Circumcision in Modern Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cabeelibob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cabeelibob

Guest
It seems that the Church condemned circumcisions as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and I am willing to accept Her conclusion. But when I think about it, I think, “Why should I not circumcise my son as Jesus was just as I would name my son Joshua or Peter?” Maybe I just don’t understand.

I’m not having a kid any time soon. I’m just trying to get the best understanding.
Thoughts?
 
The Church does not require circumcision, and where I could find no compelling medical need for it, I left my sons in tact. There are Catholic priests who have even questioned the morality of the practice. Here is one example: CAC template
 
This was actually debated by the early apostles if Gentile converts needed to circumcise themselves like Jews did. Eventually the argument they didn’t need to won out, but the Church hasn’t condemned the practice of it either.

Yes, nowadays it’s done for medical/hygienic reasons. Back when I was born (mid 1980s), circumcision was a very popular practice, at least in the USA. Just about every male born in the 80s was circumcised. I was circumcised as an infant, and it is something I am not going to have done to my first born boy. I don’t like the practice and feel it is mutilation. These days you really don’t see circumcision a lot outside of the US and among Jews.
 
As an Englishwoman living in California in the seventies I was shocked that circumcision was so common in the States for “social” rather than medical reasons. And the military hospital where we had our third son did their best to dissuade new mothers from cutting their sons. As part of our pre-birth classes we were taken to witness a circumcision and it was appalling. The helpless newborn was strapped down, splay-legged, into a plastic shell and then screamed as it was snipped…it was a horrifying sight and I cannot understand why anyone would consent to unnecessary surgery which can, in rare cases, go horribly wrong…Barbaric.
 
My mother had me circumcised and I am glad that she did so. As an EMT I have seen too many raging infections in seniors that weren’t circumcised from lack of proper care.

All my sons were also circumcised.
 
lonegreywolf20 said:
My mother had me circumcised and I am glad that she did so. As an EMT I have seen too many raging infections in seniors that weren’t circumcised from lack of proper care.

All my sons were also circumcised.
Click to expand...
Just curious - - I have read this before, in this same sort of vague way. If this is truly such a huge problem, and infant circumcision is the only/ best prevention, how is it that most cultures do not practice male infant circumcision? Europe, Asia, South America, for instance. Europe and Asia are often viewed as having advanced medical care, but they do not practice male infant circumcision as a preventative practice for “raging infections” that may or may not happen 80-90 years in the future.
 
How do you know that the Church has never condemned it? You sound pretty authoritative. Just curious- - are you a scholar on this topic? Because there is so much in Church History, and so much of it is written down and preserved - - how would you know, unless you are a scholar in it?
In fact, it’s pretty easy to find things like the following with just a google search:
“Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/

Also, here are some interesting thoughts:
The Roman Catholic Church has never issued an official policy specifically regarding non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision as it has been practiced primarily in the English-speaking nations in the Twentieth Century and now the Twenty-first Century. The Church, however, has a strong moral statement on amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations.[2](http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/#n2) Circumcision falls under both amputation and mutilation, so it is clearly covered by this policy. Catholics generally are required to respect bodily integrity.[2](http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/#n2) Lack of respect for bodily integrity is viewed as a violation of the Fifth Commandment, *Thou shalt not kill.* [3](http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/#n3)
The new (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church at paragraph 2297 states in part:
"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." 2
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Roman Catholic Church and Neonatal Non-therapeutic Circumcision

An excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
www.cirp.org
Plenty more links come up with just a google search.
Not to mention the fact that there are occasionally tragic mistakes in medical procedures. Not so hard to find examples of lots of those regarding make circumcision when you google it.
 
Last edited:
Don’t know, don’t care what other cultures do or not do. I have no control over what other people do or don’t do. I feel that circumcision should also be the same way. It is up to the parent(s) to decide, not others.

What I do know is that we do other things as preventatives for things that may or may not happen.
 
lonegreywolf20 said:
Don’t know, don’t care what other cultures do or not do. I have no control over what other people do or don’t do. I feel that circumcision should also be the same way. It is up to the parent(s) to decide, not others.

What I do know is that we do other things as preventatives for things that may or may not happen.
Click to expand...
Why is it up to the parents to decide? Why should it not be up to the individual? Do you feel that it is up to the parents to decide whether or not to circumcise their female children as well?
Also, you state that you don’t know or don’t care what other cultures do. Since you are stating your support of it for medical (scientific) reasons, you don’t care what the outcomes are for other populations of people who do not circumcise? That’s not usually how scientists think, I believe.
 
Last edited:
Nope, because female circumcision and male circumsion are for two different completely reasons.

As I said, I am happy and grateful that my mom circumcised me and my own sons were circumcised.

Edit: never claimed to be a scientist. I did claim to be an EMT. I also believe again that it is up to the parent to decide for their male infant and not leave it to society to make the decision for them.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I think male and female are often for the exact same reasons. Cultural - - “so they’ll look like Daddy”. Not so different than the reasons that females are circumcised IMO.
 
lonegreywolf20 said:
Nope, because female circumcision and male circumsion are for two different completely reasons.

As I said, I am happy and grateful that my mom circumcised me and my own sons were circumcised.

Edit: never claimed to be a scientist. I did claim to be an EMT. I also believe again that it is up to the parent to decide for their male infant and not leave it to society to make the decision for them.
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. It kind of scares me that folks who are practicing medicine in any way don’t consider themselves to be scientists, or instructed in a scientific way of thinking. Do you not believe in evidence-based science?
 
No, females are done because the ones who do it believe that the female that has it done to them will derive no sexual pleasure from external female genetalia. It truly has no medical reason unlike male circumcision.
 
I have seen evidence for it to be done, I have seen it with my own eyes many times over.

I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, it truly is the parents decision.

Done commenting.
 
Once again, how is it that entire continents of people don’t circumcise, and manage not to have these problems?
 
lonegreywolf20 said:
No, females are done because the ones who do it believe that the female that has it done to them will derive no sexual pleasure from external female genetalia. It truly has no medical reason unlike male circumcision.
Click to expand...
From wikipedia:
Because of the smooth appearance of an infibulated vulva, there is also a belief that infibulation increases hygiene. Common reasons for **FGM** cited by women in surveys are social acceptance*, religion, hygiene, preservation of virginity, marriageability and enhancement of male sexual pleasure.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sounds so very different that what Americans say about male circumcision, does it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top