Tattooing and body piercing have been embraced as popular forms of body art by various cultures throughout history.1 The two body modification practices, often mentioned together in the relevant literature, have been applied all around the world since antiquity, while they gained popularity in the Western world during the second half of the 20th century, popularity that still keeps gradually increasing. However, due to the sceptical or even negative stance of some of the academic world towards them, the truth is that the scholarly attention they have received is inversely proportional to their popularity. As Swami and Harris point out, despite the evident mainstreaming of body modification, the topic has received little scholarly interest, possibly because it has been academically viewed as “a deviant interest in deviance”.’2 Regardless, however, of the little attention these two forms of body modification have received, it is a fact that changing one’s body undoubtedly raises ethical concerns, as humans do not merely have a body but are embodied beings, intertwining their identity with their corporeal form. Modifying my body, therefore, ‘is inseparable from modifying the person who I am.’3
Although the fact that tattoos and piercings get increasingly popular, especially among younger people, makes the need for Christian ethics to address them more imperative than ever, scholarly scepticism is even bigger within academic moral theology. Generally, Church Fathers, Church representatives, and Christian ethicists have not dealt with the moral evaluation of body modification, while none of the two original Christian traditions, the Catholic and the Orthodox,4 has expressed official positions on the topics of tattooing and piercing specifically. This has led to varying theological views on the matter, since, for some, body modification is evil, ‘as denying the goodness of the body that God has provided,’ while, for others, the prohibition of such practices, ‘as positive expressions of personal autonomy,’ would violate basic human rights.5 Nevertheless, the human body has been not only appreciated but even glorified by both traditions. Although the American theologian Karen O’Donnell’s statement that Christianity is ‘a religion of the body,’6 might be somewhat bold and excessive, Christianity undoubtedly is a religion of both soul and body. This is why both Catholic and Orthodox theologies are full of references to the human flesh, its nature, its relationship with the soul, and humanity’s proper attitude towards it. Furthermore, relevant concepts, such as the integrity of the human body as well as its beauty and beautification have particularly concerned Christian thinkers over time, whilst viewpoints on the issue of the mutilation of the flesh, albeit not many, have been expressed. These concepts, among others, are examined in the quest of identifying each denomination’s ethical considerations on the subject in research.
The ultimate goal, therefore, of this work is to determine whether or not Orthodox and Catholic Christian ethics could take up an explicit position to accept tattooing and piercing as interventions that are made to the human body. Based on pre-modern and modern literature of both Christian denominations and considering each one’s viewpoint on the human body and humanity’s relation towards it, the research attempts to compare and contrast Orthodox and Catholic perspectives by understanding and presenting their similarities and differences on the subject. Even more, modern bioethics, including modern Christian bioethics too, tend to increasingly deal with issues, such as human enhancement, transhumanism, and genetic intervention, which, although extremely important and topical, come after body modification. How could I know, after all, whether I am allowed to change my genome if I do not know whether I can change my body parts? Or how could I answer the question of whether I can go beyond my body’s biological capabilities if I do not know whether, and to what extent, I can modify it in the first place? In this regard, the present book with its findings not only addresses the critical topic of body modification but will hopefully also be a useful ‘tool’ for moral theology, both Catholic and Orthodox, to ethically evaluate these contemporary bioethical dilemmas.
The work is a comparative one that not only it identifies Catholic and Orthodox views, but also analyses the differences and similarities between the two moral theologies on the matter. Professor of Comparative Theology, Catherine Cornille, in her book Meaning and Method in Comparative Theology, stresses that there are two different kinds of comparative theological work: ‘a comparative enterprise within the secular study of the history of religions … and comparative theology as a more strictly theological enterprise … which ordinarily studies not one tradition alone but two or more, compared on theological grounds.’7 Cornille goes on to say that the scholar of the latter (comparative theology) attempts to ‘deepen and advance theological truth,’ while the one of the former (comparative religion) is primarily driven by curiosity and desire to intellectually understand a particular phenomenon ‘in light of a larger whole.’8 Based on this distinction, the present work belongs to the category of comparative theology, since its goal is not only to historically present the phenomenon of body modification but to theologically delve into it, aiming for a deeper understanding. However, it also examines how the understanding of both traditions has historically evolved over the centuries, as such an effort offers a better picture of the position of both on the subject. Hence, although the work belongs to the ‘comparative theology’ category, it can be said that it also touches upon the ‘comparative religion’ one.
Moreover, as Cornille, again, remarks, ‘Comparative theology, like the comparative study of religions, focuses on both the similarities and differences between the objects compared.’9 However, the objects of this work, the distinct moral evaluations of tattooing and piercing by Catholic and Orthodox ethics, cannot be directly compared, as they have not been explicitly addressed by either tradition. Hence, the objects of comparison must be broader theological and ethical concepts that are relevant to these moral evaluations and can lead to them. These concepts are the related issues of the theology of the human body, its beauty and beautification, and bodily modification within the two traditions. By first analysing and comparing these underlying ‘objects’, we can infer the potential similarities and differences in the moral evaluations of tattooing and piercing.
In terms of structure, the book begins with a non-theological chapter that analyses body modification in general as well as tattooing, and body piercing more specifically. A short chapter regarding the separation of the two traditions as well as their current and future relationships introduces the theological and religious themes of the work. Biblical research follows, i.e. the presentation of the relevant biblical references, which presents all the biblical passages that are relevant to the subject of the book, accompanied by some first comments and interpretations by representatives of both traditions. After the biblical research, the two separate chapters of theological examination on the issue are presented, as each tradition’s pertinent views are individually examined and quoted, in an effort to reach a conclusion about each one’s moral views on the subject. The exact same method is followed in both chapters, while each of the two consists of an introduction and four sections. Finally, the next and last chapter, which serves as the conclusion of the book, is the comparison of the examined perspectives. Beyond, however, a mere listing of relevant similarities and differences, this chapter evaluates, synthesizes, and integrates the work’s findings in an attempt to contribute to the inter-faith dialogue between the Catholic and the Orthodox Christendom and, hopefully, bring them closer together.
Beth Kapes, ‘Piercing and Tattoos’, in The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, Vol. 4, ed. by Jacqueline L. Longe (New York: Thomson/Gale, 2002), pp. 2598–2600 (p. 2598).
V Swami and AS Harris, ‘Body Art: Tattooing and Piercing’, in Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human Appearance, ed. by Thomas F. Cash (London: Elsevier, 2012), pp. 58–65 (p. 58).
Søren Holm, ‘The Modification of the Human Body: Controversies’, in Technoscience and Citizenship: Ethics and Governance in the Digital Society, ed. by Ana Delgado (Cham: Springer, 2016), pp. 49–61 (p. 49).
While Orthodoxy is mainly divided into Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, this paper examines the theological perspectives on the subject at hand largely as they are found in the former. For more on the organisation and the divisions of Orthodox Christianity, see Ronald Robertson, The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 1999).
Mark J. Cherry, ‘Foundations of Christian Bioethics: Metaphysical, Conceptual, and Biblical’, Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 29.1 (2023), 2.
Karen O’Donnell, Broken Bodies: The Eucharist, Mary and the Body in Trauma Theology (London: SCM Press, 2019), p. 1.
Catherine Cornille, Meaning and Method in Comparative Theology (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2020), pp. 9–10.
Cornille, p. 10.
Cornille, p. 16.