Tattoos

[carlabesh]

Just want to know what the church thinks of them... are there any specific documents that state it is sin or do they simply tolerate them if they're Holy or what?

[Matthew]

Fr Peter Joseph has the best article I know of on this topic:

http://www.servantsofstmichael.org/index.php?view=article&catid=41%3Aarticles-by-fr-peter-joseph-pp-st-dominics-syd&id=61%3Athe-morality-of-tattoos-and-body-piercing&option=com_content&Itemid=65

[Stephen Spiteri]

It's interesting that Leviticus 19:28 is used in Fr. Peter's article, because if you read the verses around 28, you'll see that particular Pagan practices in general are being condemned. It's important to read that verse in context. If we were to take it literally and on face value then we'd have to take the rest of that paragraph on face value too. For example, it would be forbidding:

- Eating red meat ("You shall not eat with blood." verse 26);
- Mere curiosity about the dreams you have ("You shall not divine nor observe dreams." verse 26); and
- Shaving and grooming hair to a particular style ("Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard." verse 27)

Does verse 28 condemn all tattoos? I found this website very helpful in answering that question before I got my own tattoo (Christian themed): http://www.religioustattoos.net/Bible_Support/index.php

[carlabesh]

I love Fr Peter Josephs homilys and the way he writes things! see i get what hes saying and i was talking to a friend about it and they are against them and i argued that they are okay if they're Holy and arnt shown off... he argued that if they were Holy why did they need to be marked against the skin? and if they wernt going to be seen then whats the point?

[DavidObeid]

When Fr. Peter Joseph references the passage in Leviticus what he is doing is pointing to the moral dimension of the prohibition, not the legal dimension.

The attempt to bind the two together or blur the distinction fails to grasp this.

[Stephen Spiteri]

When Fr. Peter Joseph references the passage in Leviticus what he is doing is pointing to the moral dimension of the prohibition, not the legal dimension.

The attempt to bind the two together or blur the distinction fails to grasp this.
May I ask then of the moral dimensions (or rather the moral implications) of eating red meat, cutting your hair/beard, and observing dreams?

[DavidObeid]

There doesn't have to be a moral dimension to all of the ceremonial laws. But that does not mean that all laws with a ceremonial aspect were exclusively ceremonial.

The classic example is Sabbath observance. The observance of the Sabbath day has the moral dimension of giving a day to the honour of God, and the ceremonial dimension of doing this on Saturday in the Old Testament. The moral dimension stays (a day is given in honour of God), but the ceremonial aspect (it is done on Saturdays) is dispensed with.

Don't grow a stupid looking beard or disfigure yourself with tattoos or cuts has a ceremonial aspect as well as a moral one - respect your body and treat it with the homage due a temple of the Holy Spirit. Fr. Joseph's point is that a tattoo fails to pay this homage and respect.

[Stephen Spiteri]

Tattoo And The Bible - http://www.sacredink.net/tattoo_and_the_bible/

Another interesting read.

[Stephen Spiteri]

And another:

Catholics United for the Faith: Tattoos - http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=233

[New Jack Swinger]

And another:

Catholics United for the Faith: Tattoos - http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=233

Good read!

[Gebran the Prophet]

I hate to be the mum but personally i cannot, through the reason instilled within my being, accept tattoos as being 'okay'....this includes both religious and the non-religious.

I mean just take a step back and think about it....

In the case of religious tattoos:
1) This tattoo will not make me any more religious than I already am.
2) I have been created and delivered into this world by the Lord as I am....God has intended that i appear this way.
Therefore I have NO RIGHT to then go off and mix and match my flesh so as to make it appear and carry images which were not intended and of which I have NO RIGHT putting there in the first place.
3) The practice of tattooing whether condemned by the bible or not is a STAIN upon my skin !!!!
It is a thing which once stained upon the flesh is very difficult to remove(if removed will leave permanent scarring), and will after many years begin to deform and lose any semblance of the original 'artistic beauty' it may once have contained.
4) By gaining a tattoo i will at the same time sponsor an industry which really shouldnt be sponsored based on the mere fact that when you walk into a tattoo parlour you will quickly begin to realise that majority of these so-called 'artworks' are in fact very satanic and demeaning of the church and its teachings.
5) Also to 'The Spirit Magnus' the fact that you believe that the bible has condemned tattoos in a 'pagan context' means that you acknowledge that tattooing was practiced in a satanic sense....this 4 me would be enough to reconsider getting one at all just to make sure i dont offend our Lord, especially since it is very unnecessary to me living my daily life.

Much love & God Bless.
Gab ;)

[Stephen Spiteri]

5) Also to 'The Spirit Magnus' the fact that you believe that the bible has condemned tattoos in a 'pagan context' means that you acknowledge that tattooing was practiced in a satanic sense...
I didn't make such an acknowledgement but I can see how you might have drawn that conclusion. It's a matter of prudence and of self examination: if you feel strongly about getting a tattoo and believe that Leviticus 19:28 spoke of all types of tattoos be they pagan or non-pagan, then do not get a tattoo and fulfil 1 Corinthians 6:20 in lieu of what is commanded under Mosaic law.

We have to put a little caveat on this point: there's practice in the "Satanic sense" (as you put it) and then there's practice in the non-Satanic sense. Drums, for example, were thought to by many to be a diabolical musical instrument due to their tribal roots and origins as drums were used to render tribe members in trance like states to invoke possession by spirits. Then there's money which some consider to be "the root of all evil". Yet we know that drums have been used to make good and holy worship music sung by congregations and musicians wishing to speak the Gospel message through the medium of music, and money, as we know, can be used for good especially where helping the poor and sick are concerned and ensuring the day to day running of a parish with all of its extant costs. If drums were used to invoke possession by spirits, then is that to say that all drums are diabolical? If money is used to support immoral causes or to purchase illicit items, then is that to say that all money is evil? What these boil down to is intent. There is evil intention. The objects themselves are mundane and are not wrongful.

You're correct in saying that a religious tattoo will not make a person more religious, but that argument could also be made for those who wear a crucifix around their neck or who carry Rosary beads around with them. There are those who wear a crucifix or Rosary beads as a fashion accessory, and there are those who get even religious tattoos for the same intent: fashion. Such reasons are vain and you could infer that this would be offensive to Our Lord.

The matter roosts on one's self examination as you yourself have demonstrated, Gebran, but it does not appear to be as black and white for others.

Jimmy Akin, a US based apologist, wrote a very good article on the tattoo topic on his blog a few years ago; it offers another insight into the morality of the form: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/03/tattoos.html