Baptisim Replacing Circumcision

[malphono]

It’s quite a leap to cite a priest (whether his cause is approved for canonization or not) and say basically that he defines what the Church teaches. The section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains “The Teaching Office” of the Church (888-892) does not include singular priests (unless that priest be the pope).

The foreskin/prepuce is an organ which is meant to cover the glans for many reasons, the removal of which does deny a person the proper use of the organ…since the organ would no longer be there once removed. To say it is permissible to remove this organ (or any organ) for non-therapeutic reasons is the same as saying that God got things wrong when He created men with foreskins…so we have to fix it for Him.

To remove this organ for non-therapeutic reasons is simply against the moral law as stated in the Catechism.

The practice of circumcision is not the “removal” of any organ. It removes a piece of skin. In its own way, it’s somewhat the same as an apendectomy, in that it removes nothing intrinsic. Circumcision may not be optimal, but it is certainly not against any natural or “moral” law.

 

[Brendan]

To remove this organ for non-therapeutic reasons is simply against the moral law as stated in the Catechism.

– Nicole

Actually, it CANNOT be against the Moral Law. The Moral Law is unchanging and defined by God at the beginning of time.

If circumcision was against the Moral Law, God could not have commanded it to be done. God does not act contrary to the Moral Law, pretty much by defintion.

 

[Brendan]

There are number of anti-circumcision arguments which are based on the assertion that biologically, circumcision inhibits the proper function of the penis. I think we can make a valid argument against circumcision on those grounds.

That debate really isn’t appropriate for Liturgy and Sacraments, though!

That would be true, if and only if, one considers the normal and proper function of the penis to be other than urination and procreation.

Are those functions removed when the foreskin is removed.

 

[Brendan]

It’s quite a leap to cite a priest (whether his cause is approved for canonization or not) and say basically that he defines what the Church teaches.
– Nicole

Nicole, a dictionary states what the definition is. It does not create the defintion.

Webster, for example, did not define the word ‘apple’, he published the existing defintion.

And he should be considered an authority on Church teachings. Fr. Hardon was ON the commitee that WROTE the 1992 Catechism in the first place. He was the primary author the it’s predecessor, the 1975 Cathechism (placed in that role by direct instruction from Pope Paul VI)

Also, if you are interested, his dictionary carries both an Imprimatur (+ Joesph OKeefe) and a Nilhl Obstat ( William Smith, S.T.D, Censor Liborum). I got my copy at the seminary when I was a diaconal student. It was one of the required books (along with the Bible and the CCC) that all students were supposed to own.

 

[puzzleannie]

Paul was addressing first century Jewish converts and explaining to the Judaizers why the law of circumcision is no longer binding, in the context of why the myriad of Jewish law outside the decalogue is no longer binding. OP is asking for 21st century parents in another context. Yes circumcision prefigures baptism as do the cleansing rituals and family laws of Judaism prefigure baptism and the other sacraments. But to say there is a direct replacement is inaccurate other than that both are initiation rituals.

OP is inferring that Christians who chose circumcision are doing so with some religious basis, which is simply untrue, and those who do are mistaken.

 

[jpjd]

The foreskin/prepuce is an organ which is meant to cover the glans for many reasons, the removal of which does deny a person the proper use of the organ

Incorrect. The removal of the foreskin has no effect on the proper use of the organ.

…since the organ would no longer be there once removed.

Incorrect. The organ is still there once the foreskin is removed. Only the foreskin is removed, not the organ.

To say it is permissible to remove this organ (or any organ) for non-therapeutic reasons is the same as saying that God got things wrong when He created men with foreskins.

Incorrect. Your statement would only make sense if circumcision today was performed for the purpose of trying to correct a perceived error of God in creating the foreskin. This is not the reason that circumcisions are performed.

The great question is, why is circumcision performed today? For Christians, it is not for religious reasons. Nor is it to correct a perceived error of God.

Ask any parents of a newborn son why they had their son circumcised. 99.9% of the time, they will say it is because that is what our society does. The new Dad was circumcised, Grandpa was circumcised, and on back through the centuries. When my sons were born (over a decade ago), we had them circumcised for only one reason: because that is what males in our society look like. It’s that simple. If it was the case that our society was one of uncircumcised males, we would not have had our sons circumcised, because there was no other reason to have it done.

The greater question is, how did this cultural tradition of circumcision begin? I speculate it dates back to Biblical times of Jewish circumcision. I think the practiced continued among Christians even though the reason for it no longer existed.

 

[yablabo]

You know, applying the same logic to the case of female circumcision (in its various forms)…if only the prepuce, clitoris or labia minora are removed, it is not mutilation because the woman can still urinate and reproduce.

The prepuce/foreskin is an organ with a function respective to other organs around it. It is not merely a “piece of skin,” it has a specialized purpose; and even if it is simply a “piece of skin” according to the Catechism, it still can’t be cut off unless it is diseased.

It’s false to say that God has commanded and can command nothing against the natural law, since the natural law can be set aside by God for a greater purpose. For example, putting the ban on peoples in the Old Testament or commanding circumcision. God can also set aside natural law as evidenced by miracles. However, God can command nothing against His revealed law.

The fact that circumcision was practiced by the Jews at the command of God does not contradict God’s revealed law. Since the promulgation of the Gospel, however, this Jewish practice has become unlawful (as evidenced in the Council of Florence which I quoted in a previous post). That leaves no reason to practice circumcision any longer (except in the case of disease).

How can one say, also, that it follows logic to say that what God has created in a specific order can be made better by taking something out of that order?

– Nicole

 

[Brendan]

The prepuce/foreskin is an organ with a function respective to other organs around it. It is not merely a “piece of skin,” it has a specialized purpose; and even if it is simply a “piece of skin” according to the Catechism, it still can’t be cut off unless it is diseased.

Sheesh, using your definition, it is immoral to trim fingernails or shave

It’s false to say that God has commanded and can command nothing against the natural law, since the natural law can be set aside by God for a greater purpose. For example, putting the ban on peoples in the Old Testament or commanding circumcision. God can also set aside natural law as evidenced by miracles. However, God can command nothing against His revealed law.

Perhaps you should read your Catechism

1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

. Natural Law is the Moral Law written into the hearts of men. It describes what is intriniscally evil. What you are describing are the Physical Laws. God does set those aside in miraculous events.

God does not, and cannot, set aside Natural Law. Note that by it’s very essence, it hinges upon the desire for God and submission to Him. For God to violate the Natural Law is for God not to desire Himself. That is a contradiction.

 

[Brendan]

You know, applying the same logic to the case of female circumcision (in its various forms)…if only the prepuce, clitoris or labia minora are removed, it is not mutilation because the woman can still urinate and reproduce.

Do you consider the function of the clitoris to be that of urination? If so how do you defend that biologically?

Is the function of the clitoris reproductive? If so, how so.

Or does the clitoris have another function in the marital act? One that is destroyed in the mutilitation process ( and thus meeting the Church’s definition)

 

[Annika]

Do you consider the function of the clitoris to be that of urination? If so how do you defend that biologically?

Is the function of the clitoris reproductive? If so, how so.

Or does the clitoris have another function in the marital act? One that is destroyed in the mutilitation process ( and thus meeting the Church’s definition)

My husband’s (clean, aesthetically pleasing) foreskin serves the same purpose and has the same function as my clitoris. I am thankful to God that we are both intact.

 

[yablabo]

Sheesh, using your definition, it is immoral to trim fingernails or shave

Fingernails and hair are not organs, so, what I’m saying about circumcision has nothing to do with them.

– Nicole

 

[Brendan]

Fingernails and hair are not organs,
– Nicole

And neither is the foreskin

 

[EasterJoy]

And neither is the foreskin

Actually, all of the skin is considered an organ.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, all of the skin is considered an organ.

Yes, and that is why the Church would consider the removal of all of the skin to be mulilation.

But that is not what happens in a circumcision.