Circumcision Is Immoral

[Resurrexi]

To begin this thread let us quote the Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence

[quote name='The Sacred Oecumenical Council of Florence']It [The Holy Roman Church] 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.[/quote]

Now we shall quote Cmom's response in another thread.

[quote name='Cmom']My last response to the hijack:
"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." (Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi, t. XIV, 1952, s. 328-329)[/quote]

Could you tell me from where that quote was from? Was it from a Pope, an Oecumenical Council or one of the Roman Congregations?

[Aloysius]

[quote]circumsision as a sign of judaizing within Christianity is wrong, whether or not one actually puts their hope in it as a means of covenant with God. what's wrong is for any Catholic to circumcise their child in order to be similar to the jewish religion or mix old testament ordinances with the Catholic faith. one can do this with or without hoping in it as a sign.

there was no ideas (to my historical knowledge) at the time of the Council of Florence that circumsision might have health and higeine benefits. Therefore, it was a judaization of Christian belief to partake in this sign, even if no hope was placed in it. however, if any Christian comes to the idea that it may have health or hygeine benefits, they commit no sin in seeking those health benefits by circumsising their child. they would commit a sin if they did it as a sign in connection to the old testament (whether or not they considered an actual hope for salvation)

Personally, I don't think Catholics should go about circumcising any more than they should cremate their dead. Its foundations in American culture are in religious relativism and judaizing tendencies in protestants... and there really are in the end no objective medical benefits; the natural state of the human body is perfectly fine and can be perfectly hygenic and healthy.

but when doctors tell families circumsision is good for their child's health, a Christian in good faith commits no sin by circumsising for the sake of health benefits.

STM, you're way overstepping the linein jumping to conclusions here. The infallible documents of Ecumenical Councils are not created in a void, they have historic context. Delve into what the Council Fathers here meant by "whether or not they hope in it" and you will discover: they had no intention of stopping people from medically based circumsisions: they had all the intentions of stopping the judaizing sects and even Christians with judaizing tendencies who were circumsising children. they weren't always doing it placing their hope in it: sometimes they were doing it just to connect to old testament rituals with no hope in it (and that's what they would've argued had the Council not said "whether or not they hope in it") and that is the intention of the Council Fathers.
[/quote]

An Ecumenical Council is infallible as to what the intention of the Council Fathers is. Since the Council Fathers were not dealing in any way, shape, or form with the idea of a medical procedure for health and hygeine but were instead condemning judaization, then it is clear that this condemnation DOES NOT COVER the idea of circumcising for health and hygeine purposes.

the context of the quote is clear: it's a condemnation of judaizing either to be similar to judaism or to hope in the covenant of the jews.

it is now up to you to prove that the quote actually applies to the idea of a circumsision for the purpose of health or hygeine. if you can establish that there were such ideas completely seperated from the idea of the jewish covenant at the time, you may be able to make a case that the quote intended to condemn it for health and hygeine purposes. I propose you will be unable to produce such evidence, as it does not exist, because no such idea existed in the time period. the only reason anyone was circumsising was to be similar to the old testament covenant, whether or not they placed their hope in it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174267' date='Jan 23 2007, 07:53 PM']
The Council of Florence disagrees with you.
[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

As I said, it is against those who place their hope in the legal prescriptions and submits as if keeping them is necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save. This does not include those who believe that circumcision cannot save, but still want their children to be circumcized for health reasons.

The quote you later supplied also doesn't work:

[quote][b]Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, [i][u]since [color="#FF0000"]whether or not they place their hope in it,[/color] it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.[/u][/i][/b][/quote]

I see several reasons why this doesn't work. The first is linguistic. The second is practical (I have no access to the context, nor have you provided any, so we can say that a rather confusing text without context probably doesn't mean quite what it seems). The third is critical.

In the context of the entire passage, it becomes clear that this is a reference to the ritual observation of circumcision, not a medical surgery. If you find me the Latin, I'll see if I can make it more clear, but in English, to "observe" something means to follow its practice, which is clearly here being considered as following the Jewish ritual, even if not placing faith in it. To have a medical procedure is entirely different and is not a ritual observation of any kind. Now, I'm not sure what was going on around the time of the Council of Florence, but it seems to me that if the Protestants were reading the Bible and some of them were uneducated in the Christian faith or in Scripture specifically, then they might try to observe the rites of circumcision, thus the need for this instruction. Furthermore, the passage you quote could be a passing disciplinary instruction meant to keep the Christian faithful from circumcision because it could have scandalized others into thinking it was necessary. As this is clearly not the case anymore, the scandal is removed.

In any event, you are taking one obscure passage in a very hard to find document (I have yet to find it all and in one piece online) which could have had any number of purposes for any number of reasons in response to any number of specific errors and could have been binding for any number of time.

As such, all we can do is look to the pope's reasoning. Since the pope indicates that there is no way in which circumcision can be observed without mortal spiritual danger, we must ask why. It becomes clear that his reasoning, and his only reasoning, is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled. He doesn't even consider the medical reason, yet his statement seems to indicate that he had considered all possible reasons. Therefore, it can only be logically concluded that circumcision for medical purposes was unheard of in that time (which fits with what we know of European men of that era). As such, the pope's range of purpose in writing what he wrote does not include medical circumcision, but includes what the reader is to assume: circumcision done for any or every purpose for which circumcison was done in those times (which the pope could, to his knowledge, consider "any possible reason") is to be condemned. Only later did the consideration for medical circumcision come into play and apparently it was considered so obvious (as it seems to me) that the Church saw no purpose in sending out another bull to further define what had been meant earlier.

God bless,

Micah

[Resurrexi]

[quote]An Ecumenical Council is infallible as to what the intention of the Council Fathers is. Since the Council Fathers were not dealing in any way, shape, or form with the idea of a medical procedure for health and hygeine but were instead condemning judaization, then it is clear that this condemnation DOES NOT COVER the idea of circumcising for health and hygeine purposes.[/quote]

I agree that Oecumenical Councils are infallible.

[quote name='The Catechism of St. Pius X']35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept?
A. The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy.
[/quote]

I agree that the documents of Oecumenical Councils are infallible in what the Council Fathers intended them to mean, for they were the authors of said documents, and they must have known what they wrote.

I would argue that the Council of Florence forbade all circumcision because it might lead to Judaising. It is also arguable that circumcision has any health benefits.

[quote]the context of the quote is clear: it's a condemnation of judaizing either to be similar to judaism or to hope in the cove nant of the jews.[/quote]

The Oecumenical Council of Florence clearly states:
"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."

It seems that the texts says that whether you circumcise to be like a Jew or do it for any other reason, it is equally mortally sinful.

[quote]it is now up to you to prove that the quote actually applies to the idea of a circumsision for the purpose of health or hygeine. if you can establish that there were such ideas completely seperated from the idea of the jewish covenant at the time, you may be able to make a case that the quote intended to condemn it for health and hygeine purposes. I propose you will be unable to produce such evidence, as it does not exist, because no such idea existed in the time period. the only reason anyone was circumsising was to be similar to the old testament covenant, whether or not they placed their hope in it.[/quote]

There is really no way to separate circumcision from Judaism. In all ways circumcising is Jewish and now that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and consummated, it is Judaising to circumcise, whether it be for psudeo-religious or health reasons because it was a legal prescription of the Old Covenant.

[quote]As I said, it is against those who place their hope in the legal prescriptions and submits as if keeping them is necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save. This does not include those who believe that circumcision cannot save, but still want their children to be circumcized for health reasons.

The quote you later supplied also doesn't work:[/quote]

The quote does work.

The Oecumenical Council of Florence states:
"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."

That quote outlaws circumcision in all instances. It outlaws circumcision for those who believe that it is necessary and for those who do not believe it is necessary.

[quote]In the context of the entire passage, it becomes clear that this is a reference to the ritual observation of circumcision, not a medical surgery. If you find me the Latin, I'll see if I can make it more clear, but in English, to "observe" something means to follow its practice, which is clearly here being considered as following the Jewish ritual, even if not placing faith in it. To have a medical procedure is entirely different and is not a ritual observation of any kind. Now, I'm not sure what was going on around the time of the Council of Florence, but it seems to me that if the Protestants were reading the Bible and some of them were uneducated in the Christian faith or in Scripture specifically, then they might try to observe the rites of circumcision, thus the need for this instruction. Furthermore, the passage you quote could be a passing disciplinary instruction meant to keep the Christian faithful from circumcision because it could have scandalized others into thinking it was necessary. As this is clearly not the case anymore, the scandal is removed. [/quote]

I think the Council of Florence refers to all circumcision. I don't think there's a copy of the Latin documents online. Protestantism wasn't even begun yet when the Council of Florence was in session. I think it is definitely scandalous to circumcise nowadays because there are many who think that Christians have to circumcise because the Jews did so.

1 Corinthians 7,18 states:
18 Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

[quote]In any event, you are taking one obscure passage in a very hard to find document (I have yet to find it all and in one piece online) which could have had any number of purposes for any number of reasons in response to any number of specific errors and could have been binding for any number of time. [/quote]

The Documents of the Council of Florence can be found here: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM[/url]
and here: [url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Council_florance.html"]http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Council_florance.html[/url]

[quote]As such, all we can do is look to the pope's reasoning. Since the pope indicates that there is no way in which circumcision can be observed without mortal spiritual danger, we must ask why. It becomes clear that his reasoning, and his only reasoning, is that the Old Covenant is fulfilled. He doesn't even consider the medical reason, yet his statement seems to indicate that he had considered all possible reasons. Therefore, it can only be logically concluded that circumcision for medical purposes was unheard of in that time (which fits with what we know of European men of that era). As such, the pope's range of purpose in writing what he wrote does not include medical circumcision, but includes what the reader is to assume: circumcision done for any or every purpose for which circumcison was done in those times (which the pope could, to his knowledge, consider "any possible reason") is to be condemned. Only later did the consideration for medical circumcision come into play and apparently it was considered so obvious (as it seems to me) that the Church saw no purpose in sending out another bull to further define what had been meant earlier.[/quote]

The Council of Florence forbade all circumcision firstly and foremostly because the Old Testament has been fulfilled and consummated with circumcision, a sacrament of the Old Law being replaced with Baptism, a Sacrament of the New Law. The Council also forbade all circumcision because it can lead to Judaizing and scandal. Moreover, as I have stated, it is arguable whether circumcision is medically beneficial.

Edited January 24, 2007 by StThomasMore

[cmotherofpirl]

"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." (Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi, t. XIV, 1952, s. 328-329)

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1174479' date='Jan 23 2007, 08:59 PM']
"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." (Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi, t. XIV, 1952, s. 328-329)
[/quote]

Could you tell me exactly what that quote is from? Is it from a Pope? Is it from an Oecumenical Council? Is it from the Catechism? Is it from the Roman Curia?

Edited January 24, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Aloysius]

Pope Pius XII said that.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1174516' date='Jan 23 2007, 09:34 PM']
Pope Pius XII said that.
[/quote]

Did he say it in an authoritative document or was he merely speaking his personal opinion as a theologian?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1174533' date='Jan 23 2007, 11:56 PM']
Did he say it in an authoritative document or was he merely speaking his personal opinion as a theologian?
[/quote]
Would you consider him a heretic in the second case?

[Groo the Wanderer]

Geeze. I guess next we should be retreating to the catacombs....

[Aloysius]

it doesn't matter; because your quote does not speak to medical and hygenic circumsision. therefore, there is nothing official in place forbidding Catholics from doing it for health benefits, and the highest office of the Church has advised that it is conceivable to do it for health benefits.

now, if you were to come to that agreement, I would suggest moving the debate on to: there is no legitimate medical reason that necessitates circumsision and therefore Catholics should not circumcise their children. we all ought to agree that whoever has circumsised their kids because they were informed that it was a matter of health and hygeine have made no sin; but I challenge the idea that health and hygeine actually call for this senseless mutilation of the human body. it really is senseless, in my opinion. modern medicine has been coming to the conclusion that, ultimately, there are no real benefits... other than the need for extra cleaning I suppose... but for that logic, we might as well cut off part of our ears so it's easier to clean behind them.

I would suggest no Christian ought to circumsise their children. If they did it because they thought it was good medically, then they cannot be faulted. But I suggest that the sound medical evidence sugests that both states (circumcised and uncircumcised) are perfectly healthy.

therefore, all things being equal medically and hygenically, a good Christian opts for the non-mutilating option.

What I would suggest is that no Catholic may both agree with me on the lack of medical need and still support circumsision. If there are no medical purposes, then your reasoning (whether implicitly or explicitly) for circumsision is a reasoning condemned by the council of Florence.

So that's where the debate ought go from there: the only legitimate reason for circumsision is health/hygeine. I argue there are no legitimate health/hygeine concerns which justify this mutilation.

[track2004]

Shouldn't we all just agree that taking anything sharp near that is just mean...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1174596' date='Jan 24 2007, 01:52 AM']
it doesn't matter; because your quote does not speak to medical and hygenic circumsision. therefore, there is nothing official in place forbidding Catholics from doing it for health benefits, and the highest office of the Church has advised that it is conceivable to do it for health benefits.

now, if you were to come to that agreement, I would suggest moving the debate on to: there is no legitimate medical reason that necessitates circumsision and therefore Catholics should not circumcise their children. we all ought to agree that whoever has circumsised their kids because they were informed that it was a matter of health and hygeine have made no sin; but I challenge the idea that health and hygeine actually call for this senseless mutilation of the human body. it really is senseless, in my opinion. modern medicine has been coming to the conclusion that, ultimately, there are no real benefits... other than the need for extra cleaning I suppose... but for that logic, we might as well cut off part of our ears so it's easier to clean behind them.

I would suggest no Christian ought to circumsise their children. If they did it because they thought it was good medically, then they cannot be faulted. But I suggest that the sound medical evidence sugests that both states (circumcised and uncircumcised) are perfectly healthy.

therefore, all things being equal medically and hygenically, a good Christian opts for the non-mutilating option.

What I would suggest is that no Catholic may both agree with me on the lack of medical need and still support circumsision. If there are no medical purposes, then your reasoning (whether implicitly or explicitly) for circumsision is a reasoning condemned by the council of Florence.

So that's where the debate ought go from there: the only legitimate reason for circumsision is health/hygeine. I argue there are no legitimate health/hygeine concerns which justify this mutilation.
[/quote]
There is medical evidence to the benefits. I'm not debating it, boy my boys were done, and I would do it again.

[homeschoolmom]

yes, me too. Or rather mine too... my sons, that is...

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1174808' date='Jan 24 2007, 01:08 PM']
yes, me too. Or rather mine too... my sons, that is...
[/quote]