circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[Rob_s_Wife]

Do you know that’s the same thing abortion advocates say?

Big difference here is that the Church and God view abortion as murder and therefore morally wrong. Circ-ing my child is no where near the same as aborting him.

People care because the reasons for circing to some of us don’t make sense.

So it reduces chances of penile cancer. Girls have a greater chance of developing vulvar cancer but we do nothing to girls.

So it reduces chances of urinary tract infections. Girls have a MUCH greater chance of getting a UTI but we do nothing to girls.

It reduces chances of phimosis. Girls can also have attached labia that need the same steroid treatment boys with phimosis get, yet we do nothing to girls.

It reduces smegma. Girls have far more smegma but again, we do nothing to girls.

**Okay. I’ll point this out again and say treatment of boys should not be the same as treatment of girls because… they are NOT the same! **

---

At best, your argument is actually that we should clip girls too? hmm, if the same point were to be made that clipping girls would yield such benefits - would you be okay with it because then it would be treating the sexes the same?

---

So we subject our infant boys who are born with perfectly normal and healthy foreskins
**and vit k shots and vaccines and goodness knows what else supposedly because of something that may or may not ever happen. **

So, some of us wonder: WHY?
**Indeed! Some wonder why and decide they agree. Some wonder why and decide they don’t. **

We may be reading the same evidence. My interpretation of the evidence does not always agree with the author’s findings.

And the author may not agree with the medical communities interpretation of their findings either for that matter and the reverse also holds true.

---

To me, this says it all:
we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

**We can disagree with whether we want to do it for our children or not. But we simply cannot say that God is anything less than perfect and good and loving in His requirements of His people. The Church has since said it is not required of us, but that does not make it wrong to do it. I doubt the Church will ever say it is wrong because to do so would be to claim that God gave a command that was ethicly wrong and that is not possible of our God, who is all perfect and all knowing for all eternity. **

 

[kamz]

Big difference here is that the Church and God view abortion as murder and therefore morally wrong. Circ-ing my child is no where near the same as aborting him.

And the author may not agree with the medical communities interpretation of their findings either for that matter and the reverse also holds true.

---

To me, this says it all:
we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

**We can disagree with whether we want to do it for our children or not. But we simply cannot say that God is anything less than perfect and good and loving in His requirements of His people. The Church has since said it is not required of us, but that does not make it wrong to do it. I doubt the Church will ever say it is wrong because to do so would be to claim that God gave a command that was ethicly wrong and that is not possible of our God, who is all perfect and all knowing for all eternity. **

As always… Martha manages to say it so well:clapping:

 

[actorgirl]

When I found out I was having a boy, I knew I didn’t want to circumcise. I didn’t know much about Catholic tradititions, so I was happy to find it wasn’t one.

I asked my husband about it. he said he wan’ted our son to be cut. His reasons ranged from 1. he’ll look like me 2. he’ll get teased and 3. 'cause

Not good enough for me to cut my son’s goodies

After I showed him some research added to the fact the he really couldn’t think of a good reason, long story short, our son wasn’t cut.

But it is a personal decision.

 

[stadre]

To me, this says it all:
we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

**We can disagree with whether we want to do it for our children or not. But we simply cannot say that God is anything less than perfect and good and loving in His requirements of His people. The Church has since said it is not required of us, but that does not make it wrong to do it. I doubt the Church will ever say it is wrong because to do so would be to claim that God gave a command that was ethicly wrong and that is not possible of our God, who is all perfect and all knowing for all eternity. **

Well put!

 

[astegallrnc]

The medical benefits claimed for circumcision have either been completely disproven or called so into question that no one should be claiming to circumcise for medical reasons.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The medical beneifts have not been disproven. Perhaps you have read a definitive study though.

As always… Martha manages to say it so well:clapping:

Yep!!! Thanks Martha!!!

 

[MariaG]

Okay, to take on the Mayo Clinic point by point:

Okay. And let’s take your anaylysis of the information point by point. Your text has been edited for space, link still in place.

First they say that circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis, but that cleaning an intact penis is also very simple…

I agree with you cleaning the penis, when the parent is doing so, is easy either way. It is “easier” but ignorance and ease of doing something should not be a primary motivating factor.

Next they say that intact boys may be at up to 10 times more risk for UTIs than circumcised boys. That’s one way to say it. The other way to say it is that 96-99% of all intact boys still don’t get UTIs…

Actually another way to say this is if they may be 10 times more likely would be 90% of the kids would not be affected. Or 10% will. Put that in 100 kids and you have a 10 kids out of every 100 will get a UTI.

It is obvious you do not feel this is a compelling medical reason, but for many here, this is one of the first pieces of information that is significant and we completely disagree with your assessment it is not a valid medical reason that is part of the reason for a decision to circumcize. 1 out of every 10 kids.

Next, they say that it may prevent future penile problems, and goes on to describe phimosis, though without naming it… the man himself regards the non-retractability of his foreskin as a problem or he is having painful or unpleasant symptoms, then circumcision can be pursued. The difference here is that a) there is a medical reason and b) the person who owns the organ is making his own decisions.

The thing that strikes me most here, I will address first. Puberty is between 11 and 15. Let’s place it at 13. To say that the “person who owns the organ is making his own decisions” is a statement that I disagree with. A teenage child will certainly be consulted. A teenage child May also be able to make a decision based on the doctors information alone, but a child that age will look to the parents for guidance, if not abdicate the decision entirely.

This here may be the most significant reason, many here pursue circumcision. A baby does not remember circumcision but the children and men who have to have one, never, ever forget. Men who had to have this done, have always recommended to others to have it done when babies and wish their parents had done so.

Choosing a procedure for future medical benefits is appropriate or no one would ever choose to do things like get shots for their kids even though there are very serious complications that can occur.

I completely disagree with you that this is not a significant medical reason. Avoiding future pychological damage as well as the physical pain is very significant medical reason.

Next comes decreased risk of penile cancer…

Again, although it appears that this one is not conclusive either way. However, saying that because it only happens when one is very old and to very few, I find unacceptable. So I again disagree that this is not a compelling medical reason to pursue circumcision.

Finally they pull out the newest one…

Well here is an unbiased view coming .

there may be a decreased risk of HIV (and other STD) transmission among circumcised men.

And while I did not find this a compelling medical reason, I do not dismiss that others might, but do find your ability to say that men can choose to get circumsized to be ? I am not sure. Ignorant? Blithe? Uncaring?

You obviously have no one close to you who has had to have this procedure done when they can remember it or you would not constantly mention as if it were no big thing.

I could post pages, reams more stuff…but I think I’ve made my point. The medical benefits claimed for circumcision have either been completely disproven or called so into question that no one should be claiming to circumcise for medical reasons.

And I am sure I could come up with reasons that I believe refute you.

The point is, we are reading the same information but coming to separate conclusions. Your OPINION will not change, that is obvious. But my OPINION, diagrees with yours based on the same information.

 

[sanctareparata]

Actually another way to say this is if they may be 10 times more likely would be 90% of the kids would not be affected. Or 10% will. Put that in 100 kids and you have a 10 kids out of every 100 will get a UTI.

This is *not *another way to say this, because this (the above) is not accurate. Intact boys have a 1-1.5% chance of contracting a UTI. Circ’ed children have a lesser chance of this, but of course, still contract UTIs. It isn’t 10 out of 100 at all.

 

[MariaG]

This is *not *another way to say this, because this (the above) is not accurate. Intact boys have a 1-1.5% chance of contracting a UTI. Circ’ed children have a lesser chance of this, but of course, still contract UTIs. It isn’t 10 out of 100 at all.

What is not accurate the 10 times?

Or are you saying that the incidence of UTI is only 1% so in circumcized boys it would only be a tenth of a percent that gets them compared to 1%?

That would be the 99% she quoted?

So it would be that there is a 1% to 4% chance of UTI so circed boys have a .1% - .4% chance?

Or another way to put it would be 1-4 out of 100 uncirced boys will get UTI’s but 1-4 out of 1000 circed boys will get them?

 

[sanctareparata]

What is not accurate the 10 times?

Or are you saying that the incidence of UTI is only 1% so in circumcized boys it would only be a tenth of a percent that gets them compared to 1%?

That would be the 99% she quoted?

So it would be that there is a 1% to 4% chance of UTI so circed boys have a .1% - .4% chance?

Or another way to put it would be 1-4 out of 100 uncirced boys will get UTI’s but 1-4 out of 1000 circed boys will get them?

Get percentages out of your head.

Intact boys are ten times more likely to develop a UTI in the first year of life than their circumcised counterparts. Ten TIMES more, not ten PERCENT more.

A study published in the Lancet said the following:

Circed males have a .188% chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life. 99.812% will never develop a UTI in the first year of life.
Intact males have a .702% chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life. 99.298% will never develop a UTI in the first year of life.

So, roughly (and generously) speaking, intact males have ten times a higher chance, but not ten times a higher percentage. What “they” don’t tell you when “they” speak about UTIs is that for both cut or uncut, the chances are piddly small either way.

 

[astegallrnc]

What “they” don’t tell you when “they” speak about UTIs is that for both cut or uncut, the chances are piddly small either way.

They don’t talk about absolute incidence. Just remember… significance is in the eye of the beholder.

Any fair assessment of its significance must consider the following: While it is true that circumcision confers a 10-fold risk reduction of UTI, the absolute incidence of UTI is low, with 0.15% of circumcised and 1.5% of uncircumcised male infants developing such an infection. Put an-other way, UTI does not occur in 99.85% of circumcised infant males and in 98.5% of un-circumcised infant boys. Source

Fix shared this article on another thread. The article contains valid points IMHO, though I disagree with the authors’ intrepretation of therapeutic. Don’t medical professionals use medical dictionaries?

 

[sanctareparata]

PENILE CANCER: Again, although it appears that this one is not conclusive either way. However, saying that because it only happens when one is very old and to very few, I find unacceptable. So I again disagree that this is not a compelling medical reason to pursue circumcision.

Statistically speaking, penile cancer rates are higher in the US (a very circed nation) and almost non existent in nations that do not circ - Denmark, for instance. One wonders if it’s just because Americans (men and doctors) don’t know how to properly care for a foreskin.

Again, statistically speaking, penile cancer is so rare that men get breast cancer at higher rates.

 

[MariaG]

Get percentages out of your head.

Intact boys are ten times more likely to develop a UTI in the first year of life than their circumcised counterparts. Ten TIMES more, not ten PERCENT more.

A study published in the Lancet said the following:

Circed males have a .188% chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life. 99.812% will never develop a UTI in the first year of life.
Intact males have a .702% chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life. 99.298% will never develop a UTI in the first year of life.

So, roughly (and generously) speaking, intact males have ten times a higher chance, but not ten times a higher percentage. What “they” don’t tell you when “they” speak about UTIs is that for both cut or uncut, the chances are piddly small either way.

Respectfully, and I know you meant to be nice about this, but when someone is basing their decisions on information, the numbers are in fact important.

If you read my post, I did not say 10% in my second post.

But I am a numbers person and .188% times 10 (ten times greater chance) is not less than one percent but 1.8%. This considered statistically insignificant, I know.

I know when I researched it years ago, the only figure cited was 10 times more likely and I never read the figures that pop up so easily now on a search online, so I do find it compelling that the chances are insignificant for both, although I do not know if that would have changed my decision, since I do infact tend to be a worst case scenario kind of person.

 

[astegallrnc]

One wonders if it’s just because Americans (men and doctors) don’t know how to properly care for a foreskin.

I wonder about the role of high-risk genital HPV infection though the role of HPV in penile cancer is not conclusive.

 

[MariaG]

Statistically speaking, penile cancer rates are higher in the US (a very circed nation) and almost non existent in nations that do not circ - Denmark, for instance. One wonders if it’s just because Americans (men and doctors) don’t know how to properly care for a foreskin.

Again, statistically speaking, penile cancer is so rare that men get breast cancer at higher rates.

Also, one wonders what role diet plays in penile Cancer.

 

[Brendan]

I provided a quote of the whole section here to avoid anyone claiming I edited it to my preference, and bolded the most relevant parts. Preventing possible future illness does not meet the definition of “strictly therapeutic medical reasons” because in order to be therapeutic, care must be alleviating a current problem. Hygiene concerns do not meet this definition either. And frankly, my sons have never had any problems in this regard. Circumcision, in the absence of a medical problem, does meet the definition of a directly intended amputation or mutilation.

Dusky,

We know for certain that circumcision does not fall under this category.

God commanded Abraham to be circumcised and to circumcise all his household.

God does not (and cannot) violate the Moral Law. Therefore circumcision does not violate the Moral Law.

To claim that circumcision somehow violates the Moral Law would mean that either you hold to

1. The Moral Law is can be changed ( that violates Catholic Teaching on Moral Law)

or

1. That God sinned ( also a violation of Catholic Teaching)

 

[sanctareparata]

If you read my post, I did not say 10% in my second post.

I know you didn’t. Sorry - I was kind of ignoring the second post and just starting over from the beginning with your first post…to make it easier on my own brain.

 

[sanctareparata]

Dusky,

We know for certain that circumcision does not fall under this category.

God commanded Abraham to be circumcised and to circumcise all his household.

God does not (and cannot) violate the Moral Law. Therefore circumcision does not violate the Moral Law.

To claim that circumcision somehow violates the Moral Law would mean that either you hold to

1. The Moral Law is can be changed ( that violates Catholic Teaching on Moral Law)

or

1. That God sinned ( also a violation of Catholic Teaching)

See, now this I just don’t get and probably won’t till someone can really, in-depth-like, explain it to me. And so far several theologians and priests I’ve asked cannot explain it to me and just get tongue-tied.

God allowed intermarriage in OT times. He allowed concubines. He even commanded His people to destroy entire nations - not just the men but the women and innocent children. That is certainly something that would be considered immoral today - to intentionally kill an innocent child for the reason that his parents were God-haters. So why cannot God command circumcision and then revoke it?

As for the circumcision itself, in that time only the end of the foreskin was snipped off. That’s it. The glans was still for the most part, covered.

Nowadays the entire foreskin is ripped from the head of the glans (it is fused in infancy & childhood) and then ALL of it is removed. Not even remotely the same.

One (in OT times) caused brief pain in the quick cut but left the integrity of the covered glans and the man was still entitled to his God-given sensitivity in his glans and the God-given funtionality of the foreskin (sliding back and forth in intercourse, protection of the glans, etc.)

Nowadays both are completely and entirely lost, and rather than just a quick “snip” it’s a several minute, very painful, procedure and both foreskin and glans have to heal from the trauma inflicted on them.

So I don’t get the comparisons there - one was a sign in the cut flesh, the other is clearly a medical surgical procedure. ETA: One preserved the integrity of the organ (a snip off the end but leaving the foreskin present) whereas the other removes that God-given part completely.

But that wasn’t my original point. It is: Why can God command other things which today are considered immoral? Again, ex: the killing of the innocents.

 

[kamz]

See, now this I just don’t get and probably won’t till someone can really, in-depth-like, explain it to me. And so far several theologians and priests I’ve asked cannot explain it to me and just get tongue-tied.

God allowed intermarriage in OT times. He allowed concubines. He even commanded His people to destroy entire nations - not just the men but the women and innocent children. That is certainly something that would be considered immoral today - to intentionally kill an innocent child for the reason that his parents were God-haters. So why cannot God command circumcision and then revoke it?

As for the circumcision itself, in that time only the end of the foreskin was snipped off. That’s it. The glans was still for the most part, covered.

Nowadays the entire foreskin is ripped from the head of the glans (it is fused in infancy & childhood) and then ALL of it is removed. Not even remotely the same.

One (in OT times) caused brief pain in the quick cut but left the integrity of the covered glans and the man was still entitled to his God-given sensitivity in his glans and the God-given functionality of the foreskin (sliding back and forth in intercourse, protection of the glans, etc.)

Nowadays both are completely and entirely lost, and rather than just a quick “snip” it’s a several minute, very painful, procedure and both foreskin and glans have to heal from the trauma inflicted on them.

So I don’t get the comparisons there - one was a sign in the cut flesh, the other is clearly a medical surgical procedure. ETA: One preserved the integrity of the organ (a snip off the end but leaving the foreskin present) whereas the other removes that God-given part completely.

But that wasn’t my original point. It is: Why can God command other things which today are considered immoral? Again, ex: the killing of the innocents.

(several minutes… very painful procedure)???

I witnessed my 3 sons circs and as I have said a thousand times before… with the method we chose… the plastibell… no pain at all…our first son did have the cut because they didn’t have the plastibell in that hospital but again… the doctor let me stand right next to him and offer him my finger to suck on and the child made a face like he might cry and then sucked away at my finger… it wasn’t traumatic at all… now… my dad at 69 who hates… hates… hates… pain and handles it not well is being told that the only way to help his pain would be an adult circ… he has said over and over to my mom ( why didn’t my mom just have this done when I was born?.. I would be over and done with it and never have to deal with this in my life) and please don’t say anything negative about this man… I love and adore him and I don’t blame him for not wanting to have this done… he just doesn’t handle pain well… never has and he is too nervous at this point to have something done… but what I’m saying is… it most certainly can come back in older age to be a problem and to say “well, now he is an adult he gets to make the choice for himself” my dads words for that are hog wash… he has wished the last 15 yrs that his mom would have had this done when he was a baby. There is No right or Wrong… no sin… no " I’m the better parent because I didn’t or did circ my son" I can’t even understand why this continues to be debated… and why we who have chosen to circ our sons have to keep standing up for our rights while those who have chosen to not circ stand over us with this " I did the right thing" behavior… lets get over it already and quit trying to point fingers:banghead:

 

[kamz]

#2 Jan 9, '07, 2:46 pm
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,051

Re: Why is circumcision okay?

---

Circumcision was established by God and practiced by God’s people in obedience to him for thousands of years until it was superceded by baptism. Given that, we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

Even so, parents who object to non-therapeutic circumcision have the right to refuse to circumcise their sons as a matter of conscience. They should, however, take care not to make their arguments against circumcision in such ways that it casts aspersion on the legitimate choice of other parents to circumcise.

---

“The future starts today, not tomorrow.” – John Paul II

Michelle Arnold
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Michelle Arnold
Find all posts by Michelle Arnold
Add Michelle Arnold to Your Buddy List

 

[kamz]

See, now this I just don’t get and probably won’t till someone can really, in-depth-like, explain it to me. And so far several theologians and priests I’ve asked cannot explain it to me and just get tongue-tied.

God allowed intermarriage in OT times. He allowed concubines. He even commanded His people to destroy entire nations - not just the men but the women and innocent children. That is certainly something that would be considered immoral today - to intentionally kill an innocent child for the reason that his parents were God-haters. So why cannot God command circumcision and then revoke it?

As for the circumcision itself, in that time only the end of the foreskin was snipped off. That’s it. The glans was still for the most part, covered.

Nowadays the entire foreskin is ripped from the head of the glans (it is fused in infancy & childhood) and then ALL of it is removed. Not even remotely the same.

One (in OT times) caused brief pain in the quick cut but left the integrity of the covered glans and the man was still entitled to his God-given sensitivity in his glans and the God-given funtionality of the foreskin (sliding back and forth in intercourse, protection of the glans, etc.)

Nowadays both are completely and entirely lost, and rather than just a quick “snip” it’s a several minute, very painful, procedure and both foreskin and glans have to heal from the trauma inflicted on them.

So I don’t get the comparisons there - one was a sign in the cut flesh, the other is clearly a medical surgical procedure. ETA: One preserved the integrity of the organ (a snip off the end but leaving the foreskin present) whereas the other removes that God-given part completely.

But that wasn’t my original point. It is: Why can God command other things which today are considered immoral? Again, ex: the killing of the innocents.

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 3, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,051

Re: Why is circumcision okay?

---

Circumcision was established by God and practiced by God’s people in obedience to him for thousands of years until it was superceded by baptism. Given that, we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

Even so, parents who object to non-therapeutic circumcision have the right to refuse to circumcise their sons as a matter of conscience. They should, however, take care not to make their arguments against circumcision in such ways that it casts aspersion on the legitimate choice of other parents to circumcise.

---

“The future starts today, not tomorrow.” – John Paul II

Michelle Arnold