To tattoo or not to tattoo, that is the question? With so many other pressing moral issues, like our culture of death, I’m not sure that I will ever preach about the mutilation one’s skin with compulsive tattooing. I think the Catholic Church would allow tattoos, that are not immoral or satanic, within moderation and depending on what is publicly placed on one’s skin.
There are some tattoos that appear to me to be works of art even if overdone on one’s skin. But, there comes a point when you have to accept the beauty of your body as is, even if the world says you need to improve it with plastic surgery, Botox, tattoos, piercings and sadly sex change mutilation. Perhaps we are being made to hate ourselves and not to see ourselves, no matter what we look like, as beautiful in the eyes of God and there is no need to change the work of art that each person is.
If you love yourself as a work of art of God, you’ll love God and neighbor. Maybe that will lead to a culture of life, always based upon God who creates us in His own image and likeness.
I LIKE THE OPENNESS THAT THIS YOUNG CATHOLIC GUY HAS TO BEING LOVINGLY CORRECTED BY HIS PRIEST ABOUT HIS TATOOS, ALTHOUGH HE DOESN’T COVER THEM FOR THIS VIDEO! YOU CAN WATCH THE FACEBOOK VIDEO HERE.
I think that these kinds of things are best left to a personal pastoral counseling sessions rather than humiliating people from the pulpit in a caustic homily.
41 comments:
"ARE TATOOS, EVEN WORKS OF ART PLACED ON HUMAN SKIN, IMMORAL?" No, they are not.
I don't understand this fascination among some with tattoos. Are the "morally" different from pierced ears, breast augmentation/reduction for purely cosmetic purposes, lipstick, rouge, or eyeliner? What about hair extensions?
Is there something more "demonic" about the tattoo industry than the banking industry, the arms manufacturing industry, the diamond industry?
Does my tattoo of my mother's initials and death date have the be prayed over and "decommissioned"?
You have a TATOO? That’s breaking news!
My priest is a tattoo artist.
Sometimes artificial intelligence is more helpful than mere human intelligence. This is what AI says about the Church’s teaching on TATOOS:
No, the Catholic Church does not expressly forbid tattoos, but it encourages Catholics to consider the intention and content of any tattoo to ensure it reflects their faith and is not disrespectful, harmful, or impulsive. Tattoos that honor loved ones, express faith, or are based on meaningful truths are acceptable, but those that are obscene, promote hate, or are a product of impulsive decisions are not.
What to consider before getting a tattoo:
Reason for the tattoo: Is it for a good reason, or is it to fit in or for the wrong reasons?
Content of the tattoo: Does it reflect something good, beautiful, or meaningful, or is it harmful, disrespectful, or contrary to the Christian faith? Avoid diabolical, ugly, shocking, or obscene images.
Impact on your faith: Will the tattoo help or hurt how you live as a follower of Jesus?
Permanence: Tattoos are permanent, so you should approach the decision with thought and care, considering the long-term implications.
In summary:
The Church doesn't have a specific rule against tattoos, but it emphasizes the importance of the heart behind the choice.
Focus on the intention and the message of the tattoo.
The body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, so be mindful of how you treat it.
If you are unsure, it is best to speak with a priest or someone you trust who shares your faith.
Leviticus 19:28:
""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".
The respected exorcist, Fr. Chad Ripperger, has remarked that almost every tattooed energumen he has treated had a serious demonic connection with the tattoo and that the WORST and MOST DIFFICULT tattoos, were the religious ones. He and other exorcists have also averred that many tattoo artists use cursed ink.
All spiritual concerns aside, tattoos are just plain tacky. They send the message of poor impulse control and bad decision-making skills. It's like driving by one of those trashy houses with the car parked on the front lawn. It's especially depressing to see so many women tattooing--actually--disfiguring themselves. Then again, I suppose it saves a lot of men the trouble of wasting time and money to get to know them, since they wear the poorest indication of their character on their flesh.
While she's hardly a pillar of moral virtue, I can't help but admire the response of Internet Slut Kim Kardashian, who, when asked why she didn't' have any tattoos, replied, "Because you don't put a bumper sticker on a Bentley."
All of us have something better than a Bentley. Our bodies are Temples of the Holy Spirit. Many of us have defiled them in some way and, hopefully repented. Why leave a permanent, visible mark of defilement? It's just plain dumb.
Leviticus also bans: eating fat or blood (3:17), touching an unclean animal - ever throw a pigskin? (5:2), drinking alcohol in holy places (ahem) (10:9), eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22), etc. So much for the application of Leviticus to the present question.
"Cursed ink" means what? Someone with no power to cast spells stands over a table with bottles of ink and says something like, with apologies to the Bard of Avon, "Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and tat ink bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good."
While there are tattooed people living in trashy houses with cars parked on the lawn, there are many who lived in gated communities with perfectly manicured lawns and a Range Rover parked snugly in the garage.
I have to agree with Fr Michael on this one. The Apostolic Council decided the limited applicability of the Levitical law for gentile Christians. This prohibition was not among those proscribed.
Personally, I’m not a fan of tattoos, but that’s for aesthetic reasons.
AI certainly pulls things together in a way that would take me too long to do. This AI summary, I think, can be applied to some tatoos that completely change the color of someone’s skin or a limb or whatever. More problematic would be satanic images, pornograpich images or images of violence. Sacrilege’s images of holy People and things, not for veneration but to mock. Think of some of the places where the Holy Virgin could be placed or Jesus Himself. There’s a lot of leeway in terms of tatoos and what a Catholic could, in good conscience, put on their body. I have mixed feelings. I am fascinated by some tatoos and repulsed by others, especially those that disfigure the skin of no notable artistic value, if you will.
Forgot to paste the AI summary:
Yes, bodily mutilation is considered intrinsically evil and a sin in the Catholic Church, especially when performed on innocent persons for reasons other than strictly therapeutic medical necessity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations are against the moral law unless they are for strictly therapeutic reasons.
What is considered mutilation?
Intrinsic evil: Mutilation is considered an action that is inherently bad and should not be done, regardless of the potential consequences.
Therapeutic exceptions: Procedures like cosmetic surgery might not be considered mutilation if they are for a justifiable medical reason and align with the principle of totality, which takes into account physical, psychological, and social well-being.
Theological principles:
Principle of Totality: This principle suggests that while human dignity is paramount, the body can be altered for a greater good, such as in medical treatments or reasonable cosmetic procedures.
Focus on Inner Beauty: Catholic ethics emphasizes the importance of inner beauty over outward appearance, but it also acknowledges that external appearance can be significant in modern society.
Therefore, while some alterations to the body are acceptable, direct and non-therapeutic acts of mutilation are considered a serious moral offense within the Catholic Church.
Might getting tattoos "take into account physical, psychological, and social well-being"?
Like Marc, I'm not a fan of much of the tattoo art I see. But we have to be careful not to attempt to turn personal preferences into doctrinal mandates.
The respected exorcist, Fr. Chad Ripperger….?!
He’s accused of making statements that are “contrary to Catholic Tradition, doctrine, and theology.”
https://wherepeteris.com/fr-rippergers-metaphysics-an-honest-assessment/
Oh come on BB. WPI would do better to rant about the “contrary to Catholic Tradition, doctrine and theology” of the LGBTQ+++ ideology promoted by Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ but masquerading under cover, so to speak, but kissing heresy without coitus.
“A number of exorcists have told their story and gone around the world to give talks on exorcism and associated things. I think that promoting that subject with international speakers is not healthy, and it is not good, as some have done, to tell lurid stories and give graphic accounts of what most people do not need to know in detail.” As arguably the most famous living exorcist in the world, Fr. Chad Ripperger is exhibit A in this trend.
There is so much more that could be said about Fr Ripperger, such as his views on COVID, vaccines, UFOs and vampires, Jordan Peterson, gender roles, Harry Potter, Pilates,[1] rock music, or the health benefits of tobacco (really).
Ripperger is clearly a nut job and not respected!
A lot of gay men are into tattoos!
I'm not sure if our resident expert on all things we lowly masses are uninformed about is just mocking the idea of cursing things or denying that it happens altogether. Either way, if anyone here actually wants to PAY someone to stick a needle into his flesh and inject ink from God knows where, hey, don't let ME stop you.
A lot of straight men / women are into tattoos!
Rippinger is not credible.
He denies Darwinian evolution. Rippinger: "I have never had any conviction in relationship to evolution as a viable thing from the very beginning, from the first time I heard it in — I think it was in either 8th or 9th grade when I heard the proposition. I’m just like, that’s just absurd.”
Mike Lewis of OnePeterFive comments: "Fr. Ripperger’s outright rejection of evolutionary theory — based not on theological or scientific reasoning, but his instincts as an adolescent — stands in stark contrast to the Church’s approach to faith and science. While the popes and official Church documents engage with scientific discoveries and theological reflection to discern truth, Ripperger says he dismissed an entire field of study with a shrug — and as a teenager."
Rippinger on UFOs and "grays/greys" who are really demons posing as extraterrestrials: “Demons who portray themselves in what they call themselves grays, and they literally manifest looking exactly like these aliens that you see out there, and they claim that they’re not demons, they’re not angels, they’re not humans, so there’s kind of this intermediate non-moral, ‘they’re not good or bad’ kind of thing. And it’s all a ruse. It’s basically just demons doing that to get people to go down the rabbit holes."
Rippinger was a presenter at a "Restore Truth Conference" in March 2025. Originally it was scheduled to take place at Catholic retreat Center, but the location was changed to a local motel. Among the other presenters were Robert Sungenis, a Catholic who asserts that the Earth is in a fixed position at the center of the universe, with the Sun and planets and stars revolving around it. Also on the conference schedule was Hugh Owen who has written, "All forms of evolutionary theory require a radical rejection of God’s revelation about the creation of Adam and Eve." That is a rejection of Humani Generis and several papal statements since, including St. Pope John Paul II's "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution" (22 October 1996). Aslo, Adamar Rakowsky who, as a young earth creationist, argues that the earth is a bit more than 6,000 years old.
No, Rippinger is not credible.
Accusation by WPI is basically a badge of honor. Channeling Ben Kenobi, you will never find a greater of self-appointed magisterial pearl-clutching and scolding.
Nick
Ripperger happens to be correct in some of those things. In fact, his thoughts seem to mirror those of Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose of Platina, a 20th century American convert to Orthodoxy.
But I find Ripperger to be extremely off-putting as a personality, and I’m dismayed that I formerly took him seriously. Alas, the foibles of youth and zeal!
The priest that called this guy out about his tattoos seriously overstepped the mark. Some of you Americans are nut jobs!
Yes we are and here you can say it outside out loud and at an abortion clinic. How about in the UK?
The UK is full of cowards. They won't even protect their girls and women from the savages the Leftist Government has imported to rule over you. England needs a man like Lady Thatcher again to right the ship.
Marc - Rippinger is not correct about evolution, about the Creation Accounts, or demons masquerading as space aliens. The earth is not a mere 6,000+ years old.
His assertions about mental illnesses and demonic activity can do great harm. As Ariane Sroubek, a PhD Clinical Child Psychologist has written, his view:
1. It undermines years of working to combat stigma against mental illness by associating it with demonic possession.
2. It promotes a way of thinking that could keep people from seeking and continuing treatment they need.
3. It minimizes the real advances that psychology has made in past decades while publicizing an unproven, irresponsible idea.
We can express the view as long as not inciting violence or camping outside your house doing so making a nuisance of ourselves.
Freedom of speech is not absolute, that’s where you Americans go wrong! There’s always a delicate balance between our rights and the rights of others so no society will ever get it completely right all of the time.
I don’t share your opinions on evolution and creation. I don’t have a firm opinion about “aliens” except to note that Fr. Seraphim opined that the phenomenon has some basis in demonic activity. I don’t think there’s enough information nor do I found it particularly important or interesting, personally.
I’m generally skeptical about psychology, but I would agree that reducing mental illness to demonic influence is absurd and unhelpful. It is also not the way that the Church fathers viewed mental illness and its treatment. Met. Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos has written extensively on this topic, for example. And I would tend to defer to him.
My skepticism about psychology has to do with whether it makes sense in the first place to label human mental activity and whether that needlessly implies a reductionist view of treatment, etc. Obviously, mental illness exists and should be addressed. So, I take issue with some of the presuppositions, but it is a work in progress, as is any scientific endeavor.
Freedom of speech should be absolute. Americans make a different value judgment than you do. That’s one reason why our country is better than yours.
I think you can never underestimate the damage caused by WW I and WW II on England - the best of their manhood was wiped out!
Marc - My views on evolution/creation are not "opinions." Starting with St. Augustine in "On the literal meaning of Genesis," the Church has not propounded a literal understanding of these texts. "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new
findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." I'll go with Augustine and papal teaching.
I’m not concerned with either St Augustine’s or popes’ opinions about Creation. And your opinion is also just that—opinion.
The fact of the matter is that death did not enter into the world until the Fall. Any opinion that fails to acknowledge that fundamental fact is erroneous.
Coincidentally, tomorrow is the new year. Happy 7534, everyone!
No, freedom of speech is not absolute, as most legal systems and human rights frameworks acknowledge it can be limited to protect other rights and public interests, such as preventing incitement to violence, hate speech, defamation, harassment, or threats to national security. While a core democratic principle, restrictions are permissible if they are set out in law, are necessary, and are proportionate to the issue at hand.
Preventing harm:
Free speech must have limitations to prevent speech that causes direct harm to others, such as inciting violence or promoting illegal discrimination.
Balancing rights:
The right to free expression needs to be balanced against other human rights, like the right to privacy or the right to not be subjected to hate speech.
Community safety:
In some cases, restrictions on free speech are necessary to protect the interests of the wider community.
How restrictions are justified
Lawful, legitimate, and proportionate:
When a government restricts free speech, it must demonstrate that the restriction is lawful, a legitimate goal, and proportionate to the aim it seeks to achieve.
Least restrictive option:
The restriction must be the least restrictive means necessary to address the issue concerned.
Examples of restricted speech
Incitement to violence:
Speech that directly encourages violence against individuals or groups is not protected.
Hate speech:
Governments may prohibit hate speech, particularly if it encourages racial or religious hatred.
Defamation:
False statements that harm someone's reputation can be restricted to protect that individual's rights.
"While a core democratic principle, restrictions are permissible if they are set out in law, are necessary, and are proportionate to the issue at hand."
And I suppose, in the tangle of the modern English mind, it is necessary and proportionate to criminalize standing around the corner of an abortion clinic while saying nothing at all, but nevertheless thinking menacing thoughts (a.k.a., praying).
Nick
An exclusion zone seems reasonable to me. I’d say the same about a group protesting outside the door of a church.
In England and Wales, safe access zones, also known as exclusion zones, are legally established 150-meter buffer areas around abortion clinics and hospitals providing abortion services. Since October 31, 2024, it is a criminal offense to intentionally or recklessly harass, alarm, or distress someone, or to attempt to influence or obstruct access to abortion services within these zones. This new law aims to protect patients and staff from anti-abortion protests and harassment, though it does not ban all protests or criminalize holding pro-life views, only actions within the designated buffer areas
Nick you know well that abortion clinic protesters don’t just stand around the corner meekly praying. They often cajole, obstruct, wave graphic posters. photograph people entering -all designed to intimidate.
benny,
"A physiotherapist who prayed outside an abortion centre has been convicted of breaching a safe zone after refusing requests to move on. ... Smith-Connor was outside the clinic in Bournemouth in November 2022 where a public space protection order was in place. ... The court was told he had been praying for his unborn son, who he said died from abortion 22 years ago. ... During the case, brought by BCP Council, the court heard Smith-Connor had emailed the council the day before to inform it about his silent vigil, as he had done on previous occasions."
The ADF further states that Mr. Smith-Connor "had his back to the building to make it clear that he was not trying to disrupt anyone’s privacy." He was 50 metres (150 feet, in proper units) away from the clinic.
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was repeatedly arrested for silently praying outside clinics without engaging in any visible activity or with any other person (except the police), to the point she received a settlement for harassment from the police last year. And yet this year, she is once again under investigation for the same conduct. The legal term that comes to mind is "chilling."
But please, tell me what I "know well" and that only "actions" are criminalized.
"They often cajole, obstruct, wave graphic posters. photograph people entering"
These are different behaviors than what we were already discussing, and it involves an entirely different analysis of whether they are protected by rights to free speech and religious practice, based on considerations ranging from stalking, to trespassing, to assault & battery, threats, and more.
Nick
Well I think the atypical example you cite is someone who went out of his way to get arrested by emailing the police in advance to notify them he’d be technically breaking the safe zone restrictions - so what did he expect the police to do?
If he’d done what he did without flaunting it to make a point no one would have noticed or cared.
He got what he wanted, he made a martyr of himself. If you deliberately and purposefully engage in civil disobedience then you should be prepared to pay the price.
Nick,
She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £26 victim surcharge so not exactly maximum punishment!
**A conditional discharge means a court has found someone guilty of an offence but defers imposing a sentence, provided they commit no further offences within a set period, typically up to three years. If another offence is committed during this period, the court can sentence the individual for the original offence as well as the new one. Conditional discharges are often given for minor offences to people with no or limited prior criminal history, allowing the offender to avoid immediate punishment while demonstrating the ability to reform.
So to recap… she had previously received a police warning / she then emailed police in advance notifying them of her intention to break the law / then declined to move on when requested thereby giving them no alternative but to arrest her. And after all that she only received a slap on the wrist. Sounds like someone wanting to make a martyr of themselves but the judge wouldn’t give her what she wanted!
benny,
The fact that it is supposedly "breaking the law" is the issue. I'm not surprised you obfuscated or missed that.
Nick
Post a Comment