No matter how many times you keep repeating the opposite doesn't make it true.  As for the flat earth go to flat earth section of Cathinfo and learn that it is Scriptural, promoted by the Fathers of the Church and the globe is a pagan belief.

.
Aw gee.  Anyways I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said already.  Contextually, it's very clear that what's being proscribed against is a religious ritual which, Pope Eugene IV reminds us, is of no salvific value whatsoever.  Only proof-texting Feeneyites could get confused on this point.  Medical circuмcision didn't exist until five hundred years later.  
.
That being said, I am against circuмcision for medical reasons because there simply are no medical reasons.  Circuмcision was popularized as a medical procedure by a Protestant doctor who believed that it made self-abuse more difficult.  True or not, the practice became "customary" and has continued to be used (although thankfully I think the use is not as popular as it was) in the medical profession under the guise of "cleanliness."  In point of fact I would argue that circuмcision constitutes a proper mutilation since it impedes the function of the male member without sufficient reason.  Parts are good inasmuch as they contribute to a whole; the functions of the foreskin aid the generative act and protect the generative member; the only cause sufficient to excise it would be a cause that poses a risk to that whole (which theoretically could exist, but as a matter of course simply does not).  Short of that I would consider it mutilative and therefore objectively, an evil.  But my reasoning, you'll note, has nothing at all to do with the Council of Florence.  This reasoning would exist even if there had never been a Council of Florence.
.
At the same time, I would not usually regard a parent who decided to circuмcise their son as being guilty simply because they'll typically be making the decision under the impression that it is a legitimate medical operation which supports and promotes the health of their son.  They're wrong about that, but only in fact.  They should be informed, but they do not need to be corrected.

.
Aw gee.  Anyways I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said already.  Contextually, it's very clear that what's being proscribed against is a religious ritual which, Pope Eugene IV reminds us, is of no salvific value whatsoever.  Only proof-texting Feeneyites could get confused on this point.  Medical circuмcision didn't exist until five hundred years later.  
.
That being said, I am against circuмcision for medical reasons because there simply are no medical reasons.  Circuмcision was popularized as a medical procedure by a Protestant doctor who believed that it made self-abuse more difficult.  True or not, the practice became "customary" and has continued to be used (although thankfully I think the use is not as popular as it was) in the medical profession under the guise of "cleanliness."  In point of fact I would argue that circuмcision constitutes a proper mutilation since it impedes the function of the male member without sufficient reason.  Parts are good inasmuch as they contribute to a whole; the functions of the foreskin aid the generative act and protect the generative member; the only cause sufficient to excise it would be a cause that poses a risk to that whole (which theoretically could exist, but as a matter of course simply does not).  Short of that I would consider it mutilative and therefore objectively, an evil.  But my reasoning, you'll note, has nothing at all to do with the Council of Florence.  This reasoning would exist even if there had never been a Council of Florence.
.
At the same time, I would not usually regard a parent who decided to circuмcise their son as being guilty simply because they'll typically be making the decision under the impression that it is a legitimate medical operation which supports and promotes the health of their son.  They're wrong about that, but only in fact.  They should be informed, but they do not need to be corrected.

What God required of the Hebrews wasn't even materially the same as medical circuмcision.

Even worse.  Today's circuмcision is flaying, then chopping off a viable body part.  That qualifies as mutilation, which is also forbidden.  But one has to ask themselves if they're honest.  Why is all of this called 'circuмcision'?  And why is it practiced when the Church said not to?  

Mithrandylan has given the Catholic viewpoint on this issue.

Happenby's "dogmatic" stance on it is a private interpretation of Tradition (in this case, the Council of Florence). And her private interpretation of Tradition is no better or more accurate than your average Protestant's ham-fisted attempts to privately interpret Scripture. Both are wrong.

We must follow the teaching of the Church.

Everything Mithrandylan said is correct. He seems to have all the nuances of the argument covered, so I needn't repeat him or elaborate.
..........
Ok I'm the Moderator and I'm moderating this thread.

This thread is closed.