Circumcision is a sin for Catholics?

[triumphguy]

Male circumcision apparently also reduces the amount of pleasure receptors for the male.

 

[Tenofovir]

In Europe, South Africa (mostly white people) and here in Malaysia (the Chrisitians) are hardly circumcised… I was considering circumcision, but with this very document I changed my mind. I once read, that not being circumcised is on of the Christian symbols, as we are not Jew’s any more, and in the previous century, this was also used to detrimen whether one is a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Personally I feel, that this is a strong symbol for Christian men, yet I have heard many other stories from America… But what can I say

Circumcision is rare in Europe. During WW2, Germans would often check the men to see if they were circumcised to see if the man was a Jew in hiding.

I don’t think it’s a symbol for Christian men, but it can help prevent HIV acquisition. In areas of Southern Africa where circumcision is common for traditional reasons (non-Christian), rates of HIV are significantly lower.

 

[Tenofovir]

Hmmm, one thing comes to mind.

In this day and age when would it be appropriate for a son to actually see, and in this case actually examine, his father’s genitals?

I think it happens commonly in Europe, and among Catholics too. Think Italy and France. In some countries adult men also bathe with both their underage sons and daughters. While not Catholic, Japanese have this too. I think Japanese Catholics also do it. And no, these people aren’t pedophiles. In fact maybe these kids have less hangups about nudity and consume less porn. Who knows.

If you’re not sexually aroused by it, it’s not a sin. Of course if you are and you frequent places where men go around naked, such as public shower facilities, is is sinful.

 

[Anna2012]

The general consensus of posters replying to my question seems to be that the Ecumenical Council is dubious, or overlooking the fact that the Pope said it didn’t matter whether one thought salvation had anything to do with it, it was still wrong and he **orders **Christians not to practice it.

How many other Ecumenical Council orders are ignored?

 

[thistle]

The general consensus of posters replying to my question seems to be that the Ecumenical Council is dubious, or overlooking the fact that the Pope said it didn’t matter whether one thought salvation had anything to do with it, it was still wrong and he **orders **Christians not to practice it.

How many other Ecumenical Council orders are ignored?

That was when it was considered a religious rite. It does not apply now because the Church considers it a medical procedure and not a religious rite.

 

[Anna2012]

That was when it was considered a religious rite. It does not apply now because the Church considers it a medical procedure and not a religious rite.

The text does not specify it as such-- it says it doesn’t matter how one views it, just that it shouldn’t be done…
“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.”

It “cannot possibly be observed”… yet, the rationale is now that it CAN possibly be observed if we look at it as a medical issue and not a religious one? Could the early Christians have said that about eating food sacrificed to idols… “it’s not a religious issue, it’s a nutritional one”?

 

[Kanuckistani]

I’m uncircumcised (only because my parents couldn’t afford it). I’m thinking of getting circumcised this year or the next (I’m 17 turning 18). I personally don’t like how it looks. I am very clean in that area, so hygiene isn’t a problem.

In terms of it being a sin, I don’t think so.

 

[thistle]

The text does not specify it as such–** it says it doesn’t matter how one views it, just that it shouldn’t be done…**
“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.”

It “cannot possibly be observed”… yet, the rationale is now that it CAN possibly be observed if we look at it as a medical issue and not a religious one? Could the early Christians have said that about eating food sacrificed to idols… “it’s not a religious issue, it’s a nutritional one”?

It says that within the context of it being a religious rite.

 

[Cider]

While doing some research on circumcision and deciding whether or not to have our baby boy circumcised (as the docs at the hospital suggest), I came across some pretty shocking quotes from past Councils and Popes. They seem to suggest that for current Catholics to have their little boys circumcised would be gravely sinful… but why isn’t there other information about this? And why isn’t it talked about… our priest had no idea and didn’t really know what to say. I also found a traditional site that discussed how modern day circumcision is not at all the same as the circumcision practiced by the Jews-- but I can’t remember where I found it.

For now, we have not gotten our baby circumcised, but family, friends, and our pediatrician seem to think my husband and I are crazy.

Any help is appreciated.

From the Council of Florence:

This seems pretty straightforward to us since it explicitly states that it doesn’t matter whether circumcision is viewed as having saving power, Christians are simply ordered not to do it under pain of damnation! If this is really what the Church teaches, why isn’t it in the Catechism and why don’t priests know enough to be able to guide parents on this issue?

You are not crazy, I applaud you for keeping your baby whole.

 

[Cider]

I don’t know if it has been brought up yet or not, but if it were up to me, as a father, I would make the boy look like his father.

The boy should not look at his father and then look at himself and see a difference like that, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his growning up with his father as his example not only in appearance, but in character and behavior.

It is one thing to see differences between men, but another to see a marked difference like that between father and son, and then have to ask his father or ask himself why he is different from his father.

If I had a son, I would make sure that he looks like his dad with regard to circumcision.

-Tim-

Problem with this is that they may never look like yours even if you were both circumcised and additionally, they certainly won’t look anything at alike for a good 16+ years, and by then, I really doubt most boys want to be looking at their dads privates. So your argument is not logical. Little boys do not look like adult men in that area.

 

[Brightest_Star]

If the Church takes no stance on it and neither forbids it, nor reccomends it, then it’s fair to presume that circumcision is a personal choice of the parents on behalf of their child.

If it was a crucial matter I believe the Church would not shy away from speaking up.

 

[Like]

WOW! I find it sad with all the negative comments on this thread.

If it’s so bad to circumcision a baby boy, why would God the Father allow His only begotten Son to be circumcised. It was just a few years ago that New Years day was a holy day of obligation for the circumcision of the Christ.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Circumcision was a way, before the coming of Christ, to show fealty to God. It may also have had a medical basis in those days.

Neither of these things apply now, to Catholics.

As a happy possessor of a foreskin I appreciate its utility. If someone tried to lop it off, I’d kill them. Doing it to kids is a mutilation. It’s just sick and weird. Just stand back from it and look at it coolly. It’s old-fashioned quackery, at best and perverse, at worst.

But when you think people save up to stick bags of silicone in the bosom and bits of metal in their faces, you realise common sense, isn’t, I guess.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

PS: I remember reading somewhere that tatoos are sinful, so I guess unnecessary genital surgery on infants would be too, ya think?

 

[Anna2012]

The rite of circumcision practiced in the OT is not the same as the medical procedure. The current practice removes all the foreskin, the ancient rite did not-- this is how they were able to hide the fact that they were circumcised. It was just a bit of foreskin, not an amputation of it.

 

[TrueLight]

Wow. This thread is hilarious.

I circumcised my son and I’m happy I did.

Have we found another controversial topic aside from modesty and head covering?

 

[figs]

Wow. This thread is hilarious.

I circumcised my son and I’m happy I did.

I did the same with my son, but this was back in a time before it became controversial. I never thought much about it one way or the other. When I was asked, I simply said, “Yes.”
Every male in my family had been circumcised for many, MANY generations, it was a ‘no brainer’ at the time.
So, one day comes and in this new ‘everything is a contraversy world’ my son and I were listening to a debate on this very issue. My son turned to me and said, “Thanks Mom, I am SO glad you decided yes.”
I was glad he felt that way, naturally but never for one moment did I feel an urge to apologise to my son for his circumcision.
I’m just not going to get worked up into a lather over it. Never have, and never will.

 

[karoleck]

To be or not to be;that is the question!! It seems “Circumcision” is an arguement that goes round and round in circles!

A sin for a doctor to cut off some skin,I think not!

Personally,I am happy that my parents decided that I did not need this proceedure to become a son of God.

As to the practical or medical pros & cons—horses for courses!! (I prefer a natural holistic approach to good health–so leave the foreskin alone.!)

Years ago, every baby in the western hospital system had their tonsils & appendix removed, whether they needed it or not.But this good income stream for doctors could not be justified on religious grounds.The medical proceedure of cutting off some extra skin from down under ,is a great money spinner .

I respect persons of the Judeo tradition for whom circumcision is a religious right of passage for each male child.I also respect a parents choice, if they wish to cut off the foreskin of their new born child for medical purposes.( for the reasons that other posters have already been stated)

 

[Eric_Olsen]

there are medical reasons for it. It cuts down on instances of STD’s. Plus it can be a hygience issue.

I had heard that circumcision was a sin for Catholics based on the above. Although, I’m quite amazed it still exists given there’s no real medical reason for it, and those reasons that are presented are rather spurious. Plus, it seems rather cruel and sexist.

Could you imagine teh uproar if peopel in the west wanted to circumcise their daughters?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Years ago, every baby in the western hospital system had their tonsils & appendix removed, whether they needed it or not,

Just to keep everyone to stating facts rather than fancy.

Can you give us what “years ago” means?

I dispute that there was any time that every baby had their tonsils and appendix removed when there was no infection present or there was no abdominal surgery being done.