Circumcision Immoral

[CatholicMax]

An ignored Human rights issue

If someone were to suggest female circumcision to become a common practice here in the United States I can think of few if any outside the Muslim community who would not be up in arms over the matter, and yet male circumcision is a so common practice that no one gives it a second though. There is an attempt to say that there is a vast difference between the two circumcisions, however scientifically there is no difference at all including for purpose.

The Church holds that "... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons,
directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."(CCCNo. 2297), what is important to note here is that amputation and mutilation are held in direct conjunction with sterilization implying a connection to the gentles. More explicitly *Pius XII in Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi wrote *"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_.". It is explicitly clear then that mutilation of the gentles of either males or females through circumcision is directly contrary to the moral law and is forbidden unless a disease can be prevented any other way. This common sense approach of “God made it” and “If its not broke don't fix it.” is something we must keep in mind if and when we have children.

The question that must be asked given the previous two statements of the Church is this: Is there any medical reason for circumcision? The American Medical association, The Canadian Medical Association, and the The British Medial Association all say that Circumcision is an unnecessary medical procedure. In fact the BMA is supporting a law in Britain that would effectively ban all non medical circumcision in the UK. No major medical association supports or promotes on the ground that there is no conclusive evidence that it is beneficial.

The chilling reality that a part of the human body is unnecessarily removed often times without anesthesia while the child is strapped to a board is not only a violation of his God given human right to have his person not be violated but also of his very dignity. Why one would amputate (amputation is the definition of circumcision in both males and females) a perfectly healthy part of a child is so absurd that it begs question of why anyone would do such a thing. The answer is two fold; first beginning with a man named Doctor Kellogg who claimed that A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”(Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects). And the second is “It looks better”. The first reason circumcision became so absurd that it hardly deserves answer, except to say that female circumcision began to become common practice until the courts ruled it illegal, and unfortunately it has not yet had the insight to do so with men. The second is nearly as absurd as the first and I propose two solutions, first is if God made such a mistake in endowing men with foreskins then perhaps we should correct his mistake by genetic manipulation; second, if this is an unsuitable answer we should consider that God does not make mistakes.

God could demand circumcision in the Old Testament because He is God and our bodies are His, man may not however forsake any part of himself. Under the strict moral ruling of Pius XII one can only be circumcised if in fact a disease cannot be treated any other way. This excludes circumcision on the grounds of possibly in the future getting cancer of the penis because one it is rare to begin with, and two if we can remove the foreskin because of a slight possibility of getting cancer we can also remove the uterus for a slight risk of cancer. The CCC clearly forbids preemptive removal of a healthy part of the body, especially in light of such risk as: accidental castration, accidental amputation of the gland, infection, and Death.

[praying4carmel]

This Might be of interest..

[url="https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105"]New England Journal of Medicine.[/url]

[Deb]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1495735' date='Apr 9 2008, 05:29 PM']This Might be of interest..

[url="https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105"]New England Journal of Medicine.[/url][/quote]

Good enough reason for me. Keep snipping.

[MissScripture]

I think, but I'm not positive, that it also reduces chances of HIV.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1495762' date='Apr 9 2008, 05:53 PM']I think, but I'm not positive, that it also reduces chances of HIV.[/quote]

*raises eyebrow* how could it do that? On second thought, maybe I don't wanna know.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Male circumcision has been carried out for hygienic reasons for years. I don't see any problem with it. It's probably not something that would cross my mind if I ever gave birth to a baby boy, but I would hardly call it 'mutilation'. It has no adverse effects on the health or the body, after all. Female circumcision is quite different in that it can cause long-lasting pain to a woman and is sometimes done explicitly to prevent her from enjoying sex. In some African tribes it is considered a remedy for infidelity, and in the nineteenth century European surgeons were still circumcising women diagnosed with so-called 'nymphomania'. Male circumcision has never been used to these ends.

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1495774' date='Apr 9 2008, 05:10 PM']*raises eyebrow* how could it do that? On second thought, maybe I don't wanna know.[/quote]

Here's a relevant link: [url="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/297/3/254-b?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=circumcision+AND+aids&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT"]http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extra...ourcetype=HWCIT[/url]

As for the how, work it out for yourself.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Nadezhda

[Deb]

Wow. I guess there are lots of reasons for it.

[Adrestia]

Widespread chastity would eliminate the need for those medical benefits...

[CatherineM]

Female circumcision was done in North America, especially in rural areas, until the 1950's. My mother and her sister had it done to them in the 1920's.

[CatholicMax]

I think its funny how you guys ignore church teaching when it is inconvenient. *Pius XII in Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi wrote *"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_.". this means that it has already happened.

To HIV. the churches teaching automatically discounts any possibility for circumcision for the reason of HIV as abstaining from sex will solve the Problem of HIV.

Penile cancer

In 1993, Christopher Maden, Ph.D., et al. reported a study 29 in which 110 men with penile cancer, diagnosed from January 1979, to July, 1990, were interviewed. Of these 110 men, 22 had been circumcised at birth, 19 later in life, and 69 never. The majority of the men interviewed were intact, 37% were circumcised, and 20% had been circumcised as infants. In circumcised men, the cancer usually occurs along the line of the circumcision scar. Finland, where circumcision is extremely rare, has a low incidence of penile cancer.48
among them cigarette smoking,22,30 genital warts, and 30 or more sexual partners -- contribute to the risk of penile carcinoma.27

Cervical cancer in partners

The hypothesis that cervical cancer is caused by smegma of the male foreskin was invented in 1954 by Wynder. His study was found to be invalid, because most of the cervical cancer patients in his study incorrectly reported that their husbands were uncircumcised. These women had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. They gave the answer they thought the doctor wanted to hear. Wynder later recognized and admitted the error in 1960.3 This hypothesis was formally and scientifically disproven in 1962 by Stern.4

real cause of Cervical cancer
[url="http://www.circinfo.org/cervical.html"]http://www.circinfo.org/cervical.html[/url]


I find it disgusting that people would ignore the churches teaching like that.

"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"
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, parents should be presented with unbiased materials concerning circumcision and make the decision for themselves. This, of course, is after examining the newborn male and determining that it is not medically necessary to go ahead and circumcise.

[CatholicMax]

[url="http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/"]http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/[/url]
A good reason why not to circumcise. even one death is too many for a procedure that is not needed.
[url="http://www.circumstitions.com/Botch-refs.html"]http://www.circumstitions.com/Botch-refs.html[/url]

Edited April 10, 2008 by CatholicMax

[MissScripture]

This has been debated before on here, so if anyone cares to look back at previous discussion:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63557&hl=circumcision"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...hl=circumcision[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=59958&hl=circumcision&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...cision&st=0[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54517&hl=circumcision"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...hl=circumcision[/url]

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1496145' date='Apr 10 2008, 12:32 AM']This has been debated before on here, so if anyone cares to look back at previous discussion:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=63557&hl=circumcision"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...hl=circumcision[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=59958&hl=circumcision&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...cision&st=0[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54517&hl=circumcision"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...hl=circumcision[/url][/quote]
It is good to bring up topics that people are ignorant about and talk about them anew from time to time i think. and it still does not change the fact that circumcision is still medically unnecessary and therefore immoral. no major medical association recommends circumcision. It is immoral to forsake a part of the body which God has given us. to cut off or remove any healthy part of the body is absolutely forbiden and it is sinful "... [b]Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons[/b], directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."(CCCNo. 2297)


[quote]Can circumcision help prevent cancer?

[b]There is little evidence of this[/b]. Circumcision in childhood - but not as an adult - may reduce the risk of penile cancer but this disease is very rare anyway and the real risk factors are poor personal hygiene and smoking. Indeed, the countries with the highest rates of circumcision (USA, for example) are also those with the highest rates of penile cancer.[/quote]

I have an idea lets remove breasts in women as it will reduce the risk of breast cancer.

Can circumcision reduce the risk of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or HIV/AIDS?

Another controversial area. Some sexually transmitted diseases appear more common in uncircumcised men, others in circumcised men.

[quote]Can circumcision reduce the risk of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or HIV/AIDS?

Another controversial area. Some sexually transmitted diseases appear more common in uncircumcised men, others in circumcised men
Two particular concerns for circumcised men are that:

they are less likely to notice the symptoms of the STD chlamydia - the incidence of which is increasing in the UK - so heightening their risk of passing it on; and,
they appear more likely to develop penile warts.
As regards AIDS, the iinternational not-for-profit health organisation the Cochrane Collaboration has reviewed all the research into circumcision and HIV and concluded that that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that circumcised men have less chance of contracting HIV. However, it should be said that not all scientists agree with this.

What everyone agrees on is that all men can reduce the risk of an STD or HIV by using a condom.[/quote]
[url="http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352"]http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352[/url]

again no medical association recommends circumcision and to remove amputate a healthy part of the human body is wrong always.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1495786' date='Apr 9 2008, 05:28 PM']Female circumcision is quite different in that it can cause long-lasting pain to a woman and is sometimes done explicitly to prevent her from enjoying sex. In some African tribes it is considered a remedy for infidelity, and in the nineteenth century European surgeons were still circumcising women diagnosed with so-called 'nymphomania'. Male circumcision has never been used to these ends.[/quote]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2eKFxxfxk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2eKFxxfxk[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ZnfQYGDOM"]Trauma[/url]
Doctor Kellogg who claimed that A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon [b]without administering an anesthetic,[/b] [u]as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.[/u]

Yes male circumcision has been used to that end.

[url="http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/"]Complications [/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wL1Zdq0mmY"]Babies dont feel pain[/url]

Deaths really do happen even here in the united states
[url="http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html"]http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html[/url]

anyone who ignores this follows their own will and not the will of God or the Church

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496151' date='Apr 10 2008, 12:58 AM']I have an idea lets remove breasts in women as it will reduce the risk of breast cancer.[/quote]
Similac for all? Sorry - removing a small part of the penis is not comparable to removing the entire breast. The penis w/o its foreskin functions just fine.

I do agree with you, but not to the point of this ridiculous comparison.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496051' date='Apr 10 2008, 04:56 AM']I think its funny how you guys ignore church teaching when it is inconvenient. *Pius XII in Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi wrote *"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_.". this means that it has already happened.

To HIV. the churches teaching automatically discounts any possibility for circumcision for the reason of HIV as abstaining from sex will solve the Problem of HIV.[/quote]

1.) HIV is not spread only through promiscuity or premarital sex. That's a myth that is extremely damaging to those with HIV. In Latin America the main mode of transmission is from a mother to her unborn child. It is also possible to get it through mixing blood or other bodily fluids (which is easier than it sounds). More alarmingly, it is not always possible to know whether somebody is a carrier of the virus [i]- they may look healthy[/i] and not even be aware that they are a carrier themselves. For this reason I can see why male circumcision would be a useful thing in countries where HIV is rife and the life expectancy is 35. Anything to minimise the chances of contracting it would be good. Given that HIV is already rampant, it is naive to suppose that a widespread abstinence campaign alone would make the problem magically dissolve, which is why Catholic charities are currently working hard to provide a continuous supply of antiretroviral drugs, decent sanitation, and well-regulated hospitals where needles aren't reused [i]in addition[/i] to promoting sexual abstinence.

2.) Not everything a pope says is unequivocally accepted by all Catholics as part of the corpus of Church teaching. Popes can and do speak as private scholars, and while their advice should be considered carefully (out of respect for their office), this does not mean that we are bound to abide by everything that comes out of their mouths. I could list numerous papal pronouncements that have been made over the past two thousand years that I have a strong suspicion you won't be following.

[quote]I find it disgusting that people would ignore the churches teaching like that.[/quote]

I find it odd that you would come to a Catholic website and post about nothing but circumcision. Perhaps it is just that most people here don't see this as the crucial issue of moral theology that you make it out to be. Thoughts about circumcision certainly don't dominate my faith and practice.

[Deb]

Pope Pius XII was dead before HIV was ever heard of.

I think you should write Pope Benedict XVI and ask him his opinion. I am sure it is at the top of his list of things the world needs clarification on right now.

I am wondering if maybe you aren't the recipient of a botched circumcision and have a lot of anger regarding the procedure?

[Aloysius]

oh come on now, just because someone is against the operation because it is an unnecessary mutilation, you accuse them of having some personal motive? AD HOMINEM.

I agree with CatholicMax and think circumcision should be far less widely practiced. The allowance of circumcision must only be if the disease cannot be reasonably countered in any other way. Good hygiene counters the risk of all these things quite as nicely as circumcision would.

It is not just Pope Pius XII, there are ecumenical council quotes (quoted in the other threads which have been linked to here) which specifically state that things like circumcision practiced even without religious significance are sinful.

whilst the well-informed conscience may choose to circumcise their child because they feel that there is no other way to counter such diseases,

oh, and HIV and other STDs are absolutely not a good justification for circumcision. You do not treat a child as if he will definitely fail at chastity... a large problem in our society is that so many parents do this (ie they say "don't have sex before marriage, but if you do..."). No, the only way a Catholic parent can morally have their child circumcised is if they believe that it is the best and only way to prevent things like penile cancer. And I would disagree with their assessment there as I believe good hygiene can also effectively prevent such things (did God so poorly design our bodies that there is a health risk merely from staying in their original form? the removal of breasts to prevent breast cancer analogy was spot-on) sterilization would definitively remove their risk of sexual transmitted diseases; but we do not mutilate in order to prevent those who might fall into sin in the future to avoid the dangers associated with it. the only people HIV arguments should convince are parents who think extra-marital sex is ok.

In other threads it has been argued that if a father is circumcised it is good to do it for the child to avoid confusion if there ever arises a time when the child sees and is able to realize he is different. I absolutely disagree with this reason as well, as it does not even fit into what the Pope allowed when he said that there was a limited case when circumcision might be allowed.

I believe that in heaven the only glorified bodies that will retain the sign of circumcision are the ones who were part of the Old Covenant, and all our hygiene-based mutilations will be healed to their original natural state.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496153' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:10 AM'][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2eKFxxfxk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2eKFxxfxk[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ZnfQYGDOM"]Trauma[/url]
Doctor Kellogg who claimed that A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon [b]without administering an anesthetic,[/b] [u]as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.[/u]

Yes male circumcision has been used to that end.

[url="http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/"]Complications [/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wL1Zdq0mmY"]Babies dont feel pain[/url]

Deaths really do happen even here in the united states
[url="http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html"]http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html[/url]

anyone who ignores this follows their own will and not the will of God or the Church[/quote]
Yes, and because one Dr. mentioned it, of course none ever use anesthetic, and the only purpose that people are using it for is as a remedy to masturbation...