circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[RichT]

According to The Book Of Rich.

No, according to published information. How about the American Academy of Pediatrics? See the cut and paste below:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement in 1999 on the use of circumcision. The statement reported information from studies of both circumcised and uncircumcised males and found the following:

• Problems with the penis such as irritation can occur with or without circumcision.
• There is no difference in hygiene, as long as proper care is followed.
• There may or may not be difference in sexual sensation or practices in adult men.
• There is an increased risk of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised males, especially in babies younger than 1 year of age. However, the risk for urinary tract infections in all boys is less than 1 percent.
• Newborn circumcision does provide some protection from cancer of the penis. However, the overall risk of penis cancer is very low in developed countries, such as the United States.
  So, I ask again, with the exception of aesthetic reasons, why do we need to do it at all. The overall health risks are so small, that we have to admit to ourselves, the procedure itself is not justified. Regarding aesthetics, when are we going to start raising our children to understand that we are not all alike? When are we going to quit worrying about what the other person looks like, and teach our children to be good strong confident people that can make a difference in the world without being overly concerned about looking like everyone else?

Now, how about some information as to why we should not do this. Check out this link to an article by the New Zealand Medical Journal written in 2003, which links circumcised penises to sexual disorders in women.

cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/

My point is that we have a little information that says maybe we should, and a little information that says maybe we shouldn’t. So, now that we have evened things out a little, isn’t this enough to say we should stop this practice? Isn’t this enough to say that maybe our bodies were designed by Someone who is a whole lot smarter than us? Is it possible that He had thought it all out, and every part of our bodies has a function?

 

[Lady_D_I]

The overall health risks are so small, that we have to admit to ourselves, the procedure itself is not justified.

That is the interesting thing about evidence… how each of us interpret it. I believe circumcision is therapeutic, and the benefits of circing outweigh the risks.

 

[Lady_D_I]

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. I know quite a few OBs and pediatricians who refuse to perform circs because they consider them mutilation and medically unnecessary procedures.

Yes, thank you for sharing your experience, but this was simply not my experience. I am really curious why, but I realize there is most likely no answer.

Many times stitching or cauterizing with silver nitrate is required to stop excessive bleeding.

Thankfully, I NEVER witnessed this. I have not doubt this would have impacted my decision.

Amazing how different my experiences have been.

 

[JenniferMoon]

That is the interesting thing about evidence… how each of us interpret it. I believe circumcision is therapeutic, and the benefits of circing outweigh the risks.

Same here.

Now the rest is for the Anti-circ Activists:

So if you don’t think its neccessary or therapeutic, don’t circ your boys. Those of us who have looked at the same research and came to a different conclusion, and those of us who see firsthand, for ourselves, how not circ’ing can cause problems (for both infants and elderly men) have reasons just as valid to us. So keep your judgements to yourself.

 

[RichT]

Same here.

Now the rest is for the Anti-circ Activists:

So if you don’t think its neccessary or therapeutic, don’t circ your boys. Those of us who have looked at the same research and came to a different conclusion, and those of us who see firsthand, for ourselves, how not circ’ing can cause problems (for both infants and elderly men) have reasons just as valid to us. So keep your judgements to yourself.

No one is judging, we’re debating, as the OP requested as to why or why not. This forum is not for the sensitive.

 

[maria29]

Do you have a reference for this?

Also, the circumcision was important in the Jewish faith. It is not necessary in the Christian faith.

When I saw Orthodox I don’t mean the Jewish religion. As for a reference, I am not sure if you’re refering to the Feast of the Circumcision celebrated by the Catholic Church until the 1960’s and still celebrated around the world today or the other point about female versus male circumcision.

BTW at the Vatican they will still hang tapestries of the Circumcision of our Lord which to also implies that if was a sinful act that these tapestries would not be hung.

 

[RichT]

That is the interesting thing about evidence… how each of us interpret it. I believe circumcision is therapeutic, and the benefits of circing outweigh the risks.

Therapeuitc is defined as medically necessary, meaning an actual diagnosis was made and the circumcision was necessary to treat the medical issue. The majority of circumcisions performed today are non-therapuetic, and thereby not necessary, and are done out of unsubstantiated health fears or for aesthetic reasons. See this article by the Medical Journal of Australia dated why back in 1967. Even back then, other countries were way ahead of us Americans. Pay close attention to the yellow highlighted statements.

cirp.org/library/general/wright4/

 

[Lady_D_I]

Therapeuitc is defined as medically necessary, meaning an actual diagnosis was made and the circumcision was necessary to treat the medical issue.

Therapeutic also means “having medicinal” properities. Circumcision, in my professional opinion, is medicinal.

I have read the information, including a review of the medical literature, and reached my own conclusions.

 

[RichT]

When I saw Orthodox I don’t mean the Jewish religion. As for a reference, I am not sure if you’re refering to the Feast of the Circumcision celebrated by the Catholic Church until the 1960’s and still celebrated around the world today or the other point about female versus male circumcision.

BTW at the Vatican they will still hang tapestries of the Circumcision of our Lord which to also implies that if was a sinful act that these tapestries would not be hung.

I don’t think anyone is calling it sinful. The circumcision of our Lord was not about the actual cirumcision, but more about Him submitting to Jewish law and being given the name Jesus. This event was an important event in His life. Some even say He spilled His blood for humanity the first time.

 

[sanctareparata]

Are we using **therapeutic **in the right context?

**Therapeutic **means “to treat disease and help healing take place.” Since the infant foreskin presents healthy and free of disease, and is in no need of healing, is therapeutic the right word to describe circumcision?

Or is prophylactic? Which means: “A preventive measure. The word comes from the Greek for “an advance guard,” an apt term for a measure taken to fend off a disease or another unwanted consequence.”

Just curious.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Are we using **therapeutic **in the right context?

I am using the definition provided in Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary.

 

[RichT]

Therapeutic also means “having medicinal” properities. Circumcision, in my professional opinion, is medicinal.

I have read the information, including a review of the medical literature, and reached my own conclusions.

Well, I guess my red wine habit can be called therapuetic!

But seriously, doesn’t medicinal imply that something needs to be healed? Wouldn’t a better term be preventative circumcision?

 

[Lady_D_I]

Well, I guess my red wine habit can be called therapuetic!

But doesn’t medicinal imply that something needs to be healed?

Why? Doesn’t medicinal mean pertaining to medicine (the science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind)?

Wouldn’t a better term be preventative circumcision?

So, prevention isn’t therapeutic?

 

[RichT]

So, prevention isn’t therapeutic?

No, if your not sick, you don’t need therapy.

 

[Lady_D_I]

No, if your not sick, you don’t need therapy.

Ahhh… one of my big complaints about our medical model. Prevention is therapeutic. Therapeutic means “having medicinal” properities. Medicinal means pertaining to medicine (the science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind).

We disagree. That’s cool.

 

[RichT]

Ahhh… one of my big complaints about our medical model. Prevention is therapeutic. Therapeutic means “having medicinal” properities. Medicinal means pertaining to medicine (the science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind).

We disagree. That’s cool.

Yes, we disagree. Preventative medicine and therapeutic medicine are two different things. How about The Pill? In most cases it’s use is to prevent pregnancy, but it some cases it has therapeutic value to treat certain female issues. Would taking the pill by a woman who has not been diagnosed with any of these issues, be considered threapeutic? Anytime I have read the definition of anything therapeutic, I see the words, “necessary, medically required, treatment, etc…” I do not agree that preventative and therapeutic belong in the same category.

 

[Lady_D_I]

Anytime I have read the definition of anything therapeutic, I see the words, "necessary, medically required, treatment, etc…

I cited Taber’s, which is where I found the definition.

Perhaps my view of therapeutic is different because I am a medical professional.

I have nothing further to add. We disagree.

For those interested, this reply is cited in this thread, but I’ll repeat it especially since it discusses non-theapeutic circ.

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.

**
**

 

[Lady_D_I]

Would taking the pill by a woman who has not been diagnosed with any of these issues, be considered threapeutic?

Oh, forgot to comment. Since therapeutic is not defined as only “necessary, medically required, treatment, etc…” but may be defined as “having medicinal” properities, yes unfortunately.

Back our regularly scheduled topic.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

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.

**You don’t have to understand it because he’s not YOUR kid. Even so, you wouldn’t be happy if the father insisted on it either, which you later claim he has no business doing because a circ’d father wouldn’t know what he was doing. **

No one is judging, we’re debating, as the OP requested as to why or why not. This forum is not for the sensitive.

Actually, what I requested was a friendly debate of our perspectives. I’m not a particuliarly sensitive person, imho, but I tend to get annoyed when people reference my morally allowed decisions for my sons as ignorant, mutilating (abusive?), and immoral.

Again. Not very friendly. And not a good debate strategy either.

---

BTW at the Vatican they will still hang tapestries of the Circumcision of our Lord which to also implies that if was a sinful act that these tapestries would not be hung.

God is omnipresent and all-knowing and perfect in His knowledge and cannot sin. To suggest that He would lead His people then or now to sin is to say God Himself sins.

The closest anyone can go to making this a moral issue is to claim that circ-ing should be done in Jewish fashion with the father’s okay. And even that is slim picking for their case as there is particuliar no biblical or traditional approved mthod of circ-ing that I’m aware of.

I don’t think anyone is calling it sinful. The circumcision of our Lord was not about the actual cirumcision, but more about Him submitting to Jewish law and being given the name Jesus. This event was an important event in His life. Some even say He spilled His blood for humanity the first time.

**Actually you called it immoral (immoral = sin) and that issue has been beaten to death here already. It is not immoral. Period. **

No, it was about Him being circ’d as was required by God’s law.

Enough already. We’ve been http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/KathlikMama/121b9988.gif for well over a year. I think this thread may be of interest to those considering this topic, but it is no longer a discussion, simply a replay of the same mantra of both perspectives.

 

[RichT]

Main Entry: as·per·sion
Pronunciation: &-'sp&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a sprinkling with water especially in religious ceremonies
2 a : a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone’s reputation <cast aspersion**s on her integrity> b : the act of making such a charge

Don’t see anything other than good ole debate happening here in this thread.

BTW, I used to work in the medical field for several years. My first dealing with the word therapeutic was seeing a young lady come into the ER bleeding to death after a botched “Therepeutic Abortion”. So yes, the word therapeutic brings vivid images to my mind. The term “Therapeutic Abortin” is defined as being medically necessary for several different reasons, including saving the mother’s life, or when life of the unborn child isn’t viable. It’s a shame when words like therapeutic evolve to mean other things different than the original definition or intent of the word, but so be it. For now, I’ll stick with Merriam Webster’s definition:

Main Entry: ther·a·peu·tic
Pronunciation: "ther-&-'pyü-tik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek therapeutikos, from therapeuein to attend, treat, from theraps attendant
1 : of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods <a therapeutic rather than a diagnostic specialty>
2 : providing or assisting in a cure :<therapeutic diets> <a therapeutic investigation of government waste>