Most Catholic guys circumcised?

[ugb]

Baptized Catholic and cut

 

[octobersunsets10]

catholic and cut.

 

[gymfresh]

In the case of Catholicism there is not doctrine within the religion that I know of that either endorses or condemns circumcision.

Roman Catholicism could not be clearer on the mandate that the human body is not to be surgically altered except in the case of clear and present medical necessity: Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizationsperformed on innocent persons are against the moral law. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Section 2297.

I personally visited the Linacre Centre for Catholic Bioethics in London to discuss these issues with the executive director. She acknowledged that there is no written instruction at the moment that explicitly forbids practicing Catholics from circumcising their newborn child, but pointed out that each Catholic family should understand that such an act plainly falls under the definition of morally objectionable and ethically indefensible. Moreover, she agreed that Catholic hospitals should not be performing or even offering the procedure, as circumcision of healthy infants is inconsistent with teachings about the integrity and inviolability of the body. (Here is further discussion of that subject.)

At the 1311 Council of Vienna the Church decreed that Christians should not be circumcised for any reason. At the 1435 Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV issued a papal bull instructing "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."

There are other examples of the Catholic church denouncing infant circumcision directly or indirectly. A good collection of sources, letters and discussions is summarized at Catholics Against Circumcision.

One thing is clear: Catholicism has never even hinted that circumcision is desirable in any sense. It is tolerated when medically necessary.

 

[accemb]

The question really should be "are Most American guys circumcised"... because most of us had it done as infants, in hospital, before we were baptized. Circumcision and Catholicism have no link. Circumcision and American culture is another story, which has been debated on this site ad nauseum.

 

[erratic]

The question really should be "are Most American guys circumcised"... because most of us had it done as infants, in hospital, before we were baptized. Circumcision and Catholicism have no link. Circumcision and American culture is another story, which has been debated on this site ad nauseum.

And thus we have reached the end of the thread. Question answered.

 

[SirConcis]

Jesus was circumcised and he did not say circumcision was not necessary. The lifting of the requiremenet for circumcision was done much later by Paul who realised that he wouldn't be able to expand the religion to Greece and the Roman unless requirement for circumcision was removed.

 

[texas41-38]

Born a Methodist but attended Catholic schools and became a Catholic when I was 14 right after my brother was killed in Viet Nam. All of the dick that I was around in locker rooms were most all circumsized (as I was).

And the groups lesson for today: Catholics and Jews vote owerwhelmingly Democratic. From Court House to White House.

 

[blondetwink11]

Jesus was circumcised and he did not say circumcision was not necessary. The lifting of the requiremenet for circumcision was done much later by Paul who realised that he wouldn't be able to expand the religion to Greece and the Roman unless requirement for circumcision was removed.

Jesus was also circumcised because he was Jewish. And one of the covenants that God made with Abraham and through him, the Jews, were that evey male shall be circumcised.

 

[Snakebyte]

Majority in West Europe is catholic and uncut.

 

[gymfresh]

Jesus was circumcised and he did not say circumcision was not necessary. The lifting of the requiremenet for circumcision was done much later by Paul

There is no evidence that Jesus ever said circumcision was necessary or beneficial. He also underwent a significantly different procedure than used today, with only the small overhang cut off and no tearing of the foreskin off the glans. That aspect was introduced about 150 years later by the rabbinical council.

Presumably Joseph performed the procedure, as there were no mohels before the rabbinical council change to radical circumcision and the biblical instruction was for the father to do his own son.

The Gospel of Thomas dismisses circumcision in quoting Jesus:

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."



​

 

[mandoman]

Jesus was also circumcised because he was Jewish. And one of the covenants that God made with Abraham and through him, the Jews, were that evey male shall be circumcised.

The Jews are circumcised. Christians have no reason to be.
Read Paul's letters to the Galatians. He says circumcision or uncircumcision shall gain you nothing. He says instead, circumcise your heart.

 

[SirConcis]

God told men to circumcise their sons.

Some guy called Paul who was presumably part of Jesus' Entourage contradicted God and said circumcision need not be done.

From a hiearchical perspective, Paul is not high enough in the organisational chart to overturn God's words. (God is at the very top, after all !)

So in the end, who do you listen to: The all mighty God who says to circumcise ? Or some dude called Paul who says it isn't necessary ?

Note that all christian religions, the old testament is still part of the religion (as well as the new one).

 

[B_RedDude]

Interestingly enough, I have read that the Church's view of circumcision is that it is impermissible mutilation, unless of course done for a legitimate medical reason.

Well, anyway, fuck the Church. If I had sons (I won't ever), those boys would be clipped.

 

[MrGoodDate]

Good Bible lesson men!
Then there is the statue of David in Florence,,,, a Jew,,, but the statue is not cut.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Interestingly enough, I have read that the Church's view of circumcision is that it is impermissible mutilation, unless of course done for a legitimate medical reason.

Well, anyway, fuck the Church. If I had sons (I won't ever), those boys would be clipped.

Typical U.S. conflicted polar opposites position on Routine Infant Circumcision. What does it mean? Circumcision produces circumcisers. Is it that simple Red?

 

[B_RedDude]

I was born in a Catholic hospital and am circumcized. Same for my younger brother.

Why was it able to become such a common practice in Catholic medical institutions if the Church historically found it seriously morally objectionable?

It's a bit of a weird statement from the Church since Jesus himself was circumcized, and there was a Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord which was observed on the eighth day of Christmas, at least until 1962. I attended parochial grade school after this time and seem to remember it still being on the liturgical calendar. By definition he does not act contrary to his own will.

How could it ever be immoral if God himself instructed the Jewish people to observe it. How could it be a sin now if God himself once required it? Makes no sense at all theologically. If it was inherently evil (i.e. offensive to God) God would have never mandated it.

Moreover, she agreed that Catholic hospitals should not be performing or even offering the procedure, as circumcision of healthy infants is inconsistent with teachings about the integrity and inviolability of the body.

 

[gymfresh]

God told men to circumcise their sons.

Some guy called Paul who was presumably part of Jesus' Entourage contradicted God and said circumcision need not be done.

From a hiearchical perspective, Paul is not high enough in the organisational chart to overturn God's words. (God is at the very top, after all !)

Oh well, believe what you like. Biblical scholars increasingly agree that God never said jack about circumcision. The Abrahamic covenant was already present in Genesis 15, and there was no discussion whatsoever of circumcision in the first 4 versions of the Pentateuch. The first one is referred to as the Book of J, and it is believed to have been written by a woman.

Not until the Book of P, the fifth version of the Pentateuch, does circumcision pop up. That version was written about 600 BC by the Hebrew priests ("P" for Priests), who were soon thereafter exposed as corrupt and dismissed. They introduced circumcision as a way of imposing fear and conformity on the restless Hebrews who were clamoring to retire the priests. Ever since that dust-up, Judaism has had only lay leaders (teachers), known as rabbis.

Paul wasn't challenging a 2500-year-old commandment from God. He was rejecting an 800-year-old superstition invented by men, which had only in the last 100 years (for him) morphed from being an annoying but small snip of the tip to a full-blown radical circumcision, courtesy of a bunch of persnickety rabbis. It should never have gotten to the point where infant boys were having their synechia ripped and half the skin of their penis cut off. (Silly Rabbis, Nicks Are for Kids.)

Paul was quite right in denouncing a fairly recently toughened surgery, particularly one that it turns out was man-made. It's Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature (or defile God's image).

 

[B_dxjnorto]

How could it ever be immoral if God himself instructed the Jewish people to observe it. How could it be a sin now if God himself once required it? Makes no sense at all theologically.

If you are going to follow that line of reasoning, remember that Christ fulfilled all blood covenants. Moreover, Jews wrote the Old Testament. Whoever writes down the history gets to put their spin on it. Much of the OT is a step above Aesop's Fables. Marked in Your Flesh is a book about the Jewish covenant by Dr. Leonard B Glick. Glick suggests that the version of the OT we use is fundamentally different than the original version, called the Book of J. The scriptures in Genesis that mandate circumcision of infants are not found in The Book of J.

I think that RIC is very likely priestcraft as it was already an old practice by then. But nobody really knows. I will say if you can mandate people to cut off part of their kid's dick and give it the force of commandment, you can command them to do pretty much anything.

But back to your point ~ why would God require cutting off part of your body, especially part of your penis. Goes against everything else that we are led to believe about God.

Thank you very much gymfresh -- beat me to the punch. :smile2:

 

[gymfresh]

How could it ever be immoral if God himself instructed the Jewish people to observe it. How could it be a sin now if God himself once required it? Makes no sense at all theologically.

God didn't order circumcision for all mankind. Even if you take the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament) literally, circumcision was reserved only for those of the Jewish bloodline and males of their household.

Christians aren't in the covered group.

Again, even if you take Genesis 17 literally, God told fathers to cut their sons. And didn't say how much. So, dads took a sharp flint and cut off the little overhang that baby boys have. Jesus presumably got this type of cut.

But long after Jesus, rabbis decided that too many young Jewish guys were restoring their half-foreskins, a process then known as epispasm, so they addressed this by ordering foreskins to be torn off the glans and half the skin cut away. Created a whole new category of operators to do it, called mohels. Created a party so the parents couldn't back out, called a bris. Christians watched from the sidelines in horror. Also, Christ supposedly had embodied the fulfillment of the covenant, so it was no longer in force. Replaced by the circumcision (faith) of the heart.

Christianity was well out of the loop before these developments. That's how the RC church can call it morally impermissible.

And if you believe more recent theologians that God never ordered circumcision (it fits very awkwardly where it was inserted by the Hebrew priests, anyway), then the argument against Catholics circumcising is even more compelling.

 

[B_RedDude]

I am quite aware of this. I have heard that letter (or letters) of St. Paul countless times.

God didn't order circumcision for all mankind. Even if you take the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament) literally, circumcision was reserved only for those of the Jewish bloodline and males of their household.

Christians aren't in the covered group.

I am aware that Jesus is considered the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. I guess my questioning on this current issue comes from what I see as the illogic I see in Catholic teaching, and the resultant skepticism and critical stance.

Also, Christ supposedly had embodied the fulfillment of the covenant, so it was no longer in force. Replaced by the circumcision (faith) of the heart.

You seem quite knowledgeable. Do you have a theology background? Were you, or are you, a priest?