mutilation does not sit comfortably with a profession of godliness and the pursuit of holiness.

Please understand that I am not questioning for one moment your sincerity, I am merely saying that I think you and your priest are sincerely wrong, dear sister.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Dear Jharek,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Impressions are important and whether we like it or not men will form opinions about us by what they see, for good or for bad. Thus we must do all we can, especially as Catholics, to ensure that we give the right impression and abstain for any appearance that is contrary to our profession.

Simply loved Upstairs and Downstairs on LWT back in the 1970’s. Now have the entire series on DVD with special features, including many interviews with surviving cast members like Simon Williams and Lesley Anne Down. They certainly do not do good wholesome productions like that anymore, sadly.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Della]

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your reply to my post above.

May I first say that I am truly sorry that you found what I said respecting tattoos to be “judgemental”. Whilst no offence was intended to you personally, it is extremely difficult if one takes an opposing viewpoint not to come across as being judgemental, unless one simply states that they disagree with something and leaves it at that. However, the moment they begin to explain why it is that they disagree, then they are very likely to offend those who see things differently, especially if they entertain strong opinions about a particular issue.

Tattoos express a certain anti-establishment attitude and convey an ostentatiously assertive outlook that is diametrically opposed to the “imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet. 3: 4). Thus tattoos, irrespective of whether or not they are of “Catholic symbols”, are inseparably wedded to this unsavoury and uncouth image and such an image is unbefitting of those who profess religion. Unfortunately, tattoos cannot shed their distasteful image and thus the fact that the tattoo may be of a religious object does not justify the practice. Exhibitionism is intrinsically un-Catholic since it falls short of the virtue of humility. Can you envisage our dear Lord having a tattoo? or our Our Lady? Why, of course not.

Let me begin by saying I have no tattos and do not intend to get any for a variety of reasons none of which have anything to do with your reasons, which are biased and judgmental in the extreme. The idea that tattoos are “uncouth” was a societal norm a generation ago, but not any more. Very well placed people are getting them these days, so bang goes that argument. And they are no longer considered anti-establishment, either, so bang goes your second one.

Tattooing is regarded in Sacred Scripture as a pagan practice: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19: 28). It is considered to be a mutilation of the body in contravention of the fifth Commandment.

Moreover, there is another argument against the practice, which apertains to the fifth Commandment, which forbids any unnecessary harming of the body, the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, as St. Paul calls it. Catholic moral theology teaches that by the Principle of Totality, a man is not permitted to authorize the mutilation of his own body except for the benefit of the whole body by the Principle of Totality. Mutilation of the body can only be justified on the supposition that it is necessary or useful towards obtaining some physical benefit (for example, amputation of a limb say to prevent gangrene).

Tatttooing is no longer a pagan practice to honor idols or gods in our culture. However, the idea that tattooing is mutilation could be said of ear piercing, as well. The Church is much more concerned about sex change as mutilation than tattoos. It’s a non-issue for Christians, really. As with make up and jewelry, it can be a source of vanity, but not always.

Finally, whilst our Church may not take an official position on so called body enhancements, such as tattoos, our own Christian conscience ought to tell us that such unseemly body mutilation does not sit comfortably with a profession of godliness and the pursuit of holiness.

Please understand that I am not questioning for one moment your sincerity, I am merely saying that I think you and your priest are sincerely wrong, dear sister.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

If the Church has no problem with tattooing, etc., then it is not up to you to say otherwise. Each person can choose if this is something he wants or not. In matters of prudential judgment no one can tell another they are doing wrong.

As to make up and jewelry, what we have to keep in mind when using/wearing them is why we are doing it. If it is to make us presentable to others so that they see us as persons (and aren’t distracted by what we wear/don’t wear), then they have fulfilled their function and are perfectly innocent. I wear make up and jewelry in order to show the best side of myself and to put others at ease around me.

When I see some woman dressed in a baggy jumper, her hair hanging like dead snakes down her back, with dark circles under her eyes and red splotches on her face, who looks tired and washed out, in an effort to look “holy” I cringe. She is doing herself and her faith no favors by putting people off with her attempts at being Laura Ingalls. We live in our own society and our own time. We need to be able to relate to people who are living in our society and our time so that we can be a blessing to them, not put them off the faith by them thinking they have to become bedraggled drabs in order to be Catholics.

 

[EasterJoy]

Tattoos express a certain anti-establishment attitude and convey an ostentatiously assertive outlook that is diametrically opposed to the “imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet. 3: 4). Thus tattoos, irrespective of whether or not they are of “Catholic symbols”, are inseparably wedded to this unsavoury and uncouth image and such an image is unbefitting of those who profess religion. Unfortunately, tattoos cannot shed their distasteful image and thus the fact that the tattoo may be of a religious object does not justify the practice. Exhibitionism is intrinsically un-Catholic since it falls short of the virtue of humility. Can you envisage our dear Lord having a tattoo? or our Our Lady? Why, of course not.

There have been times when tatoos might have expressed an anti-establishment attitude. We are not in those times. This is particularly true because we all know that tatoos are easily gained and only lost with difficulty. We ought to have no trouble whatsoever imagining that any offensive message contained in a tatoo was a rash outburst that was repented of long ago, as charity requires us to do.

The oppositional image you speak of comes not from the interior of the tatoo wearer, but from the rash judgment of the person who looks at them. Again, listen to St. James, who forbids us to differentiate among ourselves according to class: Have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs? (James 2:4)

“Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition." …He summoned the crowd again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” (Mark 7:6-9,14-15)

Again: in the context of the letters of Sts. Peter (1 Pet. 3:4) and Paul (1 Tim. 2:9-10), they were not forbidding jewelry. Rather, they were cautioning women to adorn themselves with virtue, not exterior things…because it is the things that come from within that defile. Likewise, only the things that come from within can adorn a person with holiness.

Can we envisage Our Lord being pleased when we put religious loads on people’s backs that God did not establish? Why, of course not! Neither should we do these things. I don’t think tatoos are wise, but they aren’t morally forbidden. We have no business saying that they are, and no business judging anyone who gets them. They are not a sin.

 

[JoArtist]

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your reply to my post above.

May I first say that I am truly sorry that you found what I said respecting tattoos to be “judgemental”. Whilst no offence was intended to you personally, it is extremely difficult if one takes an opposing viewpoint not to come across as being judgemental, unless one simply states that they disagree with something and leaves it at that. However, the moment they begin to explain why it is that they disagree, then they are very likely to offend those who see things differently, especially if they entertain strong opinions about a particular issue.

Tattoos express a certain anti-establishment attitude and convey an ostentatiously assertive outlook that is diametrically opposed to the “imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” of which St. Peter speaks (I Pet. 3: 4). Thus tattoos, irrespective of whether or not they are of “Catholic symbols”, are inseparably wedded to this unsavoury and uncouth image and such an image is unbefitting of those who profess religion. Unfortunately, tattoos cannot shed their distasteful image and thus the fact that the tattoo may be of a religious object does not justify the practice. Exhibitionism is intrinsically un-Catholic since it falls short of the virtue of humility. Can you envisage our dear Lord having a tattoo? or our Our Lady? Why, of course not.

Tattooing is regarded in Sacred Scripture as a pagan practice: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19: 28). It is considered to be a mutilation of the body in contravention of the fifth Commandment.

Moreover, there is another argument against the practice, which apertains to the fifth Commandment, which forbids any unnecessary harming of the body, the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, as St. Paul calls it. Catholic moral theology teaches that by the Principle of Totality, a man is not permitted to authorize the mutilation of his own body except for the benefit of the whole body by the Principle of Totality. Mutilation of the body can only be justified on the supposition that it is necessary or useful towards obtaining some physical benefit (for example, amputation of a limb say to prevent gangrene).

Finally, whilst our Church may not take an official position on so called body enhancements, such as tattoos, our own Christian conscience ought to tell us that such unseemly body mutilation does not sit comfortably with a profession of godliness and the pursuit of holiness.

Please understand that I am not questioning for one moment your sincerity, I am merely saying that I think you and your priest are sincerely wrong, dear sister.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The verse in Leviticus you referenced had A LOT to do with culture… tattoos meant something totally different then and those reasons are not pertinent in our culture. Not many verses away it in Leviticus 19:27 it says, “Do not clip the hair at your temples, nor trim the edges of your beard.” So unless you have those long curly cues at the sides of your head, you have no right telling people they shouldn’t have tattoos… I think that is why we live by spirit of the law and not letter of the law. Also as you have said the church has no stance on the issue… if the church has no stance on it then I think it should be fine or certainly not as big of an issue as you make it.

As for it being anti-establishment, that really isn’t the case in this day of age anymore. Maybe 30 years ago… but not so now. Culture changes.

P.S. Your eloquence still isn’t fooling anyone… judgmental is judgmental. If the church doesn’t stand against tattoos and doesn’t teach against them, you have no right judging people who have them.

 

[Portrait]

The verse in Leviticus you referenced had A LOT to do with culture… tattoos meant something totally different then and those reasons are not pertinent in our culture. Not many verses away it in Leviticus 19:27 it says, “Do not clip the hair at your temples, nor trim the edges of your beard.” So unless you have those long curly cues at the sides of your head, you have no right telling people they shouldn’t have tattoos… I think that is why we live by spirit of the law and not letter of the law. Also as you have said the church has no stance on the issue… if the church has no stance on it then I think it should be fine or certainly not as big of an issue as you make it.

As for it being anti-establishment, that really isn’t the case in this day of age anymore. Maybe 30 years ago… but not so now. Culture changes.

P.S. Your eloquence still isn’t fooling anyone… judgmental is judgmental. If the church doesn’t stand against tattoos and doesn’t teach against them, you have no right judging people who have them.

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Whilst it is freely admitted that the ceromonial precepts of Leviticus are no longer binding upon us in the Gospel age, we must, I think, try to understand the purpose behind these precepts and why they were introduced into ancient Israel. The key to this to be found in the opening verses of Leviticus 19 in which God says to Moses; “Say to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy”. Their being distinguished from the heathen nations by their distinctive ritual laws and customs was intended to teach them sanctity and separation from the godless world, and entire devotedness to God. Now this much has not changed in the least with the advent of Christianity. On the contrary, the followers of Christ must likewise be consecrated to God’s honour and conformed to his nature and will. Indeed, this very text is cited by St. Peter in his First Epistle (I Pet, 1: 15,16). Thus all of these ritual laws were intended to reinforce in the sensus fidelium of the Jews the necessity for holiness and separation from the godless world.

In our decadent and brash world with its extra to the normal indulgences, having a tattoo, or “getting inked” to use the vulgar expression, has become increasingly common of late. The fact that tattoos have entered into a new level of professionalism and that this hideous form of self-expression is gradually loosing the stigma attaching to it, evinces all too clearly the level to which our debased world has plummeted in recent times. However, that they are becoming a normal part of *secular *society and are no longer considered taboo, does not ipso facto give the green light to Catholics go ahead and get themselves tattooed. First of all, our standards are not the standards of the godless world and its unsavoury customs and fashions. We are exhorted by St. Paul "to present are bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, *that you may prove what is the will of God, what *is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12: 1,2, added emphasis mine). Thus we are back to this whole notion of sanctity and separation from the world, which runs through both the Old and New Testaments. Our fallen world may well declare that tattoos are perfectly acceptable now, even for the middle-class, but respectable Catholics who are desirous to keep themselves “unstained from the world” (Jam. 1: 27), will always deem them to be a tasteless and degrading form of body mutiliation.

In the Leviticus text, cuttings in the flesh or lacerations as token of mourning, and tattooing are condemned on account of their heathenish associations. True, that historical context has long since passed away, nevertheless the requirement of sanctity and separation from the godless world, which was its whole basis, continues to apply to the faithful, the new “Israel of God”, today (cf. I Pet. 1: 15,16). Moreover, tattoos and body art are nothing more than a display of exhibitionism by those who are wedded to and “following the course of this world” (Eph. 2: 2) - exactly what one would expect from “the sons of disobedience”. Thus in one sense, at least, the text is still very much applicable and relevant, in so far as it condemns the new 21st century heathenish associations.

As I have already acknowledged previously, our Chuch has made no official pronoucement upon the issue of so called body enhancements and does leave this to prudential judgement or sanctified common sense. However, if a man is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the age and its worldly standards, then his prudential judgement is going to be anything but prudential and is necessarily very likely to be skewed and off beam. In our own Laodicean times, when so many modern Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of approach to religion - a sort of “Catholicism Lite” - it is hardly surprising that they are making wrong choices as regards tattoos and other unseemly fashions.

The life of faith is not a case of steering as close to the wind as possible; it is a case rather of seeking to live as close to God as possible. Since Catholics belong as it were to the ‘high mountain land above’ they must steadfastly refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world and whose whole world-view is consequently circumscribed by that which is temporal and frequently debased (cf. 2 Cor. 4: 4,18).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JoArtist]

Dear JoArtist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Whilst it is freely admitted that the ceromonial precepts of Leviticus are no longer binding upon us in the Gospel age, we must, I think, try to understand the purpose behind these precepts and why they were introduced into ancient Israel. The key to this to be found in the opening verses of Leviticus 19 in which God says to Moses; “Say to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy”. Their being distinguished from the heathen nations by their distinctive ritual laws and customs was intended to teach them sanctity and separation from the godless world, and entire devotedness to God. Now this much has not changed in the least with the advent of Christianity. On the contrary, the followers of Christ must likewise be consecrated to God’s honour and conformed to his nature and will. Indeed, this very text is cited by St. Peter in his First Epistle (I Pet, 1: 15,16). Thus all of these ritual laws were intended to reinforce in the sensus fidelium of the Jews the necessity for holiness and separation from the godless world.

In our decadent and brash world with its extra to the normal indulgences, having a tattoo, or “getting inked” to use the vulgar expression, has become increasingly common of late. The fact that tattoos have entered into a new level of professionalism and that this hideous form of self-expression is gradually loosing the stigma attaching to it, evinces all too clearly the level to which our debased world has plummeted in recent times. However, that they are becoming a normal part of *secular *society and are no longer considered taboo, does not ipso facto give the green light to Catholics go ahead and get themselves tattooed. First of all, our standards are not the standards of the godless world and its unsavoury customs and fashions. We are exhorted by St. Paul "to present are bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, *that you may prove what is the will of God, what *is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12: 1,2, added emphasis mine). Thus we are back to this whole notion of sanctity and separation from the world, which runs through both the Old and New Testaments. Our fallen world may well declare that tattoos are perfectly acceptable now, even for the middle-class, but respectable Catholics who are desirous to keep themselves “unstained from the world” (Jam. 1: 27), will always deem them to be a tasteless and degrading form of body mutiliation.

In the Leviticus text, cuttings in the flesh or lacerations as token of mourning, and tattooing are condemned on account of their heathenish associations. True, that historical context has long since passed away, nevertheless the requirement of sanctity and separation from the godless world, which was its whole basis, continues to apply to the faithful, the new “Israel of God”, today (cf. I Pet. 1: 15,16). Moreover, tattoos and body art are nothing more than a display of exhibitionism by those who are wedded to and “following the course of this world” (Eph. 2: 2) - exactly what one would expect from “the sons of disobedience”. Thus in one sense, at least, the text is still very much applicable and relevant, in so far as it condemns the new 21st century heathenish associations.

As I have already acknowledged previously, our Chuch has made no official pronoucement upon the issue of so called body enhancements and does leave this to prudential judgement or sanctified common sense. However, if a man is thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the age and its worldly standards, then his prudential judgement is going to be anything but prudential and is necessarily very likely to be skewed and off beam. In our own Laodicean times, when so many modern Catholics have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of approach to religion - a sort of “Catholicism Lite” - it is hardly surprising that they are making wrong choices as regards tattoos and other unseemly fashions.

The life of faith is not a case of steering as close to the wind as possible; it is a case rather of seeking to live as close to God as possible. Since Catholics belong as it were to the ‘high mountain land above’ they must steadfastly refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world and whose whole world-view is consequently circumscribed by that which is temporal and frequently debased (cf. 2 Cor. 4: 4,18).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

So as I have said, if the Biblical reasons for making it wrong has passed away, and it is no longer taboo or anti-establishment all that seems to be left is the fact that you don’t like them. You just talk about how their appearance is bad. Again I say the church has no stance on the issue and when common sense is used, I say to myself if the church is okay with it and it is not a tattoo of something immoral (like a naked lady or profanity) then there is no problem with it.

You calling tattoos a “hideous” self expression shows that this is really just your personal opinion of not liking the way they look. You keep on saying that having tattoos is following the ways of this world, but so are so many things that we do every day are. You are condemning peoples actions based on your personal inclinations when the church does not condemn those who practice these things.

You use eloquence, and “piety” to try to hide that you are putting yourself as the judge of morality instead of the Church. You are also a much harsher judge than the Church.

 

[Portrait]

The idea that tattoos are “uncouth” was a societal norm a generation ago, but not any more. Very well placed people are getting them these days, so bang goes that argument. And they are no longer considered anti-establishment, either, so bang goes your second one.

If the Church has no problem with tattooing, etc., then it is not up to you to say otherwise. Each person can choose if this is something he wants or not. In matters of prudential judgment no one can tell another they are doing wrong.

As to make up and jewelry, what we have to keep in mind when using/wearing them is why we are doing it. If it is to make us presentable to others so that they see us as persons (and aren’t distracted by what we wear/don’t wear), then they have fulfilled their function and are perfectly innocent. I wear make up and jewelry in order to show the best side of myself and to put others at ease around me.

Dear Della,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Quite frankly contemporary societal norms are wholly immaterial from the perspective of the devout Catholic because he does not take what society deems to be acceptable or normative as his benchmark. He steadfastly resists, or should do, the whole dirft of godless secular culture and refuses to succumb to its vulgar customs and ostentatious displays of extravagance. In short he dares to be different and, if necessary, stand alone by nailing his colours to the mast. Furthermore, he uses his own, hopefully, sanctified common sense to determine whether or not something is acceptable or unacceptable, not whatever is currently a la mode.

Many modern day Catholics have failed to understand the phenomenal impact of the moral revolution of the Sixties, which set in train changes that have totally transformed the Western world, changes which, I hasten to add, have done precious little to advance the cause of civilisation and make the world a better place. This was perhaps almost inevitable given the nature of godless aggressive secularism. However what is so lamentable is that the forces of secularism and irreligion have infiltrated Holy Mother Church. Thus you now have a whole new generation of Catholics who are seemingly quite happy to embrace a hand in hand with the world type of religion that refuses to live up to the arduous requirements of our most holy Faith, especially in terms of sanctity and separation from the godless world. Alas, the line of demarcation between Catholic and non-Catholic is gradually fading away, with those who identify themselves as Catholic to often living like those who have long ago renounced this title. For example, we now have the deplorable spectacle of women attending Holy Mass in unseemly attire such as mini-skirts and wearing an inordinate amount of make up and jewelry. We have Catholics who cannot see anything wrong with listening to that debased sensory material called rock and pop music and now Catholics, even women, who are trying to rationalize having unsightly tattoos on their bodies, “the temple of the Holy Spirit”.

Therefore in light of the above, it would be more accurate to say that tattoos continue to be viewed as uncouth exhibitionism and indicative of an anti-establishment mindset, by those who have not succumbed to the unseemly and debased standards of the godless world. Those who have assimilated the spirit of the age and warmly embraced its lowered standards will, of course, see nothing wrong in tattoos and will probably ardently support the right of everyone to have them if they so wish, much to the chagrin of the vast majority of pious Catholics.

It is surely to be regretted that many modern day Catholics have bought into the godless ways of these godless days by embracing and then defending that which is degrading and downright worldly. However, perhaps the Church ought to take some share of the blame for this capitulation to the world, since it has largely remained silent and has not counteracted the ever increasing tide of moral and cultural deterioration in its midst. Far too much has been left to the prudential judgement of the individual in times that call for an authoritative voice on disputed topics, around which there is much controversy and dissension among the faithful.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

So as I have said, if the Biblical reasons for making it wrong has passed away, and it is no longer taboo or anti-establishment all that seems to be left is the fact that you don’t like them. You just talk about how their appearance is bad. Again I say the church has no stance on the issue and when common sense is used, I say to myself if the church is okay with it and it is not a tattoo of something immoral (like a naked lady or profanity) then there is no problem with it.

You calling tattoos a “hideous” self expression shows that this is really just your personal opinion of not liking the way they look. You keep on saying that having tattoos is following the ways of this world, but so are so many things that we do every day are. You are condemning peoples actions based on your personal inclinations when the church does not condemn those who practice these things.

You use eloquence, and “piety” to try to hide that you are putting yourself as the judge of morality instead of the Church. You are also a much harsher judge than the Church.

Dear JoArtist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

It is the actual historical context, in which the ceremonial precepts were given to Israel, that has ceased to exist. The whole biblical basis undergirding those temporary precepts, namely, sanctity and separation from the godless world, continues to be a highly relevant issue today for those of us who live under then new economy (cf. I Pet. 1: 15,16), perhaps more than ever it was in preceding generations.

Sorry, but tattoos have uncouth worldly associations and are therefore wholly inappropriate for those who profess godliness. Moreover, they are a product of our godless and brash culture which takes pleasure in promoting exhibitionism and unseemly customs, just as the heathen nations did back in the times of ancient Israel. As Israel was bidden to resist and and keep aloof from the practices of the heathen, so are we bidden to resist and keep aloof from the practices of modern heathenism. In both cases sanctity and separation from the world were and are the impetus behind the avoidance of such practices.

We are admonished in Sacred Scripture to “love not the world” and to keep ourselves “unstained from the world”. If that does not involve the pursuit of holiness and keeping our distance from the earthbound outlook of the godless world, then what does? In the midst of all the distracting and demoralizing influences of the world, the Catholic must keep himself pure by not embracing the customs and fashions with which he is surrounded. He must do this by continual rememberance of the demands of his all-holy God, especially the demand for sanctity and separation. He must keep himself “unstained from the world” that he may offer himself a holy and living sacrifice acceptable to God.

Our Church does call all of the faithful to a life of holiness and separation from the godless and brash world and specifically states that “The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. * There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle*”. (CCC, para. 2015, added emphasis mine). Thus, to this extent, Holy Mother Church does exhort us to avoid that which is contrary to our profession and to renounce all which would hinder us in our spiritual progress in “the way of perfection”.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Stavros]

Here’s my thoughts on makeup and vanity:

At my very traditional parish, one day I realized I was pretty much the only woman my age (i.e. under 50) that wore makeup and dyed my hair. Most other women had noticable grays, low-maintenance hairdos and no makeup at all. They also dressed very plainly. I worried for a long while that maybe I was being vain or worldly with my hair and makeup.

Then it occurred to me - almost all of these women are stay-at-home moms who homeschool their households of 5+ kids. None of these women were in professional office environments like me and expected to dress Business Casual or Business Professional. Most of my church outfits are the tops from work, with a black or brown skirt that goes with the dressy business tops I wear to work.

The next day I compared myself to women in my office, and realized that my makeup was very subdued (neutral tones, light gloss instead of lipstick, light foundation instead of heavy), and my auburn hued hair, while obviously not natural, were not out of the ordinary from any of the other women at work, all of whom color their hair in some fashion. I also wear it up in a conservative fashion most days.

I also felt self conscious for a while for being the only woman in slacks at daily Mass during the week, but again, I realized I was the only one who was heading straight to work after mass, whereas most of the women at daily mass were going back home. I usually wear Business Professional to work (dress jacket, pearls, shell or top, slacks, dress shoes with 1" heel), except Fridays where it’s Casual Day so I wear a polo and nice jeans.

Father understands about my work schedule, and no one has ever said anything to me about it. There’s another lady that comes every Thursday in jeans. She veils, and on weekends she wears skirts, just like me.I figure she’s like me - she’s coming to church after her work day. But I know that she’s devout in her attendance, as I see her every Thursday … because I’m there too. If that’s what she has to wear to be able to get to daily mass, then bully to her for making it there every week.

(Also, for the poster who said she wears the expensive stuff because she lives in South TX, - I feel your pain. I wear Bare Minerals for that very reason, because it’s the only makeup that doesn’t totally melt when that 103 degree Texas heat hits me in the face. Plus, I buy makeup so infrequently that it’s worth the extra money to have a product on my skin that works flawlessly. and less is needed for high quality makeup, so it lasts much longer. Yes my Mac eye makeup is $17/color, but that one tub lasts me for a year, on average. And my $25 Bare Minerals foundation lasts over 6 months on average.)

 

[Della]

Sheesh!

 

[Della]

(Also, for the poster who said she wears the expensive stuff because she lives in South TX, - I feel your pain. I wear Bare Minerals for that very reason, because it’s the only makeup that doesn’t totally melt when that 103 degree Texas heat hits me in the face. Plus, I buy makeup so infrequently that it’s worth the extra money to have a product on my skin that works flawlessly. and less is needed for high quality makeup, so it lasts much longer. Yes my Mac eye makeup is $17/color, but that one tub lasts me for a year, on average. And my $25 Bare Minerals foundation lasts over 6 months on average.)

Just wanted to plug the Neutragena natural mineral make up which is less costly. It works great for me here in MN–the land of extremes. Winter gets down to 20’s below zero and summer can reach 100’s (although this is rare). For the last week it’s been in the high 90’s with the dew point in the high `70’s, so we’ve all been in sauna-like conditions. I don’t go out much, I admit, but when I am out the Neutragena works fine. Just a suggestion for those who might like to try it.

 

[EasterJoy]

Dear Della,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above response.

Quite frankly contemporary societal norms are wholly immaterial from the perspective of the devout Catholic because he does not take what society deems to be acceptable or normative as his benchmark. He steadfastly resists, or should do, the whole dirft of godless secular culture and refuses to succumb to its vulgar customs and ostentatious displays of extravagance. In short he dares to be different and, if necessary, stand alone by nailing his colours to the mast. Furthermore, he uses his own, hopefully, sanctified common sense to determine whether or not something is acceptable or unacceptable, not whatever is currently a la mode.

Many modern day Catholics have failed to understand the phenomenal impact of the moral revolution of the Sixties, which set in train changes that have totally transformed the Western world, changes which, I hasten to add, have done precious little to advance the cause of civilisation and make the world a better place. This was perhaps almost inevitable given the nature of godless aggressive secularism. However what is so lamentable is that the forces of secularism and irreligion have infiltrated Holy Mother Church. Thus you now have a whole new generation of Catholics who are seemingly quite happy to embrace a hand in hand with the world type of religion that refuses to live up to the arduous requirements of our most holy Faith, especially in terms of sanctity and separation from the godless world. Alas, the line of demarcation between Catholic and non-Catholic is gradually fading away, with those who identify themselves as Catholic to often living like those who have long ago renounced this title. For example, we now have the deplorable spectacle of women attending Holy Mass in unseemly attire such as mini-skirts and wearing an inordinate amount of make up and jewelry. We have Catholics who cannot see anything wrong with listening to that debased sensory material called rock and pop music and now Catholics, even women, who are trying to rationalize having unsightly tattoos on their bodies, “the temple of the Holy Spirit”.

Therefore in light of the above, it would be more accurate to say that tattoos continue to be viewed as uncouth exhibitionism and indicative of an anti-establishment mindset, by those who have not succumbed to the unseemly and debased standards of the godless world. Those who have assimilated the spirit of the age and warmly embraced its lowered standards will, of course, see nothing wrong in tattoos and will probably ardently support the right of everyone to have them if they so wish, much to the chagrin of the vast majority of pious Catholics.

It is surely to be regretted that many modern day Catholics have bought into the godless ways of these godless days by embracing and then defending that which is degrading and downright worldly. However, perhaps the Church ought to take some share of the blame for this capitulation to the world, since it has largely remained silent and has not counteracted the ever increasing tide of moral and cultural deterioration in its midst. Far too much has been left to the prudential judgement of the individual in times that call for an authoritative voice on disputed topics, around which there is much controversy and dissension among the faithful.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

This seems a lot of words to say that you think tatoos on other people are wrong because a) it is someone else’s fault when you give in to the temptation to judge solely on exterior appearance (perhaps because you’ve put so much thought into forming your prejudices) and b) that the factions in the Church that come from people refusing to mind their own business are the fault of people who fail to conform to the opinions of the busybodies.

What am I missing here? How hard is this? Do we really need to talk about the 1960s to answer this rather elementary question?

Catholics are not forbidden to have tatoos. They are not forbidden to wear jewelry or make-up. Rather, we are required to choose these things with the care of our bodies in mind, taking care not to indulge our own pride or puff ourselves up above our fellows in our own minds, and of course to put our contributions in favor of the poor and the Church before non-essentials, which includes these things but is by no means confined to them.

This is not advanced theology. It is no more than objective fact and common sense. Catholics are forbidden to form judgements of others on an exterior basis and to stick their noses into business that is not theirs. Sometimes that is not easy to do, but we have to try our best. Honestly, I think most of us would agree that keeping our secret opinons of others in keeping with the Gospel is a lot harder than keeping our jewelry bill in line! We try, we fail, we repent, we confess, we try again. Doing it is hard, but the principles really aren’t.

 

[Portrait]

This seems a lot of words to say that you think tatoos on other people are wrong because a) it is someone else’s fault when you give in to the temptation to judge solely on exterior appearance (perhaps because you’ve put so much thought into forming your prejudices) and b) that the factions in the Church that come from people refusing to mind their own business are the fault of people who fail to conform to the opinions of the busybodies.

What am I missing here? How hard is this? Do we really need to talk about the 1960s to answer this rather elementary question?

Catholics are not forbidden to have tatoos. They are not forbidden to wear jewelry or make-up. Rather, we are required to choose these things with the care of our bodies in mind, taking care not to indulge our own pride or puff ourselves up above our fellows in our own minds, and of course to put our contributions in favor of the poor and the Church before non-essentials, which includes these things but is by no means confined to them.

This is not advanced theology. It is no more than objective fact and common sense. Catholics are forbidden to form judgements of others on an exterior basis and to stick their noses into business that is not theirs. Sometimes that is not easy to do, but we have to try our best. Honestly, I think most of us would agree that keeping our secret opinons of others in keeping with the Gospel is a lot harder than keeping our jewelry bill in line! We try, we fail, we repent, we confess, we try again. Doing it is hard, but the principles really aren’t.

Dear Easter Joy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

We are surely entitled to censure people’s actions and evaluate them in negative terms if we believe them to be wrong and not to accord with the sen**sus fidelium and general tenor of Catholic tradition. Tattoos, which is body mutiliation, does not square with this tradition but is rather a practice contrary to the profession of pious religion.

When our Lord says, “Judge not” in the Gospel, He decidedly does not mean that it is wrong or being a “busybody”, to pass an unfavourable judgment on the actions and opinions of others. Neither yet does He mean that it is wrong or uncharitable to reprove the sins or
faults of others until we ourselves are perfect and faultless. If that were the case it would be impossible to expose and denounce erroneous doctrine or condemn wrong living.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Warmest

 

[Della]

 

[PennyinCanada]

To those who support tatoos. Maybe you can explain tatoos to me.

I don’t wear nail polish ever. Now with the warm weather, many ladies who love their manicures (I know some that go as frequently as every 3 weeks) are now looking to pedicures since they are wearing open toe sandals. I am a contradiction to the practices and values of the world. I’ve had ladies ask me *Why aren’t you doing like us? * They can’t imagine the freedom of not conforming.

I don’t wear perfume. In the world where that is very common, to the point of nausea, I’ve been asked Why?? As a kindness to my neighbor who may suffer with allergies, breathing difficulties, asthma, migraine triggers, etc. The thought that one could change the norm as a kindness to strangers puzzles them. Confuses them. Something their brain has trouble with. Loving my neighbor.

I’ve gone to many parties and didn’t drink. I was amazed at how many people of the world watched me the whole night and it amazed and perplexed them that someone could drink 7up for the whole night.* No, I’m not driving.* Even the designated drivers don’t deprive themselves of *one *drink. Like, come on. They’ve never seen someone not drink in an evening before. Can you imagine? They’ve seen excessive drinking their whole life with parents and then later with their friends now that they’re parents. It never occurred to them to do differently! I’ve had many curious people come up and ask me *What’s up with that??? *

There’s a certain freedom from conforming to the standards of the world that I now enjoy, knowing Christ. One family I know spends hundreds of dollars on liquor alone at Christmas, because it’s expected of them. With young children to raise and care for, I bet that money could be better spent on other matters, but they’ve never* seen *someone not drink. Christ offers true ‘freedom of choice’!

Thank you for your patience. Could someone tell me how tatoos are a witness to something other than the world? It seems to me to be a way that promotes worldly pursuits and worldly ideologies.

Even if it’s a cross, many wear crosses not because of their love for Christ, but for some other reason, perhaps cause it’s cool, not sure. Besides, the tatoo is a medium of a message in itself.

Thanks in advance for your replies.