circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[sanctareparata]

In response to JenniferMoon’s post:

And this is where theologians disagree.

And it’s also where I still can’t get someone to clarify this for me.

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was established by God and practiced by God’s people in obedience to him for thousands of years until it was superceded by baptism.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

While this all SOUNDS true on the surface, if we dig a bit deeper it loses its truth.

First of all, as I’ve said repeatedly, God commanded an entirely different circumcision than we have today. Then, the circumcision was a snip - literally - off the end of the foreskin.

Anyone who has an intact baby boy knows how stretchy the foreskin is. All they did in those times was pull, apply pressure to crush blood vessels, and snip. When the foreskin was let go it fell back into place, leaving if anything just the very tip of the glans exposed. The penis was still intact - the rest of the foreskin was still there. The glans of even the infant Jew was not traumatized since the foreskin was not ripped from it. It still served its purpose to protect the glans, keep it soft and supple, to aid in intercourse for both man and woman and to supply that area with lots of sensation. In other words, the foreskin was not lost.

Today, on the other hand, the foreskin’s hole is torn wide open - large enough for a blunt object to be placed inside to tear the foreskin off the glans, then a slit is made past the rim of the glans and amputated. Today’s circumcision leaves the glans red, raw and bloody. It wasn’t ready to undergo the separation forced upon it. The glans loses its natural protection - it is now exposed as it wasn’t meant to be, it will over time begin to keratinize. Sex no longer benefits from the self-gliding properties of the foreskin, etc. The foreskin is lost.

It’s is NOT the same circumcision commanded by God so to say God allowed it so it can’t be immoral is not appropriate. What God commanded then and what happens today? It’s just not the same thing. It would be like God commanding a snip off the ear, then we start cutting off the whole ear instead and try justifying it by saying, God commanded it at one time - so it can’t be immoral.

Feel free to clarify this for me, anyone…

 

[duskyjewel]

I too would be interested in hearing someone validly address sanctareparata’s point. Also, I would like to see what non-American apologists and other thinkers have to say on this matter… people with no cultural motivation to defend the practice.

 

[JenniferMoon]

For those who call circumcision “mutilation”~

Main Entry: mutilate
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: maim
Synonyms: adulterate, amputate, batter, bowdlerize, butcher, cripple, crush, cut up, damage, deface, disable, disfigure, dismember, distort, expurgate, hack, hash up, hurt, injure, lacerate, lame, mangle, mar, mess up*, ravage, scratch, spoil, weaken **
Source: Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

• = informal or slang

I don’t see how infant circumcision falls into any of those catagories.

 

[RichT]

Hi, I’m new to these threads but have been lurking for some time.

Wasn’t this thread called “circumcision and Catholic teaching?”

As far as I know the Catholic church allows each parent to make their own choice in this??

They are not supposed to do it for religious reasons though since baptisim took the place of circing for religious reasons.

So anything else would be just personal feelings of each poster, right? But as far as official Catholic teachings, the church still leaves this up to the parents, so Catholic parents need not worry that they have done anything against the Catholic church, right?

I mean, this is about personal feelings now?

I’m very confused, this is a crazy thread

You’re right, it is called circumcision and Catholic teaching, however, a quick review of the original post below shows that the OP made the invitaion for a debate. BTW, welcome aboard.

**1. On another board there is heated debate the Catholic Church says it should not be done to Catholic boys. **

**2. There’s also debate about the whether the hygene factor is really an issue. **

3. Then there’s the basic issue of dad’s just wanting their sons to be like them.

So what’s everyone’s perspective on these 3 issues here in Catholic Answers??

I’ll be honest from the go and say all 6 of my sons have been and if the next is a boy - he’ll get it too. (For those interested, I recommend the plasti-bell method vs the clamp method. The clamp method looks like a botched operation, imo.) I prefer the ease of care, but mostly it’s a “be like dad” thing in our house - my dh would insist on this.

So… let the friendly debate begin!

---

---

 

[duskyjewel]

amputate = to cut off a body part

butcher = I would argue that cutting off anyone’s body part without anesthesia, as has been done for most of the history of American circumcision and is still done sometimes today, is butchery.

cripple = as American circumcision is practiced, up to 80% of penile skin is removed, and that can cause a loss of mobility in the remaining skin as it struggles to cover much more than it was intended to

crush = this is actually part of the circumcision procedure, especially the clamp procedures

cut up = this one is fairly obvious as part of the skin is being cut off

damage = the penis is left bloody and literally skinned after circumcision, leaving the skin of the glans to keratinize as a defense mechanism, and there is a circumferential scar at the point of attachment

disable = see cripple above

disfigure = to disfigure something is to render its appearance changed through damage

hurt, injure, lacerate = are you seriously going to deny that circumcision hurts? Not just at the time of surgery, but for days or even weeks afterward during healing. It leaves a wound (injury) behind to heal, and to lacerate is to cut.

 

[Sure]

For those who call circumcision “mutilation”~

I don’t see how infant circumcision falls into any of those catagories.

So what is circumcision?

Isn’t it the removal of a part of an organ of the human body? Isn’t that partial amputation? How can you say that it is a removal, but medically not a partial amputation?

Also, I ask this question again:

What is the moral difference between male circumcision and female circumcision when done without a medical purpose?

 

[JenniferMoon]

Many of the reasons listed so far, just aren’t warranted. The only reasons so far that warrants discussion are the health cleanliness reasons. I’m sorry, but to do this just so he can look like dad or because someone thinks it is more pleasing to the eye is just downright wrong.

Individually, each reason doesn’t sound like enough of a reason, but *all together *they can.

What is not important to YOU may be important to someone else.

And all the proper hygiene in the world isn’t going to matter one bit to a sick or elderly person that can’t clean himself properly. A circ sure would have avoided problems for 2 men in my life, not to mention all the other people I know of who had uncirc’d infant sons with problems down there too!

Its funny how what you do matters little to me. I wouldn’t say you are wrong in the least for not circ’ing, but I get all sorts of flack for thinking it was right for MY family.

The whole point is the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn it, in fact it leaves it up for the parents to decide.

How about you do your thing and I do mine.

 

[RichT]

For those who call circumcision “mutilation”~
I don’t see how infant circumcision falls into any of those catagories.

Hmm, let’s see.

Main Entry: mutilate
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: maim
Synonyms: adulterate, amputate, batter, bowdlerize, butcher, cripple, crush, cut up, damage, deface, disable, disfigure, dismember, distort, expurgate, hack, hash up, hurt, injure, lacerate, lame, mangle, mar, mess up*, ravage, scratch, spoil, weaken **
Source: Roget’s New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

• = informal or slang

I’m sorry, but any removal of anything for any reason other than a medical reason does fall under the word mutilate.

 

[RichT]

Individually, each reason doesn’t sound like enough of a reason, but *all together *they can.

Its funny how what you do matters little to me. I wouldn’t say you are wrong in the least for not circ’ing, but I get all sorts of flack for thinking it was right for MY family.

How about you do your thing and I do mine.

So far we’ve talked about cleanliness, medical, and asthetic reasons. Well we can easily combine the cleanliness and medical reasons, since most medical issues are caused by a lack of cleanliness, and as far as the asthetic reason, well that is just hogwash. So, really there is only one reason, and again, I say teach you boys to wash themselves properly!

As far as this being about your family, it’s not. This is an open debate about circumcision. If you are going to make comments as to why you support circumcision, you are going to hear comments directed back at you.

And, as far as me doing my thing, and you doing yours? I am guessing from your picture you are a woman. As a man, I have a hard time understanding how a woman can take ownership of a man’s body and make decisions that will affect him for the rest of his life.

 

[Sure]

Individually, each reason doesn’t sound like enough of a reason, but *all together *they can.

What is not important to YOU may be important to someone else.

And all the proper hygiene in the world isn’t going to matter one bit to a sick or elderly person that can’t clean himself properly. A circ sure would have avoided problems for 2 men in my life, not to mention all the other people I know of who had uncirc’d infant sons with problems down there too!

Its funny how what you do matters little to me. I wouldn’t say you are wrong in the least for not circ’ing, but I get all sorts of flack for thinking it was right for MY family.

The whole point is the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn it, in fact it leaves it up for the parents to decide.

How about you do your thing and I do mine.

Again, if your reason for circumcising your children is medical, there is not a moral issue. If the reason is aesthetic (i.e. look like daddy - which by the way is kind of creepy…daddy and son need to compare penises???), then the act is immoral. That is not my opinion that is the teaching of the Church as found in CC 2297.

How about you do your thing and I do mine.

Is this your response to female circumcision as well? It’s just a personal choice???

 

[Kelly]

I’ve gone back and forth with myself about whether or not to jump into this debate. I have worked as an RN in various Neonatal ICUs for the past 18 years, I have also worked extensively in newborn nurseries. I have witnessed and assisted with hundreds of circumcisions. I have to say that they still make me feel physically sick everytime I see one. Whether or not local anesthetics, sugar pacifiers, emela cream, etc are used these babies experience a great deal of pain. Many times stitching or cauterizing with silver nitrate is required to stop excessive bleeding. I know quite a few OBs and pediatricians who refuse to perform circs because they consider them mutilation and medically unnecessary procedures.

This being said when my son was born 18 years ago we had him circumcised. If I had witnessed then what I have seen over the last 18 years I would never have had it done.

 

[JenniferMoon]

And, as far as me doing my thing, and you doing yours? I am guessing from your picture you are a woman. As a man, I have a hard time understanding how a woman can take ownership of a man’s body and make decisions that will affect him for the rest of his life.

But don’t you see, I agree with you here. That’s why I left the decision up to MY HUSBAND. I did say in my first post that only HE would know what it is liked to be circ’d!

 

[JenniferMoon]

Many of the reasons listed so far, just aren’t warranted

According to The Book Of Rich.

 

[Johndigger]

Wow. I’m a Brit and I’ve never heard of this being done before.

Unless it’s neccessary to protect the child’s health, I think it’s pointless.

The Old Covenant is the Old Covenant. Let the New be the New.

All seems a bit ludicrous to me.

In love,

JD

 

[duskyjewel]

But don’t you see, I agree with you here. That’s why I left the decision up to MY HUSBAND. I did say in my first post that only HE would know what it is liked to be circ’d!

A man who has been circumcised since infancy has absolutely no resources to judge what he is taking away from his son. He does not know what his body would look like, feel like, or work like with a foreskin.

In cases where there is any question at all, I think we should be erring on the side of NOT cutting off body parts. Call me crazy.

 

[dranzal]

I’ve gone back and forth with myself about whether or not to jump into this debate. I have worked as an RN in various Neonatal ICUs for the past 18 years, I have also worked extensively in newborn nurseries. I have witnessed and assisted with hundreds of circumcisions. I have to say that they still make me feel physically sick everytime I see one. Whether or not local anesthetics, sugar pacifiers, emela cream, etc are used these babies experience a great deal of pain. Many times stitching or cauterizing with silver nitrate is required to stop excessive bleeding. I know quite a few OBs and pediatricians who refuse to perform circs because they consider them mutilation and medically unnecessary procedures.

This being said when my son was born 18 years ago we had him circumcised. If I had witnessed then what I have seen over the last 18 years I would never have had it done.

Thank you for the voice of experience here. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person to have seen infants traumatized past the point of shock in this procedure.

By any chance have you (or anyone else here) witnessed a genuine Jewish circ and can verify the differences that were previously described. I will assert here that, yes, the newborn foreskin of my intact son was sticking out past the glans and would have been very easy to pull and snip in the above described God-mandated Jewish circ.

For the record as well… my other sons were never concerned with the difference in their little brother’s penis other than to be amused at his peek-a-boo antics.

 

[stadre]

The information about BC circ vs modern circ is very interesting. I was unable to find resources on this–can you share?

 

[Kelly]

Thank you for the voice of experience here. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person to have seen infants traumatized past the point of shock in this procedure.

By any chance have you (or anyone else here) witnessed a genuine Jewish circ and can verify the differences that were previously described. I will assert here that, yes, the newborn foreskin of my intact son was sticking out past the glans and would have been very easy to pull and snip in the above described God-mandated Jewish circ.

For the record as well… my other sons were never concerned with the difference in their little brother’s penis other than to be amused at his peek-a-boo antics.

I attended a Jewish bris once. A good friend of mine is a Jew from Israel, and it was for his son. The procedure that I witnessed was much like you described. The foreskin was pulled forward past the glans, a small metal shield was placed in front of the glans and the little bit of foreskin was quickly snipped off. The baby was given a piece of wine saturated gauze to suck on during the ritual. It wasn’t anywhere close to as disturbing as the cirucmcisions I have witnessed in the hospital, and of course was being done for religious reasons. I was told that this is the traditional way that a bris is perfomed.

 

[sanctareparata]

The information about BC circ vs modern circ is very interesting. I was unable to find resources on this–can you share?

I had actually first heard of it from a Jewish friend and never bothered looking into it until about a year ago.

cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
this is just one, but it’s thorough.

ETA: This kind of circumcision is also called a radical circumcision, and I may have spelled it wrong in the earlier post - it’s bris periah not pariah.

 

[stadre]

I had actually first heard of it from a Jewish friend and never bothered looking into it until about a year ago.

cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
this is just one, but it’s thorough.

ETA: This kind of circumcision is also called a radical circumcision, and I may have spelled it wrong in the earlier post - it’s bris periah not pariah.

Thank you for the link. It is one I had seen. Do you have anything from a more neutral source? The rest of their site comes across to me as extremely biased. As a woman who would chose to circ, statements referring it to abuse and such do not leave me particulary able to read with trust the information given.