Tattoos....

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1483397' date='Mar 24 2008, 10:53 PM']Whether Christ would now or then submit to or refuse a tattoo is perfectly relevant to us. Christ is the New Testament, then, now, forever. He followed the perfection of the law, and taught against its imperfection. He taught against divorce, healed on the Sabbath day, taught against and did not allow stoning. Because Christ choose to follow the law against tattoos, is a very good reason we should also. Unless it is shown that the New Testament does away with a law Christ followed. But there is no proof that the law against tattoos was done away with, in fact though there will be disagreement it would seem to be reinforced. Matthew 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 1 Corinthians 3:17, and etc...

If we are to look at Leviticus 19:27, we should also look at Leviticus 19:29 which succeeds Leviticus 19:28. Leviticus 19:29 "You shall not degrade your daughter by making a prostitute of her; else the land will become corrupt and full of lewdness. This is the only verse in the whole of the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, in which, God directly forbids the selling of ones daughter for prostitution. Is this also irrelevant now? No, because it dishonors the body the Holy Temple of the Spirit.

Or what of Leviticus 18:21 "You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD." This also seems to be the only place in which the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, forbid the human sacrifice of children. This is not forbidden in the New Testament Covenant. But it is clearly forbidden.

And what of, Leviticus 18:23 "You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent." This is the only place through out the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, where God directly forbids bestiality. It is not forbidden in the New Testament Covenant. Is this also irrelevant now? No, because it dishonors the body the Holy Temple of the Spirit.

Clearly much of the Old law now applies to us, via Moral and Natural Law. Leviticus 19:28, like Matthew 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 1 Corinthians 3:17, calls for the proper reverence of God's creation, and the the Holy Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Fifth Commandment forbids unnecessary harm to the body. Tattooing is an unnecessary risk to the body as well as an unnecessary alteration of the body. Clearly tattooing is a unnecessary, and unnatural alteration of the body, that does cause harm to the body, or blood would not be drawn. Tattoos are very fancy self-inflected scars, covered by ink which is unnaturally injected into the body.

Catholics thinking of getting a tattoo should ask themselves would Christ or our Blessed Mother receive a tattoo? Since we should strive to be like them, and not do something that would not do. If Christ would now or then forbid to have a tattoo, we should also, the same would be true for Mary. Who can honestly say without violating faith and reason, that Christ or Mary would allow there bodies to be disfigured or altered by an unnecessary unnatural ink injected scar.[/quote]

If the jews had a tattoo of kinship for each tribe instead of circumcision, Jesus would have probably gone along with it. After all cutting off parts of the male body is hardly non-invasive or natural. Mary would have had her ears pierced as well.

[KnightofChrist]

But it was not, and circumcision was pacifically done away with. So if that where the case, it would have also been done away with. Unnatural and unnecessary alterations to the body, would not seem to honor the body according to scripture. Circumcision was at the time necessary, tattoos where not then, or are they now.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1483437' date='Mar 24 2008, 09:16 PM']But it was not, and circumcision was pacifically done away with. So if that where the case, it would have also been done away with. Unnatural and unnecessary alterations to the body, would not seem to honor the body according to scripture. Circumcision was at the time necessary, tattoos where not then, or are they now.[/quote]

Christ would not have done so regardless at this time, because tattoos, at this time, were associated with pagan rituals, of which the Jews were not to take part. THIS is the reason it is included in forbidden practices. If you want to continue to hold that tattoos are still forbidden then that is fine. But then you must address verse 17. Is cutting the hair short and shaving still outlawed as well? Where is the distinction from verse 17 to 18?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1483397' date='Mar 24 2008, 08:53 PM']Whether Christ would now or then submit to or refuse a tattoo is perfectly relevant to us.[/quote]

How, they are two different covenants. One is not relevant any more, the one in which Christ came from. Now you can of course argue that Christ made clear himself the changes that were done away with, and that the rest are still in effect. While I can't see the logic in that I will play along with it for a minute. Tell me this, if you do think that Christ would make clear the changes from one covenant to another, does this mean then that He still believes short hair (on guys) and shaving to be against the Covenant? Because all indications (from early Church documents and even the Shroud of Turin of you believe that) is that he had long hair and a beard.

[quote]Christ is the New Testament, then, now, forever. He followed the perfection of the law, and taught against its imperfection. He taught against divorce, healed on the Sabbath day, taught against and did not allow stoning. Because Christ choose to follow the law against tattoos, is a very good reason we should also. Unless it is shown that the New Testament does away with a law Christ followed. But there is no proof that the law against tattoos was done away with, in fact though there will be disagreement it would seem to be reinforced. Matthew 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 1 Corinthians 3:17, and etc...[/quote]

These verses don't address it explicitly at all. It is simply your conjecture. A valid opinion, but by no means certain. Again, if you think He had to explicitly do away with all laws then why is it okay to now have short hair and no beard? He didn't (as far as any possible record can indicate) and never explicitly said we could cut it off.

[quote]If we are to look at Leviticus 19:27, we should also look at Leviticus 19:29 which succeeds Leviticus 19:28. Leviticus 19:29 "You shall not degrade your daughter by making a prostitute of her; else the land will become corrupt and full of lewdness. This is the only verse in the whole of the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, in which, God directly forbids the selling of ones daughter for prostitution. Is this also irrelevant now? No, because it dishonors the body the Holy Temple of the Spirit.[/quote]

It isn't irrelevant, but I would say so only because the Ten Commandments are still in effect (as Jesus preached in support of them). The seventh commandment forbids sins of sexual perversion and this would certainly fall into that category.

[quote]Or what of Leviticus 18:21 "You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD." This also seems to be the only place in which the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, forbid the human sacrifice of children. This is not forbidden in the New Testament Covenant. But it is clearly forbidden.[/quote]

5th commandment. Thou shalt not murder. Still in effect. As is the concept that God did away with all such forms of sacrifice because of what Christ did on the cross.

[quote]And what of, Leviticus 18:23 "You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent." This is the only place through out the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, where God directly forbids bestiality. It is not forbidden in the New Testament Covenant. Is this also irrelevant now? No, because it dishonors the body the Holy Temple of the Spirit.[/quote]

Can you validly marry an animal? Of course not and the seventh commandment forbids extra-marital relations. Seems simple enough.

[quote]Clearly much of the Old law now applies to us, via Moral and Natural Law. Leviticus 19:28, like Matthew 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 1 Corinthians 3:17, calls for the proper reverence of God's creation, and the the Holy Temple of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Insomuch as it was made perfect in the New Covenant, yes it is still in effect. Otherwise no its not.

[quote]The Fifth Commandment forbids unnecessary harm to the body. Tattooing is an unnecessary risk to the body as well as an unnecessary alteration of the body. Clearly tattooing is a unnecessary, and unnatural alteration of the body, that does cause harm to the body, or blood would not be drawn. Tattoos are very fancy self-inflected scars, covered by ink which is unnaturally injected into the body.[/quote]

It is not a risk at all if done properly. You are falling for the same stretch that the author of your article falls for. It is a very safe process if done correctly. At least as safe, I would say, as circumcision, which is now a completely voluntary process but the vast majority of male infants have it performed.

[quote]Catholics thinking of getting a tattoo should ask themselves would Christ or our Blessed Mother receive a tattoo? Since we should strive to be like them, and not do something that would not do. If Christ would now or then forbid to have a tattoo, we should also, the same would be true for Mary. Who can honestly say without violating faith and reason, that Christ or Mary would allow there bodies to be disfigured or altered by an unnecessary unnatural ink injected scar.[/quote]

As it was a sign of pagan rituals during this time, of course it would not make sense for them to do it then. Just as it would be wrong for them to celebrate a holiday with Easter eggs, just as we do now. Or to celebrate a great feast during a former pagan winter festival, like we do now. The cutting of the hair in this fashion, and of shaving the beard and of tattoos were a form of pagan mourning rituals. This is why they were bad and forbidden for Jews. Not because they were inherently evil. I would say that we certainly still have a lesson to learn from this passage. That message being that we must not take up any practices that would associate with the pagan world. Certain practices today could make that association, but tattoos (as well as cutting of the hair and beard) no longer have such connotations.

If anyone is wondering the connections of shaving the beard/cutting the hair/tattoos to pagan mourning rituals is alluded to in Deuteronomy 14:1 -

"Be ye children of the Lord your God: you shall not cut yourselves, no, make any baldness[b] for the dead[/b]"

Read Leviticus 19:28 again - "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh,[b] for the dead[/b], neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord."

The law was made against rituals which consisted of shaving the beard or cutting the hair or tattooing one's self [b]for the dead[/b].

I wish I had time to elaborate (I plan on writing somewhat of a paper/treatise on the subject at some time but not now). If you want more on this specific point, type - pagan mourning ritual shaving beard tattoos - into the ask.com search engine and it will pull up some interesting pages. Mostly protestant, but helpful nonetheless.


Things change with time. There was a time in the early Church when Christians received the Body and Blood in the hand. This was soon done away with and for the longest time was received solely on the tongue. And now, at least for your church has gone back to allowing it in the hands again. Customs, both secular and religious change as times and conditions change. As odd as it might sound coming from me (being the "anti-change" rad-trad that I am) change is not always a bad thing.

[quote]We should always strive to do and follow what Christ and Mary would do and follow, because there is honor and reward in that. But we endanger ourselves when we do and follow things that Christ and Mary would avoid and not do or follow.[/quote]

Agreed, though the distinction still has to be made, and you do not make it, of why one is doing something. It would have been scandalous for Jesus to recieve a tattoo as it was a blatant sign of pagan ritual. Christ certainly did things that were against the Jewish custom, so if you want to argue this point, then explain to me why he felt no reason to shave or cut his hair, or make any mention of it whatsoever, and yet you are probably okay with it?

[quote]If a Catholic could honestly say without violating faith and reason, that Christ or Mary would submit to a tattoo, good for you. But I would disagree I do not believe, nor do I think most Catholic would believe Christ or Mary would allow there bodies to be disfigured or altered by a tattoo. But I would say again, keeping in mind would do good to follow what Christ follows, and not follow what Christ would not follow, if one can not answer, it would be better to avoid getting tattoo. Because after all Christ may well say at the end it is a blemish on the temple of God.[/quote]

He might say so, then again He might also ask the vast majority of men why they are short-haired and clean-shaven. Hindsight is 20-20.

I know you don't mean to be this way, but you do sound awfully Pharisaical in this whole matter. While there are now still laws which Christ has carried over into the New Covenant, we are not bound to the Old Covenant and cannot be saved by it.


Here are a few more Old Testament laws that aren't (I don't think) explicitly revoked in the New Testament. Would you say that we are bound to them as well? If not, why?:

Leviticus 19:9 "When thou reapest the corn of thy land, thou shalt not cut down all that is on the face of the earth to the very ground: nor shalt thou gather the ears that remain."

Leviticus 19:19 "Keep ye my laws . . . [b]Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds. Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts."[/b]

Are these to be held today? If not, why not?

They are thrown in there amongst other valid concerns, such as divinization (v. 26) stealing and lying (v. 11), swear on God's name (v. 12), violence (v. 13).

They are all intermingled, the above verses of questionable importance now, right there amongst the verses that we would all agree are of concern today. Why are the latter of concern, because either Jesus in the New Testament or the Church later on has specifically spoken out on the matter, in one way or another. Those that were not addressed were dropped from the New Covenant.

Here's an interesting verse:

Leviticus 19:20 "If a man carnally lie with a woman that is a bondservant and marriageable, and yet not redeemed with a price, nor made free: they both shall be scourged, and they shall not be put to death, because she was not a free woman."

I think we can all agree that such a sin is still in effect. It is still wrong. Still sinful. Yet here is another twist. This verse calls for the sinners to be scourged. If we can all agree that this is still a sin in the eyes of a Christian, then why is the scourging dropped? If any of these verses should be in effect, and sexual sins certainly are still in effect, then why is the punishment revoked? Certainly many people would do away with their sins of this kind if they had to endure such a penalty each time they went through it, don't you think? Yet the scourging is no longer in effect. Why is this?
________________________________________
________________________________________
___________

Besides all this, I think the Church has made it clear that the Old Covenant is no longer in force:
[b]
Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 29-30:[/b]

And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ..but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood...30: On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.



“that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law” [b][/b](Trent, Session 6, ch 2);

“If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done through his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law...let him be anathema” [b](Trent, Ses. 6, Canon 1). [/b]



[b]Council of Florence: [/b]

"It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began...



All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. [b][/b](DS 712).


So I would probably say the opposite as you. I would say that if something is NOT specifically brought up by Christ or the Church, then it is abolished. Because the Old Covenant was abolished. A fair number of the principles and ideas and even some practices of the Old Covenant were kept, as well they should. But that simply means that they are now a part of the New Covenant, not a part of the Old, and anything not expressly carried over from the Old to the New is no longer applicable.

I'll just close now with one last verse.

James 2:10 - "And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all."

If the Old Covenant be still in effect, and we avail ourselves to it, then we are obliged to keep ALL of the law. Not just a part of it or even most of it. If we even break one law, we break the whole law. If you say that the Old Testament Covenant is still in effect, except for those things that Jesus expressly excuses, then there are quite a few verses I would be interested in getting your opinion on. Leviticus 19:9 and 19:19 would probably be a good place to start.

peace

Edited March 25, 2008 by goldenchild17

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1483437' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:16 PM']tattoos where not then, or are they now.[/quote]
We are not bound by OT law. There is no church legislation that says tattoos are wrong.

[goldenchild17]

Fr. George Haddock's commentary on Leviticus 19:28 -

"Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross with the cross, or name of Jesus. Procop. in Isai. xliv. 5. C.--As S. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast. Brev. Aug. 21."

1.) people other than sailors and sideshow freaks got tattoos.

2.) Tattoos are not forbidden by the Church

3.) Religious figures/names/phrases are perfectly acceptable for marking on the body permanently.

4.) A biography of St. Jane Frances de Chantal says that her mark on the breast was not a tattoo, but a brand. The traditional Roman Breviary, on the text for August 21 says:

"She received offers of second marriage which would have been both politic and honourable, but never was induced to accept one of them, and to harden herself in her intention of remaining in her widowhood, she renewed her vow to that effect, and [b]branded on her chest with a hot iron the most holy Name of Jesus Christ[/b]."

If you want to verify that I don't know where the Traditional breviary is at other than a "rad-trad" site which is what I used. So I won't post the link. The text I quoted from Fr. Haddock's commentary is online also at:

[url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id438.html"]http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id438.html[/url]

Scroll to verse 28.

Edited March 25, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

Just a little something I put together since this topic began yesterday. Might be something to consider in response to the article posted on the first page. Certainly not authoritative, but hopefully some can benefit from it. Now posted on my website.

p.s. I didn't get around to formatting it on here like it should be to get the full effect. Hopefully it's still readable.
________________________________________
___________________________

Like many practices, the art of tattooing is one that has fascinated the human race for pretty much all of time. It is also a much debated and controversial subject, particularly among Christians. Is it okay to get a tattoo, and if you can, then why would you? If only there was a simple answer. There has not been much literature produced on this topic, particularly by the Catholic Church. Of course this only serves to complicate things, but hopefully by the end of this the answer may be a little clearer.

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

This is probably the primary text in the tattoo debate. It is a good one because it does seem to make clear reference to forbidding tattooing (figures or marks). There is a very good reason for this. In fact, all of the Old Testament laws, no matter how silly they might seem on the surface, have an important reason for their prohibition. To understand the context of this passage we need to start in verse 27 of Leviticus chapter 19 and then continue through verse 28. Take note of the bolded section:

"Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise; nor shave your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord."

The little phrase "for the dead" is crucial in understanding what is being said here. This signifies that the cutting of the hair, shaving of the beard, cutting of the flesh, and making figures or marks in the flesh was an done as an act in pagan mourning rituals.

The same is found in Deuteronomy 14:1 -

"Be ye children of the Lord your God: you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness for the dead"

Regarding this concept of cut the hair and beard etc. for the dead, in Leviticus 19:27-28, Rev. Fr. Leo Haddock comments:

"At funerals it was customary to cut off the hair. Achilles and his men did so at the death of Patroclus. Homer.--The Egyptians, Assyrians, &c. cut their hair on the like occasions . . . Theodoret (q. 18) mentions, that the pagans were accustomed to cut their cheeks, and to prick themselves with needles, infusing some black matter, out of respect for the dead, and for demons."

This is why tattoos were forbidden for God's chosen people in the Old Covenant, not because the tattoos themselves were inherently evil. Consider it this way, is cutting the hair short, or shaving the beard to be considered sinful as well? Of course not. That is the general custom for men today and many Christian men follow it with no qualms whatsoever.

What's more, these verses refer to Old Testament practices, a part of the Old Covenant. This Covenant has been replaced and perfected by God's New Covenant. His Old Covenant with the Jewish people was a foreshadowing of His New Covenant with the Catholic Church:

"But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. For if the former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new testament with the house of Israel and with the House of Juda, Not according to the testament which I made with their fathers, on the day when I took by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: for they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and I will write them in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them: Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. Now in saying a new, he that made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end." (Hebrews 8:6-13)

The Church has since declared that the Old Testament has been fulfilled, and is no more. Thus we are no longer bound to follow its precepts, even more we are not permitted to follow them:

Pius XII - Mystici Corporis 29-30:

"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers"

Then from the Council of Trent Session 6, Canon 1:

"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

Pope Eugene IV wrote, in Cantate Domino (1441):

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law...although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally...All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless some day they recover from these errors."

So one should not worry himself overly much about precepts which were annihilated when the New Covenant was born. This is not to say that all of the Old Testament precepts are not to be followed. Many of the laws (the Ten Commandments for example) were adopted into the New Covenant because they still held much merit for Christians under the new promise. Any of the laws that we should still obey from the Old Testament are made clear to us in that they coincide with the laws of the New Covenant. Any arbitrary laws that are not expressly mentioned in the New Covenant are no longer in force. This includes the prohibition on cutting ones hair and beard, and of tattooing oneself. Why? Because it is no longer a commonly practiced pagan custom to perform these acts as a sign of mourning for their dead. To cut one's hair short or to shave one's beard is no longer associated with paganism, even though it once was. There was a time in the early Church when Christians received the Body and Blood in the hand. This was soon done away with and is now recieved solely on the tongue (this is another difference from the Novus Ordo church, which has resumed the practice of recieving in the hand.)

Two other verses which are sometimes used to argue against tattooing are 1 Corinthians 3:16-17:

"Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God: him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are."

and 1 Corinthians 6:19 -

"Or know you that, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?"

Advocates of the use of such verses regarding tattoos like to point out that they refer to also caring for the physical body. Yet Fr. Haddock in his Commentary on both passages discusses only a spiritual caring for the temple. This aspect of caring for the physical body is still an important one. It is considered sinful to cause undue harm to our bodies:

Fr. Heribert Jone - Moral Theology page 135:

"209. -- Self mutilation is allowed only to save one's life.

Mutilation is usually a mortal sin. It is only venially sinful to remove a part of the body that has no important function e.g., the earlobes. -- Castration is a grave sin whether done to alleviate temptation or to preserve a soprano voice. -- Vasectomy, hysterectomy, etc. (See. No. 213) are mortally sinful if done to prevent off-spring. -- Cancer, bloodpoisoning, infection, etc. justify the amputation of a member of the body. -- Lobotomy is permissible in cases of serious mental illness, but only as a last resort.

Organic transplantation (corneal, ovarian, renal, etc.) according to the supreme law of charity, is probably lawful if it confers a proportionate benefit upon the recipient without depriving the donor completely of an important function. Nor does this seem to conflict with the teaching of Pius XII on the Principle of Totality. It is certainly lawful for a dying person to will his corneas to an eye bank."

A practice one sometimes can see today that would likely also fall under the category of self-mutilation is that of stretching the earlobes, which originates from tribal practice, to make them far larger than they were originally intended.

One thing that isn't mentioned in this section on self mutilation is tattoos. It is certainly possible that they could be mentioned elsewhere and thus still a forbidden practice. But to answer this, I direct back to Fr. George Haddock's commentary on Leviticus 19:28 -

"Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross with the cross, or name of Jesus. Procop. in Isai. xliv. 5. C.--As S. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast. Brev. Aug. 21." Going to the breviary's text for August 21 we read: “"She received offers of second marriage which would have been both politic and honourable, but never was induced to accept one of them, and to harden herself in her intention of remaining in her widowhood, she renewed her vow to that effect, and branded on her chest with a hot iron the most holy Name of Jesus Christ." There is no condemnation by Fr. Haddock nor anyone else of these practices by previous Christians and the holy St. Jane Frances de Chantal which indicate that there is no moral reason to oppose tattoos. Biographies note that the mark that de Chantal gave herself was not a tattoo, but a brand. He took a hot iron in the shape of the name of Jesus and branded herself on the breast to testify that her heart throbbed for Jesus alone. I would think that branding oneself is even more extreme than tattooing, as it in fact does alter the shape of the skin. Yet, this has not been condemned and a great saint has accepted it for herself.

By now it should be established that tattoos are not expressly forbidden on the merit of the act alone by the Church as proven most explicitly in the commentary of Fr. Haddock just above. It and of itself it is a morally neutral act. However, there are other factors to consider in whether or not getting a tattoo would be morally acceptable. While the act in and of itself is non-offensive, the mind and intent of the recipient as well as the health risks involved also play an important role. Many opponents to tattooing will argue that there are too many health dangers that can arise due to getting a tattoo. This is definitely an important, and valid, concern. Fr Heribert Jone says:

“207. Section 7

The Fifth Commandment

The fifth commandment forbids, in the first place, all unjust killing either of oneself or of others. In the second place, it forbids all unjustified wounding or mutilation. Since death can result from the neglect of adequate care of one's health, the preservation of life and health is also a duty.” (Moral Theology, page 133 – section 207.)
So it would be worth the while to investigate some of the claims regarding the health risks of tattooing. A commonly accepted (at least in the U.S.) competent source of authority regarding epidemiology (transmission and risk) of diseases is the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report is published regularly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most recent, published in December, 1997, is entitled "Estimated incidence of AIDS and deaths of persons with AIDS, adjusted for delays in reporting, by quarter-year of diagnosis/death, United States, January 1985 through June 1997." In its HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports, CDC has consistently noted that it has documented "no cases of HIV transmission through tattooing" anywhere in the country since it began tracking such data in 1985. By comparison, there have been at least 7 cases of HIV transmission associated with dentists and dental workers. In the Hepatitis Surveillance, Report Number 56, April, 1996, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, it is documented that of the 13,387 annual cases of hepatitis detailed in the most recent CDC report, 12 are associated with tattoo studios. By comparison, 43 cases -- or better than 300% more -- are associated with dental offices. One today would not normally look at the dental office as a dangerous place, and yet, tattooing has produced fewer cases of AIDS and Hepatitis virus transmission.

“. . . by following Universal Precautions, your artist can reduce your risk of exposure to infectious bacteria and blood borne pathogens almost completely . . . Universal Precautions – which some tattoo artists refer to as a “sterile chain of events” – is a set of precautionary steps defined by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to prevent the spread of disease. Tattoo artists are required by law to follow Universal Precautions for the safety of themselves and their clients. Any artist found not following this sterile chain of events can have their licensing and/or certification revoked. Any studio found not following U.P. guidelines can be shut down. Details of U.P. guidelines can be found on the CDC website, but the basics include things like using gloves and other barriers on anything the artist comes in contact with, disinfecting all surfaces and general cross-contamination prevention. When followed to the letter, your chances of being exposed to staph infection of any kind are very minimal.” (http://tattoo.about.com/od/disease/a/mrsa_risks.htm)

What it comes down to is care. If you are careful in where you get yourself a tattoo and careful with choosing your artist, then the risk is really very minimal.

There is one last thing to consider in the tattoo debate: the mind and intent of the recipient. Why do you want to get a tattoo? Do you want to display a sign of your faith? Or maybe make a dedication to a loved one? Or is it simply for the shock value, or out of rebellion to your parents or other authority figure? Obedience to one's lawful authorities, whether it be your parents or a government official or your boss or whatever, is a necessary obligation as these figures are set in place by God and we owe them our respect. If they say no tattoos, then no tattoos. This goes even for adults still living in their parents home:

“Even adult children, as long as they stay at home, must obey in all things necessary for domestic order, e.g., to return at a reasonable hour at night.” (Fr. Heribert Jone – Moral Theology p. 127, section 199).
All things that are, in and of themselves, of a neutral moral constitution are judged in the mind and intention behind the act:

1 Kings 16:7 “. . . nor do I judge according to the look of man: for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.”

Location on the body and size can factor into this determination. Many (most) employers frown on tattoos that will shown on the job, so it is the duty of the recipient to keep it covered up, either by only getting tattooed where it won't show, or by wearing enough clothing to keep it covered during the job. Remember, we also have the duty to refrain from scandal in the presence of those who could be offended:

Romans 14:13-15, 20 “Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way. I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died . . . Destroy not the work of God for meat. All things indeed are clean: but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. ”

Again, Fr. Haddock's Commentary, on verse 20:

“That is, do not hinder your brother's salvation, for whom, whoever he may be, Christ died, who may be so offended at the liberty which you take, as to quit the Christian religion . . .”

If it is a stumbling-block to one in our company then we must refrain from its exposure, whether it be in our dress, the way we eat, what we do, or the tattoos on our body. If however, you have a good intention in the wish to receive a tattoo, either out of reverence for God and faith, or out of respect and honor of someone close or of something you believe in then the mind and intention is deemed acceptable. If, however, the intention is simply to shock and rebel or to purposely cause harm to the body (whether this actually occurs or not), then the intent is judged sinful, immoral, and must not be carried through to its end. Look at your heart, if you still feel the wish to get a tattoo, then go for it. The Church does not stand in your way.

St. Jane Frances de Chantal, pray for us.

[soccer girl =D]

i would get a tatoo and i don't c how they're sinful unless its a tatoo of a naked person or sumthin like that.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']How, they are two different covenants. One is not relevant any more, the one in which Christ came from. Now you can of course argue that Christ made clear himself the changes that were done away with, and that the rest are still in effect. While I can't see the logic in that I will play along with it for a minute. Tell me this, if you do think that Christ would make clear the changes from one covenant to another, does this mean then that He still believes short hair (on guys) and shaving to be against the Covenant? Because all indications (from early Church documents and even the Shroud of Turin of you believe that) is that he had long hair and a beard.[/quote]


The question as to if Christ would [u]now[/u] submit to or refuse a tattoo is still quite relevant. Which was the original point of asking, would he now, presently. No. Or at very least it is highly doubtful because it would seem under faith and reason to be a defilement of His holy body. If we believe, even by chance, that Christ would now refuse a tattoo, on those grounds, that it would be a defilement, should we not also, for the same reason? After all when we become christians, we become part of His body. If He would not, we should not. Haircuts and shaving a beard do not permanently alter the body, and are sometimes necessary, thus clearly not against moral law. Tattooing does indeed permanently alter the body, and is never necessary.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']These verses don't address it explicitly at all. It is simply your conjecture. A valid opinion, but by no means certain. Again, if you think He had to explicitly do away with all laws then why is it okay to now have short hair and no beard? He didn't (as far as any possible record can indicate) and never explicitly said we could cut it off.
It isn't irrelevant, but I would say so only because the Ten Commandments are still in effect (as Jesus preached in support of them). The seventh commandment forbids sins of sexual perversion and this would certainly fall into that category.

5th commandment. Thou shalt not murder. Still in effect. As is the concept that God did away with all such forms of sacrifice because of what Christ did on the cross.
Can you validly marry an animal? Of course not and the seventh commandment forbids extra-marital relations. Seems simple enough.[/quote]


I would agree that my stance does not necessarily have a 100% assurity, nor does your stance, which goes back to the point if something could be wrong, why do it.

Bestiality, and child sacrifice is only forbidden out right in the Old testament. I would agree the fifth and seventh commandment would also forbid those sins but they do not by name, and this is the same kind of argument and logic that the 5th commandment and the verses earlier provided also forbid tattooing.


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']Insomuch as it was made perfect in the New Covenant, yes it is still in effect. Otherwise no its not.
It is not a risk at all if done properly. You are falling for the same stretch that the author of your article falls for. It is a very safe process if done correctly. At least as safe, I would say, as circumcision, which is now a completely voluntary process but the vast majority of male infants have it performed.[/quote]


So too would it seem simple enough that tattooing would be against the 5th commandment and the moral law not to harm or dishonor the body of Christ, because no matter how "safe" a tattoo is applied it still permanently disfigures, alters and causes harm to the body by cutting in to it, with the many pokes of the needle, causing the body to bleed, causing a wound. If tattooing is safe, then sex with a condom would also be safe. Tattooing always has risk, always, no matter how safely it is carried out. As for present day circumcision, there is good evidence that it is medically beneficial. Yet I have seen no proof that tattooing is medically beneficial.


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']If anyone is wondering the connections of shaving the beard/cutting the hair/tattoos to pagan mourning rituals is alluded to in Deuteronomy 14:1 -

"Be ye children of the Lord your God: you shall not cut yourselves, no, make any baldness[b] for the dead[/b]"

Read Leviticus 19:28 again - "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh,[b] for the dead[/b], neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord."

The law was made against rituals which consisted of shaving the beard or cutting the hair or tattooing one's self [b]for the dead[/b].[/quote]


Can we now cut ourselves so long as it is not for the dead, or for pagan practices? No. And it would seem tattooing is cutting the body, with the added effect of injection of inks. Lev. 19:28 has actually two prohibitions to unnatural disfigure or alter the body "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh,for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord." In the original hebrew, qa aqa, meaning incision, refers to tattooing, yet does not reference pagan or idolatrous usages. The phrase "for the dead" refers to "cuttings in your flesh" not the last part of the verse. The condemnation of "neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks" is not effected by the phrase "for the dead".


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']Agreed, though the distinction still has to be made, and you do not make it, of why one is doing something. It would have been scandalous for Jesus to recieve a tattoo as it was a blatant sign of pagan ritual. Christ certainly did things that were against the Jewish custom, so if you want to argue this point, then explain to me why he felt no reason to shave or cut his hair, or make any mention of it whatsoever, and yet you are probably okay with it?
He might say so, then again He might also ask the vast majority of men why they are short-haired and clean-shaven. Hindsight is 20-20.

I know you don't mean to be this way, but you do sound awfully Pharisaical in this whole matter. While there are now still laws which Christ has carried over into the New Covenant, we are not bound to the Old Covenant and cannot be saved by it.[/quote]


It would seem counter to faith and reason that Christ would submit to tattooing in any age, because it would unnecessarily disfigure and alter His body, since we are Christian and part of His body, if He would not, we should not. This has been the basis of my stance all along, so the pharisaical statement is unwarranted, though I understand I may have been confusing. Lev. 19:28 then as now teaches and is part of moral and natural law, which is why it is relevant to us now, showing we are to honor and give proper reverence to the creation of God, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.


[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1483587' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:35 AM']I'll just close now with one last verse.

James 2:10 - "And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all."

If the Old Covenant be still in effect, and we avail ourselves to it, then we are obliged to keep ALL of the law. Not just a part of it or even most of it. If we even break one law, we break the whole law. If you say that the Old Testament Covenant is still in effect, except for those things that Jesus expressly excuses, then there are quite a few verses I would be interested in getting your opinion on. Leviticus 19:9 and 19:19 would probably be a good place to start.

peace[/quote]


Again hopefully clearer, much of the Old Covenant was part of moral and natural law, Lev. 19:28, which was part of that shows we are to honor and give proper reverence to the creation of God, our body, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Peace of Christ be with you as well, my brother.

Edited March 25, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='soccer girl =D' post='1483937' date='Mar 25 2008, 04:05 PM']i would get a tatoo and i don't c how they're sinful unless its a tatoo of a naked person or sumthin like that.[/quote]

But would Christ now, presently tattoo himself? What does your christian reason tell you? Does it say yes or no? If it tells you no, then why should you do something He would refuse, being that you are part of His body, the body of Christ?

[Tinkerlina]

Thanks for the article-lots of interesting points. Although I'd have to say that a lot of the reasons mentioned why one should not get a tattoo are pretty subjective. Ugly/shocking/repulsive, etc is really a matter of personal likes and dislikes in most cases. I also don't really understand the mention that pirates used to be the only men who wore earrings, because that is really an issue of societal convention rather than church teaching. But anyway, thanks for the input!

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1482918' date='Mar 23 2008, 11:41 PM']...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...[/quote]


By the way, it was a misreporting on the press' end of an Italian bishop talking about sins, not the Bishop of Rome, though.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1482931' date='Mar 24 2008, 02:47 AM']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?[/quote]

Good question, but I really don't know how we could possible answer it. It'd definitely not something I picture Jesus of the Blessed Mother having, but I think that has more to do with the fact that as far as I know, tattooing was not a common practice in ancient Israel. But, on a relevant note, I have seen many beautiful religious tattoos-a bunch of guys my father used to work with on the police department all got (different sizes/places) tattoos of St. Michael crushing the Devil...I thought it was a pretty cool symbol of their faith on the job!

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1484086' date='Mar 25 2008, 07:54 PM']By the way, it was a misreporting on the press' end of an Italian bishop talking about sins, not the Bishop of Rome, though.[/quote]

Thank you! I was pretty sure that, like so many things we see on TV, "Pope condemns tattoos" was a completely misreported statement, as you say. Kind of like what happened with Harry Potter....sigh...why can't the secular media EVER report ANYTHING a Catholic priest/bishop/archbishop says correctly? Like if a priest from, say, Boston, goes on Larry King and says that he hates dogs, tomorrow the headline of the NY Times will say "Pope Benedict condemns man's best friend." Thanks for clearing that up

[Tinkerlina]

. Tattoos can be somewhat attractive on young people, but they are less than attractive on older, wrinkled people.
[/quote]

Haha, good point but then again, I know some old people (I mean really old, I work at a Nursing Home) with tattoos from the navy and such and by the time one reaches 90, most could care less how beautiful their tattoo looks, at least in my experience