cmotherofpirl Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 [quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1174808' date='Jan 24 2007, 02:08 PM'] yes, me too. Or rather mine too... my sons, that is... [/quote] : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I'll read this thread later. Just stopping in to say that I believe circumcision for spiritual/moral reasons is sinful but it is completely fine to circumcise simply for medical reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I believe the more current medical data supports the idea that it doesn't have many health benefits. I shall do some more research if anyone intends to debate the health benefits here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) Gee, I just found out I'm going to hell. Thanks for saving me Thomas. You overstate the councils purpose. That it says "since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. '. This is still speaking of a religous observance of circumcision. Above it speaks of the errors of circumcision. Now if someone had cancer on the foreskin would they be damned to hell for having it removed? No. Non-religous circumcision is not forbidden by the council. Your hyperliteral interpretation is hardly infallible. Neither I suppose is mine but I see nothing in the catechism supporting yours. "observe circumcision" quite strongly implies religous context. Not only does it not speak of circumcision for medical purposes it quite clearly ONLY deals with religous significance of circumcision. That one does not "hope" in circumcision does not mean it is not done for religous purposes. I fully suspect that there was no other context at the time that circumcision was done and so the council would not have had any reason to add a clause in there allowing it for medical purposes. The validity of circumcision for medical purposes is of no consequence in this discussion. Whether it is or is not medically beneficial, if in a man's heart he is circumcized because he thinks it is beneficial to his health then it is fine. Edited January 24, 2007 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1175050' date='Jan 24 2007, 06:34 PM'] I believe the more current medical data supports the idea that it doesn't have many health benefits. I shall do some more research if anyone intends to debate the health benefits here. [/quote] I tend to agree with that. I was just saying that if that was the INTENDED purpose, then there shouldn't be any issue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 [quote]Would you consider him a heretic in the second case?[/quote] If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him. [quote]Geeze. I guess next we should be retreating to the catacombs....[/quote] That is completely off subject and has nothing to do with this debate. It is a pointless remark and it seems as though you dismiss the documents of less recent Oecumenical Councils as being irrelevant, when in fact, they are just as authoritative as newer Oecumenical Councils in regards to faith and morals. [quote]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.[/quote] It does matter if the quote from Pope Pius XII was spoken authoritatively or not, because if it was not spoken authoritatively I could continue to hold that all circumcision, including for health reasons, was forbidden by the Council of Florence. [quote]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.[/quote] I agree. [quote]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] OK, I'm fine with that, but I need to know the source of that quote from Pius XII first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175091' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM'] If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him. [/quote] I don't think that was his question, Mr. Politician . The question asked if you thought we would then be a heretic, not if you humbly submitted or disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 by the way, circumcision for mutilation is immoral as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 It should also be noted in this discussion that the Church does not just make declarations on a whim. There was apparently something going on in the Church at the time of Eugene IV in the Church that caused this decree. Currently I don't have information on this but am sure it would shed light on the subject. Decrees should be seen in the context of the times that they were in to properly understand what their intent is. I have little doudt that in this case it will show that there was some error in the Church regarding circumcision, not as a part of salvation, but still for religous purposes that the decree was intended to combat. We know that circumcision for salvation extends back to Christ as a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175091' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM'] If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him. [/quote] You wouldn't consider him a heretic, even though you think this matter is defined? I just think it's a bit of a double standard...you seem to consider many other heretics for believing things that are debatable. I'd like to add one thing to the matter of circumcision for health. It has been brought up that it could be helpful for psychological health; that sons of circumcised men should be circumcised lest, seeing their circumcised fathers, they get confused about their own masculinity. It's a bit of a stretch, I think, but I've heard it before, so I wanted to throw it out there. Thess, good call on the cancer of the foreskin. I'd thought of it earlier, but forgot to mention it. It really does show what the Church intended with the statement from the Council of Florence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1175089' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM'] I tend to agree with that. I was just saying that if that was the INTENDED purpose, then there shouldn't be any issue with it. [/quote] which is, of course, what I spent the whole first half of the thread establishing with STM so we're in agreement. I was saying that in response to cmom, that I think the more current medical data has shown the previous concepts of it as medically beneficial to be not quite accurate. raph: I think that psychological point of view really is a stretch and would not fall anywhere near Pius XII's statement and even begin to border on the type of circumsisions going on at the time of the Council of Florence (even if they did not place their hope in it, they wanted to be similar to the jews and the judaizing Christians) and thus border on a very bad reason for circumsision. that would make circumsision a cultural thing, and Florence was saying: Christian culture does not and cannot include circumsion. dressing it up in modern psychological language does not change the fact that that motivation is cultural, and thus is more closely connected with the type of circumsision previously condemned. I would thus recommend strongly against thinking of circumsision as a way to make your child look more like you, for psychological reasons or not. If you're gonna do it for hygenic/health purposes, then okay I disagree with its necessity but in principal your motivation is not sinful. But the psychological point of view at the very least borders on a very bad principal for circumsision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1175138' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:21 PM'] raph: I think that psychological point of view really is a stretch and would not fall anywhere near Pius XII's statement and even begin to border on the type of circumsisions going on at the time of the Council of Florence (even if they did not place their hope in it, they wanted to be similar to the jews and the judaizing Christians) and thus border on a very bad reason for circumsision. that would make circumsision a cultural thing, and Florence was saying: Christian culture does not and cannot include circumsion. dressing it up in modern psychological language does not change the fact that that motivation is cultural, and thus is more closely connected with the type of circumsision previously condemned. I would thus recommend strongly against thinking of circumsision as a way to make your child look more like you, for psychological reasons or not. If you're gonna do it for hygenic/health purposes, then okay I disagree with its necessity but in principal your motivation is not sinful. But the psychological point of view at the very least borders on a very bad principal for circumsision. [/quote] I said it was a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 cool, as long as we understand each other. the Council of Florence's quote, as far as I'm concerned, goes so far as to first say: there are no longer any spiritual reasons for circumsion; then that cultural reasons do not justify it as it is mutilation. Pius XII's quote helps us to understand that the only things not covered by Florence's quote are medical and hygenic reasons: for we can certainly justify almost all operations on the human body for the sake of their health or hygeine (though the hygenic concern must be extreme enough to merit what is being done to the human body). I do not believe the hygenic concerns do, in fact, merit this mutilation. Like I said: with proper cleaning there is no hygenic concern; we might as well have people cut off parts of their ears so that cleaning behind them is easier. Health concerns: certainly cancer is always a good reasosn for circumsision. Anyone who opposed that would be absurd. But as far as other health risks go: basically all medical research shows proper hygenic cleaning makes all the previous thought risks assosiated with being uncircumsised no longer legitimate risks. the only thing left is; I recently read an artical that said it may help prevent the spread of HIV... I don't think that raises to the level of justification either; unless one has decided to marry someone infected with HIV and is willing to take all the risks... in that case they could get an adult circumsision. But STD concerns are not to be taken into account when deciding what operation to do on an infant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) [quote name='thessalonian' post='1175127' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:10 PM'] It should also be noted in this discussion that the Church does not just make declarations on a whim. There was apparently something going on in the Church at the time of Eugene IV in the Church that caused this decree. Currently I don't have information on this but am sure it would shed light on the subject. Decrees should be seen in the context of the times that they were in to properly understand what their intent is. I have little doudt that in this case it will show that there was some error in the Church regarding circumcision, not as a part of salvation, but still for religous purposes that the decree was intended to combat. We know that circumcision for salvation extends back to Christ as a problem. [/quote] I think the Council of Florence was more so addressed toward the Coptic Church as I think they still practiced circumcision around the time. Edited January 25, 2007 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 You might consider it a stretch but many men don't. Only in the last 20 years has there ever been much of a discussion against circumcision, and that usually came from the back to nature treehugging type person. Every male in my family was circ d as a matter of course. I never heard much of a discussion until I was in England changing nappies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now