tattoos

[latinmasslover]

This is being discussed on the morality page, and has many times before. I was just curious as to the view of traditional Catholics regarding tattoos. Say, a tattoo of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the shoulder, or the Crucifix on the back? Or something that means something to the individual (for example: mother. original, I know)

Any opinions?

 

[TemplarKnight]

Right, wrong or indifferent, I have a few Catholic tattoos. I have a large (5") Chi Rho, the jesuit symbol (IHS), a Jerusalem cross and others.

I’ll sort my sin out with God when the time comes.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I grew up as a traditional Catholic and went to Catholic school from K - 12. In those days, we were taught that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit. One did not put graffitti on the temple. In those days, the only people who had tattoos were sailors, hookers and bikers for the most part. For the other part, I saw more than my share of folks with numbers tattooed on their left forearm. I ran a cash register on Canal St. in New Orleans and saw my share of sailors, bikers, hookers and Jewish people with tattoos. Thanks be to God for those who survived the Holocaust camps!

The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[NeedImprovement]

The way the world is today, if a tatoo of something sacred causes another to contemplate it, is it wrong? Hmmm… If I saw a tatoo of Our Lady of Guadalupe I personally would probably think of Saint Juan Diego, Our Lady and the entire story.

Only my opinion.

 

[hasikelee]

I catalogue tattoos under culture. That they have something to do with morals or theology is incidental and not an inherent property of the act itself.

Just like a couple generations ago it was a social norm to cover your head at Mass, wear a suit and tie as a teacher and for women to stay in the home.

Those things only had meaning because our culture gave them that meaning. And our current culture does not hold that tattoos are the rebellious, dangerous or “anti social” marks for which they once stood.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I catalogue tattoos under culture. That they have something to do with morals or theology is incidental and not an inherent property of the act itself.

Just like a couple generations ago it was a social norm to cover your head at Mass, wear a suit and tie as a teacher and for women to stay in the home.

Those things only had meaning because our culture gave them that meaning. And our current culture does not hold that tattoos are the rebellious, dangerous or “anti social” marks for which they once stood.

Imagine if society did hold to that…? Nobody would be safe; what with colored hair, spiked hair, body piercing (this last one’s a little more distracting though

Anybody who doesn’t know where the real battle is being waged, take a look at hasikelee’s signature. Mother Theresa of Calcutta called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace in the world.

Thx for the reminder hasikelee.

 

[lak611]

Many WW2 veterans got tattoos when they were in the military. I am sure that quite of few of those men were Catholic.

 

[marymonde]

I researched tattoos a few years ago. My husband and my son have religious tattoos on them. While I did find info on the net, I found more resources in actual books (imagine that).

First of all I read that the Crusaders had Coptic (I think it was Coptic priests, it’s been a while since I read this) tattoo a cross on their wrist or hand when they came to the Holy Land. It was a sign of faith, and a sign to give a crusader a Christian burial if he was killed on the battlefield. Many came back home with their tattoos marked on their skin.

Ethiopian Catholics tattoo their children as a sign of faith to this day, as do many Eastern Rite priests. As it was previouly mentioned, it’s largely cultural.

Many people refer to Leviticus condemning tattoos. The word tattoo was not known in Western civilzation until the 1700’s. It’s from Polynesian word tatao which means “to tap”. The word tattoo is not in the Douay-Rheims.

**Lev. 19:28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord. **

It was becoming a custom during the time this was written for people to put the ashes or bits of the dead into the skin, marking it for the deceased loved one. As troublesome as this sounds, I have heard this practice making a comeback in this day and age.

The saints scourged their bodies and left marks on their skin. Our Lord has had saints possess the stigmata as well leaving the skin marked in a way. Their motives were to mortify their flesh.

I will add that I do personally know a young man who is a seminarian who received permission from his superior to have a St. Benedicts Medal tattooed on his back. It was agreed this was ok as long as it was in an area that could not be seen by others.

If one feels called to put a religious symbol on their flesh, I would say to consult their priest first. As usual, you’ll get different answers to the same question, so much prayer for discernment must go into the thought process as well.

God bless…

 

[marymonde]

dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/moral/moral3.htm

Is there any moral teaching of the Church regarding tattoos?

There is no direct specific teaching of the Church about this matter as far as I know. However, there may be some general moral principles which could apply. For instance, a minor child (in the U.S.A. any one under 18) would be morally obliged to obey his or her parents when they forbid a tattoo. Also unnecessary bodily mutilation is forbidden by the fifth commandment. If a tattoo or body piercing or other practices done for aesthetic reasons were to entail what most people would call mutilation, these things could be sinful. If a tattoo were particularly repulsive to most people, obtaining it could also be a violation of Christian charity.

Reprinted April 23, 1999

 

[NeedImprovement]

This is a much more enjoyable and edifying way for me to learn about things compared to simply researching them by myself.

Thanks Laura and Marymonde and all.

 

[Harmony1988]

When people starting worrying and criticizing about their fellow Catholics with tattoos and spiked hair, that’s when problems arise, instead of perhaps preaching against abortion and what not.

Arguing about gelled hair, tattoos, rock music and fast cars is getting carried away. As the Bible nor the Church forbids gelled hair, tattoos, rock music and such. Sure some of the cardinals have their opinion, but since it is not against the Word of God, they won’t declare anything against it.

Traditional or not, it’s scripture that matters. Whatever was done in the old days was done, people’s views change, always will when it comes to these random things. If you grew up in the early 1800’s, I bet someone who grew up in 1300 would have something nasty to say.

Etc.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Since this is the Traditional Catholicism forum, all I can do is state that which I was taught and what I saw. From a very pragmatic point of view, I have worked with those veterans who got tatoos in WWII. Those tatoos are not a pretty sight today. The tatoo that Jack got in Honolulu of a hula girl probably looked quite spiffy in 1942. When Jack was dieing of cancer in 1996, it was another sight entirely.

So, someone tell me. Why was I taught by the sisters and brothers that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit and that one did not put graffitti on the Temple? I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to this question. We have a picture of Our Lady of Guadelupe in our parish hall. I’d rather look at that print than a tattoo. What am I missing here?

 

[TemplarKnight]

So, someone tell me. Why was I taught by the sisters and brothers that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit and that one did not put graffitti on the Temple?

For me, the difference is what is the art? Is it some stupid dragon or funky clown?

Or is it a visual testament to the Lord? The Church used stained glass windows for the illiterate in the middle ages. What’s wrong with seeing a “stained glass” piece of art on our “temple”?

Or, when you walk into your “temple” (or Church) isn’t there a large crucifix hanging on the wall? So can’t you put a large crucifix hanging on your “temple”? Again, I think God will judge on heart and intent, not on public perception.

 

[brotherhrolf]

That’s fine Templar but it does not answer the why - this is a traditional Catholic forum and the traditional Catholic nuns and brothers taught me that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit. If we are traditional Catholics, what has changed in the last 40 years ? One is tempted to say it is nothing more than popular culture. What I am asking for is a rebuttal to the nuns and brothers who taught me back in the 60s.

They said no. The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. No graffitti on the Temple. You say, yes. Evidently what I was taught was wrong. I search for an answer.

 

[maggieodae]

I just find it totally repulsive. YUCK! Whatever are they thinking to mark up the temple of the Holy Spirit like some abandoned barn. :banghead:

While the Church does not forbid it, they do ask one to consider several things.

Respect for Health and Bodily Integrity

The Fifth Commandment—“You shall not kill”—does not simply require respect for human life; it also compels Christians to respect the dignity of persons and to safeguard peace (see The Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2258-2330). Respect for the dignity of persons includes, among other things, respect for the souls of others, for their health, and for their bodily integrity.

“Life and physical health,” the Church teaches, “are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good” (Catechism, no. 2288). Prudence dictates that persons considering tattoos or body piercing research any health risks that may be involved. If a particular act of tattooing or body piercing entails a likely risk to health, it would be more or less sinful depending upon the gravity of the risk. If a particular act involves mutilation—if the act renders a bodily organ unable to perform its function—the act is immoral (Catechism, no. 2297).
**
Charity and Respect for the Souls of Others**

Catholics must also consider the common good when they decide whether to be tattooed or have their bodies pierced. In certain instances—for example, in indigenous cultures in which tattooing is a rite of passage to adulthood—the common good practically demands that a person be tattooed.1 In the United States and other Western countries, however, considerations of the common good generally lead one to pause before being tattooed or having one’s body pierced.

The question of whether an act of tattooing or body piercing hinders a Catholic’s evangelizing mission leads to the broader question of whether such an act harms the souls of others. Tattoos whose words and images celebrate the demonic, are unchaste, or otherwise offend against charity are immoral.

Even if a tattoo’s words and images are not uncharitable in themselves, the act of obtaining a tattoo can be rendered immoral if done so with an evil intention—for example, in order to spite one’s parents or society (cf. Catechism, no. 1752).

Persons considering body piercing should also be aware of the implicit messages that the particular act of piercing conveys in a particular time and place. Some acts of body piercing can imply approval for the immoral homosexual lifestyle. Other acts of body piercing can imply active participation in, or a desire to participate in, other unchaste acts. In such cases, the acts of body piercing are immoral because they appear to manifest an approval of sin and thus scandalize others (cf. Catechism, no. 1868, 2284).

Questions to Consider

Catholics who are considering getting tattoos or having their bodies pierced may want to reflect on the following questions:

· Does this particular act of tattooing or body piercing involve a risk to my health?

· Would this act mutilate me—that is, would it inhibit the proper functioning of my skin or another organ of my body?

· Is the explicit message of my tattoo compatible with love of God and neighbor?

· Is the implicit message of my tattoo compatible with love of God and neighbor? Does it convey an implicitly unchaste message?

· Why do I want to get a tattoo or have my body pierced?

· If I am under the authority of my parents, would this act be an act of disobedience that would violate the Fourth Commandment?

· Would this particular act needlessly offend my family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, and thus hinder my ability to lead others to Christ and His Church?

· Can the expense involved be justified in light of the needs of my family, the Church, and the poor?

 

[NeedImprovement]

Lots of good “Why?”'s being posted lately. It would be interesting to know what some people are thinking when they do this to themselves, it might give us some insight.

Since my childhood I’ve personally never found the word “Mom” (usu accompamied by a heart) tattooed on a guy’s arm to be offensive in any way. It would appear he wishes to remember his mother. I wish I’d been thinking of mine that often.

When my father was in the ICU up here for almost 2 months dangling between life and death (3 years ago) one of his nurses had a pierced eyebrow. She had this little metal arrow going right through it. Her care was excellent but I was still secretly hoping my dad wouldn’t open his eyes when she was right in front of his face.

These are trends. Trends change. I believe what brotherhrolf is saying is initially borne out in 1 Corinthians 6: 19.That’s sacred scripture - that cannot change. Perhaps a clue can be found in the ensuing verse 20: “…So glorify God in your body.”

 

[marymonde]

That’s fine Templar but it does not answer the why - this is a traditional Catholic forum and the traditional Catholic nuns and brothers taught me that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit. If we are traditional Catholics, what has changed in the last 40 years ? One is tempted to say it is nothing more than popular culture. What I am asking for is a rebuttal to the nuns and brothers who taught me back in the 60s.

They said no. The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. No graffitti on the Temple. You say, yes. Evidently what I was taught was wrong. I search for an answer.

Brotherolf, I understand where you are coming from. I do. I had the exact same concerns when my dh was determined to have a crucifix tattooed on him. Let me say he had a tattoo in his youth that was not a good tattoo and wanted to cover it after his conversion with a religious meaning. Knowing my husband’s faith was firm I decided to research. Tattoo’s were a part of Catholic culture, going back hundreds of years, and, continues to this day. It does depend on what part of the world you live in, but maybe the nuns that taught you didn’t know Crusaders were tattooed. Or Catholic priests in the East have been tattooed for hundreds of years and still are today. Or Ethiopian Catholics tattoo their children on the forhead with a cross.

I will convey the tattoo artist that tattooed my dh is a fallen away Catholic. I went to the shop with my dh, and my son. I told the man who was tattooing my family that I had holy water and that I was going to sprinkle it around the shop because I knew people had tattoo’s done there that were demonic in nature. He kind of looked at me and told me to go ahead. I did and also put a green scapular in his shop. He didn’t mind. We talked and found out he use to be a server at the altar. He had fallen into drugs and other bad habits. My dh and I told him we were going to pray for him to get off the drugs. We just visited him a month ago after not seeing him for quite a while. When I came in he came up and hugged me and thanked me profusely. He told me he knew our prayers have been answered, he was off the drugs for 6 months. He said he went cold turkey and hadn’t desired any of it. I told him it was all Jesus and Mary, not us, and to thank them. Also he used God’s name in vain constantly. I begged him to stop. He also relayed to me that he has not used God’s name in vain since our last visit.

I see every opporunity as a means of bringning a soul back to God, even if my dh and ds want tattoo’s. Somehow, SOMEHOW, Our Lord and Our Lady allowed a great grace to come through a tattoo. I cannot explain it, I cannot tell you if it will last, but God is SO good he can take something repulsive to many and make it good. For that, I am eternally grateful.

God bless…

 

[brotherhrolf]

As a student of medieval history, I am not aware of any Crusaders bearing tattoos. It is, of course, possible that some of the militant orders (e.g. Templars) had tattoos as part of their initiation rites.

I was aware of the Ethiopians as well as the Maori in the south Pacific. As Maggie pointed out, the CCC makes exception for ethnic tattoos.

That God can bring good forth from evil is not part of what I was asking. What is the point of a tiny diamond stud in the nose of my cashier yesterday at the grocery store? What is the point of the nipple rings and belly button piercings of the woman in the news who ran afoul of Homeland Security at the airport? What is the point of the tattoos crawling up the neck of the husband of one of my co-workers?

What has changed in the last 40 years that such things are accepted and defended today? I can’t help but recall seeing the numbers tattooed on the left forearms of people I served when I ran a cash register on Canal St. in New Orleans as a teenager. I grant you that that is personal. But I knew they were holocaust survivors (and what they must have seen!).

At about the time I was running that cash register, all of my contemporaries grew long hair, smoked pot, and everything was groovy. My father sat me down and said there are sheep and there are goats. Sheep follow the flock. That message struck home. Simply because everyone says tattoos are OK does it really make it so?

 

[TemplarKnight]

That’s fine Templar but it does not answer the why - this is a traditional Catholic forum and the traditional Catholic nuns and brothers taught me that the body was the Temple of the Holy Spirit. If we are traditional Catholics, what has changed in the last 40 years ? One is tempted to say it is nothing more than popular culture. What I am asking for is a rebuttal to the nuns and brothers who taught me back in the 60s.

They said no. The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. No graffitti on the Temple. You say, yes. Evidently what I was taught was wrong. I search for an answer.

BH,

I do not make the claim that I am either right or wrong. I am only trying to express my opinion within the context of this discussion. My first question is to define “traditional”, and to state what that really means to Catholics. Many things that were considered “OK”, or even encouraged 40 years ago is scarce or impossible to find today.

As one pointed out, the word “tattoo” was not known to the Church fathers until the 1700’s, therefore they couldn’t necessarily be “against” it. I believe the negative stigma that tattoos have is due to the type of person who traditionally had tattoos.

Also those that quote vague biblical passages, especially in the OT, are grasping at straws for justification of their opinions.

And as I mentioned before, I have trouble believing that it is encouraged to hang a large crucifix in a Church, wear a crucifix necklace, paint a picture of a crucifix, even hang a crucifix in our home, yet if I tattoo a crucifix on my body, that’s a sin?

And as far as our bodies being the temple goes, do we have the same attitude about people who are fat? Or people who don’t maintain good hygiene? If our body is a temple and it should be treated as such, then how do these people fit in?

Also, I have to ask you about this irony.

My father sat me down and said there are sheep and there are goats. Sheep follow the flock. That message struck home. Simply because everyone says tattoos are OK does it really make it so?

Here’s a rhetorical question for you.

If sheep follow the flock, do I have a tattoo because I want to be like everyone else or do I have a tattoo because I am different from everyone else?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Templar:

Forty years ago the only people who had tattoos were WWII vets, bikers, and other folks who fit the Fonzie image on Happy Days. Tattoo parlors were in the French Quarter in New Orleans and were frequented by “biker types”. Most of my generation were solidly influenced by the teachings of HMC.

I can count on two hands the number of my classmates who grew long hair after we graduated from high school in 69. I can’t count how many enlisted in the years that followed. To listen to the media today, you would think that all of my generation followed what the popular culture dictated and you would be wrong. Forty years ago it was long hair, beads, pot and protest. Where has anything changed today with tattoos? Is it not the same phenomena? Oh, Jesus had long hair and a beard and so did the Apostles. Sound familiar? Chasing after The World is chasing after The World no matter the generation.

The big difference is that if I had long hair and got it cut off, I could grow the long hair back. Once I have my body marked, well, it is a different story.

I will be brutally honest. I am not in the least bit attracted to all the twenty-something women with scroll work on the nape of their back - clearly seen at the grocery store. Forty years ago they would have been “marked” women. I am not impressed with the…(I don’t know what to call it) “growth” on my co-worker’s husbands neck.

The CCC gives those of you who have tattoos many questions to answer. It is far simpler for me. The body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.