Christina Moral Principle Paper

[302]

Circumcision and the Catholic Church

It is true that the Church has never before in her history had to deal with the moral question of Circumcision in the same way in which she must deal with it today. The Question before has always been one of Judazing and so the Church only dealt with the religious reasons as to why one must not be circumcised. But now because of the protestant culture of America she must once again deal with the question of circumcision and this time as in times past many are rejecting her teaching.

To clear the way for the Ethical question let us begin by stating the Church's religious position. The Council of Constantinople- 553 A.D. “...Even though the grace of the holy Spirit was abundant in each of the apostles, so that none of them required the advice of another in order to do his work, nevertheless they were loathe to come to a decision on the issue of the circumcision of gentiles until they had met together to test their various opinions against the witness of the holy scriptures.

In this way they unanimously reached the conclusion which they wrote to the gentiles: It has seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is
strangled and from unchastity. . .

This conciliatory attitude is also to be found in the holy scriptures. The apostle Paul employed this tactic at the start of his ministry when he was dealing with those who had been Jews; he circumcised Timothy so that by this conciliation and concession he might lead them to perfection. Afterwards, however, he ruled against circumcision, writing on the subject to the Galatians: Now I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.”

And Pope Eugene IV- Council of Florence Bull of union with the Copts Session 11-4 February 1442 "It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel
they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise 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."”

From these three Documents as well as a host of letters from men such as the Church Fathers we can see that Circumcision is not necessary for Salvation. For “Baptism is the new Circumcision” as St. August of Hippo tells us.

The simple part over let us now advance to the more difficult question of the teaching of Circumcision for non religious reasons. For this we turn to Pius XII, Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi
(t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329) in which he says "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.". Examining The Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2297: Respect for bodily integrity "... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.". And Finally turning to Theology of the body by Pope John Paul II #54 - St. Paul's Teaching on the Respect and Sanctity of the Human Body “About the human body

5. To grasp better the thought of the author of First Thessalonians, it will be a good thing to keep in mind also another text, which we find in First Corinthians. Paul sets forth in it his great ecclesiological
doctrine, according to which the Church is the Body of Christ. Paul takes the opportunity to formulate the following argumentation about the human body:"...God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose" (1 Cor 12:18). Further on he said: "On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honour able we invest with the greater honour , and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care
for one another" (ibid. 12:22-25).

Worthy of honour

6. The specific subject of the text in question is the theology of the Church as the Body of Christ. However, in connection with this passage it can be said that Paul, by means of his great ecclesiological analogy (which recurs in other letters, and which we will take up again in due time), contributes, at the same time, to deepening the theology of the body.While in First Thessalonians he writes about control of the body in holiness and honour, in the passage now quoted from First Corinthians he wishes to show this human body as worthy of honour.It could also be said that he wishes to teach the receivers of his letter the correct concept of the human body.

Therefore, this Pauline description of the human body in First Corinthians seems to be closely connected with the recommendations of the First Letter to the Thessalonians: "...that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour " (1 Th 4:4). This is an important thread, perhaps the essential one, of the Pauline doctrine on purity.”

The Question then in terms of Ethics and Morality is this “Is Circumcision medically necessary?”. The answer universally from every major health organization world wide is echoed more recently when in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics said the benefits "are not compelling enough". One doctor said "Little boys are born this way, and just like little girls, they should not have their sexual parts cut and cut off and harmed in any way," said Denniston, who belongs to a group called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision.".

The Churches official teaching is stated in the CCC No. 2297: Respect for bodily integrity "... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.". The definition of Circumcision is the “Amputation of the foreskin.” for males and for females “the Amputation of the Clitoris”. The Catechism is restating the words of Pius XII when he says "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.". No medical evidence has ever been produced saying that any disease cannot be countered any other way.

In fact there is evidence that the procedure of infant circumcision causes unnecessary trauma to the gland of the penis. This trauma is caused by the prepuce being “Glued” to the gland and the forced retraction in order to cut away the foreskin which God designed to protect it. Even in the event of phimosis which is the medical problem of the foreskin being unable to retract over the gland when erect after puberty circumcision is rarely needed as the treatment, as simple “Stretching” of the foreskin can resolve the problem rather easily. In the case of STD's the Churches teaching on sex before marriage is sufficient enough to reduce the chances of getting STD's, and when you add that many of these studies that claim Circumcision reduces STD's are shown to have major flaws in the way the information is gathered in such a way that favors a particular out come, it is clear they cannot be trusted.

Given that no real medical reason can be provided for routine circumcision and the possibilities for complication (castration, accidental removal of the gland, and even death) which still occur in first world countries, as well as the immediate damage done by forced retraction. It is immoral and irresponsible to expose anyone let alone a helpless child to unnecessary medical procedures like circumcision. It is the purpose of medicine to protect not to harm, a feeling which Holy Mother Church holds as well. Because we are made in the image and likeness of God we must respect our entirety, this is to say body and soul. Therefore to remove any part of the body through amputation without direct and immediate cause is not only sacrilegious, but blasphemous. It shows a brazen disrespect to God who created our bodies to be a certain way and to carry out certain functions. The reason it was necessary for the Jews to be circumcised(and there is currently a debate as to if a full or partial circumcision was required) was religious it was the price God asked and being the Creator of the body it was His to ask. But having cast off circumcision in the new covenant and replacing it with baptism one who circumcises themselves or has their child circumcised is in fact committing a crime against God in the deliberate action of forsaking his body. By his actions he says to God “This part of my body was a mistake” or “This part you should not have created”.

[Thursday]

Yeah and the short answer is mutilating children is wrong now, and has always been wrong.

[Squeeze]

302, this is a well-argued and theologically astute statement against circumcision! I really like it and appreciate its insights. My only criticism is found here when you say:

But now because of the protestant culture of America she must once again deal with the question of circumcision and this time as in times past many are rejecting her teaching.

What does the "Protestant culture of America" have to do w/the increase in routine infant cirumcision in the U.S.? You don't give any points to support your rather controversial statement. I am a Protestant Christian and I can assure you that no mainstream Protestant group attaches any spiritual value to circumcision, and in fact with the Reformation's emphasis on "salvation by grace alone through faith alone," we emphasize that NO sacrimental or religious act alone "saves" us, including circumcision, which we don't put into that category anyway. As you pointed out from Scripture, Paul clearly spoke against circumcision as a Christian religious rite. In fact, up until the mid 1900s, most Protestants, American or otherwise, would have been uncircumcised.

The only reason that changed then is due to the American medical community's feeling at the time that it was medically beneficial for boys to be circumcised. As you pointed out, the tide is turning on that with at least a significant part of the medical community, but my main point is that even then, when the majority of American boys were being circ'd, no spiritual significance was given to the act, and people were, for better or worse (as you know, I am a circumcised product of that generation, born in the mid-1970s, and I wish they thought differently then!), but they were simply following the medical consensus at the time.

I recognize that you are not suggesting this here, but as an additional comment of my own, as followers of Christ we must also be wary of then attaching any spiritual significance to "restoring" a foreskin, too. Paul wrote in I Cor. 7:18-20:

"Was a man already circumcised when he was called [to Christ]? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him."

Now in context, he was talking about whether the convert was a Jew (circumcised) or a Gentile (uncircumcised), and what social/cultural adjustments he/she should make as a result of their new faith in Christ. If he was a Gentile believer, there was no need for him to become circumcised, as you pointed out with the "Jerusalem Decree" found in Acts 15. Likewise, though, if he was a Jewish convert, there was no need for him to "cover" up his Jewishness by "uncircumcising"/restoring himself (as some Greek secularized Jews were doing then; Hellenized/Greek men would visit the gymnasiums for exercise, bathing, and socializing, kinda like gyms now, but men only and nude most of the time. Some Jewish guys wanted to fit in more, so they would try to restore their foreskins to hide their Jewishness, so the concept of foreskin "restoration" is not new).

Presonally, if a guy wants to restore a foreskin for medical or aesthetic reasons, I think that is fine as long as he doesn't think its more "holy" or acceptable to God for him to do so. But for infants, I totally agree, it is probably not the most God-honoring thing to do, or the best for the child's welfare!

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Galatians 5:6

[rdgann]

I totally agree. I am restoring my foreskin, but for asthetic appearance and to have a more sensitive glans. Are you restoring Squeeze?

[ExternalMidnight]

I was under the impression that years of exposed glans caused a loss of sensitivity that could not be regained. (Since this is regarding circumcision, a topic shrouded in hear-say, I wouldn't at all be surprised if I'd heard wrong.)

And what exactly do you mean by aesthetic? Is it generally viewed as more appealing to have a more prevalent foreskin? Or is it your personal take that it looks better?

I mean to stir no debate. Just clarifying for my own, curious sake. Thanks, BTW.

[Squeeze]

Yeah, I think rdgann meant that he personally thinks it looks better w/a foreskin

[ExternalMidnight]

You know something weird. I don't remember mine looking circumcised until I was about 12. If I think back on how it looked before then, the image I see has the glans covered by skin. I wonder why that might be.

Well, more power to ya. I'm interested to hear what lengthsyou have to go to to restore the foreskin.