tattoos of Catholic images: sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VanillaBean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
members.cox.net/jimmyakin/x-archives-040306.htm

Here’s what Jimmy Akin has to say about it:
Mutilation, as understood by the Catechism and moral theology in general, involves more than simply making a change in one’s body. Otherwise having an ear pierced or even getting a manicure or a haircut would count as mutilation. Instead, mutilation must involve some kind of impairment of function in the body (like cutting off a hand out taking out an organ). The degree of impairment then tells us the gravity of the mutilation.
Since tattoos do not involve an impairment of body function, they do not count as mutilation. You are correct about that.
You are also correct about some of the other body . . . uh . . . “modifications” that are being done today would seem to count as mutilation. I don’t know that much about tongue and cheek piercing. I’d have to do research about whether they involve long-term risk of infection. But tongue splitting would seem to be a prime example. Not only does it impair the tongue’s role in eating and talking, it also would seem to make an immoral statement of some kind due to its snake-like connotations. It also has an even higher risk associated with it due to the fact that the tongue has significant blood vessels in it and a split requires a longer time to heal, with risk of infection and bleeding. As a result, many doctors are opposed to the practice.
Click to expand...
 
catholic2 said:
This is the typical response from those who defend their position, untenable as it is, by attacking the messenger, but completely disregard the message. “Tattooing is not wrong, nor has it ever been”? Puleeze!
Click to expand...
Leviticus mandates circumsion, also forbids the eating of pork. So therefore now it is wrong to eat pork and it’s also immoral to be not be circumsized. Sorry, Holy Scripture states it, no way out. Sorry, bye. Puleeze.
 
Jon_S said:
I have a large tattoo on the back of my leg. It’s not a very “Christian” piece of art, and to have it removed would cost me thousands of dollars…like I said, it is a LARGE tattoo.

I won’t be having it removed for two reasons:
  1. The money it would cost me to have it removed would be better spent donating to a charitable organization or contributing to the collection at church.
  2. I have only recently come back to the Catholic Church. My tattoo predates this, and serves as a reminder of where I’ve been and why I don’t ever want to go back there.
So the question is this; For those of you who have a problem with tattoo’s, If you saw me at a church function (I wear long pants at mass) and I was wearing shorts, would you think differently of me or prejudge my intentions as a faithful Catholic?

Just curios.
Click to expand...
Well I wouldn’t and I’m sure many others wouldn’t. But some here I guess will have different opinions. Confused people.
 
Let the doubters also consider that the word “tattoo” is not the word that was used in the Bible. It can be traced back to the South Pacific Islands. The Online Etymology Dictionary reads:
“mark the skin with pigment,” 1769 (noun and ver, both first attested in writing of Capt. Cook), from a Polynesian noun (e.g. Tahitian and Samoan tatau, Marquesan tatu “puncture, mark made on skin”).
Click to expand...
Therefore we have no assurance that our modern concept for “tattoo” is anything like what was described in Leviticus. We simply know that, when the Scripture was translated, “tattoo” was the closest word the translator could find to match the text.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Therefore we have no assurance that our modern concept for “tattoo” is anything like what was described in Leviticus. We simply know that, when the Scripture was translated, “tattoo” was the closest word the translator could find to match the text.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, it would make sense that their “tattoos” were something more along the lines of a face paint or body paint… probably pretty common in pagan Middle Eastern cultures too, which is why the Jews had to be disassociated from it. Makes sense, actually.

So I’ll be the first to provide photographic evidence that face painting is mutilation! :bigyikes:
 
latinmasslover said:
I think the more appropriate question is, which Saints did not? Still, you oppose women (and men) piercing their ears, yes? St. Jane and St. Rita are the ones off the top of my head. Check out Lives of the Saints, you’ll come across many who scourged themselves.
Click to expand...
If Saint Jane really took a branding iron to her chest, you will have strengthened your position. But could the *brand on her heart *be more figurative than literal? Here’s copy on her and on St. Rita from lives of the Saints.

SAINT JANE FRANCES de CHANTAL
Foundress of the Order of the Visitation of The Blessed Virgin Mary
(1572-1641)
magnificat.ca/cal/engl/08-21.htm
Harassed almost to despair by their entreaties, she branded on her heart the name of Jesus

SAINT RITA of CASCIA
Widow
(†1456)
magnificat.ca/cal/engl/05-22.htm#rita

Saint Rita practiced severe mortifications, eating but once a day and taking only bread and water for food. She was a model of perfect obedience; she meditated every night, from midnight until dawn, on the Passion of Our Lord, and begged to share His sufferings. On one of these nights she felt in her forehead the pain of sharp thorns, which made there an incurable wound. The festering wound isolated her from the other Sisters, and she lived thereafter almost as a hermit in the convent. The wound was cured once for a short time, when the entire group of Sisters were to go to Rome on the occasion of a universal jubilee; on their return her wound opened again.

Does this apply to our discussion?
 
catholic2 said:
If Saint Jane really took a branding iron to her chest, you will have strengthened your position. But could the *brand on her heart *be more figurative than literal? Here’s copy on her and on St. Rita from lives of the Saints.

SAINT JANE FRANCES de CHANTAL
Foundress of the Order of the Visitation of The Blessed Virgin Mary
(1572-1641)
magnificat.ca/cal/engl/08-21.htm
Harassed almost to despair by their entreaties, she branded on her heart the name of Jesus

SAINT RITA of CASCIA
Widow
(†1456)
magnificat.ca/cal/engl/05-22.htm#rita

Saint Rita practiced severe mortifications, eating but once a day and taking only bread and water for food. She was a model of perfect obedience; she meditated every night, from midnight until dawn, on the Passion of Our Lord, and begged to share His sufferings. On one of these nights she felt in her forehead the pain of sharp thorns, which made there an incurable wound. The festering wound isolated her from the other Sisters, and she lived thereafter almost as a hermit in the convent. The wound was cured once for a short time, when the entire group of Sisters were to go to Rome on the occasion of a universal jubilee; on their return her wound opened again.

Does this apply to our discussion?
Click to expand...
OK, whether or not St. Rita did or did not practice scourging doesn’t matter here.

Respond to the rest of the posts. Including the one about what Jimmy Akin said, and also about the definition of tattoo and how it was used in the Bible. Also about the other things that Leviticus forbids.
 
Harmony1988 said:
Leviticus mandates circumsion, also forbids the eating of pork. So therefore now it is wrong to eat pork and it’s also immoral to be not be circumsized. Sorry, Holy Scripture states it, no way out. Sorry, bye. Puleeze.
Click to expand...
This was discussed earlier…been there, done that.
 
Harmony1988 said:
OK, whether or not St. Rita did or did not practice scourging doesn’t matter here.

Respond to the rest of the posts. Including the one about what Jimmy Akin said, and also about the definition of tattoo and how it was used in the Bible. Also about the other things that Leviticus forbids.
Click to expand...
Hey, simmer down. I’ll try to get to you, just that time is not a plentiful commodity. Ok, Jimmy Akins…is he the guy with the white cowboy hat? Well he claims that tattooing, as long as it doesn’t impair the body’s function is fine, unlike tongue splitting. (I never realized that people split their tongue…like a snake?..double yuk…pun intended). His position then would be diametrically opposed to an earlier post quoting Father Echert who said that, depending on the degree of tattooing could be a mortal sin. If Akin is correct, it is never a sin, except if it endangers your health to tattoo yourself. If Father Echert is correct and that one could incur a mortal sin defacing yourself with tattoos, then perhaps to the degree that you tattoo yourself, to that degree you sin, starting from a venial one. N’este pa?
 
catholic2 said:
This was discussed earlier…been there, done that.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware it was?

Eitherways, there is still a lot more you have to prove, there is a flurry of posts you haven’t responded to. Including the Jimmy Akin one, if you don’t know who he is, get educated quick.

We also need some proof of your authority as well, since you seem to disagree with every priest quoted, and apologist. So yea, get cracking.
 
catholic2 said:
Hey, simmer down. I’ll try to get to you, just that time is not a plentiful commodity. Ok, Jimmy Akins…is he the guy with the white cowboy hat? Well he claims that tattooing, as long as it doesn’t impair the body’s function is fine, unlike tongue splitting. (I never realized that people split their tongue…like a snake?..double yuk…pun intended). His position then would be diametrically opposed to an earlier post quoting Father Echert who said that, depending on the degree of tattooing could be a mortal sin. If Akin is correct, it is never a sin, except if it endangers your health to tattoo yourself. If Father Echert is correct and that one could incur a mortal sin defacing yourself with tattoos, then perhaps to the degree that you tattoo yourself, to that degree you sin, starting from a venial one. N’este pa?
Click to expand...
Akins, didn’t give a fully explanation of tatooing, as can be seen it was rather short. His argument was in regards to tattoos being ‘mutilation’ where Echert’s was pertaining to the images of the tattoos being a mortal sin or not.

Having a trouble understanding?

Akins said tattooing is NOT mutilation.
Echert said the sins regarding to tattoos depends on the imagery.

There is nothing opposing, but rather the opposition in your mind due to your stubborness to accept and comprehend basic arguments.

‘The guy with the cowboy hat’ - nice one. Akins is an incredible defender of the faith with far more knowledge on all these topics than you. I’m sure, with his opinion, echert’s and the various apologists’s opinions on tattooing, we have all got the answer we needed.
 
Requoting him:
It can be, depending upon it content, location and the intention of the person receiving it. My uncles got tattoos in WWII while in the Navy, of an anchor or something similar; this was commonly done and while they regret it now, with faded colors and the passing of time, it was not a mortal sin when done. But anything intended to be sexually provocative, contrary to religion, or excessive could very well be a mortal sin. Be careful…
Click to expand...
His post is regarding the imagery mainly. We all agree on the intentions of tattooing, that like anything else. Having a cross in your hand with the intention of stabbing someone is obviously different than that of veneration.

It is not opposed to Akin’s at all. Perhaps you should reread and try not to embellish your statements, lest you confuse yourself in the process.
 
And yet another quote from Jimmy Akin (there is no “s” on the end):
The Leviticus passage is part of the Mosaic Law, which is not binding on Christians (or anybody else these days). Originally the Mosaic Law was binding on the Jewish people only; now it is binding on nobody except insofar as it repeats things that are part of the moral law, having been superceded by Christ.

Many of the precepts of the Mosaic Law are ceremonial and do not belong to the moral law. Their purpose, in many cases, is simply to make the Israelites culturally distinct from the Canaanites who surrounded them. This is one such command. The Canaanites cut their bodies for the dead and made tattoos as part of their religious practice, and this command forbids that in order to make the Israelites unable to participate in Canaanite religious practices.

A prohibition on tattooing is not part of the moral law, however. From a moral perspective, there is no reason why one cannot color one’s skin, which is what tattooing amounts to. One can apply color to one’s skin by make-up (as is common among women), magic markers (as is common among children), press-on tattoos (as are common in Crackerjack boxes), or with real tattoos. The mere fact that the ink goes into the skin in the latter case does not create a fundamental moral difference.
Of course, in doing this there are moral considerations to be factored in: (1) One should not use the tattoo to transmit an immoral message, (2) one should not use an unsafe process to get the tattoo (e.g., dirty tattoo needles that might be carrying who knows what diseases), (3) and one should be generally prudent about getting a tattoo (e.g., what effects will getting this tattoo have on your relationships with others? if you break up with your girlfriend, do you really want her name still on your arm? do you really want a permanent tattoo when they have temporary ones now?). However, the Church doesn’t have a problem with tattooing in principle.
Click to expand...
 
masterjedi747 said:
Apologies for venting.
It’s just that, if you are coming at this as strongly as I think you might be, our disagreements are going to run much deeper than this one issue, and we’d probably be better off tackling the root of our disagreement than sitting here, making pointless arguments, and getting nowhere.

…of course they do. They’re still following the Old Law, right?

Yes, the Catholic position is close. But not exact. And I think there’s a reason. Most of the Jewish law – the vast, vast majority – was ritual law that ceased to exist with the New Covenant. I think it’s clear that the law against tattooing was part of this ritual law.

However, the Church understands that we are made in the image of God, and that our bodies must be respected, just the same as the Jews did and still do. And that’s why the Church would say that excessive tattooing and earrings (etc) can be sinful.

Unless done on an unhealthy scale or for immoral purposes, the act of tattooing itself is not severe enough to count as self-mutilation, and therefore not sinful. Like drinking alcohol, it can be a sin if not kept within reasonable guidelines.
Click to expand...
The Jewish perspective on tattooing has a moral perspective as you rightly noted; that our bodies must be respected as we are made in the image and likeness of God. To the degree we disrespect our bodies we disrespect God’s creation. Does not scripture say we are wonderfully and fearfully made?

A permanent mark on your body is in my opinion a disfigurement, which is different from drinking a beer or having a glass of Chablis with dinner. And I would be hard put to refuse a great cigar. But getting drunk, or excessively smoking will harm you. Tattoos, as is well evidenced in this thread, can be a visual evidence of the inner person, regardless of original motivation, when seen by others.
 
More fodder for thought…
If our Lord gave mutilations as symbols for us to see and help us believe (examples: St. Francis’ stigmata, St. Pio’s stigmata, and St. Rita’s thorn), then are the symbols some use to show their faith really that wrong or sinful?
Many holy men and women have used disciplines for centuries, and St. Francis would throw himself into a rose bush when tempted (talk about getting tattooed by thorns). Should these acts of self mutilation be seen as being sinful as well?
 
wow…I left for a few days and…wow. Thanks for all the opinions!!

I’m pretty sure though, that unless you are either a priest or Jesus, you cannot say “this is a sin.period.the end.” You do not have the authority to say that. Quoting bible verses also does not prove your point because, again, unless you are a priest or Jesus, you don’t have the authority to interpret scripture. Don’t quote leviticus unless you live like an orthodox Jew (mmm…this ham sammich is good!!! 😃 )

I asked for opinions…nothing more or less…so please keep them as “I think that…” or “I believe that…” so that no one gets offended by overly-rightous statements. A little humility goes a long way 😉

I asked this because my friend asked me for MY opinion…I asked for YOUR opinions hoping for your thoughts (not holier-then-thou “facts”) as well as verifiable facts from priests or apologists.

Since the origional post, my friend has gotten the tattoo. She got a very simple, very small tattoo of the sacred heart on the underside of her forearm. It does not draw attention and only serves to remind her of her faith whenever she looks at it. We did have another conversation about it first, and I told her that " Most of the people I asked think that it is ok unless it is excessive or obscene."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top