Free Will. We use it to marry and have children, to accept or reject employment, even to elect public officials. Our life is a series of choices determined by the use of our Free Will. But should that same Free Will decide our death?
Since the appearance of “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian in the 1980s, the chorus of those supporting doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia has grown markedly. Below is a definition of the two terms:
· Doctor-assisted suicide: The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841)
· Euthanasia: “The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
The difference between the two is determined by who is the person administering the death act. If it is the patient, it is assisted-suicide; if it is by someone other than the patient, it is euthanasia.
Many argue that if we have Free Will in all other aspects of our lives, shouldn’t we also have it with respect to our deaths. In their view suffering is inhuman and an insult to the dignity of Man. “I shouldn’t have to suffer; nor should any of my loved ones have to suffer.”
The Church’s response to this plea for control over death is a resounding “No”.
A few days ago Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in Lourdes to honor the 150 year anniversary of Mary’s apparitions to a 14-year-old girl and future saint, Bernadette Soubirous. The Mass was well-attended by the infirmed, who hoped to be cured by the site’s miraculous healing waters. During the Mass the Pope took the opportunity to speak out against assisted-suicide and euthanasia, making it clear that death can only come at “the hour chosen by God”. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/798631.html) Many will accuse the pontiff and the Catholic Church of insensitivity. The Church will be labeled antiquated and will be accused of ignoring Man’s pain. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
Man’s plight in this fallen state is one of suffering. We are racked by Sin and are confronted with daily crosses and trials. On most days we want to raise our fist to God and scream, “You don’t know what I’m going through.” But we can’t because we are Christians. Unlike any other religion that has existed on this earth, Christianity teaches the Incarnation. God became Man to live as a man. He experienced all the sufferings, temptations, and trials we undergo daily. And ultimately, he suffered the greatest indignity an individual can undergo: torture and abuse followed by murder at the hands of evil people. Yes, a Jew or a Muslim can accuse God of ignorance of Man’s condition, but we Christians cannot. Christ’s life, and most importantly his death, proves that our Lord understands our suffering first hand.
Perhaps nobody better understood how we imitate Christ most when we suffer than did Pope John Paul II. The final years of his life were spent battling Parkinson’s syndrome. With each day it became more difficult to control his movements and constant shaking. Nevertheless, he continued to travel, to meet the flock, and to be filmed by the media. Many cringed at the sight of the stricken pontiff, openly questioning whether he had any dignity. “Isn’t he embarrassed” they would ask?
No. He wasn’t. And he was teaching us that we shouldn’t be embarrassed either. Suffering is a part of the human condition, and as Pope Benedict XVI noted in his Lourdes Mass, “Dignity never abandons the sick person.” If suffering were de-humanizing then Christ would never have accepted crucifixion. His acceptance not only freed us from Sin, but provided us with an example of how we must accept suffering as redemptive. Yes, it is painful to suffer and to watch others suffer, but we must always remember: we did not give ourselves life; therefore, we cannot decide when that life should end. Only He who is responsible for life can decide the hour of death.
Donald Tremblay
Catholic Agenda
Catholic Agenda
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
With Friends Like These...
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have had full diplomatic relations since the early 1930s. Each year the two nations exchange billions of dollars through trade in goods such as oil, machinery and transport vehicles, food and live animals, etc . . . (http://www.saudia-online.com/saudi.htm) During the Gulf War (1990-1991) the Saudi kingdom allowed the U.S. (and its coalition partners) to use its territory as a military base to deploy forces against Saddam Hussein. In 2006, the NY Times reported that the U.S. “maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world,” and that one of the three biggest buyers was Saudi Arabia.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/01cnd-weapons.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Clearly, the 75-year relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been mutually beneficial, which is why economic cooperation between the two nations continues to expand.
Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the image of Saudi Arabia as a western ally with the stark reality of the kingdom’s enforcement of Wahabism, “an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
During a Frontline investigation of Wahabism a few years ago, PBS interviewed several Islamists about the Saudi religion and its teachings. One person named Ahmed Ali who was raised in Saudi Arabia gave an example of what is taught to ninth-grade students:
“’The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.' Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.’ This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html)
Why do I raise this issue today? CBS News reports that Saudi Arabia’s “top judiciary official [Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan ] has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.” (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/12/world/main4443857.shtml)
During a radio program recently al-Lihedan stated the following to his listeners:
“’What does the owner of these networks think, when he provides seduction, obscenity and vulgarity?’ he said.
‘‘Those calling for corrupt beliefs, certainly it's permissible to kill them,’ he said. ‘Those calling for sedition, those who are able to prevent it but don't, it is permissible to kill them.’"
This fatwa will come as little surprise to anyone who has followed the Saudi religious police.
In June 2005 Christian World News reported that “over the past three months, close to 100 Christians—all of them guest workers in Saudi Arabia —have been arrested by Saudi religious police. The guest workers’ crime? Worshipping Jesus Christ.” (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/061005SaudiArabia.aspx) That’s right.
Non-Saudi’s prevented from freely worshipping their religions. But if you think that is bad, it’s even worse if you are a Saudi who rejects Islam: “Recently, a Saudi member of the religious police cut his daughter’s tongue off and burned her to death for converting to Christianity.” (http://viktorb.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/christian-persecution-saudi-arabia/)
Politics do makes strange bedfellows and it is naïve to believe that we can only trade with those who agree with us on cultural and religious issues. But shouldn’t we be doing more to object to this mistreatment of others on religious grounds? At some point a nation has to look at itself and wonder whether it is slowly selling its soul for material benefits and comforts. We need to speak out more against this inhumanity. And although things won’t change overnight, we need to remember an ancient Chinese proverb: “Even the longest of journeys begins with a single step.”
Donald Tremblay
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thank You, Camille
Finally one of them has admitted it. At last an abortion supporter acknowledges reality: “’I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.’” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html Wow! Camille Paglia’s confession in a recent Salon.com column must have set the ears of our nation’s pro-abortion lobby ringing.
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Imagine one of the most-respected and most-popular liberal feminist academics admitting, in the words of lifesitenews.com author Tim Waggoner, “that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important ‘right’, as she does.” Unbelievable. Excuse me if I sound giddy, but the image of abortion supporters trying to weasel their way around Paglia’s comments is amusing.
Paglia admits that in her view a woman’s right to choose supersedes a baby’s right to life. “’As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body.’" Unlike most abortion supporters who throw red herrings by questioning when life begins in the womb, Paglia unflinchingly faces the ethical ramifications of her belief: “’Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’”
In a final slap at her fellow-abortion supporters, Paglia criticized those who support abortion but reject the death-penalty: “’I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?’”
As aptly pointed out by Waggoner, Paglia’s testimony exposes the utilitarianism that is increasingly infecting our culture. He also points out two other examples of it:
• The medical community recently acknowledged that “brain death” may not be an accurate way to determine if a person has died. In response, instead of questioning the concept of “vital organ donation”, Waggoner says a recent New England Journal of Medicine article argued that “the piece instead suggest[ed] that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.”
• A report published in early 2008 in the highly-acclaimed bioethics journal The Hastings Center Report addressed infanticide. According to Waggoner “the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be ‘unbearable’ suffering.” He adds that “under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.”
Individuals who recognize the evil of utilitarianism must stay alert because our society is clearly gravitating toward using the philosophical method as the barometer for gauging a decision’s morality.
Donald Tremblay
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Does Blame Have an Expiration Date?
Today the NY Daily News announced that the NY Giants and the NY Jets are considering selling naming-rights to their new stadium to Allianz—a German insurance company with ties to Nazi Germany. Jewish groups are outraged. (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/09/10/2008-09-10_considering_firm_with_nazi_ties_for_nami.html)
Below are a few facts the Daily News printed about Allianz:
• It was the insurer of the Auschwitz death camp's facilities and personnel.
• Its chief executive, Kurt Schmitt, served as Hitler's economics minister.
• Like other insurers, it refused to pay back Jews' life insurance policies and sent the money to the Nazis instead.
• The company did pay restitution over the years.
The issue raises an important moral question: Are their certain crimes for which people will never be forgiven?
As Christians we are taught to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Regardless of the crime’s horror or the evil of the injustice committed, our Lord tells us we must forgive.
Yet, in the case of the Holocaust when should the Jewish people be expected to forgive? Is more than fifty years of seeking vengeance against all involved in this crime-against-humanity enough? Or is there no amount of reparation capable of mitigating the anger towards the guilty? Perhaps the crime committed was so evil that all involved should be forced to wear a metaphorical Scarlet Letter for as long as they exist?
Complicating matters regarding the naming rights for the new stadium is that NY Giants co-owner, the Tisch family, is Jewish. Has the Tisch family decided that Allianz has paid enough reparation over the years to warrant acceptance? Or is it simply a matter of economics and the Tisch family is willing to “sell out” for the right price? Considering the Tischs’ reputation as active supporters of Jewish philanthropy the sellout accusation seems highly unlikely.
So when is enough, enough?
I would be lying if I said I had the answer.
Donald Tremblay
Below are a few facts the Daily News printed about Allianz:
• It was the insurer of the Auschwitz death camp's facilities and personnel.
• Its chief executive, Kurt Schmitt, served as Hitler's economics minister.
• Like other insurers, it refused to pay back Jews' life insurance policies and sent the money to the Nazis instead.
• The company did pay restitution over the years.
The issue raises an important moral question: Are their certain crimes for which people will never be forgiven?
As Christians we are taught to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Regardless of the crime’s horror or the evil of the injustice committed, our Lord tells us we must forgive.
Yet, in the case of the Holocaust when should the Jewish people be expected to forgive? Is more than fifty years of seeking vengeance against all involved in this crime-against-humanity enough? Or is there no amount of reparation capable of mitigating the anger towards the guilty? Perhaps the crime committed was so evil that all involved should be forced to wear a metaphorical Scarlet Letter for as long as they exist?
Complicating matters regarding the naming rights for the new stadium is that NY Giants co-owner, the Tisch family, is Jewish. Has the Tisch family decided that Allianz has paid enough reparation over the years to warrant acceptance? Or is it simply a matter of economics and the Tisch family is willing to “sell out” for the right price? Considering the Tischs’ reputation as active supporters of Jewish philanthropy the sellout accusation seems highly unlikely.
So when is enough, enough?
I would be lying if I said I had the answer.
Donald Tremblay
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I Now Pronounce You...
Step 2 in California’s plan to destroy the sacrament of marriage has begun.
Step 1 was California’s highest court ruling that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. In step 2 all words having a connection to traditional marriage will be cleansed from the state’s books. Just ask Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, CA.
According to worldnetdaily.com, a couple just married by Pastor Bird made the mistake of signing their marriage license “ ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ next to ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. “
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768) Not so fast said Placer County. "I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.
California is using an Orwellian method to redefine the definition of marriage. The theory is that if you remove the offending words from people’s vocabularies, over time you will expunge the concepts themselves from people’s minds. Hence, if the younger generations don’t hear “bride” and “groom”, it will never occur to them that they should hear anything other than “Party A” and “Party B”. (Incidentally, if this hasn’t happened already, look for the same approach to be taken with regards to children. The terms “parents”, “mother”, and “father” will be rejected in favor of “guardian” and “caregiver”.)
One other observation: I am surprised that a group such as the polygamists have not tried to capitalize on the California court’s rejection of traditional marriage. If a court has decided that marriage cannot be defined as only between a man and a woman, then why can’t a man justifiably have five or ten wives? Once you’ve removed the restriction from marriage’s definition, you have no moral grounds to ban any other voluntary arrangement.
Donald Tremblay
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Perhaps no better term summarizes our flawed analysis of life than the Law of Unintended Consequences. How often we make confident choices in life only to be confronted days, even years, later by unanticipated results. The feminist movement of the late 60s and early 70s demanded women’s equality, particularly sexual equality. And through their bra-burnings and assorted protests, they were wildly successful with regards to sexual liberation.
Enter The Law of Unintended Consequences.
What nobody anticipated as a result of this sexual freedom is that women would become viewed as sexual commodities. Worse still is that women would treat themselves as commodities.
Today’s New York Daily News features a story in its Gossip section about shock jock Howard Stern. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_howard_stern_in_virgin_territory.html) Always looking to up the ante of guests willing to demoralize themselves for 15 minutes of fame, Stern today will auction off the virginity of a 22-year-old San Diego girl. Apparently, this girl has decided that prostituting herself will be a lucrative way for her to pay-off her student loans.
Oh, excuse me. Paying off debt? That is a different story. I thought she was doing it merely as a backdoor means of becoming a reality star. How fiscally responsible of her.
"We live in a capitalist society," she tells us. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?"
And there you go. Once you cheapen sexuality as this society has, you turn it into a commodity that can be bartered like any other good or service. The reason for selling it becomes irrelevant.
How proud her parents must be. An event in a woman’s life that a dinosaur like me believes should be special is warped into a financial transaction.
Wonderful.
Donald Tremblay
Enter The Law of Unintended Consequences.
What nobody anticipated as a result of this sexual freedom is that women would become viewed as sexual commodities. Worse still is that women would treat themselves as commodities.
Today’s New York Daily News features a story in its Gossip section about shock jock Howard Stern. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/09/2008-09-09_howard_stern_in_virgin_territory.html) Always looking to up the ante of guests willing to demoralize themselves for 15 minutes of fame, Stern today will auction off the virginity of a 22-year-old San Diego girl. Apparently, this girl has decided that prostituting herself will be a lucrative way for her to pay-off her student loans.
Oh, excuse me. Paying off debt? That is a different story. I thought she was doing it merely as a backdoor means of becoming a reality star. How fiscally responsible of her.
"We live in a capitalist society," she tells us. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?"
And there you go. Once you cheapen sexuality as this society has, you turn it into a commodity that can be bartered like any other good or service. The reason for selling it becomes irrelevant.
How proud her parents must be. An event in a woman’s life that a dinosaur like me believes should be special is warped into a financial transaction.
Wonderful.
Donald Tremblay
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tattooed
I’m amazed at the number of people today, particularly women, who have tattoos. Personally I don’t think they make much sense. What enamors you today may not five or ten years from now. But to each his own, I guess.
The September 7, 2008, issue of the National Catholic Register asks an interesting question about tattoos: Are they moral? Does one deface the temple of the Holy Spirit when they add any tattoo, or does it depend on what tattoo is chosen? Is the morality of tattoos gender-specific?
One gentleman who regrets getting a tattoo is quoted in the article, Tattoo Taboos, comparing a tattoo to “putting graffiti on a work of art.” On the other hand another gentleman views his tattoos as an evangelizing ice-breaker. He has nearly 20 tattoos on his right forearm, including “Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, a pair of hands praying with a rosary, the angel of death, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a vine.” Men have always worn tattoos, so any increase in their numbers is not as noticeable. The difference today is that the practice of “body art” has become fashionable, resulting in a staggering number of tattooed young women. (I confess: Although I may not like tattoos on a man, I find it especially distasteful on a woman. The female body is God’s most beautiful creation and adding artwork mars its beauty.)
Perhaps the gentleman with the 20 tattoos on his arm is correct and religious body art encourages spiritual inquiry . . . but I doubt it. One of the photos posted alongside the NCR article is of a young man with tattoos on both of his legs. On the calf of his left leg is the Virgin Mary, while on the right calf is St. Joseph holding the baby Jesus. More than honoring God or encouraging theological discussion, this “artistry” serves to draw attention to the wearer . . . which I believe is ultimately the goal of someone who gets a tattoo. And if that’s the case then a tattoo-wearer may not only be guilty of marring the body, but of surrendering to Pride as well.
The jury may still be out as to the morality of tattoos, but do yourself a favor regardless: If you want a visible expression of your faith, wear a cross or carry around a pair of rosary beads.
Donald Tremblay
The September 7, 2008, issue of the National Catholic Register asks an interesting question about tattoos: Are they moral? Does one deface the temple of the Holy Spirit when they add any tattoo, or does it depend on what tattoo is chosen? Is the morality of tattoos gender-specific?
One gentleman who regrets getting a tattoo is quoted in the article, Tattoo Taboos, comparing a tattoo to “putting graffiti on a work of art.” On the other hand another gentleman views his tattoos as an evangelizing ice-breaker. He has nearly 20 tattoos on his right forearm, including “Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, a pair of hands praying with a rosary, the angel of death, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a vine.” Men have always worn tattoos, so any increase in their numbers is not as noticeable. The difference today is that the practice of “body art” has become fashionable, resulting in a staggering number of tattooed young women. (I confess: Although I may not like tattoos on a man, I find it especially distasteful on a woman. The female body is God’s most beautiful creation and adding artwork mars its beauty.)
Perhaps the gentleman with the 20 tattoos on his arm is correct and religious body art encourages spiritual inquiry . . . but I doubt it. One of the photos posted alongside the NCR article is of a young man with tattoos on both of his legs. On the calf of his left leg is the Virgin Mary, while on the right calf is St. Joseph holding the baby Jesus. More than honoring God or encouraging theological discussion, this “artistry” serves to draw attention to the wearer . . . which I believe is ultimately the goal of someone who gets a tattoo. And if that’s the case then a tattoo-wearer may not only be guilty of marring the body, but of surrendering to Pride as well.
The jury may still be out as to the morality of tattoos, but do yourself a favor regardless: If you want a visible expression of your faith, wear a cross or carry around a pair of rosary beads.
Donald Tremblay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
