| Author | |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 4:45pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Dd17 has been learning so much with Our Moral Life in Christ, leading to much thinking and questioning. Her latest question and I don't really know the answer, (knee jerk answers don't count  ) nor can I find it in the CCC is: What is the Church's teaching regards tatooing and ear piercing?
__________________
Erin
Faith Filled Days
Seven Little Australians
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 4:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't think there's a definitive answer.. certainly not yes you should or no you shouldn't but more a you may as long as you're treating your body like a temple, a member of the Church, the body of Christ. And at least one of the description in the Old Testament of a bride.. does speak of makeup and jewelry (including earrings, unsure about piercing) being worn.
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 5:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is where we were at, but I want a black and white answer [8(] stomping here [LOL]
We discussed 'Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit' but when we reflected more we realised that some of this is a cultural context. ie. some cultures pierce ears as babies, some later, one set is considered tasteful, three in [B]my upbringing[/B] is tacky, but... in today's young culture not necessarily so. What about body piercing. What is self-mutilation and what is not?
In the Maori (New Zealand) culture full body tattooing is/was part of their culture, tattooing is on the rise, how much is art, how much tacky, how much mutilation??? See the sorts of questions and conversations we have.
So trying to not be subjective and to teach our dc to go to primary sources, we went to the CCC but couldn't find an answer.
__________________
Erin
Faith Filled Days
Seven Little Australians
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 5:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I took a class in canon law and that question came up.
The canon lawyer said the rule used to be easy, no tattoos because of the rule against self mutilation; but what is mutilation is often culturally defined. Tattoos are culturally defined in some places as mutilation and in others as body decoration.
He said pierced ears used to be considered mutilation but due to a change in the culture it was no longer an issue. He said that motive is very much part of the determination on if tattoos are sin or not. I got the impression that cultural shifts could really make a canon lawyer's life difficult. 
Interestingly, he did not talk about if a tattoo is advisable as that was not a canon law issue.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 5:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dove wrote:
I took a class in canon law and that question came up.
The canon lawyer said the rule used to be easy, no tattoos because of the rule against self mutilation; but what is mutilation is often culturally defined. Tattoos are culturally defined in some places as mutilation and in others as body decoration.
He said pierced ears used to be considered mutilation but due to a change in the culture it was no longer an issue. He said that motive is very much part of the determination on if tattoos are sin or not. I got the impression that cultural shifts could really make a canon lawyer's life difficult.
Interestingly, he did not talk about if a tattoo is advisable as that was not a canon law issue. |
|
|
That makes sense, but there are aspects that have to be weighed. Are they subjective or objective? A few thoughts or questions that cross my mind?
1) What does it mean to be culturally defined? If it is in the mainstream culture, does it mean that it is correct? (Contraception and abortion are certainly common and mainstream, but never allowed. Modesty standards can vary a bit, but basic guidelines are always going to be universal.)
2) Are we looking at mainstream culture, or narrowing down the definition? As a Catholic what can I follow? Following a native culture which is not based in Christian morality or my heritage.
So, that person who is from that tribe would not be wrong if he has that tattoo or body piercing. How often after a native tribe was exposed to Christianity that some customs did change because they were not beautiful. Is Christ the balance, the key?
I also see if one from another civilization and culture imitates this tribal custom, that is a different evaluation. It's not a mainstream, but an imitation of an obscure non-Christian culture.
3) There is the hard to define question: "What is beauty?" I find it somewhat easier to answer what it isn't -- modern art, discordant music (modern)...etc. And this is where I think tattoos and body piercing are absolutely ugly. Is that always subjective ?
4) My other thought is so often the tattoos and body piercing come from a rebellion of our culture -- the Goth, punk rock, and whatever else...they have been trying to look different, be different. So the origins do not have good or true or beautiful or Christian roots. Can this which now is becoming more "accepted" be looked upon as mainstream and acceptable?
5) As far as simple ear piercing for women, that does go way back in European culture, and it was to enhance beauty with only one small hole. And perhaps this should be the measuring stick. How long has this been accepted and used in the mainstream Christian community? Simple ear piercing has been around centuries, but body piercing and tattoos and the large piercing and stretching ear lobes...well, I can safely say that it hasn't been hundreds of years accepted by the mainstream Christian culture.
Sorry...not definitive, just brainstorming.
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 8:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
1) What does it mean to be culturally defined? If it is in the mainstream culture, does it mean that it is correct? (Contraception and abortion are certainly common and mainstream, but never allowed. Modesty standards can vary a bit, but basic guidelines are always going to be universal.)
|
|
|
They key to understanding the canon that relates to tattoos is the concept of mutilation.
Certain things can be clearly understood to be mutilation, such as cutting off a the hand of a thief, and others are less clear cut such as male circumcision.
How does one decide if something is mutilation? At one time amputation was seen as mutilation but when done to save the life it is a good thing and thus does not fall under the canon condemning mutilation.
We are talking canons which are practical guides for applying church teaching--they are not the same as defined dogmas.
A tattoo is a change to the body but is it mutilation?
In a culture with a long history of using tattoos to celebrate life and the beauty of the human body--it is not considered a negative and so is it mutilation?
According to this canon lawyer, it is not mutilation because tattoos--in some cultures and unlike cutting off a hand, serve a positive and celebratory purpose.
Pierced ears were once frowned on but the reason women chose to pierce their ears was to adorn and decorate the body--a positive thing, and so canon lawyers no longer apply the canon against mutilation to pierced ears.
In the USA for example, there is a cultural shift occurring and in some sub cultures tattoos are considered something beautiful. It is not totally accepted in the entire culture in this way but enough so that many canon lawyers no longer think the canon against mutilation applies.
There is no comparison here between Tattoos and contraception or abortion. Murder of the innocent is never going to be permitted. It is a dogma that to kill the innocent is objectively evil. A tattoo is not in the same category as murder--but both abortion and chemical contraception fall into that category due to the ending of a life already begun.
Modesty rules tend to vary greatly with some cultures so do the cultural meanings given to dance. Is it wrong for a tribal culture in Africa that has converted to Catholicism to dance? According to the Vatican because DANCE in their culture has meanings apart from sexual attraction and courtship, there are forms of dance permitted even at MASS. In OUR American culture, Dance has always an overtone of courtship and sexuality, even such delightfully modest dances as Waltz, which is why there is never allowed so-called "liturgical dance" in the United States. Oh it happens, but Catholics contracept at the same rate as the culture at large in violation of the Catholic teachings on life too--it hardly makes it right.
There was a time when modesty meant covered from neck to ankle and wrist and only a fallen women cut her hair short. There was a time when women wearing trousers without a skirt were condemned for wearing men's clothing. We don't hold those cultural positions any longer and a nice pants suit is considered modest as is a skirt that shows the ankle.
Back to tattoos and canon law. For some people a tattoo is a form of mutilation, they choose to get a tattoo in order to mar their bodies, out of self loathing or to offend others in the culture. For other people, it is an affirmation of their delight in being alive and a permanent decoration much like pierced ears. This makes canon lawyers debate if the canon on not mutilating the body applies and as the lawyer I spoke to said, it depends on why a person got the tattoo.
Was it gotten to offend and as a rebellion and a sign of self loathing? Was it an affirmation of the joy of living and a beautiful decoration? This is the point on which it turns--why did the person choose to get a tattoo? If the former reason, it needs repentance and absolution, if the later there was no breaking of the canon against mutilation.
I love canon law, it is both clear and clarifying but demanding too. If your diocese offers any workshops or seminars, they are very interesting, although, at the last one I attended I think I was the only laywoman who laughed at the jokes.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lacy
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 01 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 8:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dove wrote:
[quote]
There is no comparison here between Tattoos and contraception or abortion. Murder of the innocent is never going to be permitted. It is a dogma that to kill the innocent is objectively evil. A tattoo is not in the same category as murder--but both abortion and chemical contraception fall into that category due to the ending of a life already begun.
|
|
|
I think the point Jenn was trying to make is that we have to be careful when taking society's opinion into account when we are making moral decisions.
__________________
Lacy
Catholic Icing
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 8:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Let me give a couple of examples from personal experience. I met a girl who hated herself, she chose ugly dark patterns and hideous images and covered a good bit of skin with these things.
Another woman I met had survived a terrible ordeal and had a beautiful tattoo as an affirmation that no matter how badly she crashed and burned God was always there helping her to hope and live.
I can't resist another example, I know someone who has a small colorful tattoo to celebrate each of her children.
In the later examples the women chose locations that were modest, and which were covered typically but which could be left visible too, like a tank top at the beach and it shows, but not under a proper dress for Mass. The former example wouldn't be able to hide the mess unless she wore a collar to her chin, and sleeves that came down over the back of her hands.
I know someone else who used a tattoo to hide a really nasty scar.
The choices made by these women are quite different and had different motivations.
It gets murky when the tattoo is the result of getting stupidly drunk but it probably falls into the self destructive category and thus the canon about mutilation would apply.
The canon against mutilation which was usually used to decide about tattoos no longer fits when the motivations are positive and life affirming but does fit when the motivation is self destructive.
This is an example of why canon law is just plain cool.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 8:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lacy wrote:
Dove wrote:
[quote]
There is no comparison here between Tattoos and contraception or abortion. Murder of the innocent is never going to be permitted. It is a dogma that to kill the innocent is objectively evil. A tattoo is not in the same category as murder--but both abortion and chemical contraception fall into that category due to the ending of a life already begun.
|
|
|
I think the point Jenn was trying to make is that we have to be careful when taking society's opinion into account when we are making moral decisions. |
|
|
Which is why application of canon law is useful here. Life issues are quite different than issues of body decoration which may or may not be mutilation.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 12 2011 at 9:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
Sorry...not definitive, just brainstorming. |
|
|
Don't be sorry, it is a fascinating topic and brainstorming is great fun.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: April 13 2011 at 5:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So much to think about I'm sharing this thread with dd today so we'll have lots to chat about.
Basically there is no black and white answer, yes? It is subjective to cultural context, yes? but.. this is where it gets tricky, cultural context in the Western world is changing and just where do we fit in there with Catholicism? Once again no black and white answer. (stomping here again  )
Can anyone direct me to the teaching on mutilation?
Thank you all so much for an interesting chat.
__________________
Erin
Faith Filled Days
Seven Little Australians
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angie Mc
Board Moderator
Joined: Jan 31 2005
Location: Arizona
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11400
|
| Posted: April 13 2011 at 10:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Erin, something we've talked about with our teens is the idea that our family has a culture, tradition, and history. This includes our extended family, the area we were raised in, the generations that came before us, the countries they came from, the faith that they practiced - quite a mixed bag! Our family culture, tradition, and history doesn't include tattoos. The only exception we can think of are men who were in the military during WWII. That's an interesting discussion about male unity, loyalty, etc.
We can trace earrings for women back for at least 4 generations. No men. That's an interesting conversation, too .
Love,
__________________
Angie Mc
Maimeo to Henry! Dave's wife, mom to Mrs. Devin+Michael Pope, Aiden 20,Ian 17,John Paul 11,Catherine (heaven 6/07)
About Me
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: April 13 2011 at 10:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My grandfather had an anchor tattoo - I should ask my dad when he had it done. I always assumed it came from the time he spent building submarines during WWII. No one else in my or dh's family had tattoos - but I know my nephew plans to get one while he's home next week after his Iraq deployment. I'm led to believe it will not have a military theme. (He also has bizarre ear piercings. Don't know how that works with an Army uniform.)
On my side, my mother was the first to have pierced ears; she made me wait until I was 12 to have mine pierced and I continued that tradition because it made sense (once you have an ear piercing, you'll bear the scar, at least, for life - a decision that requires a certain degree of maturity). One also needs to be able to care for newly-pierced ears appropriately in order to avoid infection and complications. In some cultures, parents take on these roles and decisions for newborn daughters and have their ears pierced in infancy. I'm good with that as long as parents are ready to be responsible (which, in my experience in this type of situation, they are).
Our world continues to change, in terms of what is acceptable in society. Some of these changes are okay and some are not compatible with our Catholic (universal and local) traditions. Parental discernment is key here!
One of the best parts of learning together at home is that we have TIME, lots of it, to discuss issues like this one and find our way to what is best for our family. We're all here together, so we all know each other's opinions and understand our family limits and boundaries.
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: April 13 2011 at 11:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
How funny Nancy.. My mom made my sister wait until she was 11 to get her ears pierced for that reason (taking care of them) I got mine pierced at the same time she did so I was 13.. but I've also had my girls wait until 11 (got an 11th birthday coming up and she can hardly wait)..
but confession time? I got a second hole in my ears for my 40th birthday.  I'd only wanted to do so for 20 yrs. And I like how they look.. I wear small endless loop earrings in both holes.. one set gold and one set silver.
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
organiclilac
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 30 2006
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 640
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 11:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
JodieLyn wrote:
| but confession time? I got a second hole in my ears for my 40th birthday. I'd only wanted to do so for 20 yrs. And I like how they look.. I wear small endless loop earrings in both holes.. one set gold and one set silver. |
|
|
Second holes are common among the women in my family. You wear your diamonds in the top set, and earrings to match your outfit in the lower set.
__________________
Tracy, wife to Shawn, mama to Samuel (4/01) and Joseph (11/11), and Thomas (2/15)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JaysFamily
Forum Pro
Joined: March 30 2010
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 12:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think that tattoos and piercings are rather amoral, but as with many decisions, it is the intention that counts. It's what the tattoo means to the person who wears it that matters, and that's something that must be discerned by each person, and not something that can really be universally declared as immoral. Obviously a tattoo that is pornographic or violent in nature would be immoral, but is a tattoo of a cross or Scripture verse really immoral? What about a tattoo that celebrates an event or moment in the person's life that brought them closer to God? I also don't necessarily think that looking at traditional Christian or Catholic culture will give us the answer either. There are many worldly and even Pagan things that have become a part of Catholic culture.
__________________
In Christ,
Jaysfamily
wife to Jay
mother to DS(5)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 12:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
And then there are people who wear a tattoo of something we might regard as a sign of religious devotion that is really quite the opposite. I am thinking of members of certain gangs who have their backs tattooed with a large image of Our Lady of Guadelupe (sp.?).
Discernment and intention have got to be huge factors here. Another instance I can think of that might not be acceptable is if someone gets a tattoo or piercing to spite someone else. I'm sure that happens as well. On the other hand, someone very close to me has a large tattoo that reminds her of a significant event in her life. I don't find tattoos aesthetically pleasing - there is a big *oog* factor for me - but I totally respect a person making that choice for positive reasons.
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dove
Forum Rookie
Joined: April 10 2011
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 5:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Erin wrote:
So much to think about I'm sharing this thread with dd today so we'll have lots to chat about...
Can anyone direct me to the teaching on mutilation? |
|
|
You can try this blog entry: http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/seton-hospital-must -vigorously-resist.html
My law books are in a bin because my present shelving does not allow all the books out at one time. Right now the research is in parental rights in the social documents of the church and I hadn't planned on locating the canon law books for several months yet.
If you need something more specific, the owner of that blog might take a question.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: CCC & tattooing/piercing
