Is circumcision immoral?

[goldenchild17]

I can't find anything that will tell me either...

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 5 2005, 06:28 AM'] Most men in the modern Western world are circumcized. [/quote]
Actually no, the vast majority of men in Europe are not circumsized for example.

[Apotheoun]

Circumcision is not immoral; rather, it is simply unnecessary for salvation.

I agree with Raphael, the decision of the Council of Florence referred to above concerns the "religious" observance of the various Old Testament rites, and so, it is in no way condemning circumcision if it has been done simply for reasons of hygiene.

God bless,
Todd

[goldenchild17]

a response...

"But what you are saying ignores the last half of this Papal Bull ...yes, the first part talks about those who thought that circumcision was necessary to salvation and it corrects them... but keep reading, it goes even further....the last part is very clearly addressing those who do it for any reason.. start where you ended and continue..... " 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."

Look at the part I put in Bold... it states that whether or not it is for religious reasons , it cannot be observed ( no restrictions as to why it is done here) without loss of eternal salvation. Up until the Passion it says that these things were not wrong as they were given by God to be observed. From the Passion until the gospel was known, these things still could be done as long as the person doing them was not doing them because they believed them necessary for salvation ( in other words, it was understandable that the jews would have , for a time, continued such things as circumcision as a sign of the covenant). But then this Papal Bull continues.... AFTER the promulgation of the gospel, once the person knew that Jesus was the messiah and the law was no longer necessary, these things can no longer be done for any reason. The things it lists were all religious in nature and were only to be done by those alive before Jesus's Passion and the spreading of His gospel. Once that happened, these things could no longer be done or those who did were called " strangers to the faith of Christ". The last part is the real important part....it STRICTLY ORDERS all who are Christians not to observe circumcision; before or after baptism ( that means your whole life ); and whether or not you are doing it because you place your hope of salvation in it or not, if CANNOT be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

This addressed more than whether or not it was done for religious reasons. It says that it was a religious observance and after Christ it can no longer be done by those who are called by His name , Christians, or they will lose eternal salvation. If it was as you say, then how can you explain that last part?"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Feb 5 2005, 05:21 PM'] a response...

"But what you are saying ignores the last half of this Papal Bull ...yes, the first part talks about those who thought that circumcision was necessary to salvation and it corrects them... but keep reading, it goes even further....the last part is very clearly addressing those who do it for any reason.. start where you ended and continue..... " 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."

Look at the part I put in Bold... it states that whether or not it is for religious reasons , it cannot be observed ( no restrictions as to why it is done here) without loss of eternal salvation. Up until the Passion it says that these things were not wrong as they were given by God to be observed. From the Passion until the gospel was known, these things still could be done as long as the person doing them was not doing them because they believed them necessary for salvation ( in other words, it was understandable that the jews would have , for a time, continued such things as circumcision as a sign of the covenant). But then this Papal Bull continues.... AFTER the promulgation of the gospel, once the person knew that Jesus was the messiah and the law was no longer necessary, these things can no longer be done for any reason. The things it lists were all religious in nature and were only to be done by those alive before Jesus's Passion and the spreading of His gospel. Once that happened, these things could no longer be done or those who did were called " strangers to the faith of Christ". The last part is the real important part....it STRICTLY ORDERS all who are Christians not to observe circumcision; before or after baptism ( that means your whole life ); and whether or not you are doing it because you place your hope of salvation in it or not, if CANNOT be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

This addressed more than whether or not it was done for religious reasons. It says that it was a religious observance and after Christ it can no longer be done by those who are called by His name , Christians, or they will lose eternal salvation. If it was as you say, then how can you explain that last part?" [/quote]
This response is a fallacious reading of the text without understanding its proper context. The text from the Council of Florence is a single paragraph, not two paragraphs, and so the context throughout the text refers back to the beginning of the paragraph which deals with a "religious" observance of circumcision. Moreover, there can be valid medical reasons which necessitate that a man be circumcised (e.g., infections, foreskin cancer, etc.), and it is pure folly to think that such a man is then condemned to damnation because he had to be circumcised for reasons associated with physical health.

God bless,
Todd

[theculturewarrior]

I agree with Raph and Apotheon. I just wish I had my library here with me. I would find you references in "the Sources of Dogma."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Feb 5 2005, 10:03 AM'] Actually no, the vast majority of men in Europe are not circumsized for example. [/quote]
Really? Interesting.

Well, the vast majority of men in the USA are.

[goldenchild17]

"According to the Papal Bull I quoted, the Catholic Church would have to say that Paul did not have eternal salvation because he indeed , for religious reasons, had Timothy circumcised. He never " recoiled" from what he did so the Catholic church , by its own teaching, must state that Paul lost his eternal salvation."

What to say about this? I don't know that much about Paul and circumcision except that he did condemn it as a means for salvation. So why did he do it for Timothy?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Feb 13 2005, 12:49 AM'] "According to the Papal Bull I quoted, the Catholic Church would have to say that Paul did not have eternal salvation because he indeed , for religious reasons, had Timothy circumcised. He never " recoiled" from what he did so the Catholic church , by its own teaching, must state that Paul lost his eternal salvation."

What to say about this?  I don't know that much about Paul and circumcision except that he did condemn it as a means for salvation.  So why did he do it for Timothy? [/quote]
You can bring that up if you like, but you can also focus on the fact that your opponent in the debate is simply misreading the text on circumcision issued by the Council of Florence. All that has been condemned by that council is the notion that the religious observance of circumcision, and by implication the religious observance of any of the other Old Testament "sacraments," is of no avail for salvation.

The Catholic Church has never taught that a man, who for reasons of physical health must be circumcised is by that fact damned to eternal punishment.