B
buffalo
Guest
You might want to check to see what your Bishop thinks.
- Status
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
i think the word ‘excessive’ is probably more germain to the question than the word ‘tattoo’.
moderation is still a virtue. also known as temperance.
our american culture has lost sight of what moderation means. we’re a country of excessors.
i’m entering the jesuits in august. i might have a tattoo by then. we’ll see.
moderation is still a virtue. also known as temperance.
our american culture has lost sight of what moderation means. we’re a country of excessors.
i’m entering the jesuits in august. i might have a tattoo by then. we’ll see.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Honestly, I can picture Jesus and Mary with tattoos. Tattoos are not inately vulgar to me, but are merely symbols of what they represent. When you get a tattoo, you are making a pact of sorts, be it with a person (name), an ideal or institution (words, symbols, ect.) Always understand the gravity of what you are doing. I have no problem with religious tattoos so long as they are truly faithful.
Remember, when I speak in terms of gravity, I mean it. The first apparent mention of a “tattoo” like marking in Scripture is by God on the flesh of Caine, so as to protect Caine from those who would kill him for his crimes. Another example of “flesh modification” is Abraham’s circumcision. These are NOT small things, and are not to be taken lightly. Just getting an image because it’s “cute” entirely misses the point, IMO. God doesn’t forbid us from marking our bodies under the New Covenant, it seems, but that doesn’t mean that such actions shouldn’t be done with the most extreme reverence.
Remember, when I speak in terms of gravity, I mean it. The first apparent mention of a “tattoo” like marking in Scripture is by God on the flesh of Caine, so as to protect Caine from those who would kill him for his crimes. Another example of “flesh modification” is Abraham’s circumcision. These are NOT small things, and are not to be taken lightly. Just getting an image because it’s “cute” entirely misses the point, IMO. God doesn’t forbid us from marking our bodies under the New Covenant, it seems, but that doesn’t mean that such actions shouldn’t be done with the most extreme reverence.
S
Sowndog
Guest
Hi Thursday, just wanted to wish you luck in entering the priesthood, my prayers are with you!
:tiphat:
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I personally am repelled by tattoos, but unless you interpret the command in the bible not to mutilate oneself to include tattoos, I guess it is not morally wrong unless the words or picture have immoral content. Our retirement park has a lot of retired military and navy men, many with extensive tattoos, and by the time you are in your 60s or 70s those tattoos are pretty ugly, you can’t recognize the words or pictures, just amorphous black and blue marks all over the body.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Ghosty,
You wrote: “When you get a tattoo, you are making a pact of sorts, be it with a person (name), an ideal or institution (words, symbols, ect.)”
Why is it a “pact”? A pact is an agreement between entities: are you saying that the military officially made a pact with all of those who have military tattoos? Who do those with skulls and bones make this “pact” with?
To call a tattoo a “pact” is over-dramatic, to say the least. It’s merely an individual’s permanent self-decoration, usually of something they like or admire, stuck onto their skin. To call it a “pact” makes more of it than it is. I mean, if it’s a religious symbol, did Jesus come down and personally make this “pact” with you? Does He speak to you, and suggest what designs to get, perhaps picking out His personal favorites?
Personally, I think tattoos are silly but harmless (except when they are excessive, in which case they are suggestive of some psychological problem). But to call them an expression of a “pact”, and to say that one must understand the “gravity” of getting one, seems like self-aggrandizement to me.
Paul Johnson, the historian, has written an interesting book on art. He notes that the most civilized cultures have produced the finest art: the greatest painting masters, the finest sculptors, etc. Primitive cultures, however, only have crude forms of these and their use of tattoos and self-decoration is extensive. As our culture becomes more and more crude, I guess it’s no surprise that people are turning to self-decoration such as tattoos and body-piercings.
You wrote: “When you get a tattoo, you are making a pact of sorts, be it with a person (name), an ideal or institution (words, symbols, ect.)”
Why is it a “pact”? A pact is an agreement between entities: are you saying that the military officially made a pact with all of those who have military tattoos? Who do those with skulls and bones make this “pact” with?
To call a tattoo a “pact” is over-dramatic, to say the least. It’s merely an individual’s permanent self-decoration, usually of something they like or admire, stuck onto their skin. To call it a “pact” makes more of it than it is. I mean, if it’s a religious symbol, did Jesus come down and personally make this “pact” with you? Does He speak to you, and suggest what designs to get, perhaps picking out His personal favorites?
Personally, I think tattoos are silly but harmless (except when they are excessive, in which case they are suggestive of some psychological problem). But to call them an expression of a “pact”, and to say that one must understand the “gravity” of getting one, seems like self-aggrandizement to me.
Paul Johnson, the historian, has written an interesting book on art. He notes that the most civilized cultures have produced the finest art: the greatest painting masters, the finest sculptors, etc. Primitive cultures, however, only have crude forms of these and their use of tattoos and self-decoration is extensive. As our culture becomes more and more crude, I guess it’s no surprise that people are turning to self-decoration such as tattoos and body-piercings.
C
challenger
Guest
Leviticus 19:28 “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.”
According to some, this was a part of the Mosaic law that is no longer applicable.
"Sure, but “Thou shalt not kill” was also an “aspect” of the Mosaic law, but we aren’t allowed to kill people today, are we? What [they] fail to understand is that the Mosaic law included ALL the laws of the Old Covenant: civil, ceremonial and moral. The whole Old Covenant, all the Mosaic laws, thus had to be set aside. This is precisely Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 3:7-14; Gal 5:1-4; Hebrews 7:18; 10:9, et al.
What we have today in the New Covenant are the principles of law from the Old Covenant, not the laws themselves. Hence, every law in the Mosaic code has a principle of ethical and moral conduct that can be practiced in the New Covenant. So, whether its not wearing tatoos, not dressing in opposite sex clothing, fasting on holy days, etc, we do our best to extract the ethical or moral essence from that law. In that sense, we should not be wearing tatoos." -Robert Sungenis
According to some, this was a part of the Mosaic law that is no longer applicable.
"Sure, but “Thou shalt not kill” was also an “aspect” of the Mosaic law, but we aren’t allowed to kill people today, are we? What [they] fail to understand is that the Mosaic law included ALL the laws of the Old Covenant: civil, ceremonial and moral. The whole Old Covenant, all the Mosaic laws, thus had to be set aside. This is precisely Paul’s argument in 2 Cor 3:7-14; Gal 5:1-4; Hebrews 7:18; 10:9, et al.
What we have today in the New Covenant are the principles of law from the Old Covenant, not the laws themselves. Hence, every law in the Mosaic code has a principle of ethical and moral conduct that can be practiced in the New Covenant. So, whether its not wearing tatoos, not dressing in opposite sex clothing, fasting on holy days, etc, we do our best to extract the ethical or moral essence from that law. In that sense, we should not be wearing tatoos." -Robert Sungenis
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, the cross I have inked into my back is a pact, it’s a permanent sign of my commitment to God and the Christian faith. I was Baptised, brought into the Church, and I will never leave. It’s also of Armenian design, a symbol of my family heritage. Neither of these are things I can abandon, nor would I. They represent things that are always going to be a part of me. I prayed through the whole three hour plus process of getting the tattoo. You can disparage the “crude” art that people put on themselves, but when you make little of my expression of faith and love, you belittle my faith itself.
Do you go into people’s houses and criticize the style of their crucifixes? Do you mock the way they pray? I’d be suprised if you did. Why belittle someone’s expression of faith?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Challenger: So what is the principle that represents the prohibition against markings? We already ban self-mutilation, being the intentional damaging of the bodily functions. The argument seems to jump to conclusions that aren’t supported in its own logic.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Ghosty,
Look, I’m sorry that you are offended by my negative opinion of excessive tattoos. (As I have already said, a few tattoos— especially military ones—are OK with me. But at least one priest [see my previous post] puts “excessive tatoos” into the mortal sins category in his examination of conscience.) However, I am insisting on precision in language here: when you call something a “pact”, it means an agreement between entities. If you are calling your tattoo a “pact”, this means that you have discovered a new, hitherto unknown sacrament by which we can unite ourselves more closely to God: from what you say, it can be inferred that this tattoo is a kind of “magic” that will preserve you from ever straying from God (you said that you can’t be separated, so presumably this tattoo overides free will to boot).
Tattoos are a form of self-decoration, and that’s all. To raise them to the level of a sacramental or the external mark of a self-made religious order is strange. Have you ever told a priest about the level of significance you are putting onto your tattoos?
Look, I’m sorry that you are offended by my negative opinion of excessive tattoos. (As I have already said, a few tattoos— especially military ones—are OK with me. But at least one priest [see my previous post] puts “excessive tatoos” into the mortal sins category in his examination of conscience.) However, I am insisting on precision in language here: when you call something a “pact”, it means an agreement between entities. If you are calling your tattoo a “pact”, this means that you have discovered a new, hitherto unknown sacrament by which we can unite ourselves more closely to God: from what you say, it can be inferred that this tattoo is a kind of “magic” that will preserve you from ever straying from God (you said that you can’t be separated, so presumably this tattoo overides free will to boot).
Tattoos are a form of self-decoration, and that’s all. To raise them to the level of a sacramental or the external mark of a self-made religious order is strange. Have you ever told a priest about the level of significance you are putting onto your tattoos?
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’ve never felt a need to talk to a priest about it, any more than I would feel the need to tell a priest about the importance of a family heirloom rosary, or a wedding ring. Such things are only symbols as well, but are tied to a Sacrament by the importance placed on them by individuals, they are personal sacramentals.
A seminarian friend of my did describe my family bible, written in Armenian and carried by my grandmother across the desert as her ONLY possession when she fled the Genocide, as a sacramental before. The item, while important, carries less personal significance than my tattoos which I chose myself and which represent personal bonds to God. So, in this circumstance, I don’t consider my high regard of deeply faithful and personal tattoos to be too out of line.
A seminarian friend of my did describe my family bible, written in Armenian and carried by my grandmother across the desert as her ONLY possession when she fled the Genocide, as a sacramental before. The item, while important, carries less personal significance than my tattoos which I chose myself and which represent personal bonds to God. So, in this circumstance, I don’t consider my high regard of deeply faithful and personal tattoos to be too out of line.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Ghosty,
I’m not challenging your no-doubt sincere expression of faith; what I am challenging is the concept of a tattoo as a “pact”. A wedding ring is part of a sacrament; I have no problem with valuing that as an expression of commitment between a man and wife—that truly is a “pact”, after all! Bibles and rosaries—hey, I value mine too. But getting a tattoo is simply a form of self-decoration—raising it to the level of a sacramental is questionable, in my opinion.
I’m not challenging your no-doubt sincere expression of faith; what I am challenging is the concept of a tattoo as a “pact”. A wedding ring is part of a sacrament; I have no problem with valuing that as an expression of commitment between a man and wife—that truly is a “pact”, after all! Bibles and rosaries—hey, I value mine too. But getting a tattoo is simply a form of self-decoration—raising it to the level of a sacramental is questionable, in my opinion.
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
perhaps we should consider that, in the OT, if a slave wanted to resign his ability to go free in the year of jubilee, he and his owner would take an awl and push it through the slave’s ear into a doorpost, piercing it for a ring, and making a ‘pact’ that the slave would live with and serve that master for life.
i think the same can be said for tats. i don’t see anything wrong at all with ghosty making his tats a pact with our Lord. i think it’s a great example of the profound mix that we are - supernatural beings in mortal bodies, destined both for physical death and decay, and eternal life and glorification (God willing)…
why do you find such difficulty with the ‘pact’ idea? do you see it as some sort of universal thing? why can’t my pact with God be different than yours? many of the ‘convenants’ from the OT looked mighty strange - flames passing through cut up animals, etc. why should ink on skin not be treated as a pact or covenant?
i think the same can be said for tats. i don’t see anything wrong at all with ghosty making his tats a pact with our Lord. i think it’s a great example of the profound mix that we are - supernatural beings in mortal bodies, destined both for physical death and decay, and eternal life and glorification (God willing)…
why do you find such difficulty with the ‘pact’ idea? do you see it as some sort of universal thing? why can’t my pact with God be different than yours? many of the ‘convenants’ from the OT looked mighty strange - flames passing through cut up animals, etc. why should ink on skin not be treated as a pact or covenant?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Sherlock: You don’t have to agree with me, and I don’t expect that you will. You should understand, however, that tattoos can be on the same level as taking a traditional Christian name at Baptism. They don’t have to be, and most people don’t use them as such, but for some of us they are that deep and significant.
Nobody is asking you to make a sign of your bond this way, but to say that there’s no way a tattoo can hold the same place as a wedding ring (I know people who have gotten ring tattoos, incidently) seems to be more a matter of personal reluctance to accept other expressions of faith than any real objective evaluation on your part.
Nobody is asking you to make a sign of your bond this way, but to say that there’s no way a tattoo can hold the same place as a wedding ring (I know people who have gotten ring tattoos, incidently) seems to be more a matter of personal reluctance to accept other expressions of faith than any real objective evaluation on your part.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Ghosty,
No, I don’t have a “personal reluctance” based merely on not liking other expressions of personal piety. As I have mentioned twice before, “excessive tattoos” was listed in the mortal sins category in an examination booklet by a very orthodox and solid priest who I admire, Fr. Robert Altier (those of you who listen to Relevant Radio will probably be familier with him). Since reading the Bible or saying the rosary “excessively” aren’t in there (the two other examples you gave me of personal devotion), I think it’s safe to say that there’s something about tattoos that gives this priest pause, and something about tattoos that is so negative that the over-use of them is considered a mortal sin. What is it? I haven’t talked to Fr. Altier about it, nor my own very orthodox priest, but I will—my speculation, however, is because it shows a self-absorption that is not healthy. Military tattoos are a badge of communal pride, and perhaps that’s why I don’t mind them.
Let me try an analogy: I’m female, and have pierced ears (a socially acceptable form of self-decoration for women). Now, wearing pretty earings in the shape of a cross is a fairly harmless activity—it’s a litle vanity, but a vanity that also manages to state my belief, which is a good thing. However, if I declare the wearing of earings as a holy act on my part, I think that’s cheapening holy things and holy acts by trying to raise my little vanity to that level. If I go to the point where, when a person looks at me, all they can see are earings decorating much of my exposed skin, I’ve gone way overboard. I’m saying, “Look at ME”, and am distorting the body God gave me in order to make that statement. This is when it probably slides into that category of mortal sin that Fr. Altier mentions.
No, I don’t have a “personal reluctance” based merely on not liking other expressions of personal piety. As I have mentioned twice before, “excessive tattoos” was listed in the mortal sins category in an examination booklet by a very orthodox and solid priest who I admire, Fr. Robert Altier (those of you who listen to Relevant Radio will probably be familier with him). Since reading the Bible or saying the rosary “excessively” aren’t in there (the two other examples you gave me of personal devotion), I think it’s safe to say that there’s something about tattoos that gives this priest pause, and something about tattoos that is so negative that the over-use of them is considered a mortal sin. What is it? I haven’t talked to Fr. Altier about it, nor my own very orthodox priest, but I will—my speculation, however, is because it shows a self-absorption that is not healthy. Military tattoos are a badge of communal pride, and perhaps that’s why I don’t mind them.
Let me try an analogy: I’m female, and have pierced ears (a socially acceptable form of self-decoration for women). Now, wearing pretty earings in the shape of a cross is a fairly harmless activity—it’s a litle vanity, but a vanity that also manages to state my belief, which is a good thing. However, if I declare the wearing of earings as a holy act on my part, I think that’s cheapening holy things and holy acts by trying to raise my little vanity to that level. If I go to the point where, when a person looks at me, all they can see are earings decorating much of my exposed skin, I’ve gone way overboard. I’m saying, “Look at ME”, and am distorting the body God gave me in order to make that statement. This is when it probably slides into that category of mortal sin that Fr. Altier mentions.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Wearing earrings can be a holy act, however, if it’s done with the intention of proclaiming your faith it can be a holy act. Do not pressume vanity in such actions, nor self-absorbtion. We don’t know the reasons why the priest mentioned excessive tattoos as a mortal sin, but again you pressume his intentions. I could just as easily pressume that it’s because of prohibitions against self-mutilation, which excessive tattoos have been argued to be.
Incidently, mortification is a holy act, practiced by many Saints and Orders, but done to excess it can be a mortal sin, indeed it can become self-mutilation. Fasting is another example. There are many devotional activities that can become sinful. The question is the intention, not the act itself. Of course I’m not saying that tattoos are a traditional devotional activity, at least in the West, but they can be a devotional practice. You seem to pressume a lot about people’s intentions, despite the fact that you don’t know their hearts. Be careful that such pressumptions don’t lead to sin themselves
God bless!
Incidently, mortification is a holy act, practiced by many Saints and Orders, but done to excess it can be a mortal sin, indeed it can become self-mutilation. Fasting is another example. There are many devotional activities that can become sinful. The question is the intention, not the act itself. Of course I’m not saying that tattoos are a traditional devotional activity, at least in the West, but they can be a devotional practice. You seem to pressume a lot about people’s intentions, despite the fact that you don’t know their hearts. Be careful that such pressumptions don’t lead to sin themselves
God bless!
J
john_doran
Guest
well, isn’t an “excessive” act (gravely) wrong by definition? i mean, what’s wrong about excessive drinking and excessive eating, for example, is that it’s excessive…
i have always assumed that to be the moral meaning of “excessive”: immoral.
then it’s not the tattoos that are wrong, but the self-absorption.
look, the original question was whether or not the church teaches that tattoos are immoral in and of themselves; i.e. whether or not getting a tattoo is inherently wrong, or whether there are circumstances in whih it is permissible.
as far as i can tell, getting a tattoo is like having a drink of alcohol: whether or not doing so is immoral depends on the intention with which you do it rather than just whether or not you do it at all.
which means that getting a tattoo can be a moral act or an immoral act, depending on the circumstances of the acquisition and the purity of its intent.
S
Sherlock
Guest
John Doran,
Essentially, you and I are in agreement. I agree—it’s the self-absorption that is the problem.
What I am objecting to is the wish to elevate the wearing of a tattoo to the level of some kind of holy act. To equate the getting of some self-decoration to the devotion to the Scriptures or praying the rosary is, I think, going too far.
Ghosty, you’re not even arguing to the points I’m making, but to straw-men that you’re erecting. The conversation is thus pointless. But God bless you, and keep you, and I wish you all the best.
Essentially, you and I are in agreement. I agree—it’s the self-absorption that is the problem.
What I am objecting to is the wish to elevate the wearing of a tattoo to the level of some kind of holy act. To equate the getting of some self-decoration to the devotion to the Scriptures or praying the rosary is, I think, going too far.
Ghosty, you’re not even arguing to the points I’m making, but to straw-men that you’re erecting. The conversation is thus pointless. But God bless you, and keep you, and I wish you all the best.
M
Mycroft
Guest
wearing earrings is never a holy act. just cus you wear a cross or something doesnt make it a holy act. theres nothing really holy about it. its not helping anyone or yourself.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Sherlock: I think the problem is that you fail to recognize that tattoos can be more than simple “self-decoration”. I don’t feel I’ve been attacking any strawmen, I’ve addressed excessive tattoos and the idea that tattoos are just “self-decoration”.
Remember, nobody here is arguing that “excessive tattoos” are holy, or that they aren’t a mortal sin. I’m just opposed to the idea that they can never be holy, or at least representative of a holy devotion. That seems to be the argument you are taking, and I apologize if I’m mistaken in that.
Remember, nobody here is arguing that “excessive tattoos” are holy, or that they aren’t a mortal sin. I’m just opposed to the idea that they can never be holy, or at least representative of a holy devotion. That seems to be the argument you are taking, and I apologize if I’m mistaken in that.
- Status