Still Yet More on Tattoos

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!

Yet More on Tattoos

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!

Still More on Tattoos

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.

Hidalgo

Just turned in my review of the new movie Hidalgo to The Decent Films Guide. The film stars Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings) as a cowboy named Frank Hopkins who goes to Arabia to compete in a long-distance horse race.

You can read what I thought about the movie in the review, but here are a couple of technical notes that really don’t belong in a review:

1) Since we’ve been talking about other languages in movies, I might mention that a good bit of this one is in a Native American language (Lakhota, I believe) and in Arabic. I don’t know Lakhota, but since 9/11 I’ve been studying Arabic. (I wanted to be able to read enough of the Qur’an in the original to refute the claims of Muslim apologists).

The story in Hidalgo takes the viewer to Yemen and Arabia, but the Arabic being spoken in the film doesn’t sound quite like Arabian Arabic to me. It sounds more like Syrian Arabic (though my ear isn’t good enough yet to be sure). Syrian Arabic is more "musical," like the Arabic in the film, while Arabian Arabic is more harsh and guttural.

I also noticed in the film that the subtitles when the characters are speaking Arabic aren’t giving a strictly literal translation of what is being said. That, however, was true of The Passion as well: The subtitles in it weren’t strictly literal, either.

2) The horsemanship in Hidalgo is pretty good. Viggo Mortensen really does know how to ride. In fact, I was stunned at one of the things he did in The Two Towers.

You know the scene where Aragorn has washed up on the shore and we see a horse step into the foreground, placing its hoof right next to his head and then putting its lips over Viggo’s nose? I was stunned when I saw this. In real life letting a horse do that would be incredibly reckless. Since we didn’t see it’s whole body, I thought for sure it was an animatronic (mechanical) "horse" that the filmmakers used, but no, it was a real one. Viggo apparently slept with it in its stall for a few nights to let it get comfortable enough with him. Still, I would have never done that.

In Hidalgo, Viggo rides well (for the most part) and uses realistic audible cues to tell the horse what he wants it to do (people often don’t realize how important audible cues are to riding–not just "whoa" and "giddyup," but sucking/clicking sounds that you make with your mouth; different horses are trained to respond to different cues).

Given the horse realism the filmmakers seemed to be trying for, I was a little surprised that Viggo didn’t talk to the horse more during scenes in which something that would be very frightening to a horse was taking place (e.g., a sandstorm). Horses are very timid and easily-frightened animals that need to be reassured that their riders know what is going on and are in control of the situation. Talking to the horse plays an important role in keeping him calm when something frightening happens. Otherwise he may run off in fear, carrying the rider with him (which is a Really Not Good Thing in a sandstorm).

I also was a little surprised at a couple of points in the movie when immediately after hard exercise horses were ordered to be bathed in cold water or run directly into the ocean surf.  Body heat management is not easy for horses, and they need to be cooled down by slow walking before you get them wet. If they get too much cold water in their hair when they’re still hot it can cause the shivers and even get them sick. One would think that the problem would be exacerbated in the heat of Arabia, but then maybe the cold water there isn’t all that cold by our standards.

What's Jimmy Working On?

Just finished the next Inside Catholic Answers newsletter. Topics this time were a major new educational campaign on the homosexual "marriage" issue and the overwhelming response we’ve had to the Voters’ Guide for Serious Catholics.

Also just got word that I may have to go up to L.A. next week to be interviewed by the BBC on The Passion of the Christ.

At work we just got back from the press our new evangelistic pamphlet God’s Love For You. Looks great. Is designed to be an outreach to people who are not Catholic. Thus far most of our materials are written for a Catholic audience, but now we are starting to branch out into materials written for non-Catholics to help them find their way to the Church. Our materials have been helping people to do that for years, but now, by providing things directly written for non-Catholics, they should be even more effective.

Tuesday I revised a chapter from Inside Mormonism to incorporate the change in the Holy See’s policy on the invalidity of Mormon baptisms.

Monday I turned in my next "Brass Tacks" column for This Rock. The topic this time was a look at the four senses of Scripture.

What’s Jimmy Working On?

Just finished the next Inside Catholic Answers newsletter. Topics this time were a major new educational campaign on the homosexual "marriage" issue and the overwhelming response we’ve had to the Voters’ Guide for Serious Catholics.

Also just got word that I may have to go up to L.A. next week to be interviewed by the BBC on The Passion of the Christ.

At work we just got back from the press our new evangelistic pamphlet God’s Love For You. Looks great. Is designed to be an outreach to people who are not Catholic. Thus far most of our materials are written for a Catholic audience, but now we are starting to branch out into materials written for non-Catholics to help them find their way to the Church. Our materials have been helping people to do that for years, but now, by providing things directly written for non-Catholics, they should be even more effective.

Tuesday I revised a chapter from Inside Mormonism to incorporate the change in the Holy See’s policy on the invalidity of Mormon baptisms.

Monday I turned in my next "Brass Tacks" column for This Rock. The topic this time was a look at the four senses of Scripture.

More on Tattoos

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.

Tattoos

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.

Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh!

A reader writes:

I’m trying to piece together an apologetics answer involving some Greek and Aramaic and this is getting dangerous.  Could you help?  It centers on the objection to Catholics claiming that the "brothers of Jesus" actually refers to "cousins or kinfolk" following the indefinite term aha (I think) in Aramaic.  Aramaic apparently has no strict term for cousin and the Greek author transliterated adelphos from the Aramaic "brother".  So far so good.   But someone recently retorted that if there is no term for cousin in Aramaic, why is Elizabeth called Mary’s "cousin" (sungenes) in Luke 1, 36?  OK, I’ve learned that "cousin" is only one word used here by English translators- along with kinswoman and relative.  So, Elizabeth’s not strictly meant to be seen as Mary’s literal cousin.  But now I’m trying to learn if there is a corresponding Aramaic term for the Elizabeth-Mary relationship as there is for the Jesus-Brothers relationship.  It seems that, to be consistent, Luke must have transliterated some sort of Aramaic term to arrive at sungenes for the Elizabeth-Mary relation.  Any ideas?

First, let me take a moment to comment on the translation in Luke 1:36 in the New American Bible of sungenis (the feminine form of sungenēs) as "cousin." This is a terrible rendering that has caused confusion for countless faithful Catholics. It is just another one of the seemingly countless flaws with this translation. The meaning of the Greek word sungenēs (pronounced sun-gen-ace) is too general to be translated "cousin." "Relative," "kinsman," or (in the feminine) "kinswoman" would be acceptable translations. "Cousin" is simply wrong, and so clearly wrong that in Luke 1:36 in the current version of the NAB, they’ve stopped rendering it that way and translated it as "relative" instead. If only the translators hadn’t been so irresponsible as to do the misrendering in the first place, countless Catholics would have been spared confusion.

Now, on the subject of Aramaic, yes, Aramaic has no word for "cousin." If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”

Luke could have been translating any one of these more general terms (or, rather, their feminine equivalents) as sungenēs, or he could have been translating a different, general term, or he could have been paraphrasing what the angel said rather than translating from the Aramaic. There’s really no way to know which is the case, but there certainly are alternatives.

Local Time

The reader who asked about the liturgical day writes:

Very good, Thanks Jimmy. What happens with daylight savings time, is it ever addressed? Just curious. Thanx for being an ultra cool guy.

The Code of Canon Law does not address daylight savings time, but the answer is not in doubt. The legislator (that is to say, the pope) has not created a legally-binding "ecclesiastical clock" different from local, civil timekeeping. As a result, "ecclesiastical midnight" (to coin a term) is the same as "civil midnight" (to coin another term), the latter being whatever midnight is considered to be according to local civil law. The legislator is not concerned about daylight savings time or occasional twenty-three or twenty-five hour days as we shift into or out of daylight savings time.

Hypothetically, I can imagine legal situations where such considerations would become relevant under canon law (e.g., if there was a dispute about whether a particular person had the exercise of a right or office until a certain day and that day happened to be longer or shorter due to the shift into or out of daylight savings time). However, thus far the legislator has not been concerned to address these situations. As far as things like fast and abstinence, which is where the day division affects most people, he is content to allow local civil midnight to be the local church’s midnight, too.

As far as being cool, that’s not me. That’s just the air conditioning.