Does this information affect previous CA statements on circumcision?

[AtlMama]

Previous answers in the Ask an Apologist forum on circumcision have stated that there is no religious reason, and that medical/cultural reasons are left to the parents and doctor, but it is not objectively mutilation because God would not mandate mutilation.

Could it be that God mandated a non-detrimental circumcision, but today’s circumcision (forceful stripping of foreskin from glans – comparable to removing a fingernail – and complete amputation of foreskin, all usually without anesthesia) is truly mutilation?

I recently learned that modern circumcision in no way resembles the traditional, ancient practice (by Jews or otherwise). cirp.org/library/history/peron2 and the eighth paragraph of oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Circumcision, for example.

Further information:

Ancient circumcision removed only the tip of the foreskin – looking at a tiny baby, it is the part that extends beyond the glans. In fact, there was so much foreskin left that Jews could stretch their foreskins in athletic competitions to appear uncircumcised – which they did, and which led to later rabbis changing circumcision to be a complete amputation of the foreskin.

I agree that it is unlikely God mandated an unhealthful procedure for all his people (although he occasionally mandated something that would otherwise be bad for us – like a three-year-old (Samuel) being sent from his mother to the temple). It appears he didn’t, but that man did, and that modern circumcision may well fall into the category of “mutilation” that is condemned by the Catechism.

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

1. Mutilation is the non-therapeutic alteration or destruction of parts of the body in such a manner that it prevents the body from functioning as it was designed. So, for example, surgically tying off the female fallopian tubes or cutting the male vasa deferentia is mutilation because it destroys the human body’s ability to participate in reproduction. Male circumcision does not inhibit the reproduction or elimination functions of the male body. When such a procedure is done for just reason then – such as religious mandate, cultural acclimation, or therapeutic necessity – it therefore is not mutilation.

2. That the manner in which circumcision is done might have changed over the years does not affect the question, assuming that the circumcision does not deliberately destroy the body’s ability to function in the manner in which it was designed. All sorts of theories have been posited that circumcision may traumatize male babies or that it may later interfere in adult males’ sexual pleasure (which, Catholics should keep in mind, is not the purpose of marital relations), but these theories have not been proven. And, although it may be wise for babies to be given anesthesia before the procedure when performed in hospitals, religious experts in the procedure such as Jewish *mohelim *have found that they can do the circumcision without standard anesthesias and with minimal discomfort for the child.

3. That said, Catholic parents, who have no religious need for circumcision and in a society that now questions the “cultural necessity” for the procedure, may certainly choose not to have it done for their sons unless true medical necessity should require it (which is usually quite rare). When making their arguments though, they should take care not to cast aspersions on the legitimate choice of other Catholic parents to circumcise. It is possible, in other words, to question the necessity of routine non-therapeutic and non-religious circumcision without questioning the values or competence of parents who disagree.