Body Modification: A Theological Reflection

In modern society, it seems fashionable to sport a tattoo which reflects an individual's personal tastes. Many critics of body modification argue that such choices may point to psychological misconduct, whether that be perceived as rebellion, gang culture, ostentatious flamboyancy, or self-mutilation. Not to mention the health risks which are naturally undertaken. The religious critics involved generally agree, but as would be expected refer mainly to the argument that our bodies are gifted to us by God and although we possess free will, they are not ours to tamper with (St Paul says in 1 Cor 6 that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit). Reference is also made to Leviticus 19 where Jewish Halakhah states that no incision is to be made on the body.

 I would like to reflect on these arguments theologically in this post and argue that tattoos, if undertaken with a conscientiousness attitude can be a valid and moral choice. I would like to mention before I write this that I am in no way condoning tattoos or piercings that are performed illegally to persons under the age of 18, nor am I intending to be disrespectful or judgemental to anyone reading, whether you have tattoos and/or piercings or not.

Many Christians in the modern era discourage tattoos because of the overt condemnation of them in the Biblical passage of Leviticus 19. Yet, I think this is significantly taken out of context. After reading an article by Lorne Zelyk, one can clearly understand the historical and cultural aspects to the command presented in this passage. Jews were prohibited from any idolatrous tattoos, markings or piercings - therefore through reading this article, one comes to understand that tattoos and piercings were prevalent in ancient Israel, and indeed was the practiced custom in antiquity.

One could argue that if we are assigning historical references to the modern practice of piercing, the fact that I have pierced my ear knowingly and wittingly may align with the practice of piercing ears to signify possession in antiquity. Just as masters pierced the ears of their slaves, it could be argued that I have pierced my own ear to illustrate my free will and self-governing. However Enlightened and modern this concept may sound, it is not one which I agree with. Although it is true that I do have free will, and indeed I had the free will to have my ear pierced, I did not do it to illustrate some inner feeling. I did it because I like the aesthetic 'beauty' (I have encompassed the word to show that beauty is a subjective concept). Piercings seem less aesthetically beautiful than tattoos in my estimation. A tattoo has a lot more to say conceptually than a piercing does. Although both practices effectively makes holes in the body and have similar health risks, a tattoo can be warranted to be called 'body art'.

In tackling the modern criticisms of tattooing, firstly I do not think that all tattooing signifies rebellion. From a Christian standpoint, if an eighteen year old still living with their parents deliberately disobeys their parents' wishes on the subject of a tattoo, then the disrespect on the part of the child towards the parents is immoral. Yet, this child of the parents is legally an adult, so in a secular context the decision to get a tattoo would largely be moral, but frowned upon. This is then of course rebellion against the parents. However, if someone like the person in question is getting a tattoo, I would question their maturity in getting a tattoo in the the first place if their sole motivation is rebellion. The decision to get a tattoo made in an appropriate, mature context can do so without being considered rebellious.

Secondly, not all tattooing signifies gang culture. It has been suggested that those with tattoos are more likely to be violent. Violence is hardly something that happens because you have ink injected into your skin. Perhaps those with a violent disposition might be more likely to get tattoos, but this is hardly a proportionate argument for claiming that all people who get tattoos will be violent. It seems incredulous.

Thirdly, on the issue of ostentatious flamboyance, or more simply put 'showing off'. In today's Western culture, showing off is almost an ingrained feature. With our scrutinised celebrities, our top earning and high flying jobs, and our fascination with the spectacular; there is to an extent, an inevitability that showing off will occur. Behind this is perhaps the need, or wish to be accepted or recognised, which in itself is not necessarily bad. It is when this wish overshadows one's self-esteem that the negativity arises. Tattoos should not be undertaken in an attempt to boost one's social credit or simply out of boredom. Critics often admonish the bodily places chosen by those who undertake tattoos. A popular place is the 'sleeve' of one's arms, a place seen often, and fairly hard to hide. Such an area can make it difficult to get certain jobs, and in my estimation, often distracts from the person themself if the area is too fully covered. 'Less is more' as the saying goes, and with regards to tattoos I think this to be generally wise. That said, there are many 'sleeve' tattoos which I have seen which are highly aesthetically pleasing, and although I would not choose one for myself, I admire, or at least can appreciate them on others.
Other infamous flamboyant places include the lower back (the culturally named 'tramp stamp'), the inner lower lip, neck, breasts, upper thighs, hands and feet. The same concept applies for intimate piercings. All of these places are either sexually suggestive, or clearly visible, which implies that the person who has undertaken them wishes them to be seen, whether intimately or communally. I hope I have conveyed no judgement in explaining these areas often chosen with those undertaking tattoos. It is not the place of the tattoo, but the motivation on the individual's part for getting tattoos that, I think, holds some weight in whether the decision to get a tattoo is of a positive moral standing.

Fourthly, on the issue of self-mutilation. It is true that tattoos hurt, and the pain obviously varies from person to person due to pain tolerance and threshold. I would sincerely hope that a person would not undergo a tattoo simply for the physical pain it causes. This indeed is self-mutilation both on a physical and psychological level and also masochistic. I have heard from many people, and indeed can verify myself, that the pain caused by a tattoo is 'blocked out' (or at least, the brain becomes accustomed to it, or ignores the pain as a coping mechanism) as the tattoo is being imprinted on the skin. On a biological level, a tattoo involves injecting ink under layers of skin. It is, in scientific terms, a foreign body. Self-mutilation can also be perceived in other ways including potential damage to the skin, risk of contracting blood disease, scarring, or infection. Of course, I recognise the health risks involved and I assent to those, and I think after care is a crucial, and often overlooked aspect to the process of tattooing and piercing. 
However, I would like to suggest an unorthodox approach to this issue. In terms of the healing process, skin is miraculous. It can take a very short time for skin to repair itself, and white blood cells rush to the site of injury very quickly in order to do so. Although with tattooing one is wittingly damaging their body, the body is also responsible for healing itself. In terms of a theological approach to healing therefore I would suggest that if we properly care for our bodies after undergoing a (morally viable) tattoo, we cannot be considered to be self-mutilating, for we are not intending our bodies to remain damaged nor are we neglecting the care our body needs.

One might question what I mean by a morally viable tattoo. Here I would like to address the sorts of tattoos that I think are moral on a theological and practical level. I do not think that intentionally disrespectful or offensive tattoos of any kind are moral. (If a person happen to take offence to a tattoo out of personal distaste, this is a different matter and does not warrant the 'branding' of immorality). 
A morally viable tattoo is therefore one which has been thought about for a significant period of time (my suggestion would be a year at least). This thought process involves bodily location, size of tattoo, and aesthetics (style, detailing, shape, shading/colour etc). Just as a piece of art requires a lot of planning and prototyping before the real thing comes to life, so too does a tattoo require this level of attention to detail. Perhaps even more so, as it's more difficult to remove should that decision ever be desired (yet in preventative terms, I would hope this would be avoided if one takes enough time to think about it). Another thing that I think that is important for a tattoo to be considered morally viable is for the person desiring a tattoo to be at least 18 years old (legally you have to be that age anyway), but I also think that it is important for the person to be mature and forward-looking in their decision. There's no point getting a tattoo you love when you're 18, then realising when you're 40 that you hate it. Something with a universal message or meaning is more likely to withstand the test of time than the latest One Direction lyric.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of religious tattoos, particularly from a Catholic standpoint. Most Catholic articles I have read on the internet suggest that religious tattoos, including rosaries, crucifixes, and icons are not necessarily immoral, but distasteful. On some social level, I find myself agreeing. Yet, on a theological level I do not. Outward signs of worship are common in individual Christian practice. Can a tattoo not be an extension of this devotion? The permanency of it surely shows the level of commitment made. When I was 18 and nervously getting my first tattoo, I saw a man who looked to be in his thirties getting a tattoo across the entirety of his back of a pair of hands enjoined in prayer, with a rosary entwined within them. Aesthetically, it was one of the most beautiful and memorable tattoos I have ever seen. Of course, I did not know anything about the religiosity of this man. Yet it was nice to wonder that perhaps it gave him strength to knowingly have this symbol of faith on his back across such a vast area of his body, literally permeating his skin. I can understand the disrespect some Christians may feel towards this, but I have few qualms with it, so long as the sentiment behind getting the tattoo is genuine.

I myself have a tattoo motivated by a religious sentiment. My patron saint is St Therese of Lisieux and her well-known sign is the manifestation of roses, and so I have two roses above my wrist to remind me of her intercessory help and guidance. The leaves surrounding the roses are in the shape of hearts to remind me of divine love and coincidentally, the tattoo artist who designed it for me drew seven leaves - a significant Biblical number, yet one which was not planned by myself (I let her have some creative space as she did have a degree in fine art!) The comfort and the significance of the tattoo for me is a very special one, and indeed a very personal one. 

All in all, whether body modification is moral or not is not the real issue at stake - it will be undertaken by millions of people regardless. It is the motivation, the devotion and longevity of our decisions that are at stake here, as in so many areas of life; and I would hope that those considering tattoos would not get them done for any superficial reason, but to reflect a meaningful purpose or belief in their lives.