Tattoos licit?
#1
I searched a bit on the forums to see if this had been addressed before and it doesn't seem it has? (feel free to link a/the relevant thread if I'm wrong)

I was wondering if it is against the Church's teachings or if there's anything implicitly wrong with getting a tattoo? I see what appears to be something about it in Leviticus....

Anyone?

I'm very tired right now, so I hope this questions makes sense-- I have no idea if I'm babbling or not.
Reply
#2
You're not babbling, but it ain't "theological debate".
Reply
#3
(06-18-2009, 01:48 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: I searched a bit on the forums to see if this had been addressed before and it doesn't seem it has? (feel free to link a/the relevant thread if I'm wrong)

I was wondering if it is against the Church's teachings or if there's anything implicitly wrong with getting a tattoo? I see what appears to be something about it in Leviticus....

About tattoos themselves? They are just ink. Can't be evil. However, one can easily see the problems that arise for tattoos. If one has any doubt, do not get a tattoo (a doubt for any reason, a tattoo should be a full commitment).

Here is a thread about tattoos: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...60.30.html However, it is about getting them, and you'll see the "pro-tattoo" side more.
Reply
#4
The Old Testament Law condemns them but there is debate over whether or not it was condemning its association with death cults and/or this restriction has been superseded by the New Covenant. IMO most people get tattoos for sinful reasons( vanity, immodesty, exhibitionism) but whether or not they are immoral is something I have been unable to arrive at.

People against tattoos will say they cause unnecessary desecration of the flesh which is a Temple of the Holy Ghost. Yet so is getting you ears pierced and we know Rachel in the Bible was given earrings as a wedding gift. I have yet to hear a priest, even from radical Sede groups, condemn women for piercing their ears. So if ripping holes in the cartilage of your ear is morally licit why not some ink?   
Reply
#5
Iuvenalis Wrote:I searched a bit on the forums to see if this had been addressed before and it doesn't seem it has? (feel free to link a/the relevant thread if I'm wrong)

I was wondering if it is against the Church's teachings or if there's anything implicitly wrong with getting a tattoo? I see what appears to be something about it in Leviticus....

Anyone?

You will not find an answer to this. After years of having seen this question pop up, no one has cited anything definitive. That being said, let's not be minimalists. Just like smoking, just because something is not necessarily sinful does not make it smart to do. Another question I have also to have answered is how tattoos are not vein? I see tattoos as a violation of modesty.
Reply
#6
Ok playing a little Devil's Advocate here..but aren't earrings vain? Make up? Hair dye(tasteful-not blue or green-sorry Erin) other jewelry?
Reply
#7
(06-18-2009, 06:14 PM)Credo Wrote: You will not find an answer to this. After years of having seen this question pop up, no one has cited anything definitive. That being said, let's not be minimalists. Just like smoking, just because something is not necessarily sinful does not make it smart to do. Another question I have also to have answered is how tattoos are not vein? I see tattoos as a violation of modesty.

Bingo!  I think the only time you could not call it vain was when the some of early Christians would put a (modest) tattoo of the cross on their wrists so that they would not be tempted to deny their faith if caught by the Roman authorities.

Besides being a major turn off, any of you ladies who get one in the small of their back must know that you cannot get an epidural if you do so.

(06-18-2009, 06:16 PM)didishroom Wrote: Ok playing a little Devil's Advocate here..but aren't earrings vain? Make up? Hair dye(tasteful-not blue or green-sorry Erin) other jewelry?

True, but none of those are a permanent marking, but minor accentuation of existing characteristics.  We could all be walking around in sack-cloth as well...  A basic rule to follow is that if it won't look good at 60 don't do it at 20!  ;D
Reply
#8
(06-18-2009, 06:26 PM)geogeer Wrote: some of early Christians would put a (modest) tattoo of the cross on their wrists so that they would not be tempted to deny their faith if caught by the Roman authorities.
Never heard of that! Interesting.

Besides being a major turn off, any of you ladies who get one in the small of their back must know that you cannot get an epidural if you do so.[/quote]
Why?
Reply
#9
So it's not vain as long as it is temporary? That doesn't make much sense.
Reply
#10
(06-18-2009, 06:28 PM)Melita Wrote: Besides being a major turn off, any of you ladies who get one in the small of their back must know that you cannot get an epidural if you do so.
Why?

Because they are afraid of the dye being pushed in to the spinal cord.  They cannot be assured as to what is in they dye, so they may be opening the patient to serious health risks - and therefore themselves to lawsuits.

(06-18-2009, 06:28 PM)didishroom Wrote: So it's not vain as long as it is temporary? That doesn't make much sense.

I think it falls under moderation.  Some things are not immoral in and of themselves, but when taken to the extreme are.  One could argue that wearing anything other that the least expensive item on the shelf at the store is a matter of vanity, but I think that is a matter of taking it to an extreme that is not intended.  Or maybe I'm just vain for not showing up at work in sweats and a T-shirt.  ;)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)