American Circumcision
A bull in a China shop can work sometimes. That technique has its place. But I think it's best that when you're trying to convince someone of something so emotional--like why circumcision is a bad idea--to realize most people in the West have a very personal stake or involvement in the subject that hits too painfully close to home. So telling people flat out that in circumcising their precious babies they've either ruined the lives of their male children, or at very least lessoned their enjoyment of conjugal act isn't gonna work. It's probably either going to make them think you're ridiculous, hurt them, or make them mad. 

It's always best to start off by extolling the virtues of the benefits of the thing you're trying to promote. Then listen to the response. Really see if you understand what they're trying to say by repeating it back to them in their own words. Then suggest what they might want to consider. I really think we have a better opportunity of getting people on board with whatever it is we're promoting that way.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array? 
Canticle Of Canticles 6:9
[-] The following 1 user Likes JacafamalaRedux's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
(01-16-2019, 09:38 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: A bull in a China shop can work sometimes. That technique has its place. But I think it's best that when you're trying to convince someone of something so emotional--like why circumcision is a bad idea--to realize most people in the West have a very personal stake or involvement in the subject that hits too painfully close to home. So telling people flat out that in circumcising their precious babies they've either ruined the lives of their male children, or at very least lessoned their enjoyment of conjugal act isn't gonna work. It's probably either going to make them think you're ridiculous, hurt them, or make them mad. 

It's always best to start off by extolling the virtues of the benefits of the thing you're trying to promote. Then listen to the response. Really see if you understand what they're trying to say by repeating it back to them in their own words. Then suggest what they might want to consider. I really think we have a better opportunity of getting people on board with whatever it is we're promoting that way.

Good advice.
Reply
Regarding CatholicWoman's assertion that what Melkite cited was just one priest's opinion, I think she had no idea that Melkites argument, as far that goes, actually does have a strong basis in Catholic history and practice. 

I know CatholicWoman is now gone, but as Melkite cited, there is plenty of justification for Catholic opposition to circumcision.

Melkite, check out these resources if you have not already.  

In case the abrogation of this covenant was not obvious enough from Holy Scripture, the Church has multiple times reasserted, and very vigorously, that the religious ritual of circumcision is forbidden. It is one of those observances of the Old Law which is “both dead and deadly” according to the Church, which declared in the Council of Florence that,

All, therefore, who after that time [that is “after the promulgation of the Gospel”] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the [Mosaic] law, it [The Catholic Church] declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.” (Denz. 712)


......There are Catholic moralists, like Father John J. DietzenDr. David Lang, and (in the 1950’s) Father Edwin F. Healy, S.J., who teach that elective male infant circumcision not only violates the proper application of the time-honored principle of totality, but even fits the ethical definition of mutilation, which is gravely sinful. Indeed, if what we are talking about is a procedure that removes healthy tissue without any therapeutic reason at all, with only questionable (at best) or spurious prophylactic justifications, and that has serious risks of its own — including complications like hemorrhage, infection, ulceration, partial or total disfigurement, and even death — then there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Catholic moral principles would oppose it.

Information on the issue abounds. Besides Catholics against Circumcision, whom I contacted while doing my own research, there are organizations like Doctors Opposing CircumcisionMothers against Circumcision, and the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. There are also books on the subject like Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern Americaby Leonard B. Glick, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick Hodges, and Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman.


https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-283.html

This article was helpful:

As Fr. Manuel de Almeida, an assistant to Bishop Mendes, wrote at the time:

“It will be apparent from this how many souls have lost Heaven through this error in the course of so many hundreds of years. Today, after they have received the holy Roman faith, one of the things they cannot be persuaded to do is to abandon circumcision. They say they do not do it to keep the law of Moses but only for elegance. Great folly or blindness!” (Some Records of Ethiopia, 1593-1646, P. 62) 

Thus, the Church pronounced at the Council of Salzburg-Vienna (1267):

“Canon XVIII. Christians may not be enticed into Judaism, nor may they be circumcised for any reason.”

The very small justifiable rationale for circumcision was given by Pius XII.

As Pope Pius XII declared in 1952:


[b]“From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.” (Discourses & Radio Messages of His Holiness Pius XII, Volume XIV, 2 March 1952-1 March 1953)[/b]

In America, even in 1956, the concept of routine infant circumcision among Catholics was still largely a strange and new phenomenon, though one the Church clearly opposed, as Fr. Edwin Healy shows in his comments about it in his book, Medical Ethics:


[b]“Circumcision of Newborn Males, Case 55 – “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: [b]Unless there is a positive indication for circumcision, the operation should be omitted… 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.”  (Medical Ethics, Fr. Edwin F. Healy, SJ, Loyola University Press, Chicago 1956, P. 128-129)[/b][/b]

https://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2014/05/...mcise.html
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • Melkite
Reply
(01-16-2019, 09:38 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: A bull in a China shop can work sometimes. That technique has its place. But I think it's best that when you're trying to convince someone of something so emotional--like why circumcision is a bad idea--to realize most people in the West have a very personal stake or involvement in the subject that hits too painfully close to home. So telling people flat out that in circumcising their precious babies they've either ruined the lives of their male children, or at very least lessoned their enjoyment of conjugal act isn't gonna work. It's probably either going to make them think you're ridiculous, hurt them, or make them mad. 

It's always best to start off by extolling the virtues of the benefits of the thing you're trying to promote. Then listen to the response. Really see if you understand what they're trying to say by repeating it back to them in their own words. Then suggest what they might want to consider. I really think we have a better opportunity of getting people on board with whatever it is we're promoting that way.

That's very rational advice which, unfortunately, I think works better in theory than in practice.  Of course, the bull in a china shop isn't winning tons of people over either.  But I've been talking to people about this for almost 20 years.  (It's a lot easier to take the bull in a china shop path online than it is in person, so there's that).  In my experience, you can present the facts from a friendly, neutral, non-pushy or non-emotional position all day long, but the majority of people who aren't already suspicious that circumcision may be bad are more likely to take that tact as confirmation that it's perfectly acceptable for them to circumcise if they choose to do so.

I don't know that I've convinced anybody with the bull in china shop routine, and I do worry that maybe I'm scaring people away who might otherwise be open to considering it, but my hope is that, if someone is going to think I'm crazy (which most do even if I'm polite and calm about the topic) anyway, might as well show them some of the crazy that goes on in my head because I've been circumcised.  And hopefully, if they can't see that circumcision is bad in its own right, maybe they'll at least link my crazy with circumcision and not want their sons to end up like me.

Some people respond to reason. Others only respond to fear.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
(01-16-2019, 10:47 AM)BC Wrote: Regarding CatholicWoman's assertion that what Melkite cited was just one priest's opinion, I think she had no idea that Melkites argument, as far that goes, actually does have a strong basis in Catholic history and practice. 

I know CatholicWoman is now gone, but as Melkite cited, there is plenty of justification for Catholic opposition to circumcision.

Melkite, check out these resources if you have not already.  

In case the abrogation of this covenant was not obvious enough from Holy Scripture, the Church has multiple times reasserted, and very vigorously, that the religious ritual of circumcision is forbidden. It is one of those observances of the Old Law which is “both dead and deadly” according to the Church, which declared in the Council of Florence that,

All, therefore, who after that time [that is “after the promulgation of the Gospel”] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the [Mosaic] law, it [The Catholic Church] declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.” (Denz. 712)


......There are Catholic moralists, like Father John J. DietzenDr. David Lang, and (in the 1950’s) Father Edwin F. Healy, S.J., who teach that elective male infant circumcision not only violates the proper application of the time-honored principle of totality, but even fits the ethical definition of mutilation, which is gravely sinful. Indeed, if what we are talking about is a procedure that removes healthy tissue without any therapeutic reason at all, with only questionable (at best) or spurious prophylactic justifications, and that has serious risks of its own — including complications like hemorrhage, infection, ulceration, partial or total disfigurement, and even death — then there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Catholic moral principles would oppose it.

Information on the issue abounds. Besides Catholics against Circumcision, whom I contacted while doing my own research, there are organizations like Doctors Opposing CircumcisionMothers against Circumcision, and the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. There are also books on the subject like Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern Americaby Leonard B. Glick, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Paul M. Fleiss and Frederick Hodges, and Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma by Ronald Goldman.


https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-283.html

This article was helpful:

As Fr. Manuel de Almeida, an assistant to Bishop Mendes, wrote at the time:

“It will be apparent from this how many souls have lost Heaven through this error in the course of so many hundreds of years. Today, after they have received the holy Roman faith, one of the things they cannot be persuaded to do is to abandon circumcision. They say they do not do it to keep the law of Moses but only for elegance. Great folly or blindness!” (Some Records of Ethiopia, 1593-1646, P. 62) 

Thus, the Church pronounced at the Council of Salzburg-Vienna (1267):

“Canon XVIII. Christians may not be enticed into Judaism, nor may they be circumcised for any reason.”

The very small justifiable rationale for circumcision was given by Pius XII.

As Pope Pius XII declared in 1952:


[b]“From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.” (Discourses & Radio Messages of His Holiness Pius XII, Volume XIV, 2 March 1952-1 March 1953)[/b]

In America, even in 1956, the concept of routine infant circumcision among Catholics was still largely a strange and new phenomenon, though one the Church clearly opposed, as Fr. Edwin Healy shows in his comments about it in his book, Medical Ethics:


[b]“Circumcision of Newborn Males, Case 55 – “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: [b]Unless there is a positive indication for circumcision, the operation should be omitted… 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.”  (Medical Ethics, Fr. Edwin F. Healy, SJ, Loyola University Press, Chicago 1956, P. 128-129)[/b][/b]

https://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2014/05/...mcise.html
That's a great post. I think the issue is the incivility of the posts. There is much to be desired in the approach as they were scorching and honestly not what one would expect on a Catholic forum. I don't blame CatholicWoman one bit.

Ephesians 4:32

And be ye kind to one another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
[-] The following 1 user Likes SeeTheLight's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
(01-16-2019, 11:12 AM)SeeTheLight Wrote: That's a great post. I think the issue is the incivility of the posts. There is much to be desired in the approach as they were scorching and honestly not what one would expect on a Catholic forum. I don't blame CatholicWoman one bit.

Ephesians 4:32

And be ye kind to one another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Yeah, that was/is the issue. Melkite knows he was being not civil and apologized.  

The guy is passionate.

Hopefully, CatholicWoman will come back.
Reply
(01-16-2019, 10:10 AM)In His Love Wrote: Good advice.

Hy IHL!

you back..?
Reply
(01-16-2019, 01:07 PM)BC Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 10:10 AM)In His Love Wrote: Good advice.

Hy IHL!

you back..?
Hey, BC! 

Probably not. I stopped by to say hi and reply to well wishers in the Pig Roast thread Jeeter made, and then I saw some truly ugly thread posts elsewhere on FE. I don't want to get bogged down in some of this stuff.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)