circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[sunnyday]

If I really honestly consider this to be immoral and abusive, would it be moral of me to mind my own bees wax? And besides, I am not calling CPS on you…I am offering information! All I have done here is offer arguments against circumcision of healthy infants, from both scientific/medical and Catholic perspective. Some people might be wanting to ask themselves why they are SO invested in cutting healthy, functioning parts of off innocent, healthy newborns. I know why I am so invested in my arguments. I truly believe I can help protect some children from something I think is wrong.

Anyway, here are the sources I promised for the comments about pain and stress/trauma responses in babies being circumcised:

Gunnar, M. et al., “Adrenocortical Activity and Behavioral Distress in Human Newborns,” Developmental Psychobiology 21 (1988): 297-310;

Malone, S., Gunnar, M., & Fisch, R., “Adrenocortical and Behavioral Responses to Limb Restraint in Human Neonates,” Developmental Psychobiology 18 (1985): 435-46.

Ryan, C. & Finer, N., “Changing Attitudes and Practices Regarding Local Analgesia for Newborn Circumcision,” Pediatrics 94 (1994): 232.

Howard, C., Howard, F., & Weitzman, M., “Acetaminophen Analgesis in Neonatal Circumcision: The Effect on Pain,” Pediatrics 93 (1994): 645.

Benini, F. et al., “Topical Anesthesia during Circumcision in Newborn Infants,” Journal of the American Medical Association 270 (1993): 850-3.

Gunnar, M. et al., “Coping with Aversive Stimulation in the Neonatal Period: Quiet Sleep and Plasma Cortisol Levels during Recovery from Circumcision,” Child Development 56 (1985): 824-34.

Williamson, P. & Williamson, M., “Physiologic Stress Reduction by a Local Anesthetic during Newborn Circumcision,” Pediatrics 71 (1983): 40.

Stang, H. et al., “Local Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision,” Journal of the American Medical Association 259 (1988): 1510.

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was established by God and practiced by God’s people in obedience to him for thousands of years until it was superceded by baptism.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

---

 

[duskyjewel]

Yes, that’s been posted about six times…I disagree. And as I said, individual apologists are not “the Church.” There are extremely educated theologians who argue that abortion, divorce and remarriage, and artificial birth control are all acceptable within the Catholic faith. I disagree with them too.

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

---

 

[actorgirl]

IMHO I think a lot of people (maybe not any people on this board) but a lot of people in the states do it , as my husband failed reasoning “'because”

Almost every person I told said “Ew! It’s going to look funny” My response was “Funnier than normal?”

 

[kamz]

Originally Posted by jess7396
I firmly believe that it is sinful to cut off any healthy, functioning part of another person’s body without their consent.

reply by Robswife:
I do not feel I have sinned in having my sons circ’d and neither does the Church.

Did God make all little boys in need of immediate surgical correction? I think not .

reply by Robswife:
I don’t know about others, but I do not do it immediately and believe that some boys, for various health reasons, should never have it done. We do lots of things to these blessings as soon as they are born that the vast majority do not need. (vit k shots or pku testing for example) They are done as prevention for all babies for the sake of the slim number of children who do need them.

I understand for those who are unaware on the issue (I was once, hence my first son is circ.ed),

reply by Robswife:
I must say I really resent the notion that because I don’t make the same choice as you, I must just be ignorant of the issue. I am not. I have looked at the issues and feel having our sons circ’d is the best choice.

but those who would have it done for cosmetic reasons, I just don’t “get” that on a Catholic.

reply by Robswife:
Please refer to my post #7 about that. I really don’t think it’s just cosmetic (at least not for us) and it might be clearer to others if this is rephrased. Fwiw, I come from a family where none of the men are circ’d. They thought it was rather odd we did the boys, but didn’t seem to care either way. I’ve never had, and don’t plan to ever have, a conversation about how satisfied they are with their penis.

…do you realize that there is not a single major medical organization which recommends routine infant circumcision?

reply by Robswife:
I don’t think anyone on the board so far as recommended it be routine?

All of those same medical organizations also state the chance of problems are very slim (very near the same chance as problems for uncirc’d) when parents do decide to have their sons circ’d. The major deciding factor for problems is the method used and general health. Just like the major deciding factor for problems in uncirc’d infants is the care of the penis and general health.

---

Martha
hs-ing mama to 6 boys & 2 girls so far
marthaamdg.wordpress.com/

 

[astegallrnc]

Not only that, but as has been pointed out, today much more tissue is unnecessarily removed than what was removed back in the days of the OT

Not on my son.

I quoted a post i found when i searched, and a source for it is supplied. There is nothing misleading. Regardless, the portion from the Catechism seems pretty clear.

But I don’t consider circumsion non-therapeutic, mutilation, or amputation.

Because I can actually back up my side, I am uncharitable?

You seem very concerned about this issue and have provided your evidence. But IMO, this seems a bit uncharitable and unnecessary, “I love my country, but this is one area where Americans are just wacked”.

Scientific research is nothing less than the human quest for the truth about God’s world.

The significance of the evidence is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

I respect differing opinons, but please be charitable. I am left with the impression that some posters assume those of us who circ our sons are uneducated (based on the references to research) and give little thought to decisions concerning the health and well-being of our children. We’ve cited our reasons, and there is little to add.

God bless!

 

[MooMooLohrer]

This should be done ONLY once the foreskin becomes retractable on its own! Never to an infant. The foreskin and glans are fused at birth, and separate over time naturally. (This is also one reason why circumcision as practiced today is so brutal. They literally have to skin the baby’s penis to get the foreskin off!) If you pull it back forcefully before it is ready, you will injure your son and could cause scar tissue, which will cause you tons of problems later. If the intact penis is mistreated, then it can indeed become very problematic.

As for those who claim their sons never cried or even fell asleep… once again I can only talk about scientific research here and not opinion… when studies were done, it was found that not only do newborns feel pain, they feel it more acutely than adults or even older children. Also, that numbing medications, while helpful, are not very effective during the most painful parts of the procedure. Think about it…they put a topical numbing medication on the penis, but they are detaching the inner layers of skin from one another…the topical med doesn’t soak through. And, the “sleep” state that some babies seem to fall into during their circumcision was proven to actually be a shock reaction, wherein the trauma was so great that the baby’s brain shut down his consciousness in order to get him away from what he could not escape. Shock and trauma shut-down reactions were also observed in babies who seemed to stay awake but were very quiet. Sources to follow…

THANK YOU for saying this. It’s a little known fact that needs to be well known. Just because they don’t cry doesn’t mean they’re not in tremendous agony.

 

[fix]

The significance of the evidence is a matter of interpretation and opinion.

I respect differing opinons, but please be charitable. I am left with the impression that some posters assume those of us who circ our sons are uneducated (based on the references to research) and give little thought to decisions concerning the health and well-being of our children. We’ve cited our reasons, and there is little to add.

God bless!

That is the point. No one has shown the Church forbids medical circumcision. Individuals may hold that it is not therapuetic, but there is no evidence it is morally wrong.

I have observed the Church allows many types of surgical procedures that are seen as preventive and disallows other types and it seems to depend on certain moral theological principles.

Preventive removal of a uterous that is not currently pathologic because it is deemed to cause a problem if pregnancy occurs would be condemned by the Church. Tonsills are removed when they are not infected because they have been a chronic problem yet the Church does not call that mutilation. Wisdom teeth have been routinely removed prior to eruption and yet I hear no condemnation of mutilation for that either.

Not to mention medical studies are viewed by practitioners not only as so called evidence based science but through the lens of experience and judgment.

 

[MariaG]

I never said amputating a limb. I never said that removing the foreskin was the same as amputating a limb.

.

The common usage of the word amputate refer to limbs of a body or a tree.

am·pu·tate http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif /ˈæmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngpyʊˌteɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationam-pyoo-teyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing. 1.to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery. 2.to prune, lop off, or remove: Because of space limitations the editor amputated the last two paragraphs of the news report. 3.Obsolete. to prune, as branches of trees.

Would you were to refer to a circumcized boy as an amputee?

 

[MariaG]

I am with you. Circumsizing is torture for a newborn.

It seems that this particular thread/debate will continue for a long time…most of us trying to point out our reasons/opinions for or against. There are only opinions and not to make anyone feel bad, however, some take it wrong. LOL! …oh well…

Why exactly are words like torture suppose used for then?

If your intent is as you state, maybe you should not use such loaded words and instead get your point across with words like very painful?

tor·ture http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/ˈtɔrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtʃər/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationtawr-cher]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*noun, verb, ***-tured, -tur·ing. **
*–noun *1.the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

So are those who choose to circumsize inflicting excriating pain as punishment? Revenge? or just plain cruel?

Or was torture not the word you should have used?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I don’t get why people who don’t want to hear opinions are on discussion boards.

ha.

is it Christian to ignore published research that has been provided and shows that one’s opinion may be (is most likely) wrong?

No one is doing that. What they have said is that they did not come to the same conclusion as you after seeing the same studies.

You have not stated a single “right” or “truth”. You have stated your opinion and that’s all it is - an opinion.

the problem is that too may people can’t conceive of something that is a “norm” actually being less than the right course of action.
Just because the Church is not set against it, does not mean it is something everyone should do.

Agreed! It is not for everyone. No one here is saying everyone should be circ’d.

Why is it ok for parents to aesthetically alter their child’s body, because the child can’t say no? What about giving a newborn a tattoo?

Again Kamz was nice enough to repost my previous reply to a similiar query. If the tattoo might have medical benefit and be done humanely - I just might be okay with it. My dh has often considered getting a tattoo stating he is type 1 diabetic and allergic to penicillian…

Not only that, but as has been pointed out, today much more tissue is unnecessarily removed than what was removed back in the days of the OT.

that is not relivant either. did God tell them how to do it or just say “do this”? … I don’t remember. the best this point says is that circ is perfectly okay if done by the jewish tradition.

I Because I am not changing my opinion, but bringing in resources to support it, this is not a debate?

**No. Because you make it personal with inflamatory remarks rather than sticking to the facts and accepting that the opposing side sees things differently - that is not how debate is done. Well with the exception of pres. elections. **

my points are backed up by the best standard we have…scientific research.
MY standard is the Church. And the Church does not in any way condemn the practice of circ-ing sons. The Church does not view it as an amputation or mutilation. That is YOUR view of it, which you are certainly welcome to, but it is not the Church’s view.

Finally something that Rob’sWife said that I have been meaning to address, though the thread went another way:

Our point is that since girls tend to have bigger issues with both UTIs and hygiene, and yet no one advocates circumcision to solve those, no one should be circumcising boys ostensibly to solve their lesser problems with these issues. Plus, as I have said many times and posted the backup for it, circumcision does not solve those problems anyway.

You miss the point. IF clipping a girl were to be seen as a solution to those problems - would you be for clipping girls? Again you hedge the question. Again the closest you can come to this issue is that it is okay if done in the old Jewish tradition.

THANK YOU for saying this. It’s a little known fact that needs to be well known. Just because they don’t cry doesn’t mean they’re not in tremendous agony.

I agree. However, it can’t be assumed they are in shock either. A mother knows her child very well and I know pain, fear, or trauma. If I didn’t with the first, you can be assured I certainly have enough experience after 3 or 4 sons to know it by the time my 6th came along.

That is the point. No one has shown the Church forbids medical circumcision. Individuals may hold that it is not therapuetic, but there is no evidence it is morally wrong.

Agree. If anything there is evidence it is morally neutral.

I have observed the Church allows many types of surgical procedures that are seen as preventive and disallows other types and it seems to depend on certain moral theological principles.

Very true.

Not to mention medical studies are viewed by practitioners not only as so called evidence based science but through the lens of experience and judgment.
VERY true. And a good dr. uses that as their base of knowledge. We have seen 3 different urologist over the years for our sons’ circs and they all had their own sons circ’d. To me, that says a LOT about this.

**I have no isse with an exchange of dialog, even when it gets a bit heated, but please keep it civil! **

 

[housewife]

Wow! This is a very very touchy subject. My respects to all.

 

[SPasse]

An interesting discussion, here is my perspective.

1 It should be the choice of the individual (not the parent). This is part of the owners body and if they decide to get the surgery, it should be their decision.

2 The hygienic discussions are largely a toss-up. Modern personal hygiene has made the “maintenance” of a non-circumcised penis much less of an issue than it was in ancient times.

3 The foreskin is endowed with lots of nerve endings. To make the statement that a circumcised penis still “functions adequately” does not mean that its sensitivity has not been lessened.

4 There is evidence that the transmission rate of STD transmission is slightly higher with circumcised penises. STD pathogens (fortunately) can only live outside the body briefly (because of contact with air, light etc.) The foreskin provides an area where these pathogens can live long enough to “get into” the body.

5 Let’s not forget the profit motive. Circumcisions are quick, easy “profit centers” for doctors.

6 It is not necessary (or even advantageous) from a Christian spiritual perspective.

7 Complications (often permanent) do arise. It is after all, surgery.

Like most babies of my generation, I was circumcised. But I would not do so to any of my sons.

Regards,

Scott

 

[luvmykids]

4 There is evidence that the transmission rate of STD transmission is slightly higher with circumcised penises. STD pathogens (fortunately) can only live outside the body briefly (because of contact with air, light etc.) The foreskin provides an area where these pathogens can live long enough to “get into” the body.

How does this make STD transmission rate higher in **circumcised **penises?

 

[puzzleannie]

there is no reason to debate what is basically a medical and cultural decision on a Catholic board. there is no religious or moral issue for Catholics.

 

[SPasse]

Hi All,

Opps…

This should read "There is evidence that the transmission rate of STD transmission is slightly higher with **un-**circumcised penises.

Regards,

Scott

 

[housewife]

An interesting discussion, here is my perspective.

1 It should be the choice of the individual (not the parent). This is part of the owners body and if they decide to get the surgery, it should be their decision.

2 The hygienic discussions are largely a toss-up. Modern personal hygiene has made the “maintenance” of a non-circumcised penis much less of an issue than it was in ancient times.

3 The foreskin is endowed with lots of nerve endings. To make the statement that a circumcised penis still “functions adequately” does not mean that its sensitivity has not been lessened.

4 There is evidence that the transmission rate of STD transmission is slightly higher with circumcised penises. STD pathogens (fortunately) can only live outside the body briefly (because of contact with air, light etc.) The foreskin provides an area where these pathogens can live long enough to “get into” the body.

5 Let’s not forget the profit motive. Circumcisions are quick, easy “profit centers” for doctors.

6 It is not necessary (or even advantageous) from a Christian spiritual perspective.

7 Complications (often permanent) do arise. It is after all, surgery.

Like most babies of my generation, I was circumcised. But I would not do so to any of my sons.

Regards,

Scott

I am not against it or for it, but it just makes sense and because of it, I chose not to do it to my children. This takes away any doubts that I might have had in the past. They are facts because they are perfectly stated and, again, make sense. Number 4 makes perfect sense, too. It basically states that the foreskin serves as protection making it less likely for STD to be transmitted. Although, it is not a guaranty, however it sure makes sense that there exists some sort of protection that will make it “less likely” for STD to be transmitted.

Most importantly, it is nature that makes it like this.

Scott,

 

[jaaraf]

It’s basically a cultural thing, and my country, close to all men undergo it as children. It’s not a profit thing here in our country for us doctors, since in the summer months, mass free circumcisions are always being held, sometimes with parishes sponsoring the event. I’ve done a few myself at these mass free circumcisions. It is a pretty simple surgical procedure, basically complication free.

 

[Chancellare]

It’s basically a cultural thing, and my country, close to all men undergo it as children. It’s not a profit thing here in our country for us doctors, since in the summer months, mass free circumcisions are always being held, sometimes with parishes sponsoring the event. I’ve done a few myself at these mass free circumcisions. It is a pretty simple surgical procedure, basically complication free.

jaaraf,
I see your point on the ‘cultural’ thing. Circumscission for free is not so common in Western societies. I saw your blog too. Based on what I read there, I’d say you’re in good hands.

 

[RWMorris]

We didn’t have our sons circumsized. They’re all grown now, and they weren’t ever made fun of for having natural penises.
I couldn’t stand the thought of them going through any pain or hurt as infants, and we’re not Jewish, so why even mess with it?
We taught them early on how to keep clean and neat and that took care of the whole thing.

 

[KCT]

5 Let’s not forget the profit motive. Circumcisions are quick, easy “profit centers” for doctors. Scott

Certainly not the case universally, but it was for a friend’s husband. His family was poor and black. The docs admitted that they wouldn’t get $$ out of his mom, so they left him alone.

They have 3 sons who, like their dad, are intact. —KCT