Poll: Is it sinful for a Catholic to get a tattoo?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
8
0%
0 0%
19
0%
0 0%
51
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Tattoos
(12-21-2010, 02:11 AM)icecream Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 11:10 PM)cathkath Wrote: Walty, what would Tom Selleck say?  :laughing:

probably angry that wlaty didnt get likeness of him instead!!!

[Image: tmagnumx-large.jpg]

I'm planning on getting a smaller selleck tattoo on my chest soon.  I just want it as a reminder of what once was for television.
Reply
I don’t know if it’s a sin, per se. I’ve never truly considered a tattoo since I don’t like needles and think about what that tattoo would look like 20-30 years from now. However, that being said, I always understood that doing such to your body was supposed to be wrong such as excessive piercings and tattoos—defiling the body. I think depending on the image and location of the tattoo it could be considered sinful.
Reply
(12-21-2010, 02:53 AM)Walty Wrote: I'm planning on getting a smaller selleck tattoo on my chest soon.  I just want it as a reminder of what once was for television.

:laughing:
Reply
Nice Walty!


You saw the video Quis posted with the guy at the metal concert showing off his Chi Rho tat right next to a cross and right under the band KISS right?
:laughing:
I'd think twice about the Selleck tat...
Reply
I don't think it is a sin, but I would never get a tattoo.
Reply

Just another cultural/aesthetic expression, it can't be intrinsically wrong
Reply
Leviticus 19:28 Wrote: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.
Interestingly, the Haydock commentary says:
Haydock Wrote:Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross, or name of Jesus. Procop. in Isai. xliv. 5. C. --- As S. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast.
Yet, it doesn't say whether this was moral for them to do or not (presumably not).

Also, Fr. Ripperger says that tattoos are a sign of effeminacy because women care more about their appearances than men.
Reply
(05-05-2014, 06:54 PM)Geremia Wrote:
Leviticus 19:28 Wrote: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.
Interestingly, the Haydock commentary says:
Haydock Wrote:Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross, or name of Jesus. Procop. in Isai. xliv. 5. C. --- As S. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast.
Yet, it doesn't say whether this was moral for them to do or not (presumably not).

Also, Fr. Ripperger says that tattoos are a sign of effeminacy because women care more about their appearances than men.

For folks reading over our shoulders: Re. the verse above from Leviticus:  we're not bound by OT laws and regulations. The Ten Commandments stand, but only because they're simply a more explicit version of the Two Great Commandments (to love God and neighbor). The Protestants who quote OT laws to support this weirdism or that are starting with the wrong premises -- as are the Christian-bashers who go on about "In Leviticus X:Y, it says that a man with two donkeys should stand on his head in the town square, so why aren't you doing THAT but you're bashing homosexuals because of some other Leviticus verse, huh?" (I obviously made that verse up LOL)  Anyway, the bashers don't know what they're talking about, don't know how orthodox Christianity approaches the OT. I am soooooooooo sick of seeing those sorts of arguments. And can only be angry at Prots for actually using OT verses to support whatever whim they're wanting to support. It just gives fodder for the bashers to try to "catch" us for, say, not stoning adultresses, or not treating menstruating women as if they're ritually unclean, while standing against acting on homosexual desires (because of NT verses, not OT verses, and because of Church teaching -- something the bashers don't get into since they're so used to arguing with Prots with their "sola scriptura" ideas), etc.

Reply
(05-06-2014, 06:00 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: For folks reading over our shoulders: Re. the verse above from Leviticus:  we're not bound by OT laws and regulations.
We're not bound by its ceremonial precepts, but we are bound by its moral precepts.
The prohibition to "make in yourselves any figures or marks" is a moral precept, not a ceremonial precept.
Reply
(05-06-2014, 01:51 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(05-06-2014, 06:00 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: For folks reading over our shoulders: Re. the verse above from Leviticus:  we're not bound by OT laws and regulations.
We're not bound by its ceremonial precepts, but we are bound by its moral precepts.
The prohibition to "make in yourselves any figures or marks" is a moral precept, not a ceremonial precept.

What is your basis for this?  If tattoos are a violation of natural law then they must go against some natural end of our human nature.  What would that be? 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)