Circumcision: is it moral?

[Leopard]

redpepper:

…I believe and worship loving God. God of the New Testament. If I only knew him from the Old Testament I would have walked away from him. The relationship between God and His chosen people in the Old Testament is totally different from the one He has now with His Church. In the old testament, He chose barbars. In the New Testament, we had become His children. In fact, circumcision as He commanded in the Old Testament was not an act of love.

There are not two different Gods, an Old Testament God and a New Testament God. He is the same God, and His relationship with Abraham and his children was not less loving than His relationship with us today. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant in which God made the hebrews His chosen people. How is this not an act of love?

 

[Valke2]

Valke2

I always enjoy hearing what you have to say. I, being a Catholic, do not always believe the same, but it is still helpful to hear you. It is always interesting.

I know that my question is huge, but give me a little help. What did Moses see on Mt. Sinai when he received the revelation from God? (Is this when he was told about circumcision?)

I am asking about Exodus 25: 40. The word “tabniyth”. How does your tradition understand and explain what Moses “saw”?

Thanks!

Also, the quote that you have about free will, is that your own or is it from another source (sorry that I do not know it, but it sounds good)?

That’s an excellent question and one that I did not have an immediate answer for.

Exodus 25:40: See and make, according to their form that you are shown on the mountain.

There’s no commentary on that verse in my Chumash (Stone ed.). So I looked up Rashi’s commentary. This is what he says:

Now see and make See here on the mountain the pattern that I am showing you. This informs us that Moses had difficulties with the construction of the menorah, until God showed him a model menorah of fire.

The quote in my signature line is something that I used a couple of years ago. there is a similar quotation in the Talmud but it is not an exact quote. Rabbi Solovetchik paraphrased the Talmud into the quote that is at my signature line. Explaining the quote, he said: Man is born like an object, dies like an object, but possesses the ability to live like a subject, like a
creator, an innovator, who can impress his own individual seal upon his life and can extricate himself from a mechanical type of existence and enter into a creative, active mode of being.

I thank you for asking because it has been so long since I first used it that I forgot where it came from!

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I do not think there is connection between my view on circumcision and my relationship with God. I believe and worship loving God. God of the New Testament. If I only knew him from the Old Testament I would have walked away from him. The relationship between God and His chosen people in the Old Testament is totally different from the one He has now with His Church. In the old testament, He chose barbars. In the New Testament, we had become His children. In fact, circumcision as He commanded in the Old Testament was not an act of love.

First of all, please know that I am not questioning anyone’s relationship with God. However, I am a bit stumped here. The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are one and the same. He does not change. However, He does and did spend a great deal of time preparing and molding His people. So what looks like changes in God’s relationship with His people is just Him changing His people step by step, year after year. One thing I do know is that God is love. The covenant with Abraham was not only an act of love, it was utterly sacred. (I can’t say it was the very beginning of His bringing us into His family… He’d been working on that since the fall of man. However, the covenant with Abraham was monumental.)

I am not sure what you mean by “He chose barbars”. He chose people; they were flawed, of course, but aren’t we all? You are right that we are His children. But we are only His children because of His ultimate plan. This included His covenant with Abraham.

 

[Valke2]

Nice explanation PW.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Valke2

Thanks for your time and answers.

Moses must have “seen” a great deal. Or should I say, did Moses “see” a great deal?

Did Moses see Messiah (in some form or image)?

Does Messiah hold or encompass all the things that Moses made copies of?

Exodus 25: 9 and 36: 8, what is the Dwelling? Is this when Messiah come to live among us?

Moses must have seen circumcision in this vision, too, but how?

Concering your signature, it reminded me of “I place before you life and death…”

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Valke2

Jim Baur and I use the same computer.

Sorry about the confusion of not signing in the correct manner.

 

[CherryBomb]

I very much agree with you and am quite disapointed that Church does not speak openly against circumcision practiced by catholics for cultural reasons . The practice of circumcision is really sad. And preverted.

Agreed.

I can appreciate that no one likes to see a baby experience pain, but those are some pretty strong words against something that God sanctioned for thousands of years.

God absolutely did NOT sanction the type of circumcision that’s done in hospitals today.

 

[Newbie2]

I The practice of circumcision is really sad. And preverted.

Preverted? Typo?

I know the babies screem when they are cut.

I think this a barbaric custom and sad becuase it is mutilating.
I don’t see any reason for it as the CC says that it is NOT necessary for salvation.
Why do people still do it, maybe not knowing it really isn’t medically necessary.
My grandaughter is expecting in Jan and I am going to try to talk her out of it for my new baby grandson.D.

also, I recall reading somewhere that a lot more skin is removed nowadays than was back in OT times. I saw a video of one online, and it involves all kinds of poking and prodding, to separate the skin from the penis first so that it can be cut off. It’s not just trimming off loose skin. In the time of the OT (as I read) only the very end of the foreskin was removed (i.e., no poking and prodding).

And also, we know a lot more about personal hygiene now, which makes it unnecessary.

I just don’t understand how parents think that they can alter their child’s body who can’t speak and give informed consent to it. Heck, I don’t even agree with piercing the ears of a baby, let alone cutting off skin.

I believe the current understanding is that the practice, while not necessary for proper hygiene, makes proper cleaning much easier.

Babies scream when they get vaccinated. They scream when they’re hungry. Yeah, it’s painful, but properly done with a local anesthetic there’s minimal discomfort…and far less painful than having it done as an adult. (Yes, then the person is deciding for themself…)

…and a circumsized penis works just as well as an uncircumsized one.

I can see arguments either way, but “barbarism”, “cruelty”, etc. methinks is a bit much.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2

Thanks for your time and answers.

Moses must have “seen” a great deal. Or should I say, did Moses “see” a great deal?

Did Moses see Messiah (in some form or image)?

Does Messiah hold or encompass all the things that Moses made copies of?

Exodus 25: 9 and 36: 8, what is the Dwelling? Is this when Messiah come to live among us?

Moses must have seen circumcision in this vision, too, but how?

Concering your signature, it reminded me of “I place before you life and death…”

Well, the covenantal bris (circumcision) was intstituted generations before Moses, with Abraham. And that’s just as referenced in the bible. Historians may have proof that it was from an earlier time, which seems likely. So Moses would have known about circumcision before receiving the commandments.

Ex. 25:9 is discussing the Tabernacle. “Like everything that I show you, the form of the Tabernacle and the form of allits vessels; and so shall you do.”

Here God is saying that, in the same way that I rested My Presence on Sinai, I shall rest it among Israel, as well as on the Ark to accept the nation’s prayers. The Tabernacle symbolized the centrality of the Torah that was given at Sinia. For example, the Cherubin perched on the ark gazed downward, toward the Ark, to show that Israel’s focus is always upon the Torah.
(paraphrasing commentary by Sforno)

Ex 36:8: All the wise-hearted among those doing the work made the Tabernacle; ten curtains of linen, twisted with turquoise, purple, and scarlet wood; they made them with a woven design of cherubs.

This is the begnining of describing the work involved in building the ark. It begins with curtains.

All this was for the dwelling where the spirit/glory of God was to dwell. Not for the Messiah.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Thank you for the reminder about Abraham.

Thank you for the information concernig the dwelling of the spirit/glory of God.

As always, it is interesting to hear you.

Again, THANKS!

 

[redpepper]

First of all, please know that I am not questioning anyone’s relationship with God. However, I am a bit stumped here. The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are one and the same. He does not change. However, He does and did spend a great deal of time preparing and molding His people. So what looks like changes in God’s relationship with His people is just Him changing His people step by step, year after year. One thing I do know is that God is love. The covenant with Abraham was not only an act of love, it was utterly sacred. (I can’t say it was the very beginning of His bringing us into His family… He’d been working on that since the fall of man. However, the covenant with Abraham was monumental.)

I am not sure what you mean by “He chose barbars”. He chose people; they were flawed, of course, but aren’t we all? You are right that we are His children. But we are only His children because of His ultimate plan. This included His covenant with Abraham.

I apologize if I did not make it clear enough. I do understand God’s plan and why He chose Abraham and his descendants. However, clear understanding of God’s plan comes from the New Testament. My emphasis was on quality of the relationship with God. And this is very much different in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament made God’s chosen people servants; The New Testament made us free. Free of the old covenant and harsh rituals. Hence I believe that circumcision had been reduced to just a primitive ritual and does not have place in catholic/christian communities.

I did not mean disrespect by using “barbaric/barbars”. Perhaps uncivilized would be better?

 

[redpepper]

…and a circumsized penis works just as well as an uncircumsized one.

No, they do not. I do not want to repeat what a female friend of mine once said about american men. But this is not a thread about sexual dysfunction.

 

[pyropam]

Circumcision, operation to remove the foreskin covering the glans of the penis. It dates back to prehistoric times and was widespread throughout the Middle East as a religious rite before it was introduced among the Hebrews, presumably by Abraham. It is performed by Jews on the eighth day after the birth of the male child, unless postponed for reasons of health. It is also practiced among Muslims and by other peoples in many parts of the world. Explanations of the origin of circumcision are entirely conjectural. It is related to rites of initiation. Among Jews it is considered to involve membership in the community and to be a sign of the covenant between God and humans. The decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15; there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians. Despite some controversy, it also has been widely practiced in modern times, especially in the United States, as a sanitary measure believed to give some preventive advantage against penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases (studies have shown it to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of HIV transmission, particularly among heterosexuals). Since 1971, when the American Academy of Pediatrics stopped recommending routine infant circumcision, the number of circumcised infants in the United States has slowly declined, although it is still above 60%.

During the Vietnam Era, uncircumcised soldiers suffered horrible infections due to the long term un-sanitary conditions. Many were left disfigured.

 

[Newbie2]

No, they do not.(function normally) I do not want to repeat what a female friend of mine once said about american men. But this is not a thread about sexual dysfunction.

No, but you’re bringing it up as support for the incorrect assertion that circumcision negatively affects male genitourinary function.

And this friend has experience “owning” one?

Your claim is baseless.

Based on my own experience, mine works fine, all of my friends’ and family’s work fine, (not to mention several milenia of jewish men who’s work fine) and I’m certain that the medical literature backs up pretty much, with a rare exception of a botched procedure that circumcision, does not affect the function of the aforementioned male organ.

Now it’s a legitimate argument to say that the possibility of a botched procedure affecting lifelong function is significant enough to not consider the procedure, or even to argue that an infant should be able to grow to adulthood and be able to make the choice himself…

…but to base your argument that circumcision affects function based on the testimony of a female friend who you imply has “experience”, shall we say, with “american men” (and the implication being a significant number ) calls into question the weight of her testimony vs.millions of perfectly well-functioning men.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Good grief. It’s not a big deal, but circumcision has real health/hygiene benefits associated with it.
Check with a health practitioner re. risks & benefits and make your choice.
If you look at why God told us to circumcize on the 8th day it’s pretty cool,(best time for a baby re. blood coagulation.)
Our Lord was circumcized. I think I’ll go along with the Blessed Mother’s & St. Joseph’s decision.

 

[Newbie2]

Our Lord was circumcized. I think I’ll go along with the Blessed Mother’s & St. Joseph’s decision.

Good point, well put. I never thought of that angle.

 

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by Cracker Mom:
Our Lord was circumcized. I think I’ll go along with the Blessed Mother’s & St. Joseph’s decision…

It’s a Jewish practice and Jesus came to earth as a Jew. Does that mean we should practice Jewish customs?

There is no medical reason for circumcision, therefore it’s a cultural thing.

Which brings me to…female circumcision, generally regarded in the West to be a barbaric practice. If performed with anesthesia, under hygenic conditions, is it or is it not simply something cultural as well or does the intent (to prevent sexual enjoyment) make it unacceptable regardless?

 

[jrabs]

My fiancé stopped visiting this forum based on threads of circumcision and as heated as they get. Not sure why people get so emotional over a personal parental decision.

What he told me was that few men chime in on the topic - and that the passion is usually from women. Interesting as that is. Why would that be I wonder?

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Circumcision DOES have health benefits, but it’s a personal decision you as a Catholic can make. Jewish hygiene & dietary laws have benefits, they’re not just cultural.
Under the New Covenant we’re not bound to everything under the Old Covenant but we certainly can see the wisdom in some practises God used to protect His chosen people. And then we can make our choice.

 

[Brendan]

It’s a Jewish practice and Jesus came to earth as a Jew. Does that mean we should practice Jewish customs?

There is no medical reason for circumcision, therefore it’s a cultural thing.

They practiced circumcision under a mandate from God. Since God commanded it, there can be little doubt that the action is morally acceptable.

I’m not saying that it’s a good idea, but, as Catholics, we cannot say that it is intrinsically immoral.