Circumcision Is Immoral

[Aloysius]

as I said, I believe the council was arguing against all cultural circumsisions as well as all judaizer circumsisios among Christians.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1175165' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:43 PM']
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.
[/quote]
that's a particularly american thing. in europe, most men do not get circumsized.

as I said before, I think it particularly influenced by the judaizing tendencies of our protestant culture. but that does not negate the fact that its motivation for health purposes is acceptable.

[Resurrexi]

Does no-one have the document from which the alleged quote of Pope Pius XII came?

[Aloysius]

I don't have the document. but it's not Pius XII's document that shows the council of Florence wasn't referring to medical reasons: it's history and context.

it's not a matter of faith that you can't hold that the Council of Florence meant that: it's a matter of logic and reason. the concept didn't exist and therefore it is impossible that they were condemning an idea that didn't exist. They were clearly condemning circumsision for cultural or religious reasons; anything which remotely connected them to judaizing.

you cannot hold that the Church has taught against circumsision for medical reasons, therefore, unless the Church ever actually addressed it. At the most, Pius XII has said it's okay; at the least, no one has said anything on the subject. that leaves Catholics free to do it if motivated by medical reasons.

you cannot hold that it is a matter of Church teaching that circumsision for medical reasons is immoral. That has been disproven. you can hold that there are no medical reasons that justify it, I myself hold that position. but that position necessitates that no one is culpable for any sin if they do it under the impression that there are medical reasons that justify it.

[cappie]

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

Pius XII, Discorsi e messaggi radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cappie' post='1175407' date='Jan 24 2007, 09:35 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

Pius XII, Discorsi e messaggi radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329
[/quote]

I've seen that quote about five times now.

I searched of of Pius XII's encyclicals on papalencyclicals.net as well as did a general search for the word "circumcision" on papalencyclicals.net and I did not find it there.

I searched for "Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi" on google and only three pages came up, with most results being in Italian. I found three relevant sites, all carrying only that quote and not the whole document/speach/whatever-"Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi"-is. The first was some bogus interreligious site against circumcision. The second was some bogus site against circumcision that gave one of the reasons for not circumcising your child as "protecting his religious freedom", a concept which I only believe in under the following definition "The freedom and government support of Catholics publicly practicing their religion and the banning of all non-Catholic religions being practiced in public" because the Syllabus of Errors condemns as error:

[quote name='The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Bl. Pope Pius IX']55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. [/quote]

The third site was some post on another forum.

Because there are no authentic sources for the quote, I will say that I think the quote is unauthentic and holds no authority unless it is proven to be authentic.

[CatholicCid]

I think it might be from a radio message Pius XII gave.

I've been looking on the Vatican site and it's hard to find since even they have large gaps in the speeches he gave during his Pontificate. They only have 11 of the 19 years of his speeches available online.

Edited January 25, 2007 by CatholicCid

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175427' date='Jan 24 2007, 11:59 PM']
I've seen that quote about five times now.

I searched of of Pius XII's encyclicals on papalencyclicals.net as well as did a general search for the word "circumcision" on papalencyclicals.net and I did not find it there.

I searched for "Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi" on google and only three pages came up, with most results being in Italian. I found three relevant sites, all carrying only that quote and not the whole document/speach/whatever-"Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi"-is. The first was some bogus interreligious site against circumcision. The second was some bogus site against circumcision that gave one of the reasons for not circumcising your child as "protecting his religious freedom", a concept which I only believe in under the following definition "The freedom and government support of Catholics publicly practicing their religion and the banning of all non-Catholic religions being practiced in public" because the Syllabus of Errors condemns as error:
The third site was some post on another forum.

Because there are no authentic sources for the quote, I will say that I think the quote is unauthentic and holds no authority unless it is proven to be authentic.
[/quote]
FATHER Cappie said that is the quote and so the discussion can now be closed.
Unless you want to discuss the health issues only.

[Jaime]

Discount it if you want Tommy but you can't discount the catechism which states the exact same thing as what the Holy Father said.

Or are you going to say that the Catechism is bogus?

[cmotherofpirl]

He'll try

[Thy Geekdom Come]

STM, I'm pretty sure the Italian title says that it is from a collection of discourses and radio broadcasts from Pope Pius XII. I doubt you'll find that collection on line. You'll probably have to go to Rome, since that's where it is published.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Discount it if you want Tommy but you can't discount the catechism which states the exact same thing as what the Holy Father said.

Or are you going to say that the Catechism is bogus?[/quote]

So what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?

[quote]He'll try sad.gif[/quote]

no I wont.

[quote]STM, I'm pretty sure the Italian title says that it is from a collection of discourses and radio broadcasts from Pope Pius XII. I doubt you'll find that collection on line. You'll probably have to go to Rome, since that's where it is published.[/quote]

Well, if it was from a radio-broadcast speech and not from an officially promulgated document, he was stating his personal opinion as a theologian, not as the Visible Head of the Church, nor as Patriarch of the West, nor as Bishop of Rome. In matters when he is not speaking authoritatively, he is entitled to his opinion and I to mine.

[Jaime]

[quote] So what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?[/quote]

I've shared it already. I don't feel the need to repeat myself just because you don't read thoroughly

[reelguy227]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1175161' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:41 PM']

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.


[/quote]


Penile cancer is obscenely rare in developed countries like the U.S...

Yes circumcision reduces the chance of getting it by a lot -but because it's such a rarity (usually only occuring in underdeveloped countries where people do not wash for days or weeks), it cannot be used as an argument for circumcision.

Just had to add my two cents.

Edited January 25, 2007 by reelguy227

[Anomaly]

You people haven't refuted STM's assertations.
His quotes are from a more authorive source then the counter arguments you have posted.
The Catholic Church's 'unofficial teachings' change with the winds of public opinion. It's own Bishops, Cardinals, and other Clerical Bureacrats preach whatever strikes their fancy for the time. Since this is done at all levels, there isn't a definitive answer or effective discipline coming from those in current power.
Practical experience shows it is very rare that the Church speaks infallibly because the humans allow constant discord within.
The Ordinary Magisterium does not (because it cannot) speak infallibly. It's obvious the OM doesn't speak with consistent opinion. What's morally objectionable today, may be morally permissible twenty years from now because the OM doesn't speak on moral principles alone, but attempts to speak on social circumstances and science. Subjects that are outside the OM's expertise and definitely outside the scope of 'infallibility'.
In summation, the RC Church could make an infallible teaching about the morallity of requiring circumcision in a matter where it is applicable to the Faith (our relationship with God). But the RC Church cannot make an infallible teaching on the general morality of circumcision since the RC Church is not infallible in matters of social customs and/or health sciences.

[thessalonian]

Once again we need to look at the historical context of Eugene IV' and Flourence. It appears that the Jacobites at the time may have been doing circumcisions for religous purposes but not as a requirement for salvation. I need to do more research on this but I believe that to be the context of the statement that calls this an error. I highly doudt that at the time there was any context for doing circumcisions for medical purposes and so it is not something the council would have spoken to. The phrasing of the statement strongly implies circumcisions for religous purposes, whether requirements for salvation or not, are immoral. Also such operations for mutilation are immoral. Sin is a matter of the heart and trying to place guilt on people for doing what they think is medically beneficial could not have been the intention of the Church. Apparently there is not a serious concern about this among current Magesterium who know that circumcisions are routinely done for medical purposes. Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak through the magesterium today?

By the way STM this is exactly what I was speaking of in your thread about Modernism on Apologetics the other day.

Edited January 25, 2007 by thessalonian