Circumcision Is Immoral

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175534' date='Jan 25 2007, 01:17 AM']
So what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say?
no I wont.
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.
[/quote]
You are entitled to your opinion, but the Holy Fathers opinion carries more weight than yours. So if you want to treat circumcision as something you won't do to your children fine, but do not lay this out as sin for other people. Its a medical decision, and not even discussed in the current catechism.


Male Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk, Study Stopped Early
Science Daily — [color="#FF0000"]A University of Illinois at Chicago study has been stopped early due to preliminary results indicating that medical circumcision of men reduces their risk of acquiring HIV during heterosexual intercourse by 53 percent.[/color]

The study's independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board met Dec. 12 to review the interim data. Based on the board's review, the National Institutes of Health halted the trial and recommended that all men enrolled in the study who remain uncircumcised be offered circumcision.

"Circumcision is now a proven, effective prevention strategy to reduce HIV infections in men," said Robert Bailey, professor of epidemiology in the UIC School of Public Health and principal investigator of the study.

The clinical trial, funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Canadian Institute of Health Research, enrolled 2,784 HIV negative, uncircumcised men between 18 and 24 years old in Kisumu, Kenya.

Half the men were randomly assigned to circumcision, half remained uncircumcised. All men enrolled in the study received free HIV testing and counseling, medical care, tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, condoms and behavioral risk counseling for 24 months.

Study results show that 22 of the 1,393 circumcised men in the study contracted HIV, compared to 47 of the 1,391 uncircumcised men. In other words, circumcised men had 53 percent fewer HIV infections than uncircumcised men.

Until now, public health organizations have not supported circumcision as a method of HIV prevention due to a lack of randomized controlled trials.

"With these findings, the evidence is now available for donor and normative agencies, like WHO and UNAIDS, to actively promote circumcision in a safe context and along with other HIV prevention strategies," Bailey said.

"Circumcision cannot be a stand-alone intervention. It has to be integrated with all the other things that we do to prevent new HIV infections, such as treating sexual transmitted diseases and providing condoms and behavioral counseling," Bailey said. "We can't expect to just cut off a foreskin and have the guy go on his merry way without additional tools to fight against getting infected."

Opponents of circumcision have speculated that circumcised men may feel they are not at risk of contracting HIV and may be more likely to engage in risky behavior. The Kenya study suggests that circumcision did not increase risky behavior among circumcised or uncircumcised men, according to Bailey.

"Both uncircumcised and circumcised men are reducing their sexual risk behavior," he said, "which indicates that our counseling is doing some good."

The study also evaluated the safety of circumcision in a community health clinic with specially trained practitioners. There were no severe or lasting complications from circumcision. However, 1.7 percent of surgeries resulted in mild complications, such as bleeding or infection.

Bailey said that promoting circumcision in Africa must be done in conjunction with proper technical training and medical tools, equipment and supplies necessary to perform large numbers of circumcisions safely.

"Already, there are large numbers of boys and young men who are seeking circumcision in areas of Africa where men are not traditionally circumcised," he said. "The danger is that unqualified practitioners will fill a niche by providing circumcision, but with much higher complication rates."

An estimated 30 million people in Africa are infected with HIV/AIDS and more than 90 percent of HIV infections in adults result from heterosexual intercourse. In Kisumu, the third-largest city in Kenya, an estimated 26 percent of uncircumcised men are HIV infected by age 25.

"This study will likely not have a large impact on the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the United States or Europe where heterosexual transmission of HIV is low compared with areas like sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia," Bailey said.[color="#CC0000"] "However, there are other proven health benefits of circumcision, including better hygiene, fewer urinary tract infections, and less risk of cervical cancer in the partners of circumcised men." [/color]
The armamentarium of HIV prevention strategies is very small, according to Bailey. The only other strategy proven effective is the use of antiretroviral drugs to reduce transmission from mother to child.

If a significant proportion of men in a population get circumcised, it will have an enormous impact on preventing HIV infection in men, as well as reducing infections in women, Bailey said.

Co-investigators of the study include Stephen Moses and Ian Maclean at the University of Manitoba, Jekoniah Ndinya-Achola at the University of Nairobi, Corette Parker at Research Triangle International, Kawango Agot at UNIM Project, John Krieger at University of Washington, and Richard Campbell at UIC.

During the past two decades, more than 40 observational epidemiological studies and one previous clinical trial have reported an association between male circumcision and a reduced risk of HIV infection.

On Dec. 12, the NIH stopped another clinical trial of male circumcision undertaken by investigators in Uganda and at Johns Hopkins University, after the study's Data Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the preliminary results and found a protective effect similar to that found in Bailey's study.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Illinois at Chicago.

[SJRod55]

So what happens if you 'reverse' the operation? It is becoming quite common to reverse the circumcision in later years. How does that affect the spiritual equation?

[reelguy227]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1175754' date='Jan 25 2007, 10:36 AM']"However, there are other proven health benefits of circumcision, including better hygiene, fewer urinary tract infections, and less risk of cervical cancer in the partners of circumcised men." [/quote]

I'm sorry, but most of that argument, except for the HIV, can't be used for circumcision.

First-Urinary tract infections are also a rarity...

And second, maybe in Africa they should circumcise because of great incidence of HIV and other things of that matter, but not in the U.S. It just isn't as prevalent... nor as much of a concern.

Lastly, performing circumcision for better hygiene is a joke, uncircumcised men just have to wash every day and nothing will happen. It's not that hard. If guys can't do that, than I guess they should never take showers or baths..... if it is so hard to wash one part of the body.

Edited January 25, 2007 by reelguy227

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1175933' date='Jan 25 2007, 03:01 PM']
I'm sorry, but most of that argument, except for the HIV, can't be used for circumcision.

First-Urinary tract infections are also rare...

Also, maybe in Africa they should circumcise because of great incidence of HIV and other things of that matter, but not in the U.S. It just isn't as prevalent... nor as much of a concern.

And lastly, doing circumcision for better hygiene is a joke, uncircumcised men just have to wash every day and nothing will happen. It's not that hard. If guys can't do that, than I guess they should never take showers or baths..... if it is so hard to wash one part of the body.
[/quote]
So ....you dismiss the scienfitic findings cause you don't agree with it?

[homeschoolmom]

Perhaps men are diligent about hygiene. You want to try to keep on top of your 9 year old's washing habits? Hard enough to get them to brush their teeth regularly.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1175941' date='Jan 25 2007, 03:17 PM']
Perhaps men are diligent about hygiene. You want to try to keep on top of your 9 year old's washing habits? Hard enough to get them to brush their teeth regularly.
[/quote]
Very true.

[SJRod55]

Voice of experience!

[cmotherofpirl]

Until my sons discovered girls they considered soap and water inventions of the devil

[reelguy227]

Trust me, I would know

I've done it all my life and never had a problem.......

[Resurrexi]

[quote]1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant[/quote]

Let's take this quote in context. This paragraph is under "How the Liturgy is Celebrated, Signs and Symbols." The quote says that the People of the Old Testament were given from the Lord symbols and signs making their liturgical life and that they now symbolize New Covenant Sacraments: circumcision prefigures Baptism, Anointing of kings and priests symbolize Confirmation and Orders, laying on of the hands prefigures Confirmation and Orders, sacrifices prefigure the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Pasch prefigures the Eucharist. This does not at all justify circumcision after the promulgation of the Gospel. It merely states how the sacraments of the Old Law prefigure the Sacraments of the New Law.

[quote]Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak through the magesterium today?[/quote]
I don't think that's the best way to say that. Infallibility if not Inspiration. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

[quote name='The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia; article "Infallibility"']Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

It is well further to explain:

* that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
* that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
* and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.[/quote]

This does not mean that the Holy Ghost does not guide the Church when a Pope or Oecumenical Council speaks infallibly, for the Catholic Encyclopedia also says:

[quote name='The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia; article "Infallibility"']John 14-16. In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.[/quote]

[quote]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?[/quote]

I think that it is a perfectly valid interpretation of the Council of Florence to say that the Council did not restrict post-promulgation of the Gospel circumcision if one circumcised himself or his child only for physical health benefits (if you believed there were any) and for no other reason. It would be against the Church's solemn declaration on morals, though, to say that it is permissible to circumcise post-promulgation of the Gospel for religious reasons, cultural reasons, psychological reasons or any other reasons unrelated to physical health. I [i]choose[/i] though, to interpret the Council of Florence as forbidding any and all circumcision post-promulgation of the Gospel, and I think my interpretation is a perfectly valid interpretation not at all in conflict to the teachings of Holy Mother Church, and if my interpretation is in conflict to her teachings I reject it and submit myself to her authority.

[thessalonian]

[quote]I don't think that's the best way to say that. Infallibility if not Inspiration. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:[/quote]

Where did I say that the holy spirit speaking through the magestirium today is divine inspiration?

Edited January 26, 2007 by Lil Red

[-I---Love]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1175462' date='Jan 25 2007, 12:29 AM']
FATHER Cappie said that is the quote and so the discussion can now be closed.
Unless you want to discuss the health issues only.
[/quote]

that still doesn't resolve where the supposed quote is from...

reelguy227 Posted Yesterday, 03:44 PM

"Trust me, I would know

I've done it all my life and never had a problem......."

It seems that this should count for something.

Kids hate brushing their teeth, but if they don't they will get cavaties. This is a fact of life and so they deal w/ it, their parents have to consantly remind them to brush their teeth, and when they grow up enough then they do it on their own. If I may compare having teeth to not being circumcised, kids will complain, and eventually clean both. It seems that it is mostly an inconvenience to parents. Incoveniences are just too convenient to be counted as arguments.

Edited January 26, 2007 by -I---Love