Circumcision: is it moral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mordocai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mordocai

Guest
can someone explain this to me?

to put trust in circumcision for salvation is wrong, but what about otherwise?
is it still a sin to circumsize?

this is pope eugenius IV at the council of florence.

Session 11—4 February 1442

[Bull of Union with the Copts]
It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. 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.
 
For the Christian, the act of removing a piece of skin from the end of the penis is a morally neutral act apart from some weird intention like using the cells from the removed skin to clone a twin.
 
this pope was referring specifically to the Hebrew practice as a work of the Law, not the medical procedure in use today. context, context, context. His context was conversion from Judaism to Christianity.
 
just to push the issue a bit further

specifically, the final lines:

“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.”

is Pope Eugenius saying that, irregardless of whether a person trusts in circumision for salvation or not, it can not possibly be observed without the loss of eternal salvation?

of course, even if it were a sin, it could be confessed.

i know circumcision is a neutral act, but i just want to understand this Bull to the full (pardon the papal pun 🙂 )
 
I don’t know the context, but it is entirely possible that a Pope in a certain period of time may have bound catholics not to be circumcised. During such a time, deliberate circumcision in spite of the church ruling WOULD have been seriously sinful. But the sin would be the disobedience.

A similar matter is cremation. At one time cremation was done only as a spiteful repudiation of the christian idea of resurrection. Today, many would like the option either for cost issues or concern about excessive land use for the dead. Since this desire is quite different from motivations in the past, the church lifted the prohibition.

Today circumcision is not banned, but catholics are warned not to see it as an act of religious significance.
 
is there a document that states the church’s position that circumcision is not banned?
 
Any current documents or statements? Basically looking for a definitive something that tells current Church teaching?

God Bless, Mary Keep
Mordocai
 
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 Circumcision falls under both amputation and mutilation, so it is clearly covered by this policy. Catholics generally are required to respect bodily integrity.2 Lack of respect for bodily integrity is viewed as a violation of the Fifth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill.3

cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/
 
Mordocai said:
can someone explain this to me?

to put trust in circumcision for salvation is wrong, but what about otherwise?
is it still a sin to circumsize?

this is pope eugenius IV at the council of florence.

Session 11—4 February 1442

[Bull of Union with the Copts]
It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. 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.
Click to expand...
Oh my gosh you guys really are BOUND up constantly in worry

Stop worrying Jesus said dont worry!

Get on with living life instead of fretting over these issues otherwise your life will be gone
 
I’m coming in a little late on this one. I came to the site today in search of answers on this issue. When I was pregnant with my son, the thought of circumcision upset me very deeply. I had a sense of dread about it, impending doom kind of thing. I decided to do research, ask questions and pray about the whole thing. The more I learned, the more I felt strongly convicted that circumcision was not only unnecessary, but also unethical and even cruel. (No offense to anyone, this is just the way I feel). As you can imagine, I chose not to circumcize my son and instead left him intact. In my studies, I came across a site called Catholics Against Circumcision (www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org) which further gave me support and comfort. It also got me wondering about church teaching regarding circumcision. Knowing what I do about it, I am surprised the church does not speak out against it more fervently. I don’t think most Catholics would even think to consult church teaching or guidance in this area (I didn’t!) as circumcision is seen more as a cultural issue rather than a religious one. I feel blessed and relieved that I did not follow my culture blindly on this one. My son is perfect just the way God made him. He has a right to all his body parts. I wouldn’t change a thing.

Just my two cents.
 
Lisamarie said:
. Knowing what I do about it, I am surprised the church does not speak out against it more fervently. I don’t think most Catholics would even think to consult church teaching or guidance in this area (I didn’t!) as circumcision is seen more as a cultural issue rather than a religious one. I feel blessed and relieved that I did not follow my culture blindly on this one. My son is perfect just the way God made him. He has a right to all his body parts. I wouldn’t change a thing.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Andruschak said:
Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision:mad:
Click to expand...
Let’s cut to the chase. I anticipate the day when the pro-foreskin groups are a major influence in the neo conservative movement. I shudder to think of the picture/signs they will be waving in front of hospitals throughout the nation.

There’s a jewish teaching/parable somewhere that teaches that the brit/circumcision is a way for the father to participate more fully in creation. That God intentionally left a little unfinished business on male babies so that men could have a few minutes perfecting the creation of the child (just like they had a few minutes in starting the creative process 🙂 ).
 
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)?
 
Lisamarie said:
I’m coming in a little late on this one. I came to the site today in search of answers on this issue. When I was pregnant with my son, the thought of circumcision upset me very deeply. I had a sense of dread about it, impending doom kind of thing. I decided to do research, ask questions and pray about the whole thing. The more I learned, the more I felt strongly convicted that circumcision was not only unnecessary, but also unethical and even cruel. (No offense to anyone, this is just the way I feel). As you can imagine, I chose not to circumcize my son and instead left him intact. In my studies, I came across a site called Catholics Against Circumcision (www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org) which further gave me support and comfort. It also got me wondering about church teaching regarding circumcision. Knowing what I do about it, I am surprised the church does not speak out against it more fervently. I don’t think most Catholics would even think to consult church teaching or guidance in this area (I didn’t!) as circumcision is seen more as a cultural issue rather than a religious one. I feel blessed and relieved that I did not follow my culture blindly on this one. My son is perfect just the way God made him. He has a right to all his body parts. I wouldn’t change a thing.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you left your little baby boy in tact the way God made him.
You are brave and setting a new way for moms.
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. So pray for me I can:thumbsup:
D.
 
Wow, I’m surprised at the diversity of responses in this thread. Maybe because I have had all girls and never had to face the decision. I’ve seen words thrown out on this thread like “child abuse” and “perverted” and “barbaric”. 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. Not only did He sanction it, He commanded it as the sign of the covenant with Abraham–Gen 17:10-13
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised.
Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me. Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not of your blood. Yes, both the houseborn slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact.
Click to expand...
So my question at this point is: what do your views say about God? Are you saying we worship a God that commanded His people to abuse children in a perverted, barbaric act? This is an unsettling thought, but it seems to be what you are saying. I fully realize that circumcision is no longer necessary under the New Covenant. But I do not see where Jesus or any of the apostles taught that it had suddenly become a barbaric practice (only that it was not necessary).

I’m not trying to ruffle feathers here, I really do want to understand.
 
Prayer_Warrior said:
So my question at this point is: what do your views say about God? Are you saying we worship a God that commanded His people to abuse children in a perverted, barbaric act? This is an unsettling thought, but it seems to be what you are saying. I fully realize that circumcision is no longer necessary under the New Covenant. But I do not see where Jesus or any of the apostles taught that it had suddenly become a barbaric practice (only that it was not necessary).

I’m not trying to ruffle feathers here, I really do want to understand.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).

So not only is it not reqired of Catholics because of Jesus, but what was required and done way back then is not what is done by doctors in hospitals today, so therefore, the argument of “how can something God once required once now be wrong” does not hold much water for that reason. 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top