The Catholic Church forbids circumcision for any reason!
#51
"Jaegermeister" Wrote:heretical Catholics on the right.
What kind of heresies can one find on the Catholic "right"?
Reply
#52
(02-27-2014, 01:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: 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.

Just to be clear for folks reading over our shoulders: the Catholic Church does NOT forbid circumcision for "any" reason. There are sometimes health reasons for circumcision (for ex., a mentally retarded man who can't clean himself properly, or a foreskin that doesn't naturally separate from the glans, etc.).

The Church does, though, forbid routine circumcision, and circumcision done for religious reasons -- including the excuse that "God in the OT wanted it!" Christians live under the NEW Covenant. The only OT laws that apply to us are the Ten Commandments, all of which amount to the Two Great Commandments:  that we love God with all our hearts and minds and souls and strength, and that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

(Sloppy language will be the death of me.)


Reply
#53
(02-28-2014, 03:49 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: Female genital mutilation never originated in the mind of God.  It has never been part of Judeo-Christian culture. 

On the contrary, clitoridectomy was routinely performed by Western physicians through the 19th and into the early 20th centuries on female children in order to curb masturbation. One notable British gynecologist, Isaac Baker Brown, believed that irritation of the clitoris was a cause of mania and epilepsy and advocated its removal in all cases. At the same time, though, there were other physicians who would manually stimulate women in order to treat "hysteria" and other conditions.

It has persisted into our own times as a means of "correcting" children who were born with unusual genitalia. For example, a clitoris beyond a certain size has often been "sculpted" to look more conventional. This has resulted in sexual dysfunction for many, because of loss of highly-innervated tissue.

Some years ago, a Kansas woman from a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant background wrote about her discovery that, as a child in the 1950s, her parents had her clitoris surgically removed:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rape-Innocence...187841111X
Reply
#54
Perhaps there is an additional benefit to not circumcising male children: it creates a higher barrier of entry into certain false sects that mandate it and are growing increasingly popular. Specifically, I mean Islam and the whole host of "Judaizing heresies." Judaizing Protestants are an increasingly common sight in America. I refer to those eccentrics who insist on calling Our Lord "Yeshua Ha-Mashiach" rather than Jesus Christ and prefer to keep the Jewish feasts rather than Christian holy days.

I also say you should feed your children bacon for the same reason.
Reply
#55
(02-28-2014, 05:31 AM)Cyriacus Wrote:
(02-28-2014, 03:49 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: Female genital mutilation never originated in the mind of God.  It has never been part of Judeo-Christian culture. 

On the contrary, clitoridectomy was routinely performed by Western physicians through the 19th and into the early 20th centuries on female children in order to curb masturbation. One notable British gynecologist, Isaac Baker Brown, believed that irritation of the clitoris was a cause of mania and epilepsy and advocated its removal in all cases. At the same time, though, there were other physicians who would manually stimulate women in order to treat "hysteria" and other conditions.

It has persisted into our own times as a means of "correcting" children who were born with unusual genitalia. For example, a clitoris beyond a certain size has often been "sculpted" to look more conventional. This has resulted in sexual dysfunction for many, because of loss of highly-innervated tissue.

Some years ago, a Kansas woman from a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant background wrote about her discovery that, as a child in the 1950s, her parents had her clitoris surgically removed:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rape-Innocence...187841111X

This is still a manmade idea and not something that came from any kind of divine authority.  Circumcision of men was a divine idea, at least at one point, therefore I cannot see it as intrinsically evil
Reply
#56
(02-28-2014, 03:49 AM)Chestertonian Wrote: 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. 

The Egyptians are documented as having practiced circumcision long before Abraham ever would have been born, if he really existed.  The Egyptians were likely not the only ones, since circumcision plays a religious role in the animism of many African and Australian aboriginal tribes.  Circumcision originated with man thousands of years before God would have commanded Abraham to do so.
Reply
#57
(02-28-2014, 05:43 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: Perhaps there is an additional benefit to not circumcising male children: it creates a higher barrier of entry into certain false sects that mandate it and are growing increasingly popular. Specifically, I mean Islam and the whole host of "Judaizing heresies." Judaizing Protestants are an increasingly common sight in America. I refer to those eccentrics who insist on calling Our Lord "Yeshua Ha-Mashiach" rather than Jesus Christ and prefer to keep the Jewish feasts rather than Christian holy days.

I also say you should feed your children bacon for the same reason.

Mmm . . . bacon . . .  Yup.  Teach your boys to love bacon and leave their penis intact and they won't become Muslim extremists.  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Reply
#58
St. Augustine observes that the custom of Christians is not neutrality and a lack of preference one way or another when it comes to circumcising, but rather that the practice among Christians is to not circumcise. Augustine identifies the spiritual signification of this practice.

From his Reply to Faustus the Manichean, Book XIX, Paragraph 9. In: Dods M (ed). The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1872. vol. 15, p. 334.

Quote:Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, my reply is, that a Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that what was prefigured by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ.  Circumcision was the type of the removal of our fleshly nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and which the sacrament of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own resurrection.  The sacrament of the new life is not wholly discontinued, for our resurrection from the dead is still to come; but this sacrament has been improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, because now a pattern of the eternal life which is to come is afforded us in the resurrection of Christ, whereas formerly there was nothing of the kind.

Just as the Jews signified their keeping of the covenant through the outward sign of circumcision, so through our being fleshly uncircumcised we signify the fulfillment of the covenant by Christ and we signify the nature of our spiritual circumcision through baptism.

I would note that the Council of Ferrara, on the matter of circumcision, was directed towards certain Eastern Christians who kept circumcision largely as a matter of secular custom, in deference to neighboring Muslims. This includes the Copts under Islamic rule, as well as certain other Christians in the Orient. In some circumstances, these Christians were forcibly made to circumcise their children by local rulers. Marco Polo relates one such example of an eastern bishop undergoing forced circumcision by command of a ruler in southern Arabia. Even knowing this, the fathers of the council prohibited it!

I also refer you to an old handbook on medical ethics that addresses circumcision as a medical procedure through the lens of Catholic ethical philosophy applied to medicine, written by a Jesuit priest in the 1950s, Medical Ethics by Father Edwin F. Healy, S.J. Loyola University Press, Chicago, 1956. Chapter 4, pp. 121-122:

The Ethics of Mutilation
Quote:MUTILATION IS AN ACTION (an excision or the equivalent) by which an organic function or the use of a member of the body is intentionally destroyed either partially or wholly.  The action consists of cutting out, crushing, burning, X-raying, or in some such manner directly destroying a part of the human body or of rendering an organ permanently inoperative. The mutilation may result in the suppression of an organic function- for example, the destruction of one's vision or power of procreation- or it may consist in the amputation of an arm or a leg.  To strip off skin from the body to use for grafting is not a mutilation, for in this operation no organic function or member of the body is destroyed. Neither would a blood transfusion, nor a face-lifting operation, nor dental extraction be considered mutilations in the technical sense of the term.  Even procedures such as these, however, which are not mutilations in the strict sense of the term, may not be licitly used without a justifying reason.

The general rule regarding mutilation is this, that mutilation is licit only when necessary for preserving the health of the whole body.  The reason that the scope of justifiable mutilations is thus limited is that man has the supreme ownership neither of the whole body nor of its various parts, and that he is therefore not permitted to treat them as though he were the supreme owner.  Man is merely the custodian of his body and its parts.  Directly to destroy the body or one of its parts is to exercise over that object supreme ownership.  One cannot act more clearly in a manner that implies ownership over a thing than by destroying it, for by so doing he puts an end to its very existence.

Mutilation is, however, licit if it is required to conserve the health of the whole body.   To save one's life even at the expense of losing part of the body is the act of a wise administrator.  The whole obviously is better than any single part; and since God has made us stewards of our bodies, we may presume that He desires that we sacrifice a part of the body if that is necessary to conserve the rest.

pp. 128-129
Case 55

Circumcision of Newborn Males
Quote:Dr. J makes it a practice to circumcise all male infants shortly after birth.  He says that this is merely routine procedure and that it is recommended by most competent physicians.

Solution.
Unless there is a positive indication for circumcision, the operation should be omitted.

Explanation.
It has been said that too many physicians practice routine circumcision and give little thought to the complications that can result. In by far the majority of the operations, it is true, there have been no serious complications, but in some cases severe hemorrhage and infection have developed from the surgery.  Unsightly scars, too, have at times resulted.  To expose an infant to such dangers, though they be remote, would not be justified unless there were present a compensating reason. . . In premature babies, or in those not gaining weight as they should, or in those suffering from a blood disease or some infection, there would hardly be sufficient reason to run the risks involved.   Some physicians, it seems, circumcise all male infants, and their motive appears to be mercenary.  Such physicians act in a manner unworthy of their high calling.
Reply
#59
(02-28-2014, 03:16 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Austenbosten, you can stop with your characterizing being against circumcision or seeing the circumcizing of male babies as an assault as some "goofy" idea.

When people stop with the over-the-top stigmatizing of parents as "evil" and making circumcised people feel like second-rate humans....I'll stop my crass characterization. However, putting circumcision on the same level as rape and murder, and is a mortal sin....is GOOFY and you don't have to be for or against circumcision to realize that.

Telling people they're going to Hell for getting a circumcision is absurd and is frankly on the same level of insanity as the Westboro Baptist crowd.

(02-28-2014, 03:16 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: 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.)

Aliens? really? aliens??? 

(02-28-2014, 03:16 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: 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.

Vox a question for you? Why must you seem to jump to the most absurd and ridiculous arguments and concluscions?

"ageist"? really?? is this MSNBC forum that I'm on? As for the traaaaaaumatizing act of circumcision. Unlike you, I went through it...so please stop it with your hyperbolic statements and scenarios and telling me what I'm supposed to feel from being circumcised.
Reply
#60
I agree with you Austen.  It is these strange cultish pet issues of trads that makes me really take a step back and re-think whether I want to have any association with the Trad movement.

Vox, you might want to really take a step back from this crusade against circumcision and look at your own faults.  You allow a Sede priest to run free-reign, spouting all his slanders and heresies, on a forum where the target audience already has a disposition to sedevacantism.  To me that’s infinitely worse, and more obvious a fault, than some obscure idea about circumcision.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)