Tattoos at the Latin Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThePuzzledCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How about piercings? They mutilate the body to, but yet I never see these discussions about earrings.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
Tattoos would fall under the Catholic teaching of not mutilating one’s body because it is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
i agree. And further, I think that it is wrong to get a tattoo because in addition to the Catholic teaching, it is condemned by the Bible also. Leviticus 19: 28.
 
Last edited:
^^ Thank you. I totally forgot about it.
 
Last edited:
tuffsmurf said:
How about piercings? They mutilate the body to, but yet I never see these discussions about earrings.
Click to expand...
Ordinary piercings will heal back up very quickly, if the jewelry is taken out of them for a period of time, and the body is allowed to fill the piercing normally. So it’s not a permanent alteration to the body.

I don’t like piercings either, but the Church does not condemn them, and therefore, neither do I.
AlNg said:
40.png
Margaret_Ann:
Tattoos would fall under the Catholic teaching of not mutilating one’s body because it is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
i agree. And further, I think that it is wrong to get a tattoo because in addition to the Catholic teaching, it is condemned by the Bible also. Leviticus 19: 28.
Click to expand...
The most common argument is that Levitical prohibitions ended with the New Covenant.
 
ThomasMT said:
I cant speak for others. Myself I see them as trashy at worst, immature at best. If you see graffiti on a street corner, you may regard it as a work of art or as an act of vandalism. I see it as the latter and much more so with regard to our bodies, which I see as being profaned by such expressions. Content of the depiction notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
On tattoos I tend to agree. But I try not to judge as there may be a back story I do not know.

When it comes to graffiti, in 99% of cases I agree that it is trashy, but I have seen some insanely remarkable, witty, inspiring, sometimes even beautiful graffiti, here and there.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
The most common argument is that Levitical prohibitions ended with the New Covenant.
Click to expand...
And there is the argument that the ten Commandments ended with the New Covenant. At least we see widespread disagreement on the prohibition against adultery and against taking the Name of Our Lord in vain and against coveting your neighbor’s wife and against murder of the unborn.
 
When you have had your ears pierced for a while, they won’t heal again even if you don’t use earrings. I regularly go a couple of weeks without wearing any and my ears have never been close to heal up.
 
tuffsmurf said:
When you have had your ears pierced for a while, they won’t heal again even if you don’t use earrings. I regularly go a couple of weeks without wearing any and my ears have never been close to heal up.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know that. But even with this being true, a simple piercing is such an insignificant “mutilation” as to be hardly worth commenting upon. Again, what the Church does not condemn, I do not condemn. I wouldn’t choose to die on the hill of bodily piercings.
 
Cirdan_XII said:
I agree that it is trashy, but I have seen some insanely remarkable, witty, inspiring, sometimes even beautiful graffiti, here and there.
Click to expand...
I have as well. Even the unattractive graffiti posesss an inherent artistic quality. What makes it “trashy” to me is the vandalism with which it is expressed, when it is done on property that is not ones own. That undermines whatever artist merit may be recognized.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach on the issue. The Bible on the other hand has this quote.
(Levticus 19 28) You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you
Click to expand...
I think some older translations do not have the word tattoo in them though.

Some people interpret the passage as you should not have tattoos. Others say it isn’t about tattoos as we know them today, but about people in Biblical times putting all kinds of pagan ink on themselves for good luck or to do with sacrifices etc. If that’s the case then I suppose people who have tattoos that are supposed to be good luck charms, probably shouldn’t.
 
If I went to a Latin Mass I’d be disappointed if people weren’t dressed
more modestly or if some had clothing with printed messages, cartoons, conspicuous brand names or logos, etc… Hiding tattoos would be consistent with not wearing that stuff in church. I’d prefer all this in regular masses too, but at many parishes setting expectations would be an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:
ThomasMT said:
I have as well. Even the unattractive graffiti posesss an inherent artistic quality. What makes it “trashy” to me is the vandalism with which it is expressed, when it is done on property that is not ones own. That undermines whatever artist merit may be recognized.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily . There are sometimes locations where the owners of a wall will specifically tolerate graffiti and thus don’t consider it vandalism . Sometimes officially and sometimes inofficially .
 
Go into put this here for all the people that didn’t read the link from @Montrose

“ Question:

What is Church teaching on body tattoos and piercings?

Answer:​

Old Testament prohibitions regarding tattoos are considered ceremonial laws and thus are not binding on Christians. There is nothing inherently immoral about a Catholic having a tattoo or a piercing. What would make those things immoral would be its content/message/purpose. What message am I trying to send through this action? What is my motivation? It is essentially viewed as a morally neutral act whose morality depends upon content, context, and circumstances. Prudential judgment is needed.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top