Month: March 2004

A correspondent writes:

Hi Jimmy, I enjoy listening to your spots on Catholic Answers Live and also
seeing you on The Journey Home on EWTN.  I am currently seeking help for an Anxiety Disorder and trying to better my mental health.  One symptom of
those with high anxiety is unwanted "scary" thoughts or sudden flashes of
unusual images in your mind.  For instance, you may be washing dishes and
cleaning a sharp knife and all of a sudden you get a subconscience thought
out of nowhere that you might stab somebody, or in church you might
desicrate a cross or something.  I have no intent on doing these things, but
I’ll get a mental flash.  Is this considered sin?  Are thoughts of no intent
sinful?  Thanks for your time.

Thank you for writing and for your kind words.   It sounds as if you may be suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which is a very common anxiety disorder, estimated to affect perhaps one in forty people.   Because it is so common, and because the thoughts it generates can be so troubling to people, I am often contacted by people who have this condition, and I’ve read up on it. In persons of faith, OCD tends to cause scrupulosity, being constantly afraid that one is in a state of mortal sin because of the thoughts. However, be assured that the thoughts OCD generates are not sins. We do not have much control over the thoughts that occur to us, and people who have OCD have a quirk in their brain chemistry that makes them more susceptible to such thoughts than others. As you point out, these are not things that you would actually do. They are therefore what psychologists term ego dystonic thoughts, contrary to one’s beliefs and values. As a result, there is not the kind of cooperation of the will needed to make them sinful. In fact, you should not confess these thoughts in the confessional, as focusing on them will tend to reinforce them and exacerbate the condition. You should simply do your best to ignore them. The more you can relax and ignore them, the better you will get.   I don’t know if you have yet engaged in a course of treatment for the condition, but I should mention that OCD is very treatable. It appears related to a deficiency of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, and there is a class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that effectively increase the amount of serotonin in the brain and bring a great deal of relief to people with this condition. Also, certain nutritional supplements that can increase serotonin levels (e.g., 5-HTP) may help, though these should not be used if one is already on SSRIs without a doctor’s supervision. If you would like to read more about nutritional supplements that might help, I recommend the book Dr. Atkins Vita-Nutrient Solution, by Dr. Robert Atkins in addition to the 5-HTP book already linked.   Hope this helps, and God bless you!

A third reader writes:

I’m pretty sure real tatooing (as opposed to simple outside coloration such as with magic market) could well be considered a sin against the fifth commandment, since it’s an attack on your own body. As are the multiple piercings one sees these days. Anytime you willingly violate the body’s natural boundaries (skin) for non-life-saving reasons, you’re in trouble.

You seem to be taking a position that goes beyond what the Church does. The argument you use would prohibit even the piercing of ears, and the Church does not condemn that practice.

While some reason would seem to be needed to break the skin, the Church does not seem to envision it as being a grave reason like the need to save a life. Indeed, many surgeries are performed that involve breaking the skin but are for much lesser goals than saving a life.

I suspect that you probably meant "for therapeutic reasons," but the Church does not seems to require that criterion (it does for mutilation, but as noted above, tattoos do not impair body function and so are not mutilation). Things like ear piercing or tattooing can play cultural functions in some societies, and those can be important reasons as well.

Since the function of the skin is to protect the body, it would seem that the skin can be pierced as long as there is some good to be achieved that is proportionate to the risk of infection given the precautions that are being taken against infection in a particular cause. If a man decides that he’s going to make a statement about his devotion to the Blessed Virgin by having a tattoo of Our Lady of Guadalupe put on his arm then he may be able to arrange it so that the risk of infection is low enough to be counterbalanced by the good to be achieved by his making the statement.

If you can cite any current Magisterial documents to the contrary, though, I’d love to see them. Hope this helps!

Another reader writes:

Doesn’t the Tanach forbid tatooing?

Yes, though we already covered that. Tanak is simply the Jewish term for their Scriptures (equivalent to our Old Testament, less the deuterocanonical materials). The word is an anagram–TaNaK–where the T stands for Torah (the Law of Moses), N stands for Neviim (the Prophets), and K for Ketuvim (the Writings, basically the rest of the protocanonical Old Testament).

As noted in the answer to the first question on tattooing, Leviticus (in the Torah and thus in the Tanak) does forbid tattooing, but this doesn’t apply to use for the reasons indicated in the article. Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

Connected with misgivings or reservations about tattoos is the idea of "mutilation" — that we should not damage our bodies. Does the Church have any specific teaching on this subject?

I agree with you that tattooing does NOT constitute a mutilation. I’m also comfortable with ear piercing, since once the skin heals its integrity isn’t compromised in any way.

I’m more uncomfortable with tongue and cheek piercing, which I think may carry ongoing risk of infection. And just recently I saw on TV where some people are doing "tongue SPLITTING" — literally having the tips of their tongue severed for an inch or so. (Those who do this can move the two tips of their tongue independently, and one individual claimed unstated benefits for kissing. Yuck!)

Something in me says that’s just not right. What do you say?

The Church does indeed have something to say about mutilation. Here’s what the Catechism says (CCC 2296-2297):

It is morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Mutilation, as understood by the Catechism and moral theology in general, involves more than simply making a change in one’s body. Otherwise having an ear pierced or even getting a manicure or a haircut would count as mutilation. Instead, mutilation must involve some kind of impairment of function in the body (like cutting off a hand out taking out an organ). The degree of impairment then tells us the gravity of the mutilation.

Since tattoos do not involve an impairment of body function, they do not count as mutilation. You are correct about that.

You are also correct about some of the other body . . . uh . . . "modifications" that are being done today would seem to count as mutilation. I don’t know that much about tongue and cheek piercing. I’d have to do research about whether they involve long-term risk of infection. But tongue splitting would seem to be a prime example. Not only does it impair the tongue’s role in eating and talking, it also would seem to make an immoral statement of some kind due to its snake-like connotations. It also has an even higher risk associated with it due to the fact that the tongue has significant blood vessels in it and a split requires a longer time to heal, with risk of infection and bleeding. As a result, many doctors are opposed to the practice.

A reader writes:

What about the issue of vanity as well? When you get a tattoo, aren’t you making a statement concerning what the purpose of my body is for or that my body needs to be more beautiful? It would seem to me that we run the risk of speaking an wrongful language about the purpose of the human purpose. Granted it isn’t up there with contraception, but I think that there is a connection.

The same argument would apply to women’s make-up, and while Scripture counsels against excessive preoccupation with beauty, the Church does not hold that there is anything wrong with using make-up or other means to enhance one’s beauty.

Further, not all tattoos are for purposes of making oneself more beautiful or handsome. (Indeed, I wonder how many of them have this as a goal.) Frequently people get them because they want to make a statement about something on which they feel strongly. E.g., if a man has the Virgin of Guadalupe tattooed on his arm, that isn’t to make him more handsome, it’s to make a statement about his devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Other times people get tattoos because they want to create a certain aura about themselves, but the enhancement of beauty is not the goal.

In any event, the practice of tattooing is not ruled out by canon law or by the Catechism. Tattooing may have a somewhat "disreputable" connotation in American culture, but the Church does not prohibit it.

A correspondent writes:

I was wondering what the church has to say about getting tattoos? The
only reference I’ve heard of in the bible is from Leviticus:

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.
I am the Lord." – Leviticus 19:28

what does the church have to say about this practice, is it lawful or
not?

The Leviticus passage is part of the Mosaic Law, which is not binding on Christians (or anybody else these days). Originally the Mosaic Law was binding on the Jewish people only; now it is binding on nobody except insofar as it repeats things that are part of the moral law, having been superceded by Christ.

Many of the precepts of the Mosaic Law are ceremonial and do not belong to the moral law. Their purpose, in many cases, is simply to make the Israelites culturally distinct from the Canaanites who surrounded them. This is one such command. The Canaanites cut their bodies for the dead and made tattoos as part of their religious practice, and this command forbids that in order to make the Israelites unable to participate in Canaanite religious practices.

A prohibition on tattooing is not part of the moral law, however. From a moral perspective, there is no reason why one cannot color one’s skin, which is what tattooing amounts to. One can apply color to one’s skin by make-up (as is common among women), magic markers (as is common among children), press-on tattoos (as are common in Crackerjack boxes), or with real tattoos. The mere fact that the ink goes into the skin in the latter case does not create a fundamental moral difference.

Of course, in doing this there are moral considerations to be factored in: (1) One should not use the tattoo to transmit an immoral message, (2) one should not use an unsafe process to get the tattoo (e.g., dirty tattoo needles that might be carrying who knows what diseases), (3) and one should be generally prudent about getting a tattoo (e.g., what effects will getting this tattoo have on your relationships with others? if you break up with your girlfriend, do you really want her name still on your arm? do you really want a permanent tattoo when they have temporary ones now?). However, the Church doesn’t have a problem with tattooing in principle.