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
Pope Eugene IV's bull Cantate Domino says that "The sacrosanct Roman Church"
Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) Wrote:commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.
I hope many expecting parents will take this to heart.  Circumcision is on the next tier below abortion of the violations of the right to life.
How do we know whether it was done or not?
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]How do we know whether it was done or not?

Do you mean yourself personally?  If you need information or are unsure, feel free to PM me.
I've heard of this proscription before, is it binding on persons who had it done in their infancy, against their will?
(02-27-2014, 01:46 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]How do we know whether it was done or not?

Do you mean yourself personally?  If you need information or are unsure, feel free to PM me.

We wouldn't know either way if it was done during infancy.

I don't want to know personally.
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]How do we know whether it was done or not?
If your foreskin remains intact you were not circumcised.

I guess I am going to hell.
(02-27-2014, 01:51 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]How do we know whether it was done or not?
If your foreskin remains intact you were not circumcised.

I guess I am going to hell.

Only if you chose to have it done as an adult and have not repented of it.  If it was done to you as an infant, obviously you are not going to hell for that.
(02-27-2014, 01:50 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]We wouldn't know either way if it was done during infancy.

I don't want to know personally.

Sure you would.  If you have a brown ring around the middle, and no skin covering the end, you're circumcised.  Mutilated.  Not as God created you.
I think the passage that the OP quoted is in reference to ritual circumcision. There have been Christians throughout history that has insisted that we needed to abide by the Old Covenant.

Modern circumcision is different. The history is different and the reasons are different (thank Mr. Kellogg for that one). Currently, the principal Catholic objection to circumcision is based on the principal of violating the rights of the person.

from http://www.drmomma.org/2010/03/morality-...ng-to.html

Quote:Question:

What is the morality of circumcision? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that amputations and mutilations performed on innocent people without strictly therapeutic reasons are against the moral law.

Pope Pius XII taught that circumcision is morally permissible if it prevents a disease that cannot be countered any other way.

In spite of these and other church statements against circumcision through the centuries, I'm told there is no strict Catholic rule against the practice [of male genital mutilation] today. Why not? No medical or health association in the world recommends circumcision. (Ohio)


Answer:

I'm not sure why not, but the fact is male circumcision generally just doesn't appear very much on the "radar screen" of Catholic moral teaching. Many major moral theology texts don't mention it. A notable except is "Medical Ethics," by Father Edwin Healy SJ (Loyal University Press), who holds that since routine circumcisions are not medically defensible they are morally objectionable.

A few observations may help explain. The practice of circumcision arose thousands of years ago and nearly always has religious or social significance, signifying full membership in the group and establishing one's social position in the society.

The first command to the Jews, for example, was that every male child shed blood by "muwl" or "namal," symbolizing the covenant between God and Abraham (Gn 17).

After the famous confrontation between Paul and other leaders of the early church (Acts 15 and Galatians 2), Christians pretty much rejected circumcision for becoming a believer in Christ.

The idea didn't entirely die, however. The theory that circumcision still held some spiritual benefits even for Christians, prompted at least some of the condemnations you speak of. The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

The following century, the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christ not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Today, while male circumcision remains common in some places, as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law" (N. 2297).

Elective circumcision clearly violates that standard. It is an amputation and mutilation, and as you note, no medical group in the world defends it as having any therapeutic value. In 1999 the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated that neonatal circumcision is nontherapeutic because no disease is present and no treatment is required.

Modern Catholic Church documents do not deal explicitly with the morality of elective circumcision. The above basic principles, however, clearly render it immoral. It violates the bodily integrity of infant male children and unnecessarily deprives them of a part of their body that serves to protect the glans (head) of the penis during infancy and serves an important sexual function for adults.

My understanding from physicians is that circumcision rarely, if ever, arises as an ethical consideration. Usually it is requested by the parents for more social reasons such as, "it's always been done in our family." In that case, the procedure might be carried out in some places rather routinely, even if it is not what the child needs and no medical or remedial reason renders it ethical.

For more on circumcision and the Catholic Church, see this site.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11