by Rev. Mr. Robert S. Lukosh

Transcription

1 by Rev. Mr. Robert S. Lukosh Every day across the United States indeed, throughout the world men and women, boys and girls, get themselves tattooed and pierced. And not just their ears. hey are participating in the modern fad of body art, which has its origins in antiquity, but which in recent decades as developed into some extreme forms 1 that are often quite disturbing. he intentional marking or mutilation of the human body under the guise of body art goes beyond simple tattoos or ear-piercing as adornment for women. For many, it is a personal expression of solidarity with a social cause, a trend that attracts predominately young people, driving them to ever wilder and more shocking expressions of what some term personal mutilation that includes: total-body tattoos, pierced eyelids, lips, noses, tongues, foreheads, and even disfigurement of the genitalia, in a never-ending quest for the most outrageous form of self-expression through what is commonly known as body art issue 7.4

2 HESE FORMS OF personal exhibition have spread rapidly throughout contemporary Western society, resulting in a secondary wave of participants (namely, the children of those who engaged in radical body art during 70s and 80s) who, like their parents and role models, are disfiguring their own bodies irrevocably, claiming as their justification personal freedom and a right to unlimited self-expression. In earlier generations, garish tattoos and unusual piercings were found almost exclusively only among members of social groups and subcultures that lurked at the fringes of mainstream society. Aside from your relatives who served in the military (which is definitely not a fringe subculture), chances are, neither of your parents nor any of your grandparents, aunts, or uncles in the case of those born before 1950 have tattoos or unusual piercings. But look around today and you will see a massive number of people especially young people who have become enamored of extreme tattoos and unusual piercings. his modern fad of body art permeates American society, affecting virtually every industry, age group, race, sex, and religion. Since many of these people occupy leadership and mentoring roles in the lives of children and young adults, such overt displays have an additional rebound effect by providing tacit justification sufficient to overcome the doubts of those who are unsure if they want to dabble in the body art fad themselves, resulting in yet a third generation of pierced and tattooed bodies. Although this increasing tendency to radically disfigure oneself seems, from a personal and subjective perspective, to be a willful distortion of what John Paul II calls in Veritatis Splendor 2 the truth about man as a creature and the image of Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body& spirit, and make holiness perfect thefear in of God. 2Cor. 7:1 God, it is insufficient and unwise to let popular opinion alone determine the moral value of the modern phenomenon of body art. o properly understand the moral character of extreme body art and recognize the implications it holds for Catholic family life and for society as a whole, it s first necessary to explore the nature of the act in the eyes of its supporters. hen one can better evaluate it, based on Scripture and radition and the teachings of the Catholic Church. 3 Assisted by Divine Revelation, the guidance of the Church established by Christ, and our own gift of reason, we are called by God to be public witnesses to the supreme truth about man and his vocation to holiness, which is rooted in the dignity of the human person. his witness, through the power of the Holy Spirit, has the ability to enlighten others so that they may formulate judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the Creator (CCC 1783), regarding complicated moral issues, such as body art. By consciously choosing, and encouraging others to choose, to exercise this genuine freedom as an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man, 4 men and women will find their true identity in Christ, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). But, people have always done it. Among the first justifications cited by supporters of the body art movement is the appeal to historical evidence. he people-have-always-done-it argument does, of course, contain an element of truth. One need not search far amid the records of ancient civilizations to find ample evidence of a nearly universal acceptance of body adornment by paint, jewelry, and body modifications including piercing, stretching of the lips, neck, and ears, and, of course, tattoos. hese body art practices in ancient cultures often provides archaeologists and anthropologists with important clues distinguishing various social strata within a society. his is applicable today in the study of primitive societies still extant today in remote regions of the globe. In Art in Primitive Societies, 5 Richard L. Anderson explains that, from cave dwellers to ancient Egyptians, the early Han people of China to Native Americans, a wide body of evidence exists showing that primitive humans consistently adorned themselves as part of their life in community. issue

3 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? (1 Corinthians 6:9-20) Anderson writes that although scholars disagree as to the particular range of motives and meanings surrounding such primal body art (differing in their specifics from culture to culture), certain commonalities and trends can be discerned in the body art customs of primitive cultures. Self-mutilation in antiquity was usually, though not always, practiced as an act of devotion to or repudiation of a god or elemental power (e.g., the sun). Another striking pattern revealed by anthropological research is that body art usually tends to be observed in primitive, not advanced, societies (whether in antiquity or today). Anderson points out that even in modern times, those cultures actively participating on a wide scale in radical body art (e.g., self-mutilation) tend to be developmentally stagnant and isolated from the industrialized world. 6 Anderson says that those peoples who have intentionally bridged the gap between ancient and modern customs and rituals often experience a certain acculturation on the economic, social, cultural, and artistic levels, largely emptying body art of its former religious, educational and aesthetic content. 7 hus, in appealing to the historical evidence, modern supporters of radical body art (e.g., piercing and tattoos) must either admit the religious and antiquated nature of their practice, or they must confirm it as a essentially arbitrary appropriation of external expression that is largely foreign to modern society. he Church Has No Business elling Me What I Can Do With My Own Body! Asecond common argument employed by proponents of the body art movement is that the Church should mind its own business and stop telling people what they can do with their own bodies and in the privacy of their own bedrooms, etc. his attitude, in addition to exhibiting a profound ignorance of the role of the Church in our life, is a kind of self-righteous, defiant demand for an autonomy, which is misunderstood to be mere freedom from coercion, rather than authentic freedom to choose objective truth and do what is good. 8 Particularly in America, this argument, at least at first glance, seems justifiable given the intense popular aversion to authority and the general hostility that reigns toward the notion of there being an absolute, objective truth by which everyone is obligated to live. Ironically, it s precisely because of this insistence on supremacy of personal authority and moral relativism that the Church must tirelessly remind all people to realize the efficacy of Christ as the voice of the truth about good and evil, as he is the only one who can answer in the fullness of truth, in all situations, in the most varied of circumstances. 9 In the words of the Second Vatican Council, the Church cannot cease from reproving... those harmful teachings and ways of acting which are in conflict with reason and with common human experience, and which cast man down from the noble state to which he is born. 10 When the Council Fathers recoil against all forms of mutilation per se, whether self-afflicted or imposed on others, it s because such acts violate the integrity of the human person and poison human society through intentional violation of the moral law as given by the Creator and accessible through reason and Revelation. 11 his supreme respect for bodily integrity must, in the case of personal adornment, be balanced against the honor given various forms of art as distinctively human form of expression which, when inspired by truth and love of beings... bears a certain likeness to God s activity in what he has created. 12 One of the direct by-products of many if not most forms of modern body art is vanity: an inordinate self-love related to the sin of pride. his is one reason why the Church warns us against the incipient moral danger associated with extreme forms of body art. And there is another issue to consider. While a good intention cannot make an evil act good, bad intention can render a good or neutral act evil. When confronted with this self-evident principle, some people attempt to justify personal mutilation with various relativistic theories that distort morality, such as proportionalism, physicalism, and the so-called fundamental option theory. According to the first theory, overall good and bad effects of mutilation on the individual and society must be weighed or proportioned to deter issue 7.4

4 mine if the act is itself good or evil, regardless of the intrinsic evil the act represents. his denies the possibility of objective evil and, as Pope John Paul II wrote in Veritatis Splendor, it supports an end justifies the means May the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit & soul & body be kept sound & blameless at the coming of our Lord JesusChrist. I hess: 5:23 mentality contrary to reason and Revelation. he second theory denies the very nature of the human person by suggesting that bodily mutilation isn t integrally determinative of personal morality, in a manner reminiscent of ancient gnosticism. his approach regards the body as a mere object, devoid of any intrinsic meaning of its own and dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise contrary to the fundamental unity of the human person. 13 he final distortion, the fundamental option theory, holds that so long as a person s inner core is oriented toward the good and true, specific and particular acts, such as body art involving personal mutilation, would be incapable of materially changing that fundamental option. In other words, if you re basically a good person who usually chooses to do what is right, if you happen to do something sinful, it s not in itself an enough to cause you to be seriously estranged from God. Why? Because you re basically a good person. he error here, as Pope John Paul II clearly explains in Veritatis Splendor, is in thinking that no particular immoral act can affect your core being, i.e., your substantial integrity [and] personal unity, as the Pope described it. hus, while the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has continually and consistently taught that all people are bound through genuine freedom to follow the judgment of conscience in determining their actions, 14 this directive must be viewed in light of accurate understanding of both freedom and conscience. he freedom referred to here is the authentic freedom of an individual exercising personal free will and political autonomy that is oriented toward the good of all, as an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man As opposed to what has long been considered to be socially acceptable, non-extreme, forms of adornment such as women s pierced ears, military tattoos, etc. 2 Available electronically in English and other languages at the Vatican Web site: 3 I.e., the authoritative guidelines for the morality of human actions, intended for reflection, instruction, correction and training in righteousness (c.f. 2 imothy 3:16). 4 Veritatis Splendor, Art in Primitive Societies (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979) Ibid., C.f., ibid., 180. Body art as a form of adornment that is ordered to the ultimate good of the person and to humanity, if it observes modesty and avoids vanity, and if it respects the fundamental integrity of the human person including the integrity of the body that kind of body art can be morally permissible. But this is quite distinct from personal mutilation that many of today s extreme tattoos and piercings entail. For Christians, the guideline we should follow is aptly expressed in Sacred Scripture: Your adornment should not be an external one... but rather the hidden character of the heart... which is precious in the sight of God (1 Peter 3:3-4). o apply this principle is to build up the Body of Christ, so that all people may grow up in every way into him who is the head, Christ (Eph. 4:15). And in applying it, we can discern between harmful (and even sinful) forms of body art versus acceptable and morally neutral forms. Never forget what St. Paul had to say about the sacredness of your body: Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:9-20). Rev. Mr. Robert S. Lukosh is a deacon in the Arch diocese of Portland Oregon. Contact him at rlukosh@yahoo.com. 8 C.f., Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, Ibid., Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II: he Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents; (Collegeville, IN: he Liturgical Press, 1992), volume 1; Gaudium et Spes, Ibid., CCC Veritatis Splendor, C.f. Patrick Madrid, Follow Your Conscience, Does the Bible Really say hat? Discovering Catholic eaching in Scripture (Cincinnati : Servant Books, 2006), pages Veritatis Splendor, 34. issue

5 R R RC C P What Is the eaching of the Catholic Church on attoos and Body Piercing? C Catholics United for the Faith esponse: attoos and acts of body piercing are not intrinsically evil. he Church offers principles by which Catholics can discern whether it is sinful to be tattooed or have one s body pierced in particular situations. WHA SACRED SCRIPURE HAS O SAY Some Protestant authors have argued that the Bible forbids tattoos and body piercing. hey typically cite the following verse: You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord (Lev. 19:28). References to this verse are not present in important magisterial documents and in the principal writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is the consensus of Catholic biblical commentators that this prohibition is not part of the unchanging moral law, but part of the ritual law specific to the Old estament. Many commentators believe that this prohibition was intended to separate Israel from its Canaanite neighbors; some believe that the cuttings in the flesh and tattoo marks to which the verse refers were part of idolatrous Canaanite worship. he context of the verse favors this interpretation. he preceding verse reads, You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard (Lev. 19:27) this prohibition is certainly not applied to members of the Church. he Church does not teach that Sacred Scripture forbids tattooing and body piercing, but the Church does offer principles by which to discern whether, in particular situations, it is sinful to be tattooed or have one s body pierced. P RESPEC FOR HEALH & BODILY INEGRIY more or less sinful depending upon the gravity of the risk. If a particular act involves mutilation if the act renders a bodily organ unable to perform its function the act is immoral (Catechism, no. 2297). CHARIY AND RESPEC FOR HE SOULS OF OHERS atholics must also consider the common good when they decide whether to be tattooed or have their bodies pierced. In certain instances for example, in indigenous cultures in which tattooing is a rite of passage to adulthood the common good practically demands that a person be tattooed.1 In the United States and other Western countries, however, considerations of the common good generally lead one away from being tattooed or having one s body parts2 pierced (as they are commonly regarded as socially unexeptable.) he question of whether an act of tattooing or body piercing hinders a Catholic s evangelizing mission leads to the broader question of whether such an act harms the souls of others. attoos whose words and images celebrate the demonic, are unchaste, or otherwise offend against charity are immoral. Even if a tattoo s words and images are not uncharitable in themselves, the act of obtaining a tattoo can be rendered immoral if done so with an evil intention for example, in order to spite one s parents or society (cf. Catechism, no. 1752). Persons considering body piercing should also be aware of the implicit messages that the particular act of piercing conveys in a particular time and place. Some acts of body piercing can imply approval for the immoral P he Fifth Commandment You shall not kill does not simply require respect for human life; it also compels Christians to respect the dignity of persons and to safeguard peace (see he Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos ). Respect for the dignity of persons includes, among other things, respect for the souls of others, for their health, and for their bodily integrity. Life and physical health, the Church teaches, are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good (Catechism, no. 2288). Prudence dictates that persons considering tattoos or body piercing research any health risks that may be involved. If a particular act of tattooing or body piercing entails a likely risk to health, it would be 24 issue 7.4

6 C homosexual lifestyle. Other acts of body piercing can imply active participation in, or a desire to participate in, other unchaste acts. In such cases, the acts of body piercing are immoral because they appear to manifest an approval of sin and thus scandalize others (cf. Catechism, no. 1868, 2284). P QUESIONS O CONSIDER erson considering getting tattoos or having their bodies pierced may want to reflect on the following questions: Does this particular act of tattooing or body piercing involve a risk to my health? Would this act mutilate me that is, would it inhibit the proper functioning of my skin or another organ of my body? Is the explicit message of my tattoo compatible with love of God and neighbor? Is the implicit message of my tattoo compatible with love of God and neighbor? Does it convey an implicitly unchaste message? Why do I want to get a tattoo or have my body pierced? If I am under the authority of my parents, would this act be an act of disobedience that would violate the Fourth Commandment? Would this particular act needlessly offend my family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, and thus hinder my ability to lead others to Christ and His Church? Can the expense involved be justified in light of the needs of my family, the Church, and the poor? In most cultural contexts in the United States, a woman s decision to have her ears pierced is compatible with respect for health and bodily integrity, charity, and respect for the souls of others. Other acts of piercing and tattooing are more open to question. he criteria above can help one come to a prayerful and prudent decision in one s particular circumstances. PRAYER OF S. HOMAS AQUINAS FOR YOUNG (AND NO-SO-YOUNG) CAHOLICS O LORD MY GOD, help me to be obedient without reserve, poor without servility, chaste without compromise, humble without pretense, joyful without depravity, serious without affectation, active without frivolty, submissive without bitterness, truthful without duplicity, fruitful in good works without presumption, quick to revive my neighbor without haughtiness, and quick to edify others by word and example without simulation. Grant me, O Lord, an ever-watchful heart that no alien thought can lure away from You; a noble heart that no base love can sully; an upright heart that no perverse intention can lead astray; an invincible heart that no distress can overcome; an unfettered heart that no impetuous desires can enchain. O Lord my God, also bestow upon me understanding to know You, zeal to seek You, wisdom to find You, a life that is pleasing to You, unshakable perseverance, and a hope that will one day take hold of You. May I do penance here below and patiently bear your chastisements. May I also receive the benefits of your grace, in order to taste your heavenly joys and contemplate your glory. AMEN. Clip this out and tape it to your bathroom mirror so you remebmer to pray it every morning. 1 In People on the Move (December 2003, pp ), a publication of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Fr. Mathias Bhuriya has written about the role of tattooing in the Adi-Vasi Bhalai nomadic Indian culture. See 003_93S/rc_pc_migrants_pom93S_bhuriya.html. 1 i.e., Obviously, not referring here to women s peirced ears. (Source: Catholics United For the Faith, issue