Tatoos

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Durendin said:
Quite so. And since this particular temple is mine to look after, that I should choose to decorate it with adornments of my taste is between me the tenant and the landlord. Tattoos? Check. Leathers and bike? Check. Might even go for a piercing, now that it’s been mentioned?

Besides, how far do you want to take it? You’ll find yourself disagreeing with everything from clothing styles you find inappropriate to hats that you don’t like to be providing the roof for said temple.Then you could start on what people eat…
How someone looks and dresses or adorns themselves is of no business to anyone, let alone a follower of Christ. If someone is dressing to shock, then they are perhaps being uncharitable, but also an oppertunity to exercise some charity yourself.
Click to expand...
I second that! There is, to my very limited knowledge, no official anything from the church differentiating one way or another and until that happens it is just a personal opinion. I agree that the body is a temple and that it should be respected, but I don’t necessarily think it means that one cannot tattoo it. Granted some are in better taste than others IMHO, but who am I to judge? Who are any of us to judge? It is not our place. What may be graffiti to one is art to another. The issue is ultimately between an individual and God.
 
And so we come right back to what I originally posited:

It was dead wrong in the 1950s and 60s. One did not desecrate the temple of the Holy Spirit. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why something that was dead wrong 40 years ago is OK now. And this is not something that is as fleeting as hair styles, dress, etc. so let’s not use that particular arguement.

None of you have yet to give me a plausible Catholic reason for a young woman to get her derriere tatooed. Do you honestly expect me to believe that those flowers and butterflies and such are a means to praise God? If you do, I have this nice 24 mile long bridge across Lake Pontchartrain to sell you.

Please don’t tell me where I am wrong. Explain to me where you are right. Explain to me how the Brothers and Sisters who taught me 40 years ago were wrong in teaching me that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
 
The Second Vatican Council declared that the human person is obliged to regard the body “as good and honorable since God created it and will raise it up on the last day” (Gaudium et Spes, #14). Some tattoo motifs, at least, seem less than good and honorable and, thus, inappropriate decoration for the human person created by God. SOURCE

Flowes, butterflies are not inappropriate…666, non-christian symbols etc.are inappropriate
Issue: What is the teaching of the Church on tattoos and body piercing?
**Response: **Tattoos and acts of body piercing are not intrinsically evil. The Church offers principles by which Catholics can discern whether it is sinful to be tattooed or have one’s body pierced in particular situations.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE ** HERE**
 
brotherhrolf said:
Please don’t tell me where I am wrong. Explain to me where you are right. Explain to me how the Brothers and Sisters who taught me 40 years ago were wrong in teaching me that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Are you only looking at this from one angle and drawing all your conclusions without perhaps considering it another way?

religioustattoos.net/Bible_Support/index.php#corinthians

(I’m quite tempted by some shown on the site, but I doubt I have enough skin!)
 
Karin said:
*Psalm 111:10 The wicked shall see, and shall be angry, he shall gnash with his teeth and pine away: the desire of the wicked shall perish. *

Why would you tattoo that on your wrist?
Click to expand...
Uh, Psalm 111:10 is The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever).
 
I think that a lot of us with tattoos, myself included, would agree that if you’re going to get one, you need to keep in mind how you want to be perceived. Tattoos of things like guns, weapons, naked women, ect. convey a certain message, and I agree that a lot of people get tattoos like these and then end up regretting it years later.

Maybe it was wrong for me to get one, but I really don’t think I did anything to desecrate my body. For me it was almost like a spiritual experience. I don’t handle pain well at all, and I was able to offer up the pain that I was in. I have no pictures of my WHOLE family to constantly remind me that my parents gave life to my siblings and I, and that despite their loss of one child, they still remained open to life, and were able to bring three other children into the world. I have this tattoo so that whenever I think I would never want to take the risk of having children, or that a tragedy would keep me from being open to more, that I would be able to remember what my parents did for me. Maybe it was wrong, but it helps me remember the importance of my family, and how connected we really are to each other, and for me, that’s enough of a reason to justify my actions, although I really don’t feel I need to do so.

Sorry for the long post/rant. I just have a very strong interest in this.
 
It was dead wrong in the 1950s and 60s.
Click to expand...
So was “gnawing” the Eucharist.

You claim to know how “ethnic” societies work, but I’m telling you as an American who is Armenian that this is how I and my family works. We share our understanding and beliefs with our neighbors, as humans tend to do, and we learn from our neighbors, as humans tend to do. In the process my people learn somethings (football matters, for example), and our neighbors learn something (tattoos represent deep and powerful spiritual commitments, not drunken flings of fancy). The American culture is being shaped by “ethinic” folks like mine, just as my people are being shaped by “non-ethnic” folks like Americans. Ironically, that’s what makes America what it is, and I for one am very proud to be an American (as is my Armenian grandfather who is a life-long U.S. Army man).

All of that is to lead into this: if it is acceptable in “ethnic” cultures, it’s acceptable in an absolute sense, since “ethnic folk” are “human folk”, and therefore Catholic. Some practices are unacceptable by the Church, but such “ethnic” practices as tattoos are not outlawed, as evidenced by the continued practice by Armenian and Coptic Catholics without censure by the Vatican.

Since I’m an Armenian and an American, I will share with my fellow Americans my heritage, since it’s their heritage as well. Since I’m a Catholic, I will share my Faith heritage with my fellow Catholics since they are Catholics as well. If some Catholics feel that my heritage is not fitting their lifestyle, I will not protest at all; in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, diversity, in all things, charity. If some Catholics say that my Catholic heritage is un-Catholic, you better believe I’ll raise a fuss 😉

Peace and God bless!
 
havemercy said:
Uh, Psalm 111:10 is The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever).
Click to expand...
uh what bible are you using?
as per the one I use it is Pslam 111:10 The wicked shall see, and shall be angry, he shall gnash with his teeth and pine away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
drbo.org/chapter/21111.htm
 
Karin said:
uh what bible are you using?
as per the one I use it is Pslam 111:10 The wicked shall see, and shall be angry, he shall gnash with his teeth and pine away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
drbo.org/chapter/21111.htm
Click to expand...
Looks like you are using the Douay Rheims, am I correct? The Psalms are numbered differently in the DRB than in other Bibles
 
Karin said:
yup

and once again why would you tatto this on your wrist?
Click to expand...
Oh, I have no idea. I was just responding as to why your verse of the Psalm was different than that other person’s.
 
RCCDefender said:
Oh, I have no idea. I was just responding as to why your verse of the Psalm was different than that other person’s.
Click to expand...
Thank you Defender for that…

So HaveMercy…why would you tattoo this (Pslam) on your wrist??
 
Hello !

My tattoo of the Chi Rho represented by ancient-looking nails that appear to be piercing my skin is on my left arm.
myspace.com/michelcazayoux

I just wanted to note that it’s actually allowed me the opportunity to start conversations about Christ.
People ask what it represents.
So far it’s been a great way to evangelize (Catholics are allowed to evangelize, right? hee hee 🙂 )

Cheers!

michel
 
cazayoux said:
Look at my profile to see the tattoo that sits on my left arm.
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=1815
myspace.com/michelcazayoux ← bigger pic
It’s the Chi Rho (XP).
These are the greek letters whose sounds (Chi = K sound, Rho = R sound) are the first in Christs name.

My representation of the Chi Rho is with three nails that appear to pierce my skin.

I think it’s kinda cool! 😃
Click to expand...
In mass this past weekend, from the homily, I also learned that the word chirho mean ‘REJOICE’. In fact, that word doesn’t do the meaning justice. It’s a HAPPINESS that is complete.

michel
 
brotherhrolf said:
None of you have yet to give me a plausible Catholic reason for a young woman to get her derriere tatooed. Do you honestly expect me to believe that those flowers and butterflies and such are a means to praise God?
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy. Not all tattoos are “flowers and butterflies” across a person’s backside. One cannot exclude the general based on the particular.

There is no defined Church teaching for or against tattoos, and, yes, even the priests and nuns of the hallowed 1950s could get things wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top