Cosmetic procedures - morally wrong?

[Lorik]

IMHO, there’s a huge difference between cosmetic and corrective.

 

[Revert_TSIEG]

Remember our bodies are Tempels Of The Holy Spirit.

What do you think God will say to those people who had Breast Implants for Vanity reasons?

Are they not telling God he made a mistake?

God does not make mistakes.

Vanity is a sin.

Antrim

… and so you wear second hand dirty clothes everyday, you do not do your hair, or wear deodorant… how about brushing your teeth? Your assertion to think that you know what God will say to those who had procedures done is sickening. How about… I hope the procedure goes well and you are now happy enough with yourself that you can minister the word of our Lord? That sound like someone who truly loves another and wants them to be confident enough to minister.

Too often we want to tell others what to do based on our own preferences. If you think you are fine, then you are… if you do not think you are fine, then you are not. Unfortunately, only we can assure ourselves that we are happy with ourselves. Once we are satisfied, we can do the Lords work better than if we were/are depressed because something about ourselves bothers us.

God Bless

Revert TSIEG

 

[Antrim]

I am talking strictly about Breast Implant procedures.
Nothing else.

Taking care of your Teeth and personal hygene has nothing whatsoever to do with mutalalation of the body to have Breast Implants put in.

Remember this is messing with nature and God created Nature.

When we die there is no justifaction or ratification.

We did it or we did not do it.

It is right or it is wrong.

Antrim

 

[EvelynEVF]

Antrim, is it a vanity reason for a woman who has had a radical mastectomy? Or does that count as restoration to you?

 

[Antrim]

Restoration from a Masectomy is the same as having plastic surgery on your Face because of an Accident.

That is not for vanity reasons therefore it is not a sin.

Antrim

 

[Toribus]

The Roman Catholic Church has never issued an officialpolicy speceffically regarding non -theraputic 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 Amputation, Mutalations and sterilizations. Circumcision falls under both amputation and mutalation, so it is clearly covered by this policy. Catholics generally are required to respect bodily integrity.
Lack of respect for bodily integrity is viewed as violation of the Fifth Comandment. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
The new (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church at Paragraph 2297 states in part.
Except when performed for strictly theraputic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutalations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
As you can see what I said was not my opinion…
Would you not say that Breast Implants is mutalation of the body for non theraputic reasons.
Blessed are those who have not seen and have beleived.
I do not as a rule post statements on this thread where I do not know or at least I have not read the Churches teaching on the subject.

Anerim

I am afraid you are entirely mistaken, for two reasons.

The first is a misapplication of the terms amputation and mutilation. Amputation is the removal of functional or essential body parts (a hand, a foot) typically because sacrificing a part preserves the whole. This is in accord with St Thomas Aquinas’ principle of double effect - the removal of necrotic tissues is objectively good (as they are in effective rebellion against the body, and threaten it with death), the loss of a functional body part is objectively evil (since the objective good is to lose nothing at all) but the preservation of the rest of the body is the greater good.

Mutilation is the act of intentionally causing damage to the body for the purpose of disfigurement. It is always and everywhere an act of malice and wickedness.

Circumcision is neither amputation nor mutilation. The foreskin of the penis serves no essential function, and is removed without causing any loss or damage to the body. Circumcision as commonly understood is also not carried out for malicious reasons, but rather in accord with traditions or hygiene.

The second reason is your contradiction of divine mandate - God Himself commanded that every male of Israel submit to circumcision. Since God is incapable of commanding evil (though he may command morally neutral as well as good acts), circumcision of the foreskin is at worst a morally neutral act.

Please refrain from speaking with pontifical certainty on matters in which you have an incompletely formed position.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Toribus, circumcision removes what would be in an adult, a 3x5 card sized piece of highly sensitive erogenous tissue. It provides lubrication and protects the glans penis. When cut off from a baby, it has to be ripped away from the underlying tissue, exactly like a fingernail from a nailbed. (When left alone, it gradually separates.) And then you have that raw wound, as well as the cut tissue, trapped inside a diaper. And a newborn penis is tiny and it’s not easy to circumcise evenly. Because I work with young babies, I have seen mistakes and infections.

My personal choice was to leave my sons intact rather than take the risk, and if they have a medical need later, then we’ll do it later.

True, the Church doesn’t take a stand on routine circumcision, but it isn’t because it’s an insignificant thing or a useless piece of tissue. I tend to think that God wouldn’t have used something insignificant for a sign of the covenant, anyway. People had to take it really seriously to be willing to cut that off, yk?

 

[ML561]

OK, I was not blessed with long, beautiful hair. I have thin hair which frequently falls out, no matter what shampoos or conditioners I use. So therefore I am considering purchasing a wig. Is that bad?

Also, I feel self-conscious about the size of my breasts, which have always been large for my body size and have received some rather off-color comments at times. If I were able to afford it, I would consider breast reduction surgery–to say nothing of the fact that I am unable to find a brassiere that does not look like a mini-corset!!

I do understand that cosmetic surgery as well as other things such as makeup, etc. can get way out of hand and go into the realm of vanity. But wanting to look reasonably attractive cannot be all bad. One thing I never have understood is why some saints and the orders they founded refused to bathe or brush their teeth, even wearing hair shirts that were covered with lice. How do these practices encourage holiness? (On the other hand, I am not a fan of the Lysol crowd which advertises that there are germs around every corner which will kill us all.)

Grace and Peace to you all.

 

[pyro_alchemist]

There are all kinds of information on the Catholic Websites on this subject where it is clearly spelt out and explained.

Just look it up.

Antrim

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

It is your responsibility as a poster to provide your references when you make such a statement. This site is a wonderful resource for spiritual growth but far too many here are under the false impression that they represent the magisterium. I myself nearly left the faith because of such a poster. Remember Christ’s warning about the millstone!

 

[ProlifeMD]

Let’s not treat psychological issues as “not medical”. They are very real. Some women have implants to feel better about themselves. That could be theraputic for them, and not vanity, if it imporves their sense of self worth. That is not vanity.

We should rather blame a society in which a people’s looks cause us to jump to conclusions about the kind of persons they are and their worth. Jesus loved everyone. We seem to try to follow his example by picking and choosing.

The risks of modern cosmetic surgery in a proper medical environment, good surgical facility, good nursing staff, good anesthesia etc, are very, very low.

 

[Antrim]

The Roman Cayholic Church and NonTheraputic Circumcision.

The new (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church at Paragraph 2297 states in part.

Except when performed for strictly theraputic medical reasons, directly intended amputhtions, mutalations,and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

This is included under the above heading

This is on the Internet under ( The Catholic Church and its stand on Mutalation)

Antrim

 

[Florida_mom]

I’m interested in knowing how other Catholics would decide whether the following cases are morally acceptable or not.

Case 1A a parent get his child braces for teeth that are unsightly but not causing medical problems. Kindness & generosity, or a concession to vanity?

Case 1 B. The parent gets braces for himself for a similar problem. Has it now become vanity and morally questionable?

Case 2 A an adolescent boy has gynomastia (excess fatty tissue in the breasts that causes a feminized appearance. No medical problems but emotional, psychological, and self-esteem problems. ). His parents have plastic surgery done on him to fix this.

Case 2 B the boy’s father has the same problem and has plastic surgery to fix it. Is it now morally wrong? If so, why?

Case 2 C. The boy’s mother has the opposite problem . Too little fatty tissue in the same area gives her an underly-feminine appearance. As above, not a medical concern but a psychological and self-esteem concern. If she had plastic surgery to fix the problem, is it now wrong? If the cases for the males were morally acceptable, and this case is not, why not?

For Case 1A and 1B-not all braces are for pure medical reasons. I could not bite corn on the cob and my lower jaw resembled the sillouhette of a figure 8. Braces were denied as being unnecessary b/c my “smile” was fine. I could live life that way, but I am much happier with a proper functioning jaw. There are few “pure” medical reasons to obtain braces.

My braces were acquired as an adult prior to my baptism/conversion into the Catholic Faith. My braces were never mentioned in any portion of the RCIA process including multiple interviews with catechists and priests.

So I would have to say that the Catholic Church nor the bible consider these to be immoral/sinful.

I would never pursue breast augmentation–and I would feel that anything that brings the breasts to an average appearance would be okay. If you want EEEE busts–then you have issues of vanity.

Self-image is not an issue of vanity though and typically normal folks who do things things want to appear close to normal so that attention is not focused on their anomalies.

FWIW–you didn’t mention breast reduction…but over time woman with large breasts can face back issues, so I do have breast reduction in my radar as a possibility in the future. I keep having to get the same spot on my back adjusted by the chiropractor. The only thing that I can figure that is causing my back to b/c in need of adjustment is the size of my breast tissue.

And on the note of circumcision–we have opted to keep our son intact. The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends it as a necessary procedure and there is just no need.

There are TONS of research out there on circumcision and why it is not needed. The “it’s needed for hygeine” is a big misnomer.

My son requires no extra care in that area–his “wee wee” is developing as it should.

Should he decides to be like the “other boys in the locker room”, he is free to seek a urologist at the age of 18 to have the procedure done.

To say it isn’t done for malicious reasons–while that may be true, the most common reason parents get it done is so that the boy looks like his dad. That is not a sound reason since it can be expected that past toddlerhood, the likelihood of my son and their dad being with each other naked is a very slim chance. There are so many other differences that my son will not acquire until puberty for starters!

 

[Florida_mom]

Mutilation is the act of intentionally causing damage to the body for the purpose of disfigurement. It is always and everywhere an act of malice and wickedness.

Circumcision is neither amputation nor mutilation. The foreskin of the penis serves no essential function, and is removed without causing any loss or damage to the body. Circumcision as commonly understood is also not carried out for malicious reasons, but rather in accord with traditions or hygiene.

The foreskin is not necrotic and can you please cite in the Catechism where functionality is a prerequisite for whether or not something is considered mutilation.

And despite society depicting the male appendage in circumcised form and folks have been conditioned to believe that it is the normal figure of the male appendage, it is indeed a disfigurement.

I would conclude that the Church’s position of not commenting that it is mutilation stems from Jesus himself being circumcised based on his Jewish tradition.

We learn more about the body as time passes–and the foreskin is not “function-less”.

Also it is important to note–circumcision is usually based on society and traditon and NOT medicine. So the hygeine argument is used just to make folks feel better about that decision.

netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm

Should we avoid circumcision?
The foreskin is not simply a useless piece of skin, to be disposed of without careful thought. It forms the covering of the head (glans) of the penis in men and the clitoris in women. It is very rich in nerves responsible for touch and the movement of the foreskin backwards and forwards over the glans provides some of the pleasurable sensation experienced during sex.

Adult males that were circumcised as infants do not usually report sexual problems linked with their circumcision, perhaps because they have never experienced sexual sensation with a foreskin. However, men circumcised as sexually active adults quite frequently complain of sexual problems arising from either reduced or altered penile sensation.

You will note the website does mention things such as AIDS, UTI’s and PENILE CANCER–but in most circumstances, circumcision is not the answer as a generic preventative.

What is important to note is that just b/c the church has no stance on this–does not mean that they can’t be educated to the truth so that they can take a stance.

It was once okay to do many things in the old testament that are now not permitted. The church isn’t static.

 

[Melissa]

FWIW–you didn’t mention breast reduction…but over time woman with large breasts can face back issues, so I do have breast reduction in my radar as a possibility in the future. I keep having to get the same spot on my back adjusted by the chiropractor. The only thing that I can figure that is causing my back to b/c in need of adjustment is the size of my breast tissue.

Bringing this back up to the top … I just got home yesterday after my reduction surgery. While I’m still experiencing some post-surgery discomfort, once that goes away, I should have a cure for my chronic back/neck pain. I’m looking forward to getting rid of the surgical drains, because they’re very difficult to dress around. Once I get through the acute recovery, I know I’m going to be very glad I had this done. If breastfeeding my children hadn’t been so important to me, I probably would’ve had this done years and years ago.