Does the church support/condemn circumcision?

[Kanuckistani]

What’s the Roman Catholic Church’s view on this type of medical procedure, especially on infants and teenagers?

*I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

 

[Thankfulness]

A personal decision.
It’s part of Jewish, not Christian law

The question was settled in Acts15 and Galations 2:11-21
and
“For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.”(1 Corinthians 7:19 )
"For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.(Galatians 6:15 )

God bless!

 

[Kanuckistani]

A personal decision.
It’s part of Jewish, not Christian law

The question was settled in Acts15 and Galations 2:11-21

Oh, thank you. I’ll read that verse tonight.

 

[Thankfulness]

I added a couple of St Paul’s quotes to my response.
Thanks.

 

[Khalid]

I never considered this, but if I was called to marriage and had a son, that son would be circumcised, as I am and as civilized people are. Whatever the homeopathic magicians and back-to-naturalists and hippys would say, the health benefits are there, and with virtually no risk (unless an incompetent surgeon botches the procedure).

But not as part of the Jewish covenant, no. I believe if one would be circumcised or have circumcised (brit milah) with the intent of Jewish covenant-membership, it’s heresy/apostasy.

 

[Baelor]

I never considered this, but if I was called to marriage and had a son, that son would be circumcised, as I am and as civilized people are.

Many Europeans are not circumcised. Their societal and faith problems notwithstanding, they are hardly uncivilized.

 

[Khalid]

I’ll have to look up statistics on it. Much of Europe is many things - often self-hating, Judaeophobic, faithless and apostate, highly immoral - but uncivilized isn’t one of them. Civilization reaches its highest expressions in the modern world in southern Europe, the coasts of the United States (and, I am sure, some areas in Canada, but I know little of Canada), and Japan (I believe southern Europe has many less of those aforementioned problems than northern Europe, problems which can be traced directly to the “Reformation”).

What was it an emperor said about “Bread and Circuses”? and Tacitus said about cultural decadence? “Pride cometh before the fall”. Modern Europe (and to a lesser extent America, and to a lesser extent certain phenomena in Japan) seems to be collectively in that stage of lofty decadence that precedes the fall of all Empires and great States; it is a testament to the height and decadence and individualistic self-centeredness of civilization, that many people would view the Biblical curses of sterility as blessings, today.

Maybe it’s “cultural baggage” from a Muslim society (all Muslims are circumcised) that my mind strongly associates routine circumcision with civilization and high culture, as opposed to tribalism and backwardness.

Baelor: did you get your name from George RR Martin? His last book - which took eight years to “finish the last half of it” - sucked. The longer he takes to write, the worse his output.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I never considered this, but if I was called to marriage and had a son, that son would be circumcised, as I am and as civilized people are. Whatever the homeopathic magicians and back-to-naturalists and hippys would say, the health benefits are there, and with virtually no risk (unless an incompetent surgeon botches the procedure).

But not as part of the Jewish covenant, no. I believe if one would be circumcised or have circumcised (brit milah) with the intent of Jewish covenant-membership, it’s heresy/apostasy.

I’m Catholic and I see my circumcision as sharing in God’s covenant between Abraham. It’s a mark of God on my body.

I don’t think you know what apostasy means. Apostasy according to Catholicism is the the total denial and desertion of Christ. Keeping the Jewish covenant is not that, it is rather the fulfillment of the Old by the New.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

The laws of Moses were to keep the Jews healthy. Circumcision is a good idea.

 

[Khalid]

I’m Catholic and I see my circumcision as sharing in God’s covenant between Abraham. It’s a mark of God on my body.

I don’t think you know what apostasy means. Apostasy according to Catholicism is the the total denial and desertion of Christ. Keeping the Jewish covenant is not that, it is rather the fulfillment of the Old by the New.

Keeping the ritual aspects of the Jewish covenant for the reasons of the Jewish covenant, and not coincidental reasons (such as health concerns) is denying that Christ has come - dictionary definition of apostasy. Keeping Jewish ritual is apostasy, as it is by the very commission of it a denial that the Messiah has come.

Cf. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II Q103 A4

 

[Baelor]

Khalid, could you point to that in a definitive Church document, instead of something that has no canonical weight? That would settle the issue definitively.

Civilization reaches its highest expressions in the modern world in southern Europe, the coasts of the United States (and, I am sure, some areas in Canada, but I know little of Canada), and Japan (I believe southern Europe has many less of those aforementioned problems than northern Europe, problems which can be traced directly to the “Reformation”).

What problems can be traced to the Reformation? I highly doubt that it has anything substantial to do with their current lack of civilization. Anyway, Northern and Western Europe is clearly civilized – Germany, France, Britain – in terms of cultural and technological progress. If you are considering moral civilization as a factor, then the coasts of the US are hardly more civilized than most of Western and Northern Europe.

Modern Europe (and to a lesser extent America, and to a lesser extent certain phenomena in Japan) seems to be collectively in that stage of lofty decadence that precedes the fall of all Empires and great States

Empires and great states that remain civilized so long as they remain at all.

Baelor: did you get your name from George RR Martin? His last book - which took eight years to “finish the last half of it” - sucked.

I am sorry that you were unable to appreciate it for the great book that it was.

 

[Khalid]

No doubt they are still civilized, but they remind one of the Roman Empire at its height, at the time of the Five Good Emperors (well, maybe not quite that bad).

Reformation led to less religiosity, and materialism, through the Calvinist work ethic.

The first three books were excellent, some of the best fantasy ever written (although not Malazan or Black Company-level). I liked A Feast For Crows even though most people didn’t. A Dance With Dragons was pathetic - Tyrion wasn’t even funny, except in maybe three lines in the entire book, and Tyrion is supposed to be (and always was) hilarious. Danaerys’ character turned in to a sniveling rat of a pseudo-crusader abolitionist and animal rights activist, after she was demonstrated to be of black heart pragmatism with a suppressed idealism in the first books, that idealism takes off and she’s stuck in privileged princess syndrome, the most pressing matter on her mind which mercenary captain she’s in love with. There was what, one, two chapters of Arya? Danaerys and Arya are the selling-points of the book; Danaerys’ invasion and Arya’s esoteric training at the House of Black and White: she’s mentioned long enough to get her vision back and speak some riddles, and that’s it. Daenarys still doesn’t put two and two together, that since she can’t be burned, but she can’t control dragons, she can blow the Horn of Valere (the dragon-controlling self-immolator, or whatever it’s called in ASOIAF; I may be thinking of the “summons the shades of heroes” horn from WoT), even though it’s painfully obvious to the reader, and given what information we know Danaerys has, should be obvious to her. The brother Targaryen felt like a deus ex machina, and his invasion was still the high point of the book. The fleet of Ironborn going to assist Danaerys was poorly executed, with no defined middle or end, and no climax in the book. GRRM is off his game. If he gets it back, he’ll be able to play the two Targaryen’s invasions off of each other, and finish with Arya assassinating one (or both) of them, and the Ironborn finishing off their armies and taking control of the Seven Kingdoms.

 

[PJM]

=Kanuckistani;8811099]What’s the Roman Catholic Church’s view on this type of medical procedure, especially on infants and teenagers?

*I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

My friend God is the CREATER of all life.

Consider this: Everytime one has unprotected sex a pregnancy does NOT automatically happen. WHY? Because God has built in a NATURAL system for allowing and preventing pregnancy.

Next ask yourself why God created sexusal intercourse?

There are ONLY two reasons. 1. Procreation of the species and within MARRAIGE for
the unitive benefits of married sex. I call it “marraige cement.”

So the Answer to BOTH questions is that GOD ALONE reserveres the RIGHTS of both LIFE and DEATH to be His and His alone to determine.

ANY act that USURPS God’s own right to determine these things is ALWAYS and everytime a Mortal Sin: what the CC terms an “intrinsic Evil.”

Both contraception and stitilazation fall into this catagaory.

God Bless you,
Pat

Catechism of the CC

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

 

[Khalid]

Circumcision has nothing to do with birth control or sterilization, and does not interfere with the teleology of the marital act.

 

[Baelor]

PJM, I am a bit confused – what does your post/those sections of the CCC have to do with circumcision? It is basically a cosmetic procedure. Perhaps if the OP were wondering about castration…

 

[PJM]

=Khalid;8813220]Circumcision has nothing to do with birth control or sterilization, and does not interfere with the teleology of the marital act.

Your views friend ARE ONLY YOUR views: Not God’s and Not the RCC. PLEASE do not suppose the right to speak on our behalf unless you specify what your sharing is NOT Catholic Doctrine!

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Baelor]

Your views friend ARE ONLY YOUR views: Not God’s and Not the RCC. PLEASE do not suppose the right to speak on our behalf unless you specify what your sharing is NOT Catholic Doctrine!

God Bless you,
Pat

PJM, Khalid is objectively correct. The Church does not condemn circumcision, and it has no permanent effect on fertility, nor is it sterilization. You are way out of line.

And Khalid, I have responded in the appropriate thread in Popular Media to your paragraph about Martin’s new book.

 

[Khalid]

I can’t see it: link please? PM it if you want.