Tattoos....

[Tinkerlina]

Hi all,
First of all, Happy Easter Monday! Ok, at Easter dinner two of my recently confirmed cousins told me that, along with his "social sins", the Pope included tattoing/body piercing. Now, all I had really heard on the news/in the headlines was his references to polluting the environment and when I searched for the topic I saw nothing about tattoos. However, I've never really gotten a clear answer as to whether or not a tattoo is a sin. I personally have one and don't really see the problem with having a tattoo but if the Church has an official teaching that anyone knows of, I'd like to hear it! Thanks!

[KnightofChrist]

To paint a lilly,
to guild refined God,
or to add another hue unto a rainbow,
is wasteful and wanton excess.


Leviticus 19:28 Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves. I am the LORD.

Edited March 24, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1482918' date='Mar 23 2008, 11:41 PM']Hi all,
First of all, Happy Easter Monday! Ok, at Easter dinner two of my recently confirmed cousins told me that, along with his "social sins", the Pope included tattoing/body piercing. Now, all I had really heard on the news/in the headlines was his references to polluting the environment and when I searched for the topic I saw nothing about tattoos. However, I've never really gotten a clear answer as to whether or not a tattoo is a sin. I personally have one and don't really see the problem with having a tattoo but if the Church has an official teaching that anyone knows of, I'd like to hear it! Thanks![/quote]


I don't have any... yet. I have some ideas I'd like to have drawn out and might get those inked. We'll see. Personally I don't think there's anything against Church teaching that would prohibit them. There might be considered a "tribal" aspect to them, but I don't really see it, as I think that is another form of tattooing. Unless someone comes up with something authoritative I'd say it's fine as long as its in good taste and not demonic or anything of that nature.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1482924' date='Mar 24 2008, 01:59 AM']I don't have any... yet. I have some ideas I'd like to have drawn out and might get those inked. We'll see. Personally I don't think there's anything against Church teaching that would prohibit them. There might be considered a "tribal" aspect to them, but I don't really see it, as I think that is another form of tattooing. Unless someone comes up with something authoritative I'd say it's fine as long as its in good taste and not demonic or anything of that nature.[/quote]


Yes, I've always thought the "good taste" was more of an issue than the actual tattoo...for example, many people get religious tattoos (I've wanted to get a rosary done!). Thanks for the input

[KnightofChrist]

[size=2][center][url="http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Joseph.html"]The Morality of Tattoos and Body Piercingby Father Peter Joseph – Summer 2002[/url][/center]

Many upright people are repelled by modern fads and fashions, such as tattooing, multiple earrings and other body piercing, but feel unequipped to give a clear judgment on the morality of such practices, or to rebut the charge that they are elevating their personal preferences into a moral code. In this article, I will set out some criteria that are relevant to making a moral judgment on these things.

In the Old Testament, the Chosen People were specifically commanded: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh…or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28). Inspired by God, St. Paul admonishes us: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19). Being a temple of the Holy Spirit, we owe our body due care and protection and decorum. In some cultures, a special bodily mark or design – on the forehead, for example – signifies a certain attainment or marital status, or whatever, and is socially acceptable. Ethiopian Christians, to name one group, wear tattoo crosses on their foreheads. In Samoa, it was once a widespread custom to tattoo the eldest son or daughter of the local ruling family. In Western societies, earrings and makeup are acceptable as a part of feminine fashions and public presentability. But certain types of body piercing and decorations in our society are extreme and unjustified, and some of them are motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.

It would be impossible to give black-and-white judgments on all bodily decorations. But we can point to a few negative aspects that should be of concern to a Christian. Unless otherwise stated, this article will refer to Western societies only. I will treat the more serious concerns first and then the less serious.

1. Diabolical images. Tattoos of demons are quite common, yet no Christian should ever sport an image of a devil or a Satanic symbol.

2. Exultation in the ugly. This is a mark of the Satanic, which hates the beauty of God’s creation and tries to destroy it and to ruin others’ appreciation of it. More than just being ugly, some body piercing is the expression of delight in being ugly.

We recognize bad taste in tattoos, rings and studs, by looking at their nature, size, extent and place on the body. Ironically, even florid and colorful tattoos fade over time and end up looking dark and dreary. When one considers how, in concentration camps, prisoners were treated like animals and branded on their arm with a number, it is amazing to think that people today adopt similar markings as if they were fashionable or smart. This is truly the sign of a return to barbarity, the behavior of people who do not have any sense of the dignity of the human person.

3. Self-mutilation and self-disfigurement. This is a sin against the body and against the Fifth Commandment. Some body piercing verges on self-mutilation. At best, multiple body piercing is self-inflicted abuse. A form of self-hatred or self-rejection motivates some to pierce themselves or decorate themselves in a hideous and harmful fashion. The human body was not made by God to be a pin cushion or a mural.

4. Harm to health. Doctors have spoken publicly on this health issue. In 2001, researchers at both the University of Texas and the Australian National University reported on harm to health caused by tattoos and body piercing. Some earrings (on the navel, tongue or upper ear) are unhealthy and cause infections or lasting harm such as deformities of the skin. They can also poison the blood for some time (septicaemia). Certain piercings (e.g., on the nose, eyebrows, lip, tongue) do not close over even when the object is removed. Such body piercing, therefore, is immoral, since we should not endanger health without a reasonable motive. When done unhygienically, tattoos and piercing cause infection. A used instrument, if not properly sterilized, can transmit hepatitis or HIV.

Some have hoped to avoid health dangers by getting “henna” tattoos, which are painted on rather than done with needles. Henna staining is an ancient Hindu wedding custom of painting floral designs on the feet and hands. A German Medical Association report this year found that tourists returning home with hennas done in Bali and Bangkok, among other places, were going to the doctor because of severe skin infections and sometimes lifelong allergies. In some cases also, the coloring agent used meant that the tattoo faded away, but after several weeks of skin irritation, the design reappeared in the form of a reddish tattoo, often very painful for the patient. Allergies developed from 12 hours to a week after the application of the henna, causing intense itching, redness, blistering and scaling.

5. A desire to shock and repel. It can be appropriate to shock people, as for example, when one recounts the plight of poor and hungry people, or protests against crimes or terrible exploitation. This can be a healthy thing, when done properly and with due care, to arouse people out of complacency, so that they realize something must be done. But to shock people for the thrill of shocking people, with no intention to promote truth and goodness, is not a virtue, but a sign of a perverted sense of values.

In evaluating tattoos under this heading of repulsiveness, we look at the nature of the images, the size and number of the tattoos, and their place on the body. In evaluating piercings, we consider similarly their extent and location on the body.

6. Indecency and irreverence. It is always immoral to get or exhibit tattoos of indecent images or phrases, or derisive figures of Our Lord or His Mother or holy things.

7. Signs of a sexual disorientation. Pirates used to be the only males who wore earrings (for whatever reason!) while sailors and side-show freaks were just about the only people with tattoos. What was once so restricted has now spread to wider sections of the community. In the 1970s, an earring worn by a man in the left ear, or the right, or both, was a code-sign of his personal orientation and thus a form of picking up partners. As such, it was blatantly immoral, and generally an advertisement of one’s immorality. Earrings in boys and men are so common now that they have lost that significance, but they are never positively demanded by social requirements, as a suit and tie are socially required on certain formal occasions. Even admitting the lack of clear symbolism now, I would expect any seminary to tell any inquirer that he would have to remove any earring or stud before entering, and question him as to when he started wearing it and why. A seminarian or priest sporting an earring is not socially acceptable in the Catholic Church. A good number of parishioners would wonder about the deeper reasons or motivation. No one in such a public position starts to wear an earring without making a deliberate decision. As a wise old Jesuit priest said to me once, “No one changes externals without having changed internals.” It is regarded as what people call “making a statement.” The same code of expected conduct applies to men in other professions, such as policemen or teachers.

Employers and principals should make rules outlawing any such jewelry for male staff and students. Especially for the young, such rules protect them both from themselves and from peer pressure. The fact is that, still today, earrings are prevalent among females, and in minority use among males.

8. Unsuitability. Sometimes people tattoo themselves with a big image of a crucifix or other holy pictures. The human body is a most unsuitable place for such an image, even if it be a beautiful one. Whenever these people go swimming, for example, they are exhibiting this image in an inappropriate fashion. No priest would ever go down to a shopping center in Mass vestments, not because there is something wrong with vestments, but because there is a time and a place for donning special religious symbols.

9. Vanity. Some men in particular tattoo their upper and lower arms in order to be ostentatious and impressive. It is a means of drawing attention to themselves. No one who meets them can fail to notice the tattoos – to the point at which it is in fact a constant distraction. It detracts from the person, and focuses attention too much on the body’s external appearance. The same can be said for a stud on the tongue, a ring in the nose, or earrings all over one’s ears and eyebrows. These are not part of our culture; at most, they are part of a certain subculture, a minority affectation, devoid of religious or positive social significance. No one is saying it is wrong to dress up, but here it is a question of moderation and discretion. Sacred Scripture implicitly recognizes that it is good for a bride to be adorned for her husband when the heavenly Jerusalem is compared to such a woman (Apoc. 21:2). It is good for a lady to be well dressed and to use makeup when the occasion calls for it, but everyone recognizes when the embellishment has gone over the top and makes her look seductive or cheap.

10. Immaturity and imprudence. An action acceptable or indifferent in itself can become wrong if the intention or motive is wrong. Some young people adopt outrageous fashions out of an immature desire to rebel against society or against their parents. Such disobedience against parents is sinful. Some do it out of an immature desire to conform to their friends, and others out of an equally immature desire to stick out from everyone around them. Some do it out of boredom, because it is something different, because it gives them a thrill, because it is something for their friends to admire and comment on. Mindless following of fads is always the mark of immaturity. For young people who live at home under their parents’ authority, it is enough if their parents express their disapproval of such fashions to know that they should not go ahead. Some young people go to further extremes and vie with each other as to who can pierce whatever part of the body the most. Parents must forbid such behavior absolutely.

Young people can hardly justify the big expenditure (not to mention the pain) involved in getting a tattoo. It is also unjustified and just plain silly to mark your body for life with images of no great worth or with the name of one’s current lover. A recent example I heard of gives an idea of the time and expense: a young girl had one arm tattooed up and down. It required two four-hour sessions and cost $1,000 (American).

Tattoos are more serious than other adornments since they are more or less permanent marks on the body. Many a man or woman have been tattooed gladly in youth, but regretted it not so many years later when they came to regard it as an embarrassing disfigurement. Once they mature, they pay dearly for the luxury of getting rid of it. The removal of tattoos is expensive and difficult – and can leave scars. The removal of big tattoos requires surgery under a general anaesthetic, with all the potential risks, plus the significant medical and hospital costs. The removal of large tattoos can leave big segments of the skin permanently disfigured or blotched, like skin that has been burnt. Many adults find themselves ineligible for some jobs, because businesses will not employ them with their hands covered in tattoos, impossible to conceal years after their youthful folly.

Universal Criteria
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.

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.

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. [/size]

[goldenchild17]

he's got some interesting points to consider too. not that I agree with all of them or change my opinion. But it's up to you.

[KnightofChrist]

I'll probably go to bed now, but I would ask myself...

Would Our Lord have a tattoo? Would the Blessed Mother have a tattoo? Should we not strive to be like them, to be prefect?

[goldenchild17]

and I would ask. How does a tattoo make one less perfect than another?

[KnightofChrist]

They were prefect, would they have tattoos?

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Many upright people are repelled by modern fads and fashions, such as tattooing, multiple earrings and other body piercing, but feel unequipped to give a clear judgment on the morality of such practices, or to rebut the charge that they are elevating their personal preferences into a moral code.[/quote]

Probably because the Church doesn't judge one way or the other yet.

[quote]In this article, I will set out some criteria that are relevant to making a moral judgment on these things.[/quote]

Some of them may be relevant. We shall see.

[quote]In the Old Testament, the Chosen People were specifically commanded: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh…or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).[/quote]

Old Testament was revoked. Must be shown in the New Testament or from some other part of Church Tradition in order to validate it.

[quote]Inspired by God, St. Paul admonishes us: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19). Being a temple of the Holy Spirit, we owe our body due care and protection and decorum. In some cultures, a special bodily mark or design – on the forehead, for example – signifies a certain attainment or marital status, or whatever, and is socially acceptable. Ethiopian Christians, to name one group, wear tattoo crosses on their foreheads. In Samoa, it was once a widespread custom to tattoo the eldest son or daughter of the local ruling family. In Western societies, earrings and makeup are acceptable as a part of feminine fashions and public presentability. But certain types of body piercing and decorations in our society are extreme and unjustified, and some of them are motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.[/quote]

What is judged to be extreme? As far as I'm aware the only thing on this topic that is still forbid is cutting/lacerating the skin making permanent visible damage. Some are extreme. But this thread is about tattoos and if anything this paragraph would be okay with it.

[quote]It would be impossible to give black-and-white judgments on all bodily decorations. But we can point to a few negative aspects that should be of concern to a Christian. Unless otherwise stated, this article will refer to Western societies only. I will treat the more serious concerns first and then the less serious.

1. Diabolical images. Tattoos of demons are quite common, yet no Christian should ever sport an image of a devil or a Satanic symbol.[/quote]

Fully agreed.

[quote]2. Exultation in the ugly. This is a mark of the Satanic, which hates the beauty of God’s creation and tries to destroy it and to ruin others’ appreciation of it. More than just being ugly, some body piercing is the expression of delight in being ugly.[/quote]

Agreed. Though we're not talking about body piercings (I would disagree that all of them are "ugly" anyways. What constitutes ugly? You're own opinion?

[quote]We recognize bad taste in tattoos, rings and studs, by looking at their nature, size, extent and place on the body. Ironically, even florid and colorful tattoos fade over time and end up looking dark and dreary. When one considers how, in concentration camps, prisoners were treated like animals and branded on their arm with a number, it is amazing to think that people today adopt similar markings as if they were fashionable or smart. This is truly the sign of a return to barbarity, the behavior of people who do not have any sense of the dignity of the human person.[/quote]

Speculation and personal opinion. Some people see it as a beautiful form of art and expression. Can't be proven either way.

[goldenchild17]

again, we're not talking about extreme piercings or piercings of any kind. There is a limit. And one's reasons for getting a tattoo are important. If they are doing it out of rebellion or hatred for themselves, or others, or God, then it is certainly bad. If they are doing it because they want to express themselves (whether or not it is effective), or because they find it beautiful, then how can you prove that it is wrong?

[quote]4. Harm to health. Doctors have spoken publicly on this health issue. In 2001, researchers at both the University of Texas and the Australian National University reported on harm to health caused by tattoos and body piercing. Some earrings (on the navel, tongue or upper ear) are unhealthy and cause infections or lasting harm such as deformities of the skin. They can also poison the blood for some time (septicaemia). Certain piercings (e.g., on the nose, eyebrows, lip, tongue) do not close over even when the object is removed. Such body piercing, therefore, is immoral, since we should not endanger health without a reasonable motive. When done unhygienically, tattoos and piercing cause infection. A used instrument, if not properly sterilized, can transmit hepatitis or HIV.[/quote]

Mostly referring to piercings which is not relevant to this thread. The only ones talking about tattoos refer to unsterilized or infected tools. Improper application of tattooing should not be done ever, but even bringing it up is a perverted argument against the proper, clean process.

[quote]Some have hoped to avoid health dangers by getting “henna” tattoos, which are painted on rather than done with needles.[/quote]

And a nice option if you are thinking about getting a tattoo permanently but would like to try it out first.

[quote]Henna staining is an ancient Hindu wedding custom of painting floral designs on the feet and hands. A German Medical Association report this year found that tourists returning home with hennas done in Bali and Bangkok,[/quote]

Done in Bali and Bangkok, not all henna tats in general. Overgeneralization if this is an argument against all tattoos.

[quote]among other places, were going to the doctor because of severe skin infections and sometimes lifelong allergies. In some cases also, the coloring agent used meant that the tattoo faded away, but after several weeks of skin irritation, the design reappeared in the form of a reddish tattoo, often very painful for the patient. Allergies developed from 12 hours to a week after the application of the henna, causing intense itching, redness, blistering and scaling.[/quote]

This I've heard of on occasion. I don't know everything about henna, maybe its not a proper agent to use. I've known people with henna tattoos who have had no side effects, so its an overgeneralization to use this and say that tattoos are wrong.[quote]5. A desire to shock and repel. It can be appropriate to shock people, as for example, when one recounts the plight of poor and hungry people, or protests against crimes or terrible exploitation. This can be a healthy thing, when done properly and with due care, to arouse people out of complacency, so that they realize something must be done. But to shock people for the thrill of shocking people, with no intention to promote truth and goodness, is not a virtue, but a sign of a perverted sense of values.[/quote]

I agree. The argument against tattoos here is....? If the author is using this to say that all tattooing is done simply for senseless shock value then he is gravely misinformed and is overgeneralizing once again.

[quote]In evaluating tattoos under this heading of repulsiveness, we look at the nature of the images, the size and number of the tattoos, and their place on the body. In evaluating piercings, we consider similarly their extent and location on the body.[/quote]

These are general guidelines that I think are mostly acceptable. Nature of the images certainly must be a factor. Size and number not so much unless they are extensively in public view and used for senseless shock value. Location on the body I think is a pretty decent factor to consider as well.


[quote]6. Indecency and irreverence. It is always immoral to get or exhibit tattoos of indecent images or phrases, or derisive figures of Our Lord or His Mother or holy things.[/quote]

amen. no argument here.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]7. Signs of a sexual disorientation.

Pirates used to be the only males who wore earrings (for whatever reason!) while sailors and side-show freaks were just about the only people with tattoos. What was once so restricted has now spread to wider sections of the community. In the 1970s, an earring worn by a man in the left ear, or the right, or both, was a code-sign of his personal orientation and thus a form of picking up partners. As such, it was blatantly immoral, and generally an advertisement of one’s immorality. Earrings in boys and men are so common now that they have lost that significance, but they are never positively demanded by social requirements, as a suit and tie are socially required on certain formal occasions. Even admitting the lack of clear symbolism now, I would expect any seminary to tell any inquirer that he would have to remove any earring or stud before entering, and question him as to when he started wearing it and why. A seminarian or priest sporting an earring is not socially acceptable in the Catholic Church. A good number of parishioners would wonder about the deeper reasons or motivation. No one in such a public position starts to wear an earring without making a deliberate decision. As a wise old Jesuit priest said to me once, “No one changes externals without having changed internals.” It is regarded as what people call “making a statement.” The same code of expected conduct applies to men in other professions, such as policemen or teachers.[/quote]

again almost exclusively referring to earrings. And the author contradicts himself in regards to tattoos here. If sailors and side-show freaks were the only people with tattoos (what's wrong with a sailor?), then the Ethiopian Christians and Samoans above would not have tattoos and yet the author said they did. Which is it? And even if they did, so what?

[quote]Employers and principals should make rules outlawing any such jewelry for male staff and students. Especially for the young, such rules protect them both from themselves and from peer pressure. The fact is that, still today, earrings are prevalent among females, and in minority use among males.[/quote]

addressing piercings, not applicable.

[quote]8. Unsuitability. Sometimes people tattoo themselves with a big image of a crucifix or other holy pictures. The human body is a most unsuitable place for such an image, even if it be a beautiful one.[/quote]

This could be a valid argument if it is backed up by some documentation, but I don't know that there is any. How is it different from the Ethiopian Christians above, who tattooed their foreheads of all places. If it was okay for them then, then how is it any different today. The forehead is considered (even I wouldn't condone it) a far more extreme place for a tattoo than the arm or back or leg.

[quote]Whenever these people go swimming, for example, they are exhibiting this image in an inappropriate fashion.[/quote]

Many would argue (and I would myself) that public baths and swimming places are immoral among mixed company anyways. If not amongst mixed company then how is it inappropriate?

[quote]No priest would ever go down to a shopping center in Mass vestments, not because there is something wrong with vestments, but because there is a time and a place for donning special religious symbols.[/quote]

Comparing a tattoo and sacred vestments is just silly. A possibly more appropriate comparison might be a crucifix on a chain, or a miraculous medal. Are these inappropriate to wear to the supermarket? I hope not. Even these items I would thing (especially if blessed by a priest) are far more sacred than a tattoo, what makes them more appropriate for secular exposure?

[quote]9. Vanity. Some men in particular tattoo their upper and lower arms in order to be ostentatious and impressive. It is a means of drawing attention to themselves. No one who meets them can fail to notice the tattoos – to the point at which it is in fact a constant distraction. It detracts from the person, and focuses attention too much on the body’s external appearance.[/quote]

If done for this reason (and it is done for this reason) then it is inappropriate not to mention just plain egotistical. Yet again, to use this as an argument against all tattooing is quite a stretch.

[quote]The same can be said for a stud on the tongue, a ring in the nose, or earrings all over one’s ears and eyebrows. These are not part of our culture; at most, they are part of a certain subculture, a minority affectation, devoid of religious or positive social significance.[/quote]

Piercings not applicable to this discussion.
[quote]No one is saying it is wrong to dress up, but here it is a question of moderation and discretion. Sacred Scripture implicitly recognizes that it is good for a bride to be adorned for her husband when the heavenly Jerusalem is compared to such a woman (Apoc. 21:2). It is good for a lady to be well dressed and to use makeup when the occasion calls for it, but everyone recognizes when the embellishment has gone over the top and makes her look seductive or cheap.[/quote]

Fully agree. The argument against tattoos... is? If the author is to argue that tattoos make a woman look seductive and cheap then that is his opinion. One he is free to hold, but not backed by anything whatsoever.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]10. Immaturity and imprudence. An action acceptable or indifferent in itself can become wrong if the intention or motive is wrong.[/quote]

Agreed. And this is where I think the distinction about tattooing, a completely acceptable or indifferent act, needs to be made.

[quote]Some young people adopt outrageous fashions out of an immature desire to rebel against society or against their parents. Such disobedience against parents is sinful.[/quote]

To do it for this reason is sinful and immature.

[quote]Some do it out of an immature desire to conform to their friends, and others out of an equally immature desire to stick out from everyone around them. Some do it out of boredom, because it is something different, because it gives them a thrill, because it is something for their friends to admire and comment on. Mindless following of fads is always the mark of immaturity. For young people who live at home under their parents’ authority, it is enough if their parents express their disapproval of such fashions to know that they should not go ahead. Some young people go to further extremes and vie with each other as to who can pierce whatever part of the body the most. Parents must forbid such behavior absolutely.[/quote]

I fully agree. I still fail to see how this is a condemnation against legitimate reasons for tattooing. And the comment about piercing is again irrelevant to this discussion.

[quote]Young people can hardly justify the big expenditure (not to mention the pain) involved in getting a tattoo. It is also unjustified and just plain silly to mark your body for life with images of no great worth or with the name of one’s current lover. A recent example I heard of gives an idea of the time and expense: a young girl had one arm tattooed up and down. It required two four-hour sessions and cost $1,000 (American).[/quote]

Young people spend exorbitant amounts of money on a great number of things. That just makes them dumb if they can't afford it, doesn't make the act wrong. Young people spend a large amount of money on non-offensive things. This doesn't make the item (or event or whatever) any more offensive. If the person can't afford it then that is his/her own problem and shows a problem of a different sort, unrelated to the indifferent act of tattooing.

[quote]Tattoos are more serious than other adornments since they are more or less permanent marks on the body. Many a man or woman have been tattooed gladly in youth, but regretted it not so many years later when they came to regard it as an embarrassing disfigurement. Once they mature, they pay dearly for the luxury of getting rid of it. The removal of tattoos is expensive and difficult – and can leave scars. The removal of big tattoos requires surgery under a general anaesthetic, with all the potential risks, plus the significant medical and hospital costs. The removal of large tattoos can leave big segments of the skin permanently disfigured or blotched, like skin that has been burnt. Many adults find themselves ineligible for some jobs, because businesses will not employ them with their hands covered in tattoos, impossible to conceal years after their youthful folly.[/quote]

One should certainly think long and hard before getting one done. Doesn't make the act itself immoral.

[quote]Universal Criteria
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.[/quote]

agreed. I think these can be included in disfigurement which is expressly forbidden. Tattooing doesn't misshape any part of the body.

[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.

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.[/quote] [/size]

I can agree with this. But I have to wonder if the author takes his own advice and realizes that there is also an acceptable form of tattooing that doesn't cross any borders. I won't assume anything on him but the writing comes across as if he doesn't make this distinction.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1482940' date='Mar 24 2008, 01:36 AM']They were prefect, would they have tattoos?[/quote]

If you're asking did they? Then no.

If you're asking would they? Then who knows? Did Christ do every single thing on this planet that is to be considered acceptable for us? Of course not. If this was the case then no one should play an instrument of any kind. That's just one example, but there are many quite acceptable things that we have no record of Christ doing I'm quite sure. We should ultimately strive to be perfect. But in doing this we must abstain from all things that the Church teaches to be wrong and to do as many things as the Church teaches to be good. Christ had long flowing hair and a beard, and walked around in robes. Should we do that as well?

[goldenchild17]

p.s. I had to break up my response to the above article (to many quotes for one or two posts apparently. dUST why do you restrict us so? ).