Circumcision: is it moral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mordocai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s one of those thing i will never understand.:confused:
For example saint Paul calls it mutilation
Philippians 3
2Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh
Why does Paul calls it mutilation, he could use any other word:confused:
4 [2] Beware of the mutilation: literally, “incision,” an ironic wordplay on “circumcision”; cf Gal 5:12. There may be an association with the self-inflicted mutilations of the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:28) and of devotees of Cybele who slashed themselves in religious frenzy.
 
I just checked my email and saw this in the “Hot Topics” section, so I thought I’d put in my “two cents”.

Most (if not all) men in my family aren’t circumcised – of course, since it’s not really talked about, I cannot vouch for everyone. I only know what I talked about with my mother. My father’s family came overseas from Serbia where the practice also isn’t commonplace.

To top that off, all of the men - all left intact - in my mother’s side (6 brothers) were born in the 30s-50s, where the practice was getting large here in the United States.

I am a male who has decided (provided that my future wife agrees) that my future sons (if any) will remain intact as well. I don’t see why she would disagree with me. The decision to circumcise in the United States legally lies with the mother - since, of course, the mother bears the child.

My logic I feel is simple - since God created man on God’s vision, isn’t every man built as God designed? I certainly wouldn’t want to feel as if I am questioning God’s vision. Of course, with my statement I’m not meaning to imply that those who read this that have already circumcised their sons have questioned God - but this is one of the reasons that I wouldn’t consider making the circumcision decision, ever.

Also, there is a mechanical function to the foreskin that shouldn’t be overlooked:
  1. It protects an infant’s “member” from fecal matter when they soil their diapers - because ALL infants soil their diapers.
  2. It protects a male’s “member” from abrasions against clothing.
  3. It maintains moisture to the “member” during intercourse - after marriage, of course - (I AM going to play the naive card here since this is a Catholic forum), which studies have shown provide better comfort for both the male and female partners.
I don’t feel like I am the one to make that call. I certainly will vaccinate my children, but I will not circumcise (or pierce) them.

Teach a child proper hygiene - mandate it as a parent - and there will be no problems. This isn’t the Vietnam era - we’re beyond that as a society – and – of all of the members of my family who were recently active in the military - hygiene isn’t nearly the issue now as it was then since there are showers provided.

Whenever I got dirty, I had to shower when I was a kid. Showering included cleaning ALL body parts. Let them know that the area “down there” had to be washed as well and - if you raised them well - they will obey as I did. I am not about to make a decision on their behalf that will affect them - irreversibly (naturally anyway) for their ENTIRE lives.
I couldn’t agree more.
i actually find this video of infant circumcision, it’s completly horrible i almost :crying:
video.yahoo.com/video/play?ei=UTF-8&vid=163488&partner=yvideo&fr=&.fdbk=rev:0
And i found this website, it’s from a catholic perspective
catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/cac_happens.htm
 
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.

“Circumcision” was never proposed by our first Pope. Were it so then circumcision would have been seen as a sacrament. Sacraments are necessary for our being children of God…circumcision is NOT.
Right. No one is saying circumcision is necessary to become a part of the covenant people, like in the OT and Jews still do today.

The Church neither commands nor forbids it. It is a matter of prudence and there is no teaching to bind our conscience either way. As with many things, 'zup 2 u!
 
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.:o
God also permitted slavery and polygamy.
And also can the church change its moral teachings :confused:

Peace be with you
God did not, however, actually make Abraham go through with it – instead, He provided a suitable replacement once Abraham had demonstrated his loyalty.

Furthermore, since we assume God’s infinite justice, wisdom, and love, we can assume that if He commanded the Jews to commit genocide, it would’ve been wrong for them to refuse. We also believe in His mercy, so it’s not without reason to suggest that He was merciful to the people slaughtered.

Re: rape, slavery, and polygamy: none of these was commanded as a sign of faithfulness to His covenant.

And, to my knowledge, the Church’s moral teachings (as well as faith teachings) have not changed and do not change. They may be elaborated and expanded when the need arises, but the fundamental teaching doesn’t change because something either is or is not morally acceptable. The Church doesn’t decide willy-nilly what to brand as immoral.

Peace,
Dante
 
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.

I should however point out that all 3 of my boys were circumcised and one of them does have AIDS. Circumcision is not in my opinion going to prevent you from getting a disease but it might be something that helps. I will also say that being circumcised is a lot cleaner and easier to clean.

Please pray for my son.
I’m so sorry. Will certainly pray for your son.
God bless.
 
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.:confused:
The AMA? Please…these are the same folks who helped make abortions legal, pushed for embryonic stem cell research, & “therapeutic” human cloning.
 
Circumcision does NOT prevent AIDS nor does it prevent Venereal diseases. It does not even prevent Herpes. Having gratuitous sexual encounters sexual escapades can result in debilitating diseases. Circumcision does noy inhibit ALL of the social diseases…those circumcised can even be MORE vulnerable. Prevent disease? It is a myth.

Circumcision, at its very beginnings, was an identifying mutilation of being one of the Chosen. It is NOT for health or any other reasons. It is/was for purely religious identity.
 
…Prevent disease? It is a myth…
🤷 Others assert that the idea that circumcision has no health benefits is the myth, and put forward their own evidence supporting this. I think the most that can be conclusively said for the evidence at this time is that the evidence either for or against the health benefits of circumcision is inconclusive.
 
Circumcision does NOT prevent AIDS nor does it prevent Venereal diseases. It does not even prevent Herpes. Having gratuitous sexual encounters sexual escapades can result in debilitating diseases. Circumcision does noy inhibit ALL of the social diseases…those circumcised can even be MORE vulnerable. Prevent disease? It is a myth.

Circumcision, at its very beginnings, was an identifying mutilation of being one of the Chosen. It is NOT for health or any other reasons. It is/was for purely religious identity.
I want to suggest that all of the God given laws of the old covenant were for the benefit of the people God gave the laws to. I can not think of any God given Old Testament law that was only there to set the Jewish people apart without providing them some kind of benefit. I believe it to be the same with Circumcision, God gave it to the Jewish people to set them apart and to provide health benefits.

I never suggested that Circumcision prevents disease but I did provide real evidence that it can mitigate and reduce your chances contracting some diseases. Empirical evidence as shown in the article I exposed you to, strongly suggests a link between circumcision and health benefits.
 
Some quotes from the master for thought:
It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure. *- S.T.III, q. 70, a. 3, ad. 1

And another, which seems to be the official church position:

*But since it seems unbecoming that the apostles, in order to avoid scandal, should have hidden things pertaining to the truth of life and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful; therefore Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother; but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality. *- S.T. I-II, q. 103, a. 4, ad. 1
 
I want to suggest that all of the God given laws of the old covenant were for the benefit of the people God gave the laws to. I can not think of any God given Old Testament law that was only there to set the Jewish people apart without providing them some kind of benefit. I believe it to be the same with Circumcision, God gave it to the Jewish people to set them apart and to provide health benefits.

I never suggested that Circumcision prevents disease but I did provide real evidence that it can mitigate and reduce your chances contracting some diseases. Empirical evidence as shown in the article I exposed you to, strongly suggests a link between circumcision and health benefits.
“…link between circumcision and health benefits…”

This underscoring of “health benefit” appears nowhere in the Old Testament. This idea is NOT biblical. St. Paul told the gentiles that circumcision was NOT necessary…he should know if it was an :identity marking" or a “health benefit.”

Circumcised or uncircumcised, promiscuity can bring on a debilitating disease. It is playing Russian Roulette, no matter.
 
“…link between circumcision and health benefits…”

This underscoring of “health benefit” appears nowhere in the Old Testament. This idea is NOT biblical. St. Paul told the gentiles that circumcision was NOT necessary…he should know if it was an :identity marking" or a “health benefit.”

Circumcised or uncircumcised, promiscuity can bring on a debilitating disease. It is playing Russian Roulette, no matter.
I am not saying that the Old Testament enumerated the specific benefits behind each of the laws God gave the Jews in Leviticus, what I am saying is, in my opinion, each had a benefit for the Jews besides just obeying God’s law.

I am also not promoting promiscuity, but what I am saying is as the empirical evidence in the article shows there is a link between being circumcised and reduced cases of AIDS. Yes I am making a stretch when I suggest that if circumcision reduces the rate of AIDS it will reduce the rate of other diseases but in my opinion it is a reasonable stretch, would you not agree?

I am desperately trying to avoid ad hominems and all other types of logical fallacies. I am trying to state when it is my opinion that it is my opinion and provide an appeal to authority to show the reasonability of my argument.

It seems difficult to have a discussion when someone says no, no, no and no because I said it is no.
 
There is no argument…only opinions that differ. The thread asks if circumcision is moral…maybe it is for some; mabe not for others. St. Paul said it was not necessary for gentiles to be circimcised in the Early Church. That, to me, means that Jews no longer mandated to be circumcised…not as being a follower of Christ.

It is too gray a subject. The “health” aspect is arguable. You can find just as many experts say opposite of each other. 🙂
 
There is no argument…only opinions that differ. The thread asks if circumcision is moral…maybe it is for some; mabe not for others. St. Paul said it was not necessary for gentiles to be circimcised in the Early Church. That, to me, means that Jews no longer mandated to be circumcised…not as being a follower of Christ.

It is too gray a subject. The “health” aspect is arguable. You can find just as many experts say opposite of each other. 🙂
My friend we are in accord, with the assertion that the medical community is split on whether there are health benefits or not. I believe that circumcision is gravely immoral for a Christian to do if it is done in order to achieve salvation. I believe circumcision would be gravely immoral for anyone if it was done as a form of sadism or masochism. I do not believe circumcision is immoral for a Christian to do to themselves or their children for health reasions.
 
I am not saying that the Old Testament enumerated the specific benefits behind each of the laws God gave the Jews in Leviticus, what I am saying is, in my opinion, each had a benefit for the Jews besides just obeying God’s law.

I am also not promoting promiscuity, but what I am saying is as the empirical evidence in the article shows there is a link between being circumcised and reduced cases of AIDS. Yes I am making a stretch when I suggest that if circumcision reduces the rate of AIDS it will reduce the rate of other diseases but in my opinion it is a reasonable stretch, would you not agree?

I am desperately trying to avoid ad hominems and all other types of logical fallacies. I am trying to state when it is my opinion that it is my opinion and provide an appeal to authority to show the reasonability of my argument.

It seems difficult to have a discussion when someone says no, no, no and no because I said it is no.
IF circumcision reduces the rate of AIDS wouldn’t then removal of clitoral hood from girls give the same “benefit” since they are homolugus?
IMHO health benefits are just myths.
I believe that God created foreskin for a reason. It’s not a condition with which boys are born so that they need genital surgery immediately after birth 🙂
 
IF circumcision reduces the rate of AIDS wouldn’t then removal of clitoral hood from girls give the same “benefit” since they are homolugus?
IMHO health benefits are just myths.
I believe that God created foreskin for a reason. It’s not a condition with which boys are born so that they need genital surgery immediately after birth
I am not certain what you are trying to say I don’t understand “homolugus.” If you are trying to say that male circumcision and female circumcision are identical with regard to their benefit for health I would disagree.

I don’t want to get too graphic this is a family board but let me try to explain why I think there might be a benefit for males that would not be there for females. For males after circumcision you have a clean dry area that will reduce the chance of incubating some kind of disease. For a female even if you were to perform circumcision you would not have the clean dry area that you would with a male. I have noticed with my wife that women and men are build considerably different down there.
 
Communicable disease can infect on contact alone. The virus penetrates through pores with or WITHOUT foreskin.

Sorry, I don’t buy it…but then…that’s just an opinion. It’s about contact.
 
It is interesting that those who claim that circumcizing in order to “make him look like daddy” or other aesthetic reasons usually are opposed to female circumcision. You can’t have it both ways. If you circumcize for aesthetics, then it is moral for both sexes.
 
I am not certain what you are trying to say I don’t understand “homolugus.” If you are trying to say that male circumcision and female circumcision are identical with regard to their benefit for health I would disagree.

I don’t want to get too graphic this is a family board but let me try to explain why I think there might be a benefit for males that would not be there for females. For males after circumcision you have a clean dry area that will reduce the chance of incubating some kind of disease. For a female even if you were to perform circumcision you would not have the clean dry area that you would with a male. I have noticed with my wife that women and men are build considerably different down there.
I’m not saying that FC(female circumcision) and MC (male circumcision) is the same, although the psychology behind it is the same(looks better, healthier, cleaner…)
There are 4types of female circumcision; type 1 is identical to male circumcision (type 1 FC is approved by Muslims)
WHO defines Type I female genital cutting as the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is homologous to the foreskin of the penis which is removed during circumcision.
So what I was saying was if male circumcision reduces AIDS and is healthier shouldn’t type 1 of FC also have the same effect?

Peace be with you
 
It is interesting that those who claim that circumcizing in order to “make him look like daddy” or other aesthetic reasons usually are opposed to female circumcision. You can’t have it both ways. If you circumcize for aesthetics, then it is moral for both sexes.
Ummmm… no. One was a God ordained practice for the people of God up to and including Christ himself. The other is a pagan practice that is a mutilation, never commanded by God. That’s a huge difference.

Plus, despite all the claims otherwise, all the latest and leadind medical journals agree that medical circumcision prevent both uirnary tract infections and other persistent infections that an lead to types of cancer. The comparisons between circumcized and uncircumcized men and the health benefits are comprehensive and unambiguous. Anything else is non-medical opinion.

Religious circumcision was indeed done away with in the New Testament, it has been replaced my the better rite of baptism. But for medical reasons the debate was over a few years ago in the western world. Not only is it appropriate it is much healthier and more sanitary.

As will many things God commanded under the old covenant in His wisdom, there were definate health benefits as well. Eating Kosher in ancient times is another example.

So unless peoples opinions trump the New England Journal of medicine etc. Medical circumcision is a good thing.

And so is looking like daddy. Trust me, little boys are very interested in comparing themselves to daddy and sameness in this area is important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top