Circumcision in today's readings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Sock

Guest
Are we to take today’s readings seriously? Most babies in America are circumcised.

Today’s reading:
*When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who tell you this: **if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all. With all solemnity I repeat my warning: Everyone who accepts circumcision is obliged to keep the whole Law. *But if you do look to the Law to make you justified, then you have separated yourselves from Christ, and have fallen from grace. Christians are told by the Spirit to look to faith for those rewards that righteousness hopes for, since in Christ Jesus whether you are circumcised or not makes no difference – what matters is faith that makes its power felt through love.
–Galatians 5:1-6
 
I’m trying to imagine the baby that “allows” this…

Not really sure what that might mean… other than exactly what it says. But I SUSPECT that Christ would have been… do to the fact that he was raised Jewish…NO??? And we have all the reason in the world to believe that mom and dad are in Heaven with… So…

I’ll refrain from comment on the pros and cons…
 
Let me rephrase it: Why is it that circumcision is the norm in America? Why do so many parents allow it if St Paul is so against it? Are these babies governed under the Law?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Let me rephrase it: Why is it that circumcision is the norm in America? Why do so many parents allow it if St Paul is so against it? Are these babies governed under the Law?
Click to expand...
Well, the reason is that there are potential health concerns. Infections are the primary problem, even with good hygeine, though only about 1% of uncircumcised males ever get an infection.

These days it also seems to be more about looking like everyone else in the locker room. A lot of women don’t seem to like it when a man is uncircumcised either.

As for Galatians 5.1-6:

The Catholic Church really has little involvement in this discusion. Basically, the Church says that it is immoral in the sense that it is mutilating the body but at the same time can be permited for health reasons. The issue is that there is no real concensus in the medical community about how much health benefit can be had from circumcision. There is some evidaence that circumcision may significantly reduce HPV and HIV infections, but that also can be greatly reduced by a proper marriage before sex.

So, in short, the Church is wishywashy on it as is the medical community. However, there is also the thought that baptism supersedes circumcision and thus it is purely mutilation.
 
Remember thaat Paul is talking about circumcision to fulfill the law, not for some other purpose. If there is actually a good reason to do it, which is occasionally the case, it is ok. That has nothing to do with trying to fulfill the law.

Also, just overt half of babies in the US are circumsized these days - many people don’t realize this… In the West it’s only about 33%. A portion of those that are are done for religious reasons, they are Jewish or Muslim. A tiny portion are done for real medical necessity.

The rest - well, not really for any good reason IMO - you’d have to ask the parents. I’m not sure why the CC doesn’t speak out about it - it is interesting that Catholic hospitals will to refuse to do similar kinds of procedures as a matter of medical ethics, but will still do this one.

In other countries though it isn’t the case - Canada’s rate is just over 20%. In my city it is almost impossible to get it done, because most doctors won’t do it, and of course you have to pay. The one doctor who does pretty much restricts himself to those looking for religious reasons.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Are we to take today’s readings seriously? Most babies in America are circumcised.

Today’s reading:
*When Christ freed us, he meant us to remain free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who tell you this: **if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all. With all solemnity I repeat my warning: Everyone who accepts circumcision is obliged to keep the whole Law. ***
Click to expand...
But if you do look to the Law to make you justified, then you have separated yourselves from Christ, and have fallen from grace. Christians are told by the Spirit to look to faith for those rewards that righteousness hopes for, since in Christ Jesus whether you are circumcised or not makes no difference – what matters is faith that makes its power felt through love.
–Galatians 5:1-6

This admonition of St Paul to the Christians of Galatia seems to be puzzling. However, if you read the commentary of St Chrysostom, an early Church Father, it becomes clear that this is Paul’s response to a very specific situation. Paul is not railing simply against circumcision. The Christians in Galatia had begun to fall back under Jewish law (" the yoke of slavery") instead of living their faith as amended by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember that the peoples of that era did not have much in the way of communication with others - no reliable postal system, no phones, no newspapers etc. It would be easy to fall back into what was familiar. I am not a biblical scholar but I seem to remember that the Jews were the only race that practiced the ritual of circumcision. Part of the reason this rite was included in their law was to have a physical evidence of adherance to Judaism. Paul is telling the Galatians that if they revert to Judaism they logically have to abide by all the Jewish laws (i.e. laws regarding sacrifices, ablutions, circumcision, and many, many more rules) which Christ nullified by the grace of His redemption. If they were going to be Jews then Christ means nothing to them since the Jews rejected Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah. As Christians we are no longer obligated to follow the laws and rituals of Judaism.

It is important when Scripture is difficult to understand to seek the Church’s guidance. There are so many differences in our comtemporary language from that of the early Church that we are in spiritual danger if we attempt to interpret it by ourselves. When in doubt always go to commentaries of the Church Fathers.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Let me rephrase it: Why is it that circumcision is the norm in America? Why do so many parents allow it if St Paul is so against it? Are these babies governed under the Law?
Click to expand...
The potential health problems are largely imagined and are post facto justifications and are to be ignored as irrelevant.

The reason the practice is common in middle class America is the 19th century panic about masturbation and the assumption the circumcised boys were somehow cleaner and less likely to aelf abuse. The ridiculous practise is almost unknown among Europeans who surprisingly enough are not prey to epidemics of penile infection anymore than Americans.

It really is long past time this pre Christian nonsense was left in the past.
 
When I was born in 1935 it was normally done to most boy babys for reasons of cleanliness and health. It had religious significance only for Jews. In those times if you got a weekly bath you were good to go, so cleanliness was a valid reason. I do not believe that Paul’s prohibition has any validity today, unless a Christian would decide that the Mosaic law was still valid and have it done for a religious reason.👍
 
Paul wrote Galatians to combat the heresy of the Judaizers, who taught that to become a Christian, a Gentile needed to be circumcised and keep the whole Law of Moses. The circumcision that Paul was railing against was the circumcision of adult Gentile Christians who had been misled to believe that they had to become imitation Jews. The idea of circumcision for aesthetic or hygiene purposes doesn’t even enter into his thinking.

DaveBj
 
My kid’s pediatrician recommended circumision… but then he is Jewish! :eek:

My un-circumcized brother-in-law was horrified - but admitted that he got infected when he was young, and it really was unpleasant for him, both the condition and the treatment.

I think we are totally off-topic from the orginal post, however, which is chiefly a theological
question.
 
Both of my brothers are circumsized. Our friend didn’t circumsize her son and then he got a bad infection and ended up having to get circumsized at the age of 5. That was obviously very painful, traumatic, and of course he will remember it for the rest of his life. My mom, not wanting to put her sons through that, got her sons circumsized. My youngest brother was born in 1998. It was a very simple procedure and done before they even went home from the hospital. The doctors asked which parents wanted their baby boys to be circumsized, and then they took the boys at one point while the mothers were asleep. When she woke up, it was all done, and my brother was sleeping peacefully and didn’t remember it at all.

I don’t see anything wrong with it. If parents want to do it, fine. If not, then don’t. People who circumsize their sons say it’s better for cleanliness and health reasons, and they can recall uncircumsized boys being teased and called “elephant d—.” People who do not say it’s an old practice, is cruel, and should be done away with.

There have been good results using the cut-off skin to help others with medical needs (skin graft?), so it’s not all bad. And unlike the cases where aborted fetuses are used for stem cells, you don’t have to commit murder to help someone. You are simply donating skin, the same way someone might donate blood, bone marrow, etc. (And if the son grows up to be upset, there have been some men who have restored their genitals to the original look, so he can look into that.)
 
The above post totally ignores that there are really serious risks to circumcision. Also, Catholic hospitals will not do vasectomies because they consider, totally apart from the birth control question, that it is a matter of mutilating a healthy working body. And that ionvolves a consenting adult.
 
DaveBj said:
Paul wrote Galatians to combat the heresy of the Judaizers, who taught that to become a Christian, a Gentile needed to be circumcised and keep the whole Law of Moses. The circumcision that Paul was railing against was the circumcision of adult Gentile Christians who had been misled to believe that they had to become imitation Jews. The idea of circumcision for aesthetic or hygiene purposes doesn’t even enter into his thinking.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
Exactly. Paul was writing to combat the heresy of the Judaizers, who claimed that one first had to become Jewish in order to become Christian.
 
faithfully said:
I’m trying to imagine the baby that “allows” this…

Not really sure what that might mean… other than exactly what it says. But I SUSPECT that Christ would have been… do to the fact that he was raised Jewish…NO??? And we have all the reason in the world to believe that mom and dad are in Heaven with… So…

I’ll refrain from comment on the pros and cons…
Click to expand...
Was He circumcised? In the United States, Jan 1 was for a long time the feast of the circumcision of the Lord.

The gory details of the historical event were toned down quite a bit with the renaming of the feast as The Presentation of the Lord in the Temple.

Theologically, it put Christ in the community of believers, heirs of the Abrahamic covenant. It just wouldn’t fly NOT to be circumcised, for a Jew back then. It doesn’t really fly today for a Jew, either (I think).

Jesus was the Prophet greater than Moses who superceded the covenants of Abraham and Moses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top