thank you for the kind words.
You are loveable, no matter - love means not counting the costs.
Plus- you have a sense of humor that I truly appreciate.
And, we are only talking about skin now. Its merely the largest part of the human body, So what the hey. Snip away.
I think the reason for the opinion [that the Church should have a stronger stance against it] is that the Church only acknowledges it as a cultural thing, not a religious one, so as long as Catholics are not doing it with any religious motive, She is indifferent. I think the opinion is more to say that the Church should have a definitive stance on it, either require it (which we know She would not, hence the reason it is not necessary for Christians) or forbid Catholics doing it (because there is no real medical necessity, and we kinda do believe in respect for bodily integrity).
I agree. The Catholic Church isn’t one that expects us to check our brains at the door. She gives the bare minimum rules, and allows us as much freedom as possible. That’s why there’s no mandates about how many children each family is to have, whether or not to circumcise, how long to breastfeed, or any other example from a long line of parenting topics. Holy Mother Church tells us that we are the primary and most important teachers of our children, and expects us to use our God-given intelligence to figure out what that means for our individual families in the greater context of the Body of Christ.
While I tend to agree (note: I’m no doctor) that circumcision tends to be a good idea, I don’t think that AIDS prevention is adequate reason. Given that this discussion is among Catholics, it is presupposed that sexual activity is not acceptable outside of marriage. If a couple have abstained from sex until they are married, then the only remaining risk factors for contracting HIV (e.g., blood transfusions) are completely independent of whether or not the man is circumcised.
Methinks so too. And FYI, MY perfect son, who is circumcised, didn’t scream when he was cut - he only “screamed” beforehand when the nurse put the anaesthetic cream on him (not a painful process, babies just scream sometimes!). Other than that it didn’t appear to bother him. I think it was more painful for my wife and I watching.Preverted? Typo?
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.
I again apologies. The point was not that we should circumcise our children to prevent them from getting AIDS. The point is that being circumcised may help mitigate disease.
Here’s the rub: God did command it, whether we understand why or not, so it cannot be immoral. It cannot become immoral (though, I expect, one could do it for immoral reasons).This thread just reminds me why I think that circumcision is wrong.
Since obviously Catholics are not required to do it because of religion, Americans then need other reasons to do it, then the argument goes.
It’s better to cut it then to clean it
It’s better to cut it so it doesn’t’ get infected.
And with this reasoning we could also remove tonsils at birth, it will not harbor bacteria and it will not get infected. And people can function normally without it.
I think that from a Catholic perspective it can be seen as immoral.
CCC297
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law
American Medical Association defines circumcision as a “non-therapeutic” surgical procedure. Circumcisions (as commonly performed on newborn boys) are non-therapeutic, because no disease is present and no therapeutic treatment is required. Furthermore, circumcision removes healthy and functional tissue from the body.
I still don’t get it why God commanded it in the OT. I mean it wasn’t done for health reasons or HIV protection it was a sign on the flesh. But why on the penis, and how can it be a sign when other cultures performed circumcisions also, and why did only men need to have a “sign on the body”, women were also Jewish and a part of the people of God.
Well the morality in OT is weird anyway, God commanded Abraham to murder his son, and helped Jews commit genocides, and punishment for rape was paying some money and marrying the victim.
I never thought about circumcision being a sin. I thought you did it to boys for medical reasons. I guess I have sinned (I really don’t believe I have) because all three of my sons were circumcisioned I did this for medical reasons for them.I have heard that sometimes grown men have had to have this done. I don’t know how some of you find all of this. No one has ever told me it is a sin. My priest told me if you don’t think something is a sin but the church does, it is not a sin. Let your heart be your guide as we really all know when we are doing something that is
Actually, you’re correct. If you do something not knowing it is wrong, you have not sinned. So no, you didn’t sin.
St. Peter guided the Early Church in Rome for about 20 years. He has written letters to the Church and emphasized the Holy Eucharist and the necessity for Baptism.
It’s one of those thing i will never understand.
