Do you want to be vindicated or do you want to be understood?  Do you see forum discussions as a contest to win or as a means for Catholics to help each other find the truth?  Are they an opportunity for you to show off all the big words you know or do you wish to share knowledge of the Faith?

Neither.  I took up this argument because I really don't care for baseless half-cocked accusations of mortal sin ... in which so many Traditional Catholics seemingly like to engage.  I mean, to some people, EVERYTHING is a mortal sin: from a woman wearing high heels to even small not-otherwise-distasteful tattoos (which launched into another thread) to smoking a small amount of marijuana to calm the nerves.  I didn't have my boys circuмcised, but that doesn't mean I consider those who have guilty of mortal sin.  I don't have any tattoos, but I don't consider every tattoo I see a confession of mortal sin.  I've never smoked marijuana, but don't accuse anyone who's ever had a couple hits to be guilty of mortal sin.  I get equally annoyed with the constant accusation of heresy for everything by the dogmatic sedevacantists ... for errors that are less than heresy.  It's almost as if this self-righteous Pharisaical spirit has infected Traditional Catholicism.

People just need to stop that.

Almost every sin admits of degrees short of mortal sin.  People need to understand that.  If a woman wears a skirt that's an inch above the knees, or doesn't have a sleeve, that's not the same thing as walking into church in a two-piece bikini.  Some things along the moral spectrum are imperfections, some venial sins of varying degrees, and some mortal sins of varying degrees.

You and Pax have scattered gratuitous insults of women throughout this thread.  While it is less than ideal that happenby responded to the taunting, it is perfectly understandable.  People of both sexes find it difficult to ignore such treatment.  If she is disqualified from participation for reacting, so ought the ones who made disparaging comments in the first place be disqualified.

Making logical/philosophical distinctions is a learned skill.  It is unusual for people who have not been trained in this to be able to do it, whether or not they have a Y chromosome.  It is not remarkable when anyone untrained lacks this skill.  It indicates little about that person as an individual or in general.

If one sees oneself as more skilled than others in this area, one should be grateful that one was given the opportunity to learn it.  People with intellectual skills ought to use them in the service of God and others, not as an excuse to demean those less skilled than themselves.  Even less is it a reason to degrade an entire sex.  If one is truly better at this than others it is a calling to explain such matters clearly and patiently when they arise.  

Well said.

Neither.  I took up this argument because I really don't care for baseless half-cocked accusations of mortal sin ... in which so many Traditional Catholics seemingly like to engage.  I mean, to some people, EVERYTHING is a mortal sin: [rant deleted]

You took up this argument before anyone had said anything like that.  You responded to me, when I was saying nothing to accuse people of mortal sin, guns blazing to prove it was not a mortal sin.  It looks like your obviously strong emotions about this interfered with your ability to discuss it rationally.  

So, hurting one's child, flaying and cutting their body parts for literally no reason is not a mortal sin?  Let's all pity parents too indoctrinated to realize they are doing harm to their kids, but whatever you do, don't them it is a mortal sin to do so.  

It would obviously be a sin to do this "for no reason".  Nobody does it "for no reason".  They do it because they believe there are benefits to it.  You can argue that point of course.  You once again inject your emotions:  "hurting one's child, flaying and cutting their body parts".

Look at the OP and the first post in response (mine).  OP said people told her that circuмcision was condemned by the Church, specifically at Florence, which taught that it was a mortal sin.  First response, mine, was making the exact same distinction St. Thomas made.  I spent the rest of this thread fending off attacks against that post.  Being a woman, you confuse strong convictions with strong emotion.  I was rational the entire time, and my argument was vindicated by St. Thomas.

The response immediately after yours was mine, also a response to the OP, was written before reading yours.  It was not an attack against your post but you seem to have thought it was.  Your emotions, I mean strong convictions, clouded your judgment so that you were seeing what you expected me to say rather than what I was actually saying.

The response immediately after yours was mine, also a response to the OP, was written before reading yours.  It was not an attack against your post but you seem to have thought it was.  Your emotions, I mean strong convictions, clouded your judgment so that you were seeing what you expected me to say rather than what I was actually saying.

No, you and I were clashing on a completely different argument ... until towards the end where you stated ...

But there is an overlap of the religious and medical aspects.  One reason that it has been so easy to persuade Catholics to circuмcise their children is the lack of awareness of the Church teaching and traditional practice.

... where you appeared to lend your support to allegations that circuмcision (even for medical reasons) is against Church teaching.

You and Pax have scattered gratuitous insults of women throughout this thread.

My comment that you have poor reading comprehension was gender-neutral.  Plenty of men have this problem too.

This is why women can't teach religion or theology to adults - generally, you are unable to make distinctions.

My comment concerning women discussing/teaching theology is similar to what St Paul said.  I said "generally" speaking, they can't do it (some can).  It is not an insult; it is a truth of human nature.  You have proved you are incapable by turning a simple question about the morality of circuмcision into a 12 page thread full of disorientation.

But you argue as if you're right, ...

I'd be surprised if her husband ever "won" an argument with her.