Tattoos....

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1484089' date='Mar 25 2008, 05:57 PM']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![/quote]


Christ and Mary are still alive, would they now, void of the practice in ancient Israel? I can not picture it, reasonable they would refuse, and reject tattooing themselves. We are the body of Christ, if Christ would now refuse, should we not also?

And just so I dont come off as a holier than thou, I've seen some pretty cool looking tats myself, but they all pale in comparison to the beauty of creation, our bodies.

--

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

- Shakespeare

Edited March 25, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1484082' date='Mar 25 2008, 05:49 PM']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.


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.
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.
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".

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.
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.[/quote]


As Fr. George Haddock pointed out in his Commentary of Leviticus, St. Jane Frances de Chantal branded herself and a good number of Christians tattooed a cross or the name of Christ on their arms or other parts, then it's good enough for me. This should be enough for you to at least admit that it is permissible for Christians, regardless of whether or not Christ would do it. St. Jane Frances de Chantal was a very holy woman and obviously felt it was acceptable for her to do so. Who are we to think we know better than a great saint?

[KnightofChrist]

I would agree they where indeed holy people, but that in it self does not proof tattooing and branding oneself is right.

Edited March 26, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[goldenchild17]

It is recorded by the theologian Fr. Haddock in a section that explicitly deals with a time when tattoos were inappropriate, and he records other practices of ancient origin. Then he gives althernative occasions where they occur. There is no condemnation of them. You can read into that however you want. But there is no condemnation of it. You can say that there is nothing saying that it is expressly good. Maybe not. The Church hasn't spoken out on a number of things. This is the definition of a morally indifferent subject. If there is no campaign for or against it by the Church, and the Church is aware of it (as the commentary of Fr. Haddock shows), and holy people and the faithful have done it in the past. Then there is no way to say that they are morally wrong. If you are personally opposed to them, so be it. It certainly is not a doctrine that they are good. So you are perfectly able to oppose if it you wish. But at the same time, it has not been forbidden by the Church and a saint and many of the faithful in the past have had them and were not reproved for it. So those who support them should at the same time not be contradicted by those who oppose. There is no proof for or against it. It's morally neutral.

It's a matter of personal opinion. Why can't you see that?

Edited March 26, 2008 by goldenchild17

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1484169' date='Mar 25 2008, 07:10 PM']It is recorded by the theologian Fr. Haddock in a section that explicitly deals with a time when tattoos were inappropriate, and he records other practices of ancient origin. Then he gives althernative occasions where they occur. There is no condemnation of them. You can read into that however you want. But there is no condemnation of it. You can say that there is nothing saying that it is expressly good. Maybe not. The Church hasn't spoken out on a number of things. This is the definition of a morally indifferent subject. If there is no campaign for or against it by the Church, and the Church is aware of it (as the commentary of Fr. Haddock shows), and holy people and the faithful have done it in the past. Then there is no way to say that they are morally wrong. If you are personally opposed to them, so be it. It certainly is not a doctrine that they are good. So you are perfectly able to oppose if it you wish. But at the same time, it has not been forbidden by the Church and a saint and many of the faithful in the past have had them and were not reproved for it. So those who support them should at the same time not be contradicted by those who oppose. There is no proof for or against it. It's morally neutral.

It's a matter of personal opinion. Why can't you see that?[/quote]

It would be matter of opinion, if we where debating if tattoos where pretty or ugly. However what is being debated is if tattoos dishonor the temple of the Spirit, or do not. They either do, or they do not. One is fact one is not. We are agreed that the Church does not by name condemn or blessed the practice. Which is why it is so important with issues where the Church is silent, to ask what would Christ have me to do, and what would Christ do? Since we christians are part of His body, surely we would not want to do something to His body that our reason tells us He would not do to His body. But She, the Church does condemn harming the body unnecessarily. Do tattoos cause unnecessary harm? Sure they do indeed or they wouldn't hurt, and we would not bleed when they are applied, and touched up, for the rest of our lives.

Many Saints and saintly people have self punished, and self wounded themselves many odd ways, this does not make those practices ok, or right for us. Just recently Catholic Philippines reenacting the crucifixion nailed themselves to crosses, and gave themselves flagellations. Again, clearly they are a very devoted people, but that devotion does not make the practice ok, or right.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1484237' date='Mar 25 2008, 07:49 PM']It would be matter of opinion, if we where debating if tattoos where pretty or ugly. However what is being debated is if tattoos dishonor the temple of the Spirit, or do not. They either do, or they do not. One is fact one is not.[/quote]

And St. Jane's branding is never once frowned upon by anyone. That is enough for me that it is okay.

[quote]We are agreed that the Church does not by name condemn or blessed the practice.[/quote]

Because it's morally indifferent. Otherwise the Church would have spoken.

[quote]Which is why it is so important with issues where the Church is silent, to ask what would Christ have me to do, and what would Christ do?[/quote]

And maybe that answer is different for different people. For you, maybe you don't see it as a viable option. For another person, maybe it is. There is no authority saying one person is right and one person is wrong. Except for yourself.

[quote]Since we christians are part of His body, surely we would not want to do something to His body that our reason tells us He would not do to His body.[/quote]

And your reasoning is a valid one for you. But you have no authority to push this OPINION on anyone. Others, such as myself may wish to follow the example of a saint. Unless there is something telling us not to, there is no reason to feel bad about it.

[quote]But She, the Church does condemn harming the body unnecessarily.[/quote]

Of course, as I mentioned in my article on the subject.

[quote]Do tattoos cause unnecessary harm? Sure they do indeed or they wouldn't hurt, and we would not bleed when they are applied, and touched up, for the rest of our lives.[/quote]

Obviously not or the Church would have spoken against the practice as it has been in use among Christians. I would argue that branding is a far more harmful practice, and yet this also is not condemned by the Church and is practiced by a holy saint.

[quote]Many Saints and saintly people have self punished, and self wounded themselves many odd ways, this does not make those practices ok, or right for us. Just recently Catholic Philippines reenacting the crucifixion nailed themselves to crosses, and gave themselves flagellations. Again, clearly they are a very devoted people, but that devotion does not make the practice ok, or right.[/quote]

No it doesn't. Remember that these practices as a form of self-punishment and sacrifice. A tattoo is not nearly the same as they hardly hurt that much. Christ has replaced such intense physical self-sacrifice and penance with his Self-sacrifice on the cross. THAT is what makes these practices wrong. Tattooing is not a sacrificial practice. It is an art form that can be done out of reverence and worship of God, something that God clearly is okay with. The fact remains, and you can continue to deny it if you wish, that tattooing has not been condemned by the Church. It is a morally indifferent practice that is only affected by the mind and intention of the recipient. Such a comparison as this only serves to discredit your argument as the two things are not even in the same galaxy in terms of relation.

peace

p.s. this will be my last post in response to this particular aspect of the discussion unless you can bring up something that you haven't mentioned already. There is no point in me responding to the same argument over and over again. You are entitled to your opinion and contrary to what you might think, until the Church speaks in any capacity whatsoever, I am entitled to mine.

Edited March 26, 2008 by goldenchild17

[KnightofChrist]

Could we debate the issue itself and not make this personally about ourselves? Void of "you this" and "you that" comments which serve no purpose other than to undermined someone personally.

[goldenchild17]

okay. I didn't mean anything personally. I was referring to 'your' position. That's why I said that. Nothing else intended. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. But I don't think we have anything else to debate really. I've given a number of sources to show that it's not morally offensive, or at the very least as not been declared so. All you have done is appeal to what Christ may or may not have done Himself. Personally I follow what we can know, and what we can know is laid out for us in the manuals and commentaries and councils and encyclicals and the examples of the saints. What Jesus would or would not have done is laid out (as far as man can know) in these sources. Maybe I'm just not as much of the philosophical type as I used to be. But I'm just not so much into what could be when we have the sources to make an informed decision on what IS. Maybe I'm not making much sense, but I think we're just coming at this from different angles.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1484253' date='Mar 25 2008, 08:18 PM']p.s. this will be my last post in response to this particular aspect of the discussion unless you can bring up something that you haven't mentioned already. There is no point in me responding to the same argument over and over again. You are entitled to your opinion and contrary to what you might think, until the Church speaks in any capacity whatsoever, I am entitled to mine.[/quote]

That is your choice and I respect it. Though perhaps post 39 was overlooked, or not. It had new things within it but the basis was the same, what would Christ do, should we not do that as well because we are His body. It would not seem this question was not directly answered but instead avoided.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1484301' date='Mar 25 2008, 08:41 PM']That is your choice and I respect it. Though perhaps post 39 was overlooked, or not. It had new things within it but the basis was the same, what would Christ do, should we not do that as well because we are His body. It would not seem this question was not directly answered but instead avoided.[/quote]

I've addressed it multiple times. This has been your basic argument throughout the whole discussion and I can't see why. Christ would not do something that was connected with pagan rituals. This is the same reason why he had long hair and a beard.

Would He do it now? I wouldn't even begin to speculate. Would He cut His hair short and shave His beard? Same question, same history, same principles. The answer? Maybe, maybe not. Using Catholic principles there is no reason to assume that He would not, but there's no evidence either way, but I can follow the example of the saints. And one saint had something similar done and this was not spoken against. What more can you ask?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1484309' date='Mar 25 2008, 08:45 PM']The answer? Maybe, maybe not. Using Catholic principles there is no reason to assume that He would not, but there's no evidence either way, but I can follow the example of the saints. And one saint had something similar done and this was not spoken against. What more can you ask?[/quote]

Now that is answering the question.

[goldenchild17]

okay well I'm glad . I do believe I've said basically the same thing throughout this whole deal, but I digress.

and seriously I didn't mean anything disrespectful to you throughout this whole thread. I agree with a lot of the things you write on here. I just see this quite a bit differently than you.

[Norseman82]

Doug Giles, in a speech to the Young America's Foundation, stated about tattoos: "You're going to have to assimilate into the workforce one of these days":

[url="http://www.clashradio.com/movies/cspan.wmv"]http://www.clashradio.com/movies/cspan.wmv[/url]

[goldenchild17]

that's why you don't put them on hands or face

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1484309' date='Mar 25 2008, 07:45 PM']I've addressed it multiple times. This has been your basic argument throughout the whole discussion and I can't see why. Christ would not do something that was connected with pagan rituals. This is the same reason why he had long hair and a beard.

Would He do it now? I wouldn't even begin to speculate. Would He cut His hair short and shave His beard? Same question, same history, same principles. The answer? Maybe, maybe not. Using Catholic principles there is no reason to assume that He would not, but there's no evidence either way, but I can follow the example of the saints. And one saint had something similar done and this was not spoken against. What more can you ask?[/quote]

Jesus was a rebel who hung out with outlanders. He was not part of "polite society" and would have been out of place amongst most of today's sweater wearing Christians. He would probably have been more at home with tattooed biker types.