FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Catholic Church forbids circumcision for any reason!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(02-28-2014, 12:14 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2014, 12:00 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Rape, that leaves worse emotional scars, so that's probably worse, but then again, circumcision on an unwilling person is a type of rape.


I can't even.

Yeah, like I said....goofy-talk
(02-28-2014, 12:19 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2014, 12:14 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2014, 12:00 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Rape, that leaves worse emotional scars, so that's probably worse, but then again, circumcision on an unwilling person is a type of rape.


I can't even.

You're held down forcibly while someone permanently cuts off a part of your body.

Yeah, that's rape.

So, God basically told His chosen people to rape their children as a sign of His covenant with them?  uh, no. 

Circumcision is not part of the New Covenant between Christ and His Church.  The document from the Council of Florence denounces circumcision to eliminate any confusion between the Old Covenant and the New.  St. Paul taught that circumcision is not necessary, and that our covenant with God is established through Baptism and not through circumcision.  He was speaking against it as an alternative to baptism and the belief many Jewish converts held that it is necessary to be part of God's people.

However plenty of people today get their sons circumcised so that the son resembles the father, or because of some belief that it prevents certain cancers, or because you think it is easier to keep clean.  When I was a baby I was circumcised by a mohel at a bris, when we had our son he was circumcised at the pediatrician's office--there was no religious ritual involved and there was also no pain due to the topical anesthetic. 

The Blessed Mother had her Divine Son circumcised, because he was a Jew and it is something that God ordained.  We celebrate His circumcision on January 1st.  It could never be an intrinsically evil act comparable to rape.  The God we worship is the same God that commanded Abraham to remove his foreskin as a token of the covenant that existed between them, even if such an act is not part of our covenant with Him.

(02-28-2014, 12:48 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]So, God basically told His chosen people to rape their children as a sign of His covenant with them?

If you believe that Yahweh is God, then yes, yes he did.  He murdered the firstborn of the entire nation of Egypt in cold blood.  Do you really put child rape past him?

Quote:Circumcision is not part of the New Covenant between Christ and His Church.  The document from the Council of Florence denounces circumcision to eliminate any confusion between the Old Covenant and the New.  St. Paul taught that circumcision is not necessary, and that our covenant with God is established through Baptism and not through circumcision.  He was speaking against it as an alternative to baptism and the belief many Jewish converts held that it is necessary to be part of God's people.

But God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  If it was required to circumcise for religious reasons then, it can't possibly be a sin to circumcise for religious reasons now.

Quote:However plenty of people today get their sons circumcised so that the son resembles the father,

Well, I hope those fathers aren't missing any other body parts!  I mean, really.  I need to cut off a part of my son's body so that he will look like me?

Quote: or because you think it is easier to keep clean. 

Imagine the illnesses that could be prevented by cutting off children's hands...

Quote:there was no religious ritual involved and there was also no pain due to the topical anesthetic. 

Come on, man, use your brain for a minute.  There was no pain because you used a topical anesthetic?  The foreskin is the most densely innervated part of the human body.  If I were to cut off your lips or eyelids, and only gave you a topical anesthetic to ease the pain, you really think you wouldn't feel any?  That would be like going to have a cavity filled and only giving the patient some ambesol.

Quote:The Blessed Mother had her Divine Son circumcised, because he was a Jew and it is something that God ordained.  We celebrate His circumcision on January 1st.   It could never be an intrinsically evil act comparable to rape.  The God we worship is the same God that commanded Abraham to remove his foreskin as a token of the covenant that existed between them, even if such an act is not part of our covenant with Him.

All proof that the god you worship is not a god at all.
Melkite, we have interacted on here at various times for, what, over a year now?

You are obviously quite angry. I get that, as I find it easy to be angry as well.

My suggestion is to 1) quit while you're ahead (and anyone can feel free to remind me of my own advice at any time! :) ) 2) seek out a priest to have these issues explained from a competent theological perspective. 3) God willing, you may make a good confession.

May Our Lady give you peace.
(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]If you believe that Yahweh is God, then yes, yes he did.  He murdered the firstborn of the entire nation of Egypt in cold blood.  Do you really put child rape past him?

Calling God a murderer is blasphemy.  All life belongs to God and is created by God.  He can give, and He can take away.

(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]But God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  If it was required to circumcise for religious reasons then, it can't possibly be a sin to circumcise for religious reasons now.

It is a sin to circumcise for religious reasons, hence the Church document quoted and also the many writings of St. Paul regarding circumcision.  However, God did tell His people to do this for a very long time, and He would not tell people to do something that was intrinsically bad.  It would be a sin today to say, slay an animal Old Testament style because you think this sacrifice will somehow pay for your sins.  This would deny the Sacrifice on Calvary.   What is sinful about it is that you'd be acting as if the Old Covenant is still salvific when it isn't, that is the error... You could not argue that it is sinful because it is wrong to kill an animal, however. 

(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I hope those fathers aren't missing any other body parts!  I mean, really.  I need to cut off a part of my son's body so that he will look like me?

Some people think that the child would feel bad about himself if he is different from his father.

(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine the illnesses that could be prevented by cutting off children's hands...

:cuckoo:

(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Come on, man, use your brain for a minute.  There was no pain because you used a topical anesthetic?  The foreskin is the most densely innervated part of the human body.  If I were to cut off your lips or eyelids, and only gave you a topical anesthetic to ease the pain, you really think you wouldn't feel any?  That would be like going to have a cavity filled and only giving the patient some ambesol.

They also injected anesthetic, but he didn't feel the injection because of the topical.  He was less than a month old at the time so he would have let us know if it was painful.

Most people who are circumcised turn out fine.  I am sorry if you feel a grievance about your own circumcision.

(02-28-2014, 12:57 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]All proof that the god you worship is not a god at all.

[Image: pope_facepalm.jpg]

All right, I've had enough talking about penises for one day... next topic!
(02-28-2014, 01:35 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]Calling God a murderer is blasphemy.  All life belongs to God and is created by God.  He can give, and He can take away.

How can it be when it is what he did?  How can telling the truth be blasphemy?  He killed innocent people.  When God sins, it's not sin?  This really is not illogical to you?

Quote:Some people think that the child would feel bad about himself if he is different from his father.

Which people?  The ones doing the cutting or the ones being cut?  I guess it wouldn't make much sense to wait till he's old enough to decide whether he feels different or not?  Maybe the people who think the child might feel bad should stop projecting onto others and live their own lives.


Quote: Most people who are circumcised turn out fine. 

I guess that depends on how you define fine.  If being mutilated causes you to project onto others that they'll feel bad unless they're mutilated too, to me that's not fine, that's psycho.
(02-28-2014, 01:48 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2014, 01:35 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]Calling God a murderer is blasphemy.  All life belongs to God and is created by God.  He can give, and He can take away.

How can it be when it is what he did?  How can telling the truth be blasphemy?  He killed innocent people.  When God sins, it's not sin?  This really is not illogical to you?

You are trying to measure God by your own yardstick.  Death would not even exist in the world if man hadn't fallen.

Quote:Some people think that the child would feel bad about himself if he is different from his father.

Maybe the people who think the child might feel bad should stop projecting onto others and live their own lives.

[/quote]

[Image: pot-and-kettke.jpg]


Quote: Most people who are circumcised turn out fine. 

I guess that depends on how you define fine.  If being mutilated causes you to project onto others that they'll feel bad unless they're mutilated too, to me that's not fine, that's psycho.
[/quote]

Honestly, I experienced circumcision as a baby and I experienced horrific genital mutilation at the hands of a bona-fide psycho, that resulted in me losing one of my nuts & requiring reconstructive surgery.  Circumcision doesn't even register.
(02-28-2014, 01:48 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-28-2014, 01:35 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]Calling God a murderer is blasphemy.  All life belongs to God and is created by God.  He can give, and He can take away.

How can it be when it is what he did?  How can telling the truth be blasphemy?  He killed innocent people.  When God sins, it's not sin?  This really is not illogical to you?

... Which people?  The ones doing the cutting or the ones being cut?  I guess it wouldn't make much sense to wait till he's old enough to decide whether he feels different or not?  Maybe the people who think the child might feel bad should stop projecting onto others and live their own lives.

Melkite, you need to stop and realize where you are. If you have questions you want to ask, then by all means ask. But engaging in what is, objectively, blasphemy can't be tolerated here. And there's the obvious concept of basic manners, of not going to a forum devoted to cause X and writing as if cause X is evil, wrong, or stupid.

Me, I am very much against circucmcision as a routine procedure, which is one of the reasons why I made the FE page on that topic. I don't see any good medical reason for it to be performed on a routine basis, and I find the way some folks talk about the integrity of male genitalia as being so "expendable," even as they're horrified by female circumcision (which comes in a wide variety of forms, some MUCH worse than others), very sad.  But, Melkite, you are not going to further the cause by engaging in BLASPHEMY.

Second, I hope you understand the differences between OT circumcision and modern circumcision. They are radically different procedures (see the FE site's pages on Circumcision if you're not hip).

Austenbosten, you can stop with your characterizing being against circumcision or seeing the circumcizing of male babies as an assault as some "goofy" idea. You are not helping (and I doubt that some theoretical alien visiting from the Pleiades seeing how humans lop off parts of their male children's genitalia could see it as anything but odd, to say the least, and sexist if said theoretical alien were hip to such a concept, and, yes, barbaric if the alien were to see the routine lopping off of healthy body parts for no good medical reason as barbaric in se.)

A question for Austenbosten:  if parents were to have a doctor strap down their 16 year old son, anesthetic being a 50-50 proposition, and lop off his foreskin, would you see that as OK? If not, then you're "ageist" against babies, know nothing about them, don't care about their feelings, wrongly don't think they have feelings, think that because they might not have conscious memory of the procedure later makes things OK, or -- something else I can't imagine. None of those reasons is OK by me, for what it's worth. The sort of thinking that, say, excuses circumcision because "eh, they won't remember it anyway" sounds like the sort of excuse pedophiles make in attempting to justify their abuse of infants. "Eh, the kid won't remember my having him lick my member, so -- so what?" Bullshit! One could say the same about a date-rape drug:  "eh, she won't remember, so it can't hurt her." Even if -- and that "if" is on its face a conditional and assumes that what isn't consciously remembered doesn't have an impact on someone's personality and fears and ways of dealing with life -- a victim doesn't remember, the evil done to such a victim-lacking-memory is still an evil.


(02-28-2014, 03:16 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Second, I hope you understand the differences between OT circumcision and modern circumcision. They are radically different procedures (see the FE site's pages on Circumcision if you're not hip).
either way, it is still cutting off part of someone's genitals which some have objected to on the grounds that it is genital mutilation and an evil act in and of itself.  However, even if the circumcisions done today are different from those practiced by the Jews thousands of years ago, would you say that one is genital mutilation and the other one isn't?  The idea of cutting off part of the foreskin is not an idea that originated in the mind of man, but rather in the mind of God.  I can understand objecting to the practice to eliminate confusion about the Old Covenant and the Law among Christians, however it is my understanding that the Church does not teach that it is an intrinsically evil, barbaric practice of genital mutilation that automatically makes you a bad parent. 

Female genital mutilation never originated in the mind of God.  It has never been part of Judeo-Christian culture. 

(02-28-2014, 03:49 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]either way, it is still cutting off part of someone's genitals which some have objected to on the grounds that it is genital mutilation and an evil act in and of itself.  However, even if the circumcisions done today are different from those practiced by the Jews thousands of years ago, would you say that one is genital mutilation and the other one isn't?  The idea of cutting off part of the foreskin is not an idea that originated in the mind of man, but rather in the mind of God.  I can understand objecting to the practice to eliminate confusion about the Old Covenant and the Law among Christians, however it is my understanding that the Church does not teach that it is an intrinsically evil, barbaric practice of genital mutilation that automatically makes you a bad parent. 
(snip)

Just to be clear:  the idea of cutting off just the foreskiin that could be pulled past the end of the penis is what the OT rules called for. Literally ripping the foreskin from the penis, using fingernails to forcefully tear it away from the glans down, to the point of the preppuce, and cutting all that flesh away -- that's not what the OT called for. IOW, the two procedures -- the OT procedure, and the procedure called for by post-Temple rabbis and by modern medicine today -- are radically different procedures with radically different effects (for both the circumcise and for their wives).

So, do I see the original OT procedure as "genital mutilation"? I guess I have to in the sense that the genitals are altered -- but not in the sense that if affects functioning, including its sexual functioning and the very purpose of the foreskin, including its allowing "gliding" abilities that make sex for the wife a lot more pleasurable. I doubt that either procedure is pleasant for male babies, that's for sure. But the post-Temple procedure is, in fact, light years away from the OT procedure.

I haven't studied this fascinating topic in depth, but what occurs to me is that God ordained the (MUCH less instrusive) OT circucmsion which leaves all of the purposes of the parts of the penis intact in order to get folks to feel the pain of sacrifice, of having to endure seeing one's son shed blood in the same way that the Father had to endure seeing His Son shed Blood for us.  It's like with the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham that foreshadows the Father's offering up His only-begotten Son -- a sacrifice, BTW, which Abraham seemed to KNOW that God would not expect him to carry through (see Genesis 22:7-8:  "Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust? And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son.")  IOW, he went through the motions, obeying God -- while also TRUSTING God to not expect him to actually sacrifice his son, and trusting that He would provide a victim for the holocaust instead. And it seems that the purpose of the entire story is to get folks to imagine what it was for God to send HIS Son as a Sacrifice. It's easier to relate to some guy named Abraham who had a wife and a son and whom we know things about, etc., than it is to relate to "God, the Father" in all this.)

In any case, we are in the New Covenant, and the rites of the OT are meaningless outside of insofar as they act as roots and types of New Covenant rites. The New Testament is clear about circumcision at this time, as is the Church. Medical reasons --- i.e., reasons that pertain to a given individual who has particular problems which circumcision might help alleviate -- aside, Christians are not to be circumcised acc, to Scripture and the Church.The extreme differences between OT and post-Temple circumcision make this point even doubly clear to me -- and should, one'd think anyway, have some impact on how the "we need to follow OT Law" "Christians" should go about circumcising their sons, if that's what they insist on doing.

By saying all that, I do NOT mean to imply that parents who have their sons circumcised are "ignorant" as in "stupid"! And while my guess is that most parents who do circumcise don't put a whole lot of thought into it, thinking "eh, it's just what's done!", I think that lack of thought is problematic and maybe indicative of a belief that babies don't feel pain (a very wrong belief), or indicative of ignorance about what exactly is cut away, what its purpose is, how it affects the sexual pleasure of both the circumcised man and his wife. It's easy to get caught up doing things in a certain way because "that's just what folks do!" -- but I do wish that Christians think a LOT more deeply about all of this, listen to the Church, listen to what pediatricians have to say, etc. (and maybe throw a thought toward the possible future marriage of their sons and the sexual happiness they should have with their wives).



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11