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.
