I doubt that spiritual penalties apply to people who have circuмcised their sons because they believed the lies that it was a necessary medical procedure. I would love to see somebody knowledgeable (like Mithrandylan) analyze that situation.
Personally, it was a no-brainer when my sons were born that we would not circuмcise them. My husband was from a culture that was not infected with misinformation on circuмcision (probably because it was historically Catholic) so there was no expectation or pressure from his side of the family. And for me, as a convert from Judaism, it was important to distance myself from my Jєωιѕн background.
Psychology Today has a lot of information from a secular perspective debunking all the myths about it being a necessary or beneficial procedure for health. If anyone is facing pressure or criticism from family for refusing to circuмcise, it can be helpful to have these facts on hand. Here is one and it contains links to others: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201307/pro-circuмcision-culturally-biased-not-scientific-experts
.
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.