Author Topic: Sensitive and Graphic in Nature Circuмcision??? (Read 2384 times)

CathMomof7 · « **on:** July 08, 2011, 11:15:26 AM »

I wasn't sure how to post this or where, but I decided this was possibly a moral issue in a modern world.

Just today I discovered over of FE an article about circuмcision. Since I am new to traditional Catholicism, I have never heard this issue discussed anywhere in any manner. I just assumed that it was a health issue, at best, and a personal preference, in the least.

All four of our sons are circuмcised. It was a decision not made lightly. We were not Christian at the time, much less Catholic, so religious belief or practice was not part of that decision. The social issue was not part of that decision either. Frankly we could have cared less about what other's thought. We also didn't care about the father/son "matching" thing either. Ultimately it came down purely to my own father. My father, who was baptized a Catholic in 1938, was not circ'd and listed a whole host of ongoing issues in his youth and adulthood. He had a strong opinion about it. After we asked some other Dr's, we had the procedure done for our first son.

Since our 3 oldest sons were born either when we were not Catholic or marginally so, we didn't question our decision. We were confident our decision to circ was one for reasons of health. When our 4th was born, we were firmly modern NO Catholics. We never questioned our decision and I never recall anyone, including our priest, approaching the subject.

Now, I am reading that there are all sorts of Papal docuмents condemning circuмcision. And I am feeling scrupulous.

I consider this in the unlikely possibility that the Lord blesses us with another son. (I am 44, so this is probably unlikely). But I would also like to know and understand this issue.

Based on what I have read and my own experience, it seems that Catholics generally were not circuмcised at all. But then in the U.S. after WWII or something this became routine practice, even for Catholics. Is this something Catholics just allowed to happen under the aspect of "morally neutral", if there is such a thing.

Obviously, we can't undo our sons' circ's but is this something that I need to take to the confessional???

I would like to understand this better, in the case that this discussion arises in the future.

ajpirc · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2011, 11:34:38 AM »

I just read that article yesterday.

I think the reason that Catholics began to circuмcise was because Protestants were doing it. This was a lot of what Vatican II did and we adopted more and more Protestant practices (Communion in the hand). A lot of what Protestants do when the New Testament goes the way of Catholics (which should be always) is go look at what the Jєωs did with those issues in the Old Testament or what they still do. A good example of this would be the deuterocanonicals. Luther didn't accept that Catholics saw them as Scripture so he showed us that the Jєωs didn't accept them (without ever looking at what the early Christian view on it was).

All of the Laws of the Old Covenant were fulfilled through Jesus ying on the cross and establishing the Church. This was why Pope Eugene IV said it was unnecessary to circuмcise infants. But because the Protestants adopted it so did we because we had to adopt there practices to attract them to the Church.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2011, 03:23:13 PM »

From now on, do not circuмcise any more children. From my understanding, its another Big Pharma-Big Medicine move in order to desensitize all men and remove intimacy from marriage as God created it to be. Historically too, Christians were never circuмcised and told not to do so.

Reversing a circ is also possible..there are many things a search will pull up as I found out.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2011, 03:44:50 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Reversing a circ is also possible..there are many things a search will pull up as I found out.

Um, I don't think this is something I would want to do to my 5 year old son. Now when he gets older, if he wants to put some weights on his foreskin to stretch it out, then he will have to grapple with his own stupidity.

I am just wondering a few things:

1)If circuмcision is morally offensive, then why didn't the Church speak up about it in the U.S. in the 50s-70s when circuмcision was perfectly normal?

2) Since I have apparently advocated something morally offensive by allowing my 4 sons to be circ'd, do I need to go to confession?

3) Considering it may or may not prevent diseases, is "medically necessary" a reason for having this procedure

4) Is this just another anti-Jєωιѕн sentiment?

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:21:23 PM »

To answer your points:

1. I just don't know??

2. I do not believe you have sinned because you failed to show knowledge of it being morally offensive or a sin at the time of committing it(if it is even a sin..perhaps under the category of bodily mutilation but I really dont know).

3. "Medically necessary" is a relative phrase. Which doctor from what camp usually plays a big factor into the big PUSH and HEAVE HO to get people to undergo invasive surgeries and treatments that arent needed or highly unresponsive to the condition... EX. see Daegus' thread on cancer and sodium bicarbonate.

Now that you've piqued my interest in this matter, I did start reading some scientific research and case studies showing how circuмcision is not required at all for males, in pretty much all cases. Jєωs and Muslims are the highest proportionate practicers of circuмcision among males, and Europeans as a region are the lowest in frequency, supposedly.

4. I saw a group that claims to be Jєωs against circuмcision online so I don't think its an anti-Jєωιѕн sentiment. It seems to be an anti-gross mutilation sentiment instead.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:25:22 PM »

Wow this is something I never thought about...

"The holy Roman church strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circuмcision 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." Council of Florence

:shocked:

Jaynek · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:35:15 PM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

I am just wondering a few things:

1)If circuмcision is morally offensive, then why didn't the Church speak up about it in the U.S. in the 50s-70s when circuмcision was perfectly normal?

It was being pushed as medically necessary so Church officials probably believed that.

Quote

2) Since I have apparently advocated something morally offensive by allowing my 4 sons to be circ'd, do I need to go to confession?

It is unlikely it is a mortal sin since you did it in ignorance so you don't need to go to Confession. But if you regret it and have decided that you would not do it again, you could confess it.

Quote

3) Considering it may or may not prevent diseases, is "medically necessary" a reason for having this procedure

There are pretty weak grounds for claiming it is medically necessary and they didn't convince my husband and me. We have 4 sons and did not circuмcise them.

Quote

4) Is this just another anti-Jєωιѕн sentiment?

There is a growing anti-circuмcision movement now and I have read some things from this perspective. None of it came across to me as anti-Jєωιѕн. It is more of a human rights kind of thing. These people take the position that it is wrong to mutilate babies.

Jaynek · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:37:17 PM »

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Wow this is something I never thought about...

"The holy Roman church strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circuмcision 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." Council of Florence

:shocked:

This was written at a time when nobody thought it was medically necessary.

ajpirc · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2011, 05:46:34 PM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

3) Considering it may or may not prevent diseases, is "medically necessary" a reason for having this procedure

No. Many doctors have said that daily masturbation will help ease anxietyand boost your immune system. But the Church still objects to it as adultery. Even if these things do help with one's health, they are still just ways for Satan have us sin. The Church is the light of the world, not the doctors.

Catholic Samurai · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2011, 09:54:06 PM »

My parents spoke with a General before I was born. He said do it soon after I was born so they wouldn't require me to go through it as an adult should I be drafted (and he personally believed it to be very likely). I don't know if being circuмcised is a requirement today in the army, but that's what we were told 20 years ago.

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2011, 12:26:31 AM »

If you are not circuмcising your children out of some sense that you have to obey Old Testament law, but do it for the perceived medical benefits, then it is not a religious issue at all.

I had my sons circuмcised. If I had it to do over, I would not, because there really is no clear medical benefit to it.

Daegus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2011, 02:52:58 PM »

If you knew what the Big Pharma industry did with the foreskins that they cut off, you would not even think, for one moment, of having them cut the foreskin off and letting them keep it. It's disgusting what they do with it. Just go do a google search on it and you'll be scandalized, I swear.

Anyways.. There appears to be a growing contingent of whiners on the internet about how their foreskins were cut off and how if they had the chance they would reject it and bla..bla..bla. If they had their foreskins, they would probably masturbate endlessly (as this world does) and never try to reconcile themselves with God for this depraved act. While I was circuмcised at birth, I don't feel any sentiments of regret or hostility towards my parents. What's the use in doing that? What happens if I were to grow up and go into a convent? Me being circuмcised or not wouldn't even make a difference then! So you see, for any Catholic, it's ridiculous to worry about there being an issue with circuмcising your child. I don't believe it's a good or even medically necessary procedure, but if you have done it you shouldn't feel bad because a gang of obstinate sinners want you to.

I'd also like to add that because there are no real religious reasons to circuмcise, circuмcision should not be done in the name of religion. After all, how can one (Catholic) circuмcise in the name of his religion when his religion gives him no reason to? This is why circuмcision is condemned by the Church, not because there's anything that's actually wrong with circuмcision. I personally would rather not have been circuмcised, but the deed has already been done, and there are far worse things that could have happened to me than being circuмcised.

There is a lot of propaganda floating around by whiners who want their foreskin back just so they can enjoy all of the pleasures of depraved sex. If you fall prey to it, you will inevitably become scrupulous. I don't recommend anyone to circuмcise their children as I really don't see much of a reason to, but I'm not going to condemn or anathematize them for choosing to do so. If you circuмcised without the intention of harming your child in any way, then you have done absolutely nothing wrong and have nothing to confess.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2011, 04:52:02 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

If you are not circuмcising your children out of some sense that you have to obey Old Testament law, but do it for the perceived medical benefits, then it is not a religious issue at all.

I had my sons circuмcised. If I had it to do over, I would not, because there really is no clear medical benefit to it.

We had our sons circ'd because we believed that it was a health issue and, really, only because my father felt strongly about it. He had many issues, he claimed.

It isn't something I think either of us regret, really. I was only wondering if this is really a moral issue or not.

I am not convinced that circuмcision is either necessary or unnecessary.

I think the masturbation issue is another topic and one that modesty prevents me from discussing.....sorry.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2011, 05:27:42 PM »

On foreskins and "increased masturbation frequency", I find this to be a lie and untrue. If someone is determined to sin, they will do so regardless of what is there. Having a foreskin doesn't really enable one to engage in the deprave action more so than not... this was one of the errors in thought and propaganda that started the massive wave of circuмcisions in the last few hundred years, I bet.

Why not start mandating all men wear steel mitts that prohibit hand movement? Why not start cutting hands off for those who somehow remove these gloves? See where I'm going here? There will always be something to "enable" one to do something. The mind of a liberal loves this thought process and it carries over, as we all can see in today's gun laws, medicine restrictions, school lunch policies, etc etc etc.

Daegus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2011, 06:35:43 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

On foreskins and "increased masturbation frequency", I find this to be a lie and untrue. If someone is determined to sin, they will do so regardless of what is there. Having a foreskin doesn't really enable one to engage in the deprave action more so than not... this was one of the errors in thought and propaganda that started the massive wave of circuмcisions in the last few hundred years, I bet.

Why not start mandating all men wear steel mitts that prohibit hand movement? Why not start cutting hands off for those who somehow remove these gloves? See where I'm going here? There will always be something to "enable" one to do something. The mind of a liberal loves this thought process and it carries over, as we all can see in today's gun laws, medicine restrictions, school lunch policies, etc etc etc.

Your argument against me is flawed on principle because in no way did I ever say anything about masturbation increasing in frequency. This is absolutely wrong. What I did say is that there is a growing contingent of whiners who want their foreskins back solely because masturbation would be more pleasurable to them, and so would sex. They would want to masturbate endlessly and have sex endlessly. Believe me, I have been around parts of the internet where I really shouldn't have been and I know that this is a very real argument proposed by the "foreskin restoration" movement and their intentions are not pure. They do not want to get their foreskins back simply because it was just something taken from them and they'll never get it back. It goes much deeper than that. It inhibits the fullness of the sɛҳuąƖ pleasure that they would like to partake in, which is why they are so vehemently opposed to something that there's no way their parents could have known.

I have encountered these people and they are vexed beyond belief at their parents. Some say they would kill their parents or do it to them, etc. It's just full of spite and hatred.

I don't see why anyone would even care that they lost something that is not really that relevant. Having 20,000 extra nerve endings around your "phallus" is not going to benefit your salvation. This is the crux of what I am saying here. To put a disordered amount of emphasis on the fact that one has lost a fraction of the power of their phallus is almost akin to idolatry. You won't die just because your sex was not as pleasurable as everyone else's, and you certainly won't die not knowing what it was like to have those nerve endings. I was circuмcised too, so it's not like this is foreign to me, but we MUST approach this issue without a drop of sentimentalism, or we will be led into error.

As I said before, I would not recommend/suggest circuмcision to anyone, but no one should allow their consciences to be tortured over something so trivial (and yes, in the majority of cases it is trivial)