Circumcision Is Immoral

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Would you consider him a heretic in the second case?[/quote]
If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him.

[quote]Geeze. I guess next we should be retreating to the catacombs....[/quote]
That is completely off subject and has nothing to do with this debate. It is a pointless remark and it seems as though you dismiss the documents of less recent Oecumenical Councils as being irrelevant, when in fact, they are just as authoritative as newer Oecumenical Councils in regards to faith and morals.

[quote]it doesn't matter; because your quote does not speak to medical and hygenic circumsision. therefore, there is nothing official in place forbidding Catholics from doing it for health benefits, and the highest office of the Church has advised that it is conceivable to do it for health benefits.[/quote]

It does matter if the quote from Pope Pius XII was spoken authoritatively or not, because if it was not spoken authoritatively I could continue to hold that all circumcision, including for health reasons, was forbidden by the Council of Florence.

[quote]What I would suggest is that no Catholic may both agree with me on the lack of medical need and still support circumsision. If there are no medical purposes, then your reasoning (whether implicitly or explicitly) for circumsision is a reasoning condemned by the council of Florence.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]So that's where the debate ought go from there: the only legitimate reason for circumsision is health/hygeine. I argue there are no legitimate health/hygeine concerns which justify this mutilation.[/quote]

OK, I'm fine with that, but I need to know the source of that quote from Pius XII first.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175091' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM']
If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him.
[/quote]

I don't think that was his question, Mr. Politician . The question asked if you thought we would then be a heretic, not if you humbly submitted or disagreed.

[thessalonian]

by the way, circumcision for mutilation is immoral as well.

[thessalonian]

It should also be noted in this discussion that the Church does not just make declarations on a whim. There was apparently something going on in the Church at the time of Eugene IV in the Church that caused this decree. Currently I don't have information on this but am sure it would shed light on the subject. Decrees should be seen in the context of the times that they were in to properly understand what their intent is. I have little doudt that in this case it will show that there was some error in the Church regarding circumcision, not as a part of salvation, but still for religous purposes that the decree was intended to combat. We know that circumcision for salvation extends back to Christ as a problem.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175091' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM']
If the Pope was speaking authoritatively as Pope in that quote about circumcision being permissible if done for health and not religious reasons, I would humbly submit to his judgment. If the Pope was speaking his personal opinion as a theologian and not authoritatively as Pope in said quote I would humbly disagree with him.
[/quote]
You wouldn't consider him a heretic, even though you think this matter is defined?

I just think it's a bit of a double standard...you seem to consider many other heretics for believing things that are debatable.

I'd like to add one thing to the matter of circumcision for health. It has been brought up that it could be helpful for psychological health; that sons of circumcised men should be circumcised lest, seeing their circumcised fathers, they get confused about their own masculinity.

It's a bit of a stretch, I think, but I've heard it before, so I wanted to throw it out there.

Thess, good call on the cancer of the foreskin. I'd thought of it earlier, but forgot to mention it. It really does show what the Church intended with the statement from the Council of Florence.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1175089' date='Jan 24 2007, 07:19 PM']
I tend to agree with that. I was just saying that if that was the INTENDED purpose, then there shouldn't be any issue with it.
[/quote]
which is, of course, what I spent the whole first half of the thread establishing with STM so we're in agreement.

I was saying that in response to cmom, that I think the more current medical data has shown the previous concepts of it as medically beneficial to be not quite accurate.

raph: I think that psychological point of view really is a stretch and would not fall anywhere near Pius XII's statement and even begin to border on the type of circumsisions going on at the time of the Council of Florence (even if they did not place their hope in it, they wanted to be similar to the jews and the judaizing Christians) and thus border on a very bad reason for circumsision. that would make circumsision a cultural thing, and Florence was saying: Christian culture does not and cannot include circumsion. dressing it up in modern psychological language does not change the fact that that motivation is cultural, and thus is more closely connected with the type of circumsision previously condemned.

I would thus recommend strongly against thinking of circumsision as a way to make your child look more like you, for psychological reasons or not. If you're gonna do it for hygenic/health purposes, then okay I disagree with its necessity but in principal your motivation is not sinful. But the psychological point of view at the very least borders on a very bad principal for circumsision.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1175138' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:21 PM']
raph: I think that psychological point of view really is a stretch and would not fall anywhere near Pius XII's statement and even begin to border on the type of circumsisions going on at the time of the Council of Florence (even if they did not place their hope in it, they wanted to be similar to the jews and the judaizing Christians) and thus border on a very bad reason for circumsision. that would make circumsision a cultural thing, and Florence was saying: Christian culture does not and cannot include circumsion. dressing it up in modern psychological language does not change the fact that that motivation is cultural, and thus is more closely connected with the type of circumsision previously condemned.

I would thus recommend strongly against thinking of circumsision as a way to make your child look more like you, for psychological reasons or not. If you're gonna do it for hygenic/health purposes, then okay I disagree with its necessity but in principal your motivation is not sinful. But the psychological point of view at the very least borders on a very bad principal for circumsision.
[/quote]
I said it was a stretch.

[Aloysius]

cool, as long as we understand each other. the Council of Florence's quote, as far as I'm concerned, goes so far as to first say: there are no longer any spiritual reasons for circumsion; then that cultural reasons do not justify it as it is mutilation. Pius XII's quote helps us to understand that the only things not covered by Florence's quote are medical and hygenic reasons: for we can certainly justify almost all operations on the human body for the sake of their health or hygeine (though the hygenic concern must be extreme enough to merit what is being done to the human body).

I do not believe the hygenic concerns do, in fact, merit this mutilation. Like I said: with proper cleaning there is no hygenic concern; we might as well have people cut off parts of their ears so that cleaning behind them is easier.

Health concerns: certainly cancer is always a good reasosn for circumsision. Anyone who opposed that would be absurd. But as far as other health risks go: basically all medical research shows proper hygenic cleaning makes all the previous thought risks assosiated with being uncircumsised no longer legitimate risks.

the only thing left is; I recently read an artical that said it may help prevent the spread of HIV... I don't think that raises to the level of justification either; unless one has decided to marry someone infected with HIV and is willing to take all the risks... in that case they could get an adult circumsision. But STD concerns are not to be taken into account when deciding what operation to do on an infant

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1175127' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:10 PM']
It should also be noted in this discussion that the Church does not just make declarations on a whim. There was apparently something going on in the Church at the time of Eugene IV in the Church that caused this decree. Currently I don't have information on this but am sure it would shed light on the subject. Decrees should be seen in the context of the times that they were in to properly understand what their intent is. I have little doudt that in this case it will show that there was some error in the Church regarding circumcision, not as a part of salvation, but still for religous purposes that the decree was intended to combat. We know that circumcision for salvation extends back to Christ as a problem.
[/quote]

I think the Council of Florence was more so addressed toward the Coptic Church as I think they still practiced circumcision around the time.

Edited January 25, 2007 by CatholicCid

[cmotherofpirl]

You might consider it a stretch but many men don't.
Only in the last 20 years has there ever been much of a discussion against circumcision, and that usually came from the back to nature treehugging type person.
Every male in my family was circ d as a matter of course.
I never heard much of a discussion until I was in England changing nappies.

[Aloysius]

as I said, I believe the council was arguing against all cultural circumsisions as well as all judaizer circumsisios among Christians.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1175165' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:43 PM']
You might consider it a stretch but many men don't.
Only in the last 20 years has there ever been much of a discussion against circumcision, and that usually came from the back to nature treehugging type person.
Every male in my family was circ d as a matter of course.
I never heard much of a discussion until I was in England changing nappies.
[/quote]
that's a particularly american thing. in europe, most men do not get circumsized.

as I said before, I think it particularly influenced by the judaizing tendencies of our protestant culture. but that does not negate the fact that its motivation for health purposes is acceptable.

[Resurrexi]

Does no-one have the document from which the alleged quote of Pope Pius XII came?

[Aloysius]

I don't have the document. but it's not Pius XII's document that shows the council of Florence wasn't referring to medical reasons: it's history and context.

it's not a matter of faith that you can't hold that the Council of Florence meant that: it's a matter of logic and reason. the concept didn't exist and therefore it is impossible that they were condemning an idea that didn't exist. They were clearly condemning circumsision for cultural or religious reasons; anything which remotely connected them to judaizing.

you cannot hold that the Church has taught against circumsision for medical reasons, therefore, unless the Church ever actually addressed it. At the most, Pius XII has said it's okay; at the least, no one has said anything on the subject. that leaves Catholics free to do it if motivated by medical reasons.

you cannot hold that it is a matter of Church teaching that circumsision for medical reasons is immoral. That has been disproven. you can hold that there are no medical reasons that justify it, I myself hold that position. but that position necessitates that no one is culpable for any sin if they do it under the impression that there are medical reasons that justify it.

[cappie]

From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way

Pius XII, Discorsi e messaggi radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cappie' post='1175407' date='Jan 24 2007, 09:35 PM']
From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way

Pius XII, Discorsi e messaggi radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329
[/quote]

I've seen that quote about five times now.

I searched of of Pius XII's encyclicals on papalencyclicals.net as well as did a general search for the word "circumcision" on papalencyclicals.net and I did not find it there.

I searched for "Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi" on google and only three pages came up, with most results being in Italian. I found three relevant sites, all carrying only that quote and not the whole document/speach/whatever-"Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi"-is. The first was some bogus interreligious site against circumcision. The second was some bogus site against circumcision that gave one of the reasons for not circumcising your child as "protecting his religious freedom", a concept which I only believe in under the following definition "The freedom and government support of Catholics publicly practicing their religion and the banning of all non-Catholic religions being practiced in public" because the Syllabus of Errors condemns as error:

[quote name='The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Bl. Pope Pius IX']55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. [/quote]

The third site was some post on another forum.

Because there are no authentic sources for the quote, I will say that I think the quote is unauthentic and holds no authority unless it is proven to be authentic.

[CatholicCid]

I think it might be from a radio message Pius XII gave.

I've been looking on the Vatican site and it's hard to find since even they have large gaps in the speeches he gave during his Pontificate. They only have 11 of the 19 years of his speeches available online.

Edited January 25, 2007 by CatholicCid

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175427' date='Jan 24 2007, 11:59 PM']
I've seen that quote about five times now.

I searched of of Pius XII's encyclicals on papalencyclicals.net as well as did a general search for the word "circumcision" on papalencyclicals.net and I did not find it there.

I searched for "Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi" on google and only three pages came up, with most results being in Italian. I found three relevant sites, all carrying only that quote and not the whole document/speach/whatever-"Discoursi e messaggi radiodiffusi"-is. The first was some bogus interreligious site against circumcision. The second was some bogus site against circumcision that gave one of the reasons for not circumcising your child as "protecting his religious freedom", a concept which I only believe in under the following definition "The freedom and government support of Catholics publicly practicing their religion and the banning of all non-Catholic religions being practiced in public" because the Syllabus of Errors condemns as error:
The third site was some post on another forum.

Because there are no authentic sources for the quote, I will say that I think the quote is unauthentic and holds no authority unless it is proven to be authentic.
[/quote]
FATHER Cappie said that is the quote and so the discussion can now be closed.
Unless you want to discuss the health issues only.

[Jaime]

Discount it if you want Tommy but you can't discount the catechism which states the exact same thing as what the Holy Father said.

Or are you going to say that the Catechism is bogus?

[cmotherofpirl]

He'll try

[Thy Geekdom Come]

STM, I'm pretty sure the Italian title says that it is from a collection of discourses and radio broadcasts from Pope Pius XII. I doubt you'll find that collection on line. You'll probably have to go to Rome, since that's where it is published.