Is circumcision immoral?

[goldenchild17]

Topic asks all. Someone told me that it is against Church teaching to have an infant circumcised. Granted this came from someone who is blatantly anti-Catholic, but I just never heard this idea and wanted to know what you thought.

I put it here, because I need an answer fairly quickly, and it's more quickly seen here. It can be moved if you all feel it's appropriate. Thanks.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

The Church has no official stance for or against it, so long as you realize that it is not necessary for salvation.

[goldenchild17]

That's what I thought. But it's not wrong to do it, right? That's all I was looking for. Thanks.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Feb 5 2005, 12:26 AM'] That's what I thought.  But it's not wrong to do it, right?  That's all I was looking for.  Thanks. [/quote]
If it's wrong to do it, then the vast majority of saintly parents are terrible sinners.

Most men in the modern Western world are circumcized. The point of St. Paul was that people should not be forced to be circumcized for the faith because circumcision was no longer necessary...that wasn't necessary for the new and everlasting covenant.

[goldenchild17]

hehe I asked for a source and I was given one!

The following is from Pope Eugenius IV's Papal Bull of Union with the Copts, February 1442: "....It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they ( legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law) could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision 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."

The quote tells us not to commit this act "whether or not we place our faith in it". I don't believe this is infallible, but I think it should be addressed anyways.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hmmm...

[goldenchild17]

yeah...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I want the Latin.

[goldenchild17]

I'll see if she's got it... I doubt she would though. I'll look around and see what I come up with.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think there is something in the last sentence in the English which may be a misinterpretation of the Latin because it wouldn't translate well.

[goldenchild17]

I would hope so, because the last sentence is the one I think we need to worry about. Since it's the one that says don't do it regardless of whether or not we put our hope in it. I'm tracking the quote down now. Let me look through my resources...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation.[/quote]

I believe that this sentence is misunderstood. Otherwise, fasting, acts of penance, and other things done under the Mosaic law would also have been equally condemned by Pope Eugene, but certainly they were not. This reasoning in light of:

[quote]Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors.[/quote]

But certainly the Sabbath was still practiced, even if the day was transferred, and certainly Pope Eugene wasn't saying that anyone who observed the Sabbath was damned.

[quote]Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision 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."[/quote]

If a person is circumcised with no regard to salvation, but for other reasons, I don't see how it could be taken as relevant to the notion of looking to circumcision for salvation. Since boys are circumcized nowadays either for health or out of non-religious custom, I don't see how it is relevant to the debate, since the realm of the Pope's authority rests in faith or morals and moreover that this message is in regard to an act of faith and the reasoning for circumcision nowadays has nothing do do with faith or morals.

[i feel like im taking crzy pills]

well, i heard in my religion class today that doing that is a jewish way of like baptism... not the exact words or phrase or whatever... thats all i remember... haha i was like falling asleep i was so tired

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 4 2005, 11:45 PM'] If a person is circumcised with no regard to salvation, but for other reasons, I don't see how it could be taken as relevant to the notion of looking to circumcision for salvation. Since boys are circumcized nowadays either for health or out of non-religious custom, I don't see how it is relevant to the debate, since the realm of the Pope's authority rests in faith or morals and moreover that this message is in regard to an act of faith and the reasoning for circumcision nowadays has nothing do do with faith or morals. [/quote]
The part you quoted here, in that statement, says "Whether OR NOT you put you're hope in it". So it seems that it doesn't matter whether it's done for spiritual reasons or some other reasons, it just says that it can't be practiced without fear of losing our salvation...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Feb 5 2005, 01:06 AM'] The part you quoted here, in that statement, says "Whether OR NOT you put you're hope in it".  So it seems that it doesn't matter whether it's done for spiritual reasons or some other reasons, it just says that it can't be practiced without fear of losing our salvation... [/quote]
Well, that's the thing. I think that it's saying whether or not you believe that it is necessary for salvation, if you do it anyway for religious reasons (for instance, as a non-essential religious thing...a sacramental, perhaps), then it is against the faith. I think that is the context. Taken out of that context, it seems to be condemning all circumcision, but I think it is only condemning circumcision for religious reasons, whether or not it is deemed necessary for salvation, and not circumcision for other, entirely non-religious reasons.

The language allows for this interpretation.

[goldenchild17]

I found the quote in a little more context...

"Session 11—4 February 1442
[Bull of Union with the Copts]

It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision 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."

Does this help in explaining it any?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and [b]as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally.[/b][/quote]

This is key and furthers what I was trying to say, i.e. observing circumcision as a religious act is what is being addressed, not observing it as a mere cultural or health issue.

[goldenchild17]

Thanks for the help. It's making more sense now.

[goldenchild17]

So, what is the authority of a Papal Bull anyways? Is there a level of infallibility attached to it?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Feb 5 2005, 01:52 AM'] So, what is the authority of a Papal Bull anyways? Is there a level of infallibility attached to it? [/quote]
That I don't know.