Tattoos?

[NightRider]

Phoenix 7:

I know someone who is considering getting a tattoo of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as a constant reminder of the faith to which he has pleged himself. However, his dad is of the opinion that getting a tattoo, regardless of what it is or the reason for getting it, is an offense against God because it is disrespecting the temple of the Holy Spirit. Does anyone know an appropriate response? Certainly he wants to both respect the wishes of his father, but also wants the tattoo. As far as I know, the Catechism doesn’t say anything about tattoos being morally wrong…what do you think?

I have these very tattoos, Phoenix 7! One on each upper arm. I am a 49 year old woman and one of my favorite priests loves them, so there ya go!

 

[Jo_s_Dad]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

1. The Church does not take a moral position on tattoos. This has been addressed more than once in the “Ask an Apologist” forum, and that is always the answer given. There is nothing in the Catechism about tattoos, either for or against.

This is another reason I want to join this chuch.

My wife, who was raised in an atheist family and was not even introduced to the bible until we got married, has several tatoos. Each one has special meaning to her.

When she began talking with the missionaries about joining the LDS church, which I belonged to, their opinion was that the body is a temple and we should never do anything to deface the temple. My only comment was “But you still paint temples”

This was one of the things that made be begin re-evaluating my membership in the LDS church.

 

[tuopaolo]

2) The Church does not take a moral position on tattoos.

The Church AFAIK hasn’t taken a direct, specific, explicit position on tattoos but:

1. One can argue that other more general teachings apply to tattoos.
2. It’s entirely expected that there wouldn’t be a direct, specific, explicit position on tattoos since the Church has much more pressing priorities at the moment! For example when abortion is rampant, an encyclical on tattoos may take a backseat to encylicals dealing with abortion and related issues. No one really expects there to be an encyclical wholly devoted to the issue of tattoos or even one where one paragraph talks about tattoos.

There is nothing in the Catechism about tattoos, either for or against.

There is nothing specific and explicit directly for or against, but you can’t expect the Catechism to deal with every single moral issue that arises in human life. If it did, then the Catechism would be like 100,000 pages long. You’d have to cover not only tattoos but things like rock music (written about by Cardinal Ratzinger incidentally), hermaphroditism, etc. When trying to give a concise summary, it is expected that there wouldn’t be a paragraph devoted to tattoos. No one expects there to be one.

 

[space_ghost]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

Space,

Please remember that some of us in this forum actually have tattoos, and we have feelings just like any other ghost.

…please don’t take any of my statements as judgemental, they are certainly not meant to be… my distaste for tattoo’s are the same as my distaste for silver cars… i have seen some that i could say look cool even…

but, i just never saw the sence of permanently branding your body for what is ok for today, but usually (as is for a lot of people) over time lots and lots of people wish they could loose or remove them… either age/wisdom, or opinion/taste changes.

…if i offended anyone i apologize, that was the farthest thing from my mind…

…different strokes for different ghost…
http://www.timboucher.com/images/skeleton_woman.jpg

…peace:thumbsup:

 

[surfinpure]

I don’t know which general teachings might refer to tattoos, except perhaps the teaching on mutilation. As far as I can tell, that wouldn’t apply. And I wouldn’t expect to see an encyclical on tattoos, but I would expect a line or two somewhere if it were morally impermissible.

Incidentally, our very own CA apologists have spoken on the issue. They don’t see a problem with tattoos, either.

tuopaolo:

The Church AFAIK hasn’t taken a direct, specific, explicit position on tattoos but:

1. One can argue that other more general teachings apply to tattoos.
2. It’s entirely expected that there wouldn’t be a direct, specific, explicit position on tattoos since the Church has much more pressing priorities at the moment! For example when abortion is rampant, an encyclical on tattoos may take a backseat to encylicals dealing with abortion and related issues. No one really expects there to be an encyclical wholly devoted to the issue of tattoos or even one where one paragraph talks about tattoos.

There is nothing specific and explicit directly for or against, but you can’t expect the Catechism to deal with every single moral issue that arises in human life. If it did, then the Catechism would be like 100,000 pages long. You’d have to cover not only tattoos but things like rock music (written about by Cardinal Ratzinger incidentally), hermaphroditism, etc. When trying to give a concise summary, it is expected that there wouldn’t be a paragraph devoted to tattoos. No one expects there to be one.

 

[tuopaolo]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

I don’t know which general teachings might refer to tattoos, except perhaps the teaching on mutilation. As far as I can tell, that wouldn’t apply. And I wouldn’t expect to see an encyclical on tattoos, but I would expect a line or two somewhere if it were morally impermissible.

Your expectation would be misplaced because listing every single thing that is morally impermissible would make the list over a million pages long.

Disfiguring yourself without sufficient reason is wrong. So to the extent that a tattoo without sufficient reason disfigures yourself, it would be wrong. I’ll see if I can find a good article on this I came across a while ago.

 

[surfinpure]

tuopaolo:

Disfiguring yourself without sufficient reason is wrong. So to the extent that a tattoo without sufficient reason disfigures yourself, it would be wrong. I’ll see if I can find a good article on this I came across a while ago.

If you can truly find a good article, that’s fine. But “disfiguring” is quite open to interpretation. Some cultures, particularly in Africa, do things far more “disfiguring” than putting ink in their skins, and those aren’t necessarily wrong, either. Now, if tattooing were inherently harmful to the body (and we both know I’m not talking about unsterile conditions), then it would be wrong, absolutely. But since it is not (at least, as far as we’ve discovered to date), then it is no worse than piercing ears. It is a cultural decoration and nothing more.

I find that those most outspoken against tattooing are so for personal reasons, since their theological ones are tenuous at best. If there is an argument of personal distaste for tattoos, fine, but I won’t buy a flimsy theological one. (This is not a personal address to you, tuopaulo. I am speaking in general terms of what I have thus far encountered on the subject.)

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

I find that those most outspoken against tattooing are so for personal reasons, since their theological ones are tenuous at best. If there is an argument of personal distaste for tattoos, fine, but I won’t buy a flimsy theological one.

I completely agree. I have not yet come across anything that would make me think that tattoos themselves are immoral or somehow against the Church.

I have, however, come across many articles etc (like our very own CA apologists, articles by Jimmy Akin…) that state that tattoos are morally neutral.

They ***can be ***sinful. For example, if you spend money on a tattoo that you shouldn’t… get one knowing it will put your health in danger… disobey your parents’ wishes if you are a minor… become addicted to the process and get them to excess… etc.

All arguments against tattooing so far have been personal and not theological. Jimmy Akin, I believe, wrote an interesting piece stating that tattooing is not the same as mutilation. Mutilation requires affecting the function of the body or body part. Stapling your lips together would be mutilation. Tattooing an image on your skin is merely personal decoration.

Malia

 

[tuopaolo]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

If you can truly find a good article, that’s fine.

I don’t think I found the one I came across but I managed to find another one in a matter of seconds … so apparently there’s at least several out there online. This is in my view the most important point in the article:

“The human body is meant to be treated with care, not maltreated or disfigured. Its dignity and beauty must be kept and cultivated, in order that it be an expression of the deeper beauty of the soul.”

Some cultures, particularly in Africa, do things far more “disfiguring” than putting ink in their skins, and those aren’t necessarily wrong, either.

Just because something is done in a culture doesn’t make it right:

“In any culture, things can arise, become acceptable, and become part of the culture – but this does not necessarily make them right. Here are some examples from foreign cultures that I regard as equally wrong. In one tribe of Africa, women wear gigantic and heavy earrings that change the shape of the earlobes. In another place, women put coils around their necks and elongate them unnaturally, or put plates in their mouths to make the lips protrude some inches. In China, there was once the practice of binding girls’ feet tightly to stop them from growing, because small, dainty feet were admired. These and other drastic alterations to the natural growth of the human body must be judged immoral, as forms of abuse springing from vanity.”

Now, if tattooing were inherently harmful to the body (and we both know I’m not talking about unsterile conditions), then it would be wrong, absolutely. But since it is not (at least, as far as we’ve discovered to date), then it is no worse than piercing ears. It is a cultural decoration and nothing more.

Having 200 earrings all over one’s body would be a sin also as it would disfigure one’s body. In anticipation of your objection let me quote:

“It is not always possible to draw an exact line and say where the bounds of moderation have been exceeded. But this does not mean that there is no line. No one can define at what exact temperature a day passes from being cool to cold, but everyone knows that when the temperature is near zero, it is cold beyond dispute. Let us never fall for the ploy that tries to argue from borderline or difficult cases that there are no guidelines or principles, and that there is no such thing as a just mean or moderation, just because they are hard to define.”

Please read this good, balanced article by Fr Peter Joseph:

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Joseph.html

 

[surfinpure]

tuopaulo,

That is an interesting article. It still does not specifically state that tattooing is immoral. It merely gives the instances in which it would be and provides other reasons not to get one. Believe it or not, I am more willing to accept reasons based on logic in this case, because these are the best that can be offered. As for jumping straight from Leviticus to the writings of St. Paul, that is something I would expect a Protestant to do, not a studied Catholic. Even seminarians know that Mosaic Law has to be taken in context.

I’m sorry, tuo. I know you have your own reasons for disliking tattoos. I admit to disliking a good many of them myself. But that does not change the fact that for every article of Catholic opinion against them, I can find an article of Catholic opinion that says they are morally neutral. If it becomes doctrinal teaching of Holy Mother Church that tattoos are wrong, I will repent of my one, little, measly tattoo and be done with the whole mess.

Good day.

 

[tuopaolo]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

tuopaulo,

That is an interesting article. It still does not specifically state that tattooing is immoral.

The most important thing it states (in my view) is:

“The human body is meant to be treated with care, not maltreated or disfigured. Its dignity and beauty must be kept and cultivated, in order that it be an expression of the deeper beauty of the soul.”

So to the extent that a tattoo maltreats or disfigures the objective dignity and beauty of the human body, a dignity and beauty which must be kept and cultivated as an expression of the deeper beauty of the soul, is the extent to which a tattoo is wrong.

So as long as we agree on that principle, any disagreement will be about facts and not about the moral law.

As for jumping straight from Leviticus to the writings of St. Paul, that is something I would expect a Protestant to do, not a studied Catholic. Even seminarians know that Mosaic Law has to be taken in context.

He is a priest and I am positive he knows more than you or I do. Ignoring the Old Testament is not Catholic. The Catholic Church encourages reading of the Old Testament. It is also not Catholic to assume that none of the Mosiac Law (which btw includes the Ten Commandments) reflects the natural law. Some elements of the Mosiac Law do reflect the natural law and other elements are exclusively (now abrogated) positive divine law. To the extent to which an element of the Mosiac Law reflects the natural law, is the extent to which that element is binding – not as a precept of the Mosiac Law as none of it is binding as such, but rather as a precept of the natural law.

Regardless, Father quoted the Old Testament text as background and he would have been amiss to not even mention it as he rightfully did.

But that does not change the fact that for every article of Catholic opinion against them, I can find an article of Catholic opinion that says they are morally neutral.

Your job isn’t to try to find articles supporting your opinion. Your job (and mine) is to seek the truth with a desire to live out that truth, whatever the truth may be. Trying to find articles supporting your opinion would be akin to “priest-shopping” when going to confession where one tries to find a priest who tells them that what one is doing is OK. I’m not saying that this is what you are doing. I just felt it necessary to point this out as this is a trap that we often fall into.

 

[surfinpure]

tuo,

Seeking the Truth is precisely what I’ve done, and continue to do, concerning this matter. But given that the jury still seems to be out, since Catholic opinions tend to differ on this, I am as qualified to arrive at my position as you are to arrive at your own. Had I not researched the subject, this would be a different situation entirely.

You may be comforted to know (since you seem concerned about my personal search for Truth) that I have swallowed much more difficult doctrines than this trivial tattooing business. Since coming into the faith, I have changed my stance on such things as Evolution, Birth Control, mandatory Mass attendance, Confession, Purgatory, and prayer to the Saints. If I can go from comfortably practicing ABC to trepidatiously learning NFP and being open to as many children as God desires for me, believe you me, I can handle a negative view of tattoos!

However, I require that the evidence of immorality be sufficient and the teaching be clear on most fronts (I cannot say all, for there will always be the unorthodox lurking). Since I can find a number of credible apologists who tell me there is no sin in tattoos except under certain conditions, and I can find no official Church teaching to the contrary, I am confident, at least for now, that either 1) this issue has been defined and it is morally licit, or 2) this issue has not been well defined and therefore remains subjective.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

“The human body is meant to be treated with care, not maltreated or disfigured. Its dignity and beauty must be kept and cultivated, in order that it be an expression of the deeper beauty of the soul.”

Ok, since you stated that you feel that this was the most important part of the article, I will respond to it.

I completely agree with the above statement. But that does not mean that I disagree with tattoos.

What does it mean to “maltreat or disfigure” one’s body? As far as I know, the Church is not against plastic surgery in and of itself, but that is far more body changing than a tattoo. And what about hair color and make up? What about ear piercing (not 50)?

This issue is entirely subjective. I have 2 tattoos and am quite sure (for now) that I have not done anything immoral. I also have a few piercings. I also color my hair and wear makeup. All of these things are personal. None have been done with the intent to disrespect myself or God.

I resent your implication to Surf(name removed by moderator)ure that she is doing something akin to “priest shopping” to find an opinion that supports hers. If that is the case then aren’t you doing the same thing?

I am constantly in search of the Truth and respect others’ opinions on all matters. But opinions are not Truth.

Malia

 

[tuopaolo]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

tuo,

Seeking the Truth is precisely what I’ve done, and continue to do, concerning this matter. But given that the jury still seems to be out, since Catholic opinions tend to differ on this, I am as qualified to arrive at my position as you are to arrive at your own. Had I not researched the subject, this would be a different situation entirely.

You may be comforted to know (since you seem concerned about my personal search for Truth) that I have swallowed much more difficult doctrines than this trivial tattooing business. Since coming into the faith, I have changed my stance on such things as Evolution, Birth Control, mandatory Mass attendance, Confession, Purgatory, and prayer to the Saints. If I can go from comfortably practicing ABC to trepidatiously learning NFP and being open to as many children as God desires for me, believe you me, I can handle a negative view of tattoos!

LOL. OK, no need to convince me about that further

 

[chicagolover]

i want to get a tatoo, but i dont really want to spend the money right now. i want to get a cross on my arm (probably a celtic cross, but since those are so intricate it would be really expensive). i dont think there’s anything wrong with tatoos, unless you get something like a cross when you arent even a christian, like a lot of people do (the same people who wear crosses on necklaces when they arent christian).

people who wear crosses dosent literally mean there christian ..or they have to be christian . people who wear crosses can mean there catholic to

 

[THutch04]

I agree that some tattoo’s are really in bad taste, or just a little dumb. I know one person who has an ear of corn tattooed on his leg…THAT will be an interesting one to explain when he’s older!!! I don’t think it’s really mutilating the body anymore than cosmetic surgery or piercings. My first one is on the upper part of my thigh, so you really don’t see it unless I’m at the beach and for whatever reason I don’t have a cover-up on (I’ve always worn one just for modesty), and my second one will also be in an area that will be easily covered up. I don’t want an employer to be like some of the posters on this thread and on others that assume because I have a tattoo I’m rebellious and want attention, but mostly I’m putting them in easy to hide areas because my tattoo’s are for MY benefit, not anyone else’s. And yes, I do admit that the reason people make those assumptions is because unfortunately a lot of people get them for the wrong reasons. After my second one I don’t plan on getting anymore (I don’t have any other things that I really want to get). I would say if you’re considering a tattoo, think about putting it in an area where it can be covered, and also make sure that it’s something you really want.

 

[bcuster]

Tattooing in many cultures is expected. The moral judgement of whether or not a tatoo is sinful or not has to do with the intention and purpose of the tatooer. The tatoos put on Jews in death camps were placed there to track the prisoner, as well as to dehumanized them, much like branding cattle. They were placed on people against their will. In similar ways some cultures may use tatooing to mark people as property. If a person has obscene tatoos put on his or her body this might be sinful also. Remember that to be a sin someone has to know it is wrong and freely do it anyway.

Other people might use a tatoo as a statement of dedication to God by putting a cross or other religious symbol in an tasteful place on their bodies.

I have no tatoos yet. I may someday. At 50 who knows?

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

Tattoos are wrong for the simple fact that they are an insult to God. In some way God can best be described as an artist and humans are a masterpiece of god the artist. With tattoos human are saying to God that his masterpiece is good ,but could be improved upon.

 

[chicagolover]

Tattoos are wrong for the simple fact that they are an insult to God. In some way God can best be described as an artist and humans are a masterpiece of god the artist. With tattoos human are saying to God that his masterpiece is good ,but could be improved upon.

tattoos… are art .no one was saying that there are and insult to god. for having them people who get tattoos get them because they mean something. not because its and insult to god . God can best be described as an artist and humans are a masterpiece of god .but when we get tattoos of art to use it could be a masterpeice for the ones we believe !!

 

[Little_Eagle]

Sorry for bumping an old thread guys, but I think something is worth noting…

Leviticus also says “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material”, “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard” mentioned in the same passage. Having a tattoo (which itself is a series of holes not a laceration) is not against one of the 10 commandments… do all Christians have untamed beards? Does the Pope himself? What are all of your clothes made of? A tattoo, or one in memory of the dead is no worse than those.

I’m fine with my discreet Roman numeral tattoo commemorating the loss of my brother, just as the Pope is fine with shaving his facial hair or any Christian wearing clothing not made of just one material is fine with that. I’m a Catholic not a Jew. Its in the same league as wearing a polyester shirt, not murder.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/aquinas.jpg

No beard or unclipped side hair either.