MichaelFilo Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 There are people, and they agree with me! The only one on a more than a personal belief basis is Amarick, but, you know, he was banned indirectly. Anyways, Toleda did bring up a good point to add to this discussion, what is the possible reasoning to get a tattoo outside of desire, intent to improve upons one body, or for personal reasons that involve one looking at the tattoo from time to time contempt that have blotched the skin that was given them, in the image of God they were created, and chose to tweak it a little. God belss, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 I honestly think there is a Rite of Catholicism that practices ceremonial tattooing. I just can't for the life of me remember where I heard it, or what the name is. sigh. Might as well not have mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 I belong to an Eastern Rite ( 2 actually ) and no such thing has ever crossed my path, but if it is true, then I'll back down from my position, since I am not smarter than the Church, and would rather not offend Her. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 (edited) Ya know what, even if we did find a tatooed saint I doubt that would sway any opinions. I found a female saint in pants and certain people still insisted that wearing pants is a sin for women. Self-mutilation is considered an impediment to holy orders, tatoos do not bar one from becoming a priest. They may not be entirely appropriate, but it still doesn't bar a man from entering the priesthood. Some priests would say that getting a tatoo could be a venial sin, but nowhere have I found anything from a priest or lay theologian (nor Church document) that supports the idea that getting a tatoo is grave matter/mortally sinful. More often than not it is viewed as something neutral (until of course it gets to the point of excessive tatooing which I think we all agree is sinful). Edited August 12, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 (edited) [quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Aug 12 2004, 11:28 AM'] Ya know what, even if we did find a tatooed saint I doubt that would sway any opinions. I found a female saint in pants and certain people still insisted that wearing pants is a sin for women. Self-mutilation is considered an impediment to holy orders, tatoos do not bar one from becoming a priest. They may not be entirely appropriate, but it still doesn't bar a man from entering the priesthood. Some priests would say that getting a tatoo could be a venial sin, but nowhere have I found anything from a priest or lay theologian (nor Church document) that supports the idea that getting a tatoo is grave matter/mortally sinful. More often than not it is viewed as something neutral (until of course it gets to the point of excessive tatooing which I think we all agree is sinful). [/quote] If you found a saint that had a tattoo, then I'd expect Jesus to be due for his second comming. However, I'd leave my position. In the other thread, the offer wasn't put up there, however I am putting it up, in full knowledge that the Church, in Her wisdom, would do no such thing. Self-mutilation is a grave sin, and done with the intent to harm someones body, it is (and I take your word on this) very correctly an impediment against joining the priesthood. However, your reasoning also falls short, since getting a tattoo is a one time sin, and can be forgiven. Self-mutilation for reasons that bring pleasure ARE an impediment because they are habits, not one time things, and reoccur until treated. If a preist-to-be is found mutliating his body, then surely he is fulfilling his habits control over him by giving in. Tattoos aren't similar. They are one time self-mutliation. Your example becomes null in the light of this. Again, even if you mistakingly accept a tattoo as a venial sin, and go in doing it, then you have knowling committed a sin, knowing it's a sin. We are to avoid all sins, if sainthood is what our ultimate goal is. However, if our ultimate goal is fulfill our own desires, then don't let venial sins get in your way, as you don't even have to mention them while confessing. I am sure when you are receiving the Eucharist God will appreciate all the sins you may have committed, but they were justified, as they weren't mortal. So, even if considered a venial sin, it is still wrong to do it, and therefore should be avoided. God bless, Mikey [i]postscriptum[/i] If I seem a bit angry, it's because my eyes see sin, and yet yours accept it as not sin. Give me a reason why your tattoo will better you in your faith/please God, and a breif explanation how we can improve on the image of God. I don't mean to be picky, but no one seems to want to do this. Sorry for the edit. Edited August 12, 2004 by MichaelFilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 The argument that "The Church does not specifically cite tattoos as unacceptable; therefore, it is okay" is ridiculous. The Church teaches that mutilating the body is a sin. This is what a tattoo does. As far as I understand, this applies to earings as well. These seem to be a modern development (I do not have all the facts behind earings, though). In any event, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture teach us that tattoos are unacceptable. These are the two sources from which the Church derives its teachings. If the source of Church teaching condemns something, then it is logical to state that the Church likewise condemns it (especially when there is already a broad statement condemning it by the Church as far as self-mutilation is concerned). Ice, is she canonized or beatified? In any event, it would not matter either way because crossdressing is an impermanent act whereas multilating one's body is a permanent act. Before John Paul II, seeing a woman in pants would've sufficed to deny her canonization (N.B., Thomas a Kempis was accidentally buried alive. When his body was dug up to investigate whether or not it was corrupted, there were marks on the inside of the coffin showing that he had tried to claw out; there are several good reasons to try to get out of a coffin when you are buried alive which are meritorious, e.g., to be able to receive the Last Rites if he had not been conscious upon receiving them the first time, to be able to fulfill his daily obligations as a member of the clergy, to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist more so as to merit a greater glory in Heaven, etc, etc, etc, not to mention the basic physical benefits of living; this was enough to stop his cause for canonization; the fact is that with the elimination of "Devil's Advocate" and the overall denial of the difficulty of reaching Heaven, the canonization and beatification processes have become much less strict; if she is canonized, that is infallible; if she is beatified, it is not). God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Since I don't want to go on and on, and I have homework, I will simply give you the most simplistic, and strongest arguement that I can give, would Jesus get a tattoo? Consider only that when getting a tattoo comes to mind, and you will soon see how silly the idea is, and forget it. God bless, and hoping your desires don't overtake good sense, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Better yet, would Our Lady get a tattoo?! How unbecoming, how irreverent, how disrespectful to the human body, a temple of the Holy Ghost, is it for a woman of all people to get a tattoo of all things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Christina, we would like to know what your final decision is, only because I'd hate to go pray at Church that you would take some solid advice over an urge to do something, and the whole time I'd be praying for the impossible, to undo your decision. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 ::sigh:: there's no point arguing with you guys because no matter what we say, you go in circles. But here I go anyway. I won't answer whether or not Jesus or Our Lady would have gotten a tattoo. Firstly, times were different. Secondly, I would never claim to know the thoughts of Our Lord. Are you making this claim? It is your opinion that it is irreverant, disrespectful, and unbecoming...but that's all...just your opinion. Sorry to tell you, but I don't live by your rules...I live by the Church's. You are very much entitled to your opinion but it's not fair to claim that what is your opinion is in fact a sin when there is nothing to back that claim. The Church condemns self-mutilation, so IF tattoing was considered self-mutilation, then that would be condemned as well. Obviosuly, unless it is extreme, the Church does not connect tattooing and self-mutilation. If it had, then it would be condemned, but it's not. So the self-mutilation argument doesn't hold. As for how it can benefit one's faith, that is personal and up to that individual. A religious tattoo may be a constant reminder of how we are to live...the same as someone who wears a cross. I have a friend who has a religious tattoo on his arm. He hides it with sleeves, so it is not visible to anyone. He told me that the tattoo is one of his greatest tools in fighting off sin...when he is tempted by sin, he looks at his arm, is reminded of the great sacrifice Our Lord made and his temptations are greatly abated. Are you going to tell him that that is wrong? It's not your business why someone receives a tattoo. It is about the intention and what is in that person's heart. Only God truly knows what is in our hearts. Why don't you let Him be the judge? God Bless, Carrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 [QUOTE]It's not your business why someone receives a tattoo whats the point of this conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 The point of what I said there was that it depends on the person's intention and what is in that person's heart. Only God can claim to know what is in someone's heart, so it really isn't anyone else's business why that person got their tattoo. God knows what the intention was, so let God be the judge. I feel like I'm talking to a wall at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Ok, fair enough, i was just asking a question because everyone seems to be getting very irrate and some people dont seem to be respecting others point of view, thats all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 I apologize if that statement came off as irate. I didn't mean it to sound like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Its ok, dont worry, its just that everyone seems to be trying to change other peoples opinions, which is kinda wrong, im not pointing u out in particular, just a general comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts