AmericanPapist Comments
Circumcision may be part of the old covenant, but - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't it officially forbidden in various Papal Bulls and/or prohibitions against mutilation (most recently John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae)?
I have found some rather one-sided stuff on the internet but I would love to hear a more balanced treatment from a widely respected source. Anyone have a recommendation for me?
No it wasnt forbidden. It is optional, actually.
And I donīt know if circumncision (Iīm talking about the actual male circumcision, not about that bizarre African practice) can be considered mutilation.
What is more, since the time of my grandfather (who was a physician), several doctors advocate the higienic benefits of circumcision in that it makes it harder to contract some diseases. This is a medical discovery of our century, and it seems that circumcised people have a statistical advantage over non-circumcised people regarding the contraction of AIDS, although they can also contract it, of course.
Also, some men HAVE to have circumcision as an actual medical operation, because of a problem in the retraction of the skin that will make them suffer intense pain during intercourse (the medical condition caled phimosis), making the conclusion of the encounter almost impossible. In those cases, circumcision is a terapeutic necessity. In this specific case of a terapeutic necessity (which is different from the neonatal case, that is non-terapeutic), the Catechism would not bar the procedure even if it were considered a mutilation, because of the terapeutic exception: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." (CCC).
Of course, if circumcision is practiced due to a belief that it is necessary as a matter of religion, on account of the Old Convenant, then it contradicts Catholic teaching. People who have not reached the age of reason cannot be held responsible for this sin, but the parents who take part in it can. The language of the Bull Cantate Domino seems to refer to this case.
But In 1952, Pope Pius XII, detailed the Catholic position on circumcision by stating, in his Discorsi e messaggi radiodiffusi, that circumcision was only permissible to counter a disease for which could not be countered in any other way. This seems to be the case with phimosis (athough today there seems to be non-operatory methods, recently discovered, that solve the problem in certain cases).
So if I read your second post right, it would seem that parents who are well informed should default to not circumcising their male children (I of course was not referring to any bizarre African ritual but only the western/Jewish tradition). The statements by Pius XII seem to indicate that it should only be a course of last resort and not a standard operation as it seems to be in the American medical system.
Should the church endeavor, in preparing expectant parents, to instruct them on this matter so they are informed prior to being asked about circumcision by the doctors after giving birth to their son?
Marie Antoinette's unfortunate Louis XVI suffered from phimosis, which is why they did not have children until, I believe, several years into their marriage.
I don't know much about (never had any reason to give it much thought, really), but I thought there was some controversy about the circumcision / disease thing. (I also genuinely didn't realise there'd ever been any sort of injunction again circumcision in the church.) I know there is some movement afoot now in North American to prevent boys from being circumcised, which I don't really understand, but I did think that there was some legitimate talk about circumcision not being necessary when boys and men are taught proper hygiene. Heaven knows one does not want to get into a really graphic discussion here, but is there something to the notion that uncircumcised men are more vulnerable to disease, even if proper hygiene is observed (and that in itself can, of course, be a challenge for people living in extremely impoverished conditions, such as those is Africa, I realise)?
I don't know Big Tom. This does not seem to be a priority for the Church. As for Pius XII, I believe that his aim was to clarify that the prohibition in the Bull Cantate Domino was issued to counter the regilion-based operation, since there where Christian sects who tought that circumcision was still needed. Thus, because there were those claiming that circumcision was necessary when the Church said that it wasn't needed in the New Convenant, the Church decided to prohibit the practice (Bull Cantate Domino). But that prohibition was never absolute, in that the Church never opposed circumcision performed as a neccessity to counter a medical condition. That, I believe, was the clarification that Pius XII decided to make in a public speech about the practice. While not rescinding the prohibition, the Pope stated, in a radiomessage that circumcision was possible only as a medical necessity. Now, it seems clear to me that in the case of phimosis (at least in the worst cases that cannot be solved by the chemical therapies recently discovered) circumcision is permitted. As for the circumcision that takes place without prior medical necessity, I believe that it could, perhaps, violate the discipline of the Church. However, if the prevailing medical opinion indicates that the lack of foreskin (due to circumcision) decreases the statistical likelihood of certain STDs, now wouldn't this medical discovery warrant a second exception to the rule, provided that it remains clear that the operation is not taking place for religious reasons?
I would tend to follow your logic; however, as a mathematician/statistician who longs for definiteness, I was trying to grasp exactly what was forbidden/permitted, allowed/encouraged, etc. about the practice. It's officially forbidden for 'religious' reasons. But - permissible for medical/therapeutic reasons. Given these two points, it would see wise to err on the side of caution and avoid circumcision without necessity. It's just my understanding that this isn't the case in America and I wonder would the church consider counseling parents on this issue as part of preparation for Baptism for instance. The hospitals all offer/encourage it and since everyone's doing it, it seems to be done quite often. Given that, should the church in my country reconsider and take a public stance? I'm not sure it's a 'grave' enough issue at all to warrant that - but it's an interesting one nonetheless to think about as an aspiring seminarian in the Fall (June 12 I meet the admission board)
Commenting by HaloScan
