Tatoos?

[MichaelFilo]

There are people, and they agree with me! The only one on a more than a personal belief basis is Amarick, but, you know, he was banned indirectly. Anyways, Toleda did bring up a good point to add to this discussion, what is the possible reasoning to get a tattoo outside of desire, intent to improve upons one body, or for personal reasons that involve one looking at the tattoo from time to time contempt that have blotched the skin that was given them, in the image of God they were created, and chose to tweak it a little.

God belss,

Mikey

[toledo_jesus]

I honestly think there is a Rite of Catholicism that practices ceremonial tattooing. I just can't for the life of me remember where I heard it, or what the name is. sigh. Might as well not have mentioned it.

[MichaelFilo]

I belong to an Eastern Rite ( 2 actually ) and no such thing has ever crossed my path, but if it is true, then I'll back down from my position, since I am not smarter than the Church, and would rather not offend Her.

God bless,

Mikey

[IcePrincessKRS]

Ya know what, even if we did find a tatooed saint I doubt that would sway any opinions. I found a female saint in pants and certain people still insisted that wearing pants is a sin for women.

Self-mutilation is considered an impediment to holy orders, tatoos do not bar one from becoming a priest. They may not be entirely appropriate, but it still doesn't bar a man from entering the priesthood. Some priests would say that getting a tatoo could be a venial sin, but nowhere have I found anything from a priest or lay theologian (nor Church document) that supports the idea that getting a tatoo is grave matter/mortally sinful. More often than not it is viewed as something neutral (until of course it gets to the point of excessive tatooing which I think we all agree is sinful).

Edited August 12, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Aug 12 2004, 11:28 AM'] Ya know what, even if we did find a tatooed saint I doubt that would sway any opinions. I found a female saint in pants and certain people still insisted that wearing pants is a sin for women. 

Self-mutilation is considered an impediment to holy orders, tatoos do not bar one from becoming a priest. They may not be entirely appropriate, but it still doesn't bar a man from entering the priesthood. Some priests would say that getting a tatoo could be a venial sin, but nowhere have I found anything from a priest or lay theologian (nor Church document) that supports the idea that getting a tatoo is grave matter/mortally sinful. More often than not it is viewed as something neutral (until of course it gets to the point of excessive tatooing which I think we all agree is sinful). [/quote]
If you found a saint that had a tattoo, then I'd expect Jesus to be due for his second comming. However, I'd leave my position. In the other thread, the offer wasn't put up there, however I am putting it up, in full knowledge that the Church, in Her wisdom, would do no such thing.

Self-mutilation is a grave sin, and done with the intent to harm someones body, it is (and I take your word on this) very correctly an impediment against joining the priesthood. However, your reasoning also falls short, since getting a tattoo is a one time sin, and can be forgiven. Self-mutilation for reasons that bring pleasure ARE an impediment because they are habits, not one time things, and reoccur until treated. If a preist-to-be is found mutliating his body, then surely he is fulfilling his habits control over him by giving in. Tattoos aren't similar. They are one time self-mutliation. Your example becomes null in the light of this.

Again, even if you mistakingly accept a tattoo as a venial sin, and go in doing it, then you have knowling committed a sin, knowing it's a sin. We are to avoid all sins, if sainthood is what our ultimate goal is. However, if our ultimate goal is fulfill our own desires, then don't let venial sins get in your way, as you don't even have to mention them while confessing. I am sure when you are receiving the Eucharist God will appreciate all the sins you may have committed, but they were justified, as they weren't mortal. So, even if considered a venial sin, it is still wrong to do it, and therefore should be avoided.

God bless,

Mikey

[i]postscriptum[/i] If I seem a bit angry, it's because my eyes see sin, and yet yours accept it as not sin. Give me a reason why your tattoo will better you in your faith/please God, and a breif explanation how we can improve on the image of God. I don't mean to be picky, but no one seems to want to do this. Sorry for the edit.

Edited August 12, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[amarkich]

The argument that "The Church does not specifically cite tattoos as unacceptable; therefore, it is okay" is ridiculous. The Church teaches that mutilating the body is a sin. This is what a tattoo does. As far as I understand, this applies to earings as well. These seem to be a modern development (I do not have all the facts behind earings, though). In any event, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture teach us that tattoos are unacceptable. These are the two sources from which the Church derives its teachings. If the source of Church teaching condemns something, then it is logical to state that the Church likewise condemns it (especially when there is already a broad statement condemning it by the Church as far as self-mutilation is concerned).

Ice, is she canonized or beatified? In any event, it would not matter either way because crossdressing is an impermanent act whereas multilating one's body is a permanent act. Before John Paul II, seeing a woman in pants would've sufficed to deny her canonization (N.B., Thomas a Kempis was accidentally buried alive. When his body was dug up to investigate whether or not it was corrupted, there were marks on the inside of the coffin showing that he had tried to claw out; there are several good reasons to try to get out of a coffin when you are buried alive which are meritorious, e.g., to be able to receive the Last Rites if he had not been conscious upon receiving them the first time, to be able to fulfill his daily obligations as a member of the clergy, to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist more so as to merit a greater glory in Heaven, etc, etc, etc, not to mention the basic physical benefits of living; this was enough to stop his cause for canonization; the fact is that with the elimination of "Devil's Advocate" and the overall denial of the difficulty of reaching Heaven, the canonization and beatification processes have become much less strict; if she is canonized, that is infallible; if she is beatified, it is not). God bless.

[MichaelFilo]

Since I don't want to go on and on, and I have homework, I will simply give you the most simplistic, and strongest arguement that I can give, would Jesus get a tattoo?
Consider only that when getting a tattoo comes to mind, and you will soon see how silly the idea is, and forget it.

God bless, and hoping your desires don't overtake good sense,

Mikey

[amarkich]

Better yet, would Our Lady get a tattoo?! How unbecoming, how irreverent, how disrespectful to the human body, a temple of the Holy Ghost, is it for a woman of all people to get a tattoo of all things!

[MichaelFilo]

Christina, we would like to know what your final decision is, only because I'd hate to go pray at Church that you would take some solid advice over an urge to do something, and the whole time I'd be praying for the impossible, to undo your decision.

God bless,

Mikey

[Carrie]

::sigh:: there's no point arguing with you guys because no matter what we say, you go in circles. But here I go anyway.

I won't answer whether or not Jesus or Our Lady would have gotten a tattoo. Firstly, times were different. Secondly, I would never claim to know the thoughts of Our Lord. Are you making this claim?

It is your opinion that it is irreverant, disrespectful, and unbecoming...but that's all...just your opinion. Sorry to tell you, but I don't live by your rules...I live by the Church's. You are very much entitled to your opinion but it's not fair to claim that what is your opinion is in fact a sin when there is nothing to back that claim.

The Church condemns self-mutilation, so IF tattoing was considered self-mutilation, then that would be condemned as well. Obviosuly, unless it is extreme, the Church does not connect tattooing and self-mutilation. If it had, then it would be condemned, but it's not. So the self-mutilation argument doesn't hold.

As for how it can benefit one's faith, that is personal and up to that individual. A religious tattoo may be a constant reminder of how we are to live...the same as someone who wears a cross. I have a friend who has a religious tattoo on his arm. He hides it with sleeves, so it is not visible to anyone. He told me that the tattoo is one of his greatest tools in fighting off sin...when he is tempted by sin, he looks at his arm, is reminded of the great sacrifice Our Lord made and his temptations are greatly abated. Are you going to tell him that that is wrong?

It's not your business why someone receives a tattoo. It is about the intention and what is in that person's heart. Only God truly knows what is in our hearts. Why don't you let Him be the judge?

God Bless,
Carrie

[Noel's angel]

[QUOTE]It's not your business why someone receives a tattoo
whats the point of this conversation?

[Carrie]

The point of what I said there was that it depends on the person's intention and what is in that person's heart. Only God can claim to know what is in someone's heart, so it really isn't anyone else's business why that person got their tattoo. God knows what the intention was, so let God be the judge.


I feel like I'm talking to a wall at times.

[Noel's angel]

Ok, fair enough, i was just asking a question because everyone seems to be getting very irrate and some people dont seem to be respecting others point of view, thats all

[Carrie]

I apologize if that statement came off as irate. I didn't mean it to sound like that.

[Noel's angel]

Its ok, dont worry, its just that everyone seems to be trying to change other peoples opinions, which is kinda wrong, im not pointing u out in particular, just a general comment

[MorphRC]

i see no problem with tats. unless the church says it wrong.

[Noel's angel]

i agree

[MichaelFilo]

I am, as I said, not very open to repeat myself because of time constraints, so again I will give you the same answers that I have kept constant (except those that Lil Red pointed out, for which I am still thankful for her questioning, so that I may question, and so I can see Truth more visably)

[quote]I won't answer whether or not Jesus or Our Lady would have gotten a tattoo.  Firstly, times were different.  Secondly, I would never claim to know the thoughts of Our Lord.  Are you making this claim?
[/quote]

Times were different, values and morals stay the same. The arguement doesn't hold up. If times changed and everyone went around and worshipping satan, it doesn't justify worshipping satan. If everyone started crossdressing, it doesn't justify crossdressing.

It's good you don't claim to know what Jesus and Mary think. I sure don't either. However, we must live by their example, doing everything for the glory of God. Tattoos don't glorify His image, and self mutilation doesn't glorify the free will we received from Him.

Since you asked the question, however, I'd like to mention, that adoration will often make you know what they intend, or want. I would suggest staying in adoration for 5+ hours in one sitting, no food, no drink. It is even better if you haven't eaten anything all day. It's a complete giving of self. Then, things will be clearer, you'll see the sin and the error in this. While I can't claim to know what they think or do, I do claim that they lead us closer to the Truth, and the Truth has no time for mutilation, desecration of the holy temple that is the human body, and the vainity that is a tattoo.

[quote]It is your opinion that it is irreverant, disrespectful, and unbecoming...but that's all...just your opinion.  Sorry to tell you, but I don't live by your rules...I live by the Church's.  You are very much entitled to your opinion but it's not fair to claim that what is your opinion is in fact a sin when there is nothing to back that claim. [/quote]

It is his and my opinion, and so it should be treated as such. However, the Church doesn't have opinoins, the Church has teachings. Just because the Church doesn't teach it's wrong doesn't mean it can't be concluded it's wrong (refer to my Holy Spirit having a human body comment, to see what I mean).

[quote]The Church condemns self-mutilation, so IF tattoing was considered self-mutilation, then that would be condemned as well.  Obviosuly, unless it is extreme, the Church does not connect tattooing and self-mutilation.  If it had, then it would be condemned, but it's not.  So the self-mutilation argument doesn't hold.[/quote]

Again, the Church in her wisdom, hoping for salvation of all, will not define it ex Cathedra, nor will She speak about it officially, unless it becomes a problem that is so large, talking about it will not create a larger problem then if nothing is left unsaid. There are many native tribes who hold tattooing as a cultural aspect. The Church will not storm around, destorying cultures and converting people, this isn't the way of the Church. Instead, she instills the teachings, and slowly those sinful customs no longer become part of the culture. If the Church did say tattooing is wrong, it would have to say it across the board, and then many souls would be lost. We have to conclude from what She teaches, to realize it's wrong. Again, we don't have to hear things ex cathedra to know it's wrong. Please refer to my Holy Spirit statement.



[quote]
As for how it can benefit one's faith, that is personal and up to that individual.  A religious tattoo may be a constant reminder of how we are to live...the same as someone who wears a cross.  I have a friend who has a religious tattoo on his arm.  He hides it with sleeves, so it is not visible to anyone.  He told me that the tattoo is one of his greatest tools in fighting off sin...when he is tempted by sin, he looks at his arm, is reminded of the great sacrifice Our Lord made and his temptations are greatly abated.  Are you going to tell him that that is wrong? [/quote]

Things that can benefit your faith are not personal. Adoration benefits your faith. Sleeping around doesn't. There is nothing personal about this. A tattoo is a mark on the body to be glorified in heaven. Again, please answer how we can improve on the very image of God. Please realize, you can better a perfect image.

For your friend, yes. The tattoo was wrong. A cross could do the same thing without marking the image of God that he received, and mutilating it by allowing a needle to wreck it. Just because evil makes for good ends, doesn't justify the means. Ie if an abortion makes a lady become more religious, once she realizes her mistake, that doesn't justify the abortion.

[quote]It's not your business why someone receives a tattoo.  It is about the intention and what is in that person's heart.  Only God truly knows what is in our hearts.  Why don't you let Him be the judge?[/quote]

God has given us rules to live by. He is the only judge indeed. However, he is our Father, and he wants us to follow his rules so that when he acts as our Judge, he may find little to no sin on us. I am not judging anyone by the way. Intention doesn't justify an action either. Becoming a prostitute to save up money so your son can eat food will not justify the prostitution. Intent matters, but don't fall into the simple mistake that it matters when we are doing things that are wrong.

Again,a certain thing you haven't answered/addressed. How can we improve on God's image?

God bless,

Mikey

Edited August 13, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 13 2004, 11:57 AM'] i see no problem with tats. unless the church says it wrong. [/quote]
I've addressed this already, but here goes.

I don't see whats wrong with believing the Holy Spirit has a human form. I also see no problem in thinking that God is really the man down the street. The Church doesn't teach that God can't take different forms, and it doesn't teach that he has no desire to. We know this isn't true however. The Church doesn't have to tell you what is wrong for it to be wrong. The Church never publicly denounced Sola Scriptura prior to it's existance. Everyone knew it was wrong. The Church didn't have to explicitly say something for it to be understood as good or bad, why now?

God bless,

Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

Again Christina, I am still hoping you make the right decision. If you want, I'll be going to adoration this Saturday, and so I can ask for God's guidance to help you, however I only get one hour. It's too bad really, but I can go ask in the hour. I just hope that you make the decision that is in good standing with the Church, the ressuruction of the dead, the will of our Eternal Father, his Son Jesus, the love that is the Holy Spirit, our Holy Mother Mary, and the saints, not the desires of our own wills.

God bless,

Mikey

Edited August 13, 2004 by MichaelFilo