|
Post by RitaMarita on Oct 17, 2018 11:22:26 GMT -5
So... My family being Novus Ordo, and my mother being an RN I never thought to question the fact that my brothers were all circumcised as babies for what she believed were health reasons.
Recently, with my husband and I expecting, the topic came up and we did some research. I was shocked to find out that it seems to have been condemned by the Church in the Council of Florence and that I had never heard before that the Church even had an opinion on it...
I am thinking of writing an article on it for my blog but would love to hear if anyone has any info on this matter besides this particular Church Council article:
“Therefore it [the Church] commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.”
Full Paragraph on the Section: SESSION 11 4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts] "It 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 practice 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."
Sincerely,
Rita
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 17, 2018 16:28:29 GMT -5
Seems odd to me that damnation follows an external practice not done for spiritual reasons. I guess I should just shut down the forum and ride the highway to hell??? Id never heard of this condemnation till now...sooo all my sons are going to hell too??? Yeah this needs some discussion!
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Oct 19, 2018 9:54:16 GMT -5
Seems odd to me that damnation follows an external practice not done for spiritual reasons. I guess I should just shut down the forum and ride the highway to hell??? Id never heard of this condemnation till now...sooo all my sons are going to hell too??? Yeah this needs some discussion! From the way I understand the words, circumcision is only a mortal sin if one uses it in the belief that it is necessary for salvation? ( "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. ") Maybe it is just me, but do you think that is accurate? It does seem that the wording cannot be mistake though that the Church advises against circumcision in general though. Hmm... ( "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice 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. ") Reminds me of the quote in the Bible saying you shall not make any unnecessary cuttings in your flesh.. Don't really know the history behind all of this though and was not trying to condemn anyone. Just trying to understand because I was not familiar with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 19, 2018 11:08:09 GMT -5
My only excuse is I never heard of this till now. Hospodi Pomilui!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 19, 2018 12:29:37 GMT -5
Thank you Rita for your post. I have not yet responded because this is a very serious, matter. It’s one of those ticking time bombs, very much like the Baptism of Desire, Periodic Continence matter, Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism, and others that were not controverted, but due to some proof-texters, made them controverted, and divided Catholics on a matters that were settled. I actually have met some Catholics that this is the new “issue” and have already started their new crusade to teach other Catholics about their new idea.
I hope to post some sources on this soon, but for now, let me say that it is the religious belief, followed by the act, of circumcision that is being condemned by the Church, not the practice of circumcision for medical reasons, which by the way was standard practice prior to Vatican II in Catholic hospitals, st least in the U.S.
One may agree or disagree on the medical necessity of this procedure, but there are arguments in its favor, so the matter is up to the parents and their doctor as to whether they believe these arguments and wish for their sons to undergo this very low risk procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 20, 2018 14:47:17 GMT -5
The moral issue of circumcision is dealt with at the bottom of page 258 into 259 of the book, Medico-Moral Problems, Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J., found HERE
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Oct 20, 2018 21:13:31 GMT -5
I think a case can be made for medical necessity. I am friends with several nurses, some traditional Catholics among them. They have worked in a variety of settings, especially nursing homes and I have discussed this with them. The level of care required for the uncircumcised is not always up to the standards of cleanliness we might hope. In fact, many caregivers are unwilling to give the situation the level of attention needed for good hygiene and the same occurs in institutional settings as well. The result is not pleasant. Each of nurse friends recommends it for that reason. Many men will possibly be in a situation at one point where they cannot physically take care of themselves and people who are paid to do personal care even neglect this situation. One would hope the task would not then fall on a family member either.
Let's say nothing about the poor hygiene of some people in any regard!
I think above all Catholic hospitals of past allowed and did it as standard procedure so this is really a settled matter where we would be free to do it or not do it.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Oct 23, 2018 8:58:20 GMT -5
Thank you all for the in depth comments!
I was a bit taken aback when I first heard of all of this because I surprised that traditional Catholics would not have talked about it more already if it was really completely condemned by the Church.
I am looking forward to the day when we have a normal traditional Catholic hierarchy to back up everything and people are not constantly trying to make up their own beliefs without any full authority to refute them.
God bless you all! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 23, 2018 11:01:54 GMT -5
One problem I see...I didnt consent to it since I was but a babe....2nd neither did my sons..so how to be ipso facto damned?
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 24, 2018 13:43:11 GMT -5
The answer to this is really simple. Pope Eugene is referring to a religious ritual called circumcision. He is not talking about medical circumcision. How do we know this? Well, aside from the fact that it's implied if not obvious within the text itself (i.e., he talks about observing a practice-- very religious language), medical circumcision didn't exist when this document was written. It doesn't come along until five hundred years later. Circumcision only had one possible meaning at the time of the Council of Florence: observation of the Old Covenant.
. By the way, there's a huge difference between the circumcision of the covenant and medical circumcision. The circumcision of the Old Covenant was a very minor snipping of the foreskin, leaving the entirety of it intact and functioning. Medical circumcision is the complete removal of it. It's like the difference between piercing your hear and cutting it off. I say this not just "so you know" but also so it's clear that it isn't just the intent behind the circumcision, it's what the circumcision actually entails which count toward its morality. . I don't think that medical circumcision is good. Objectively, I think it's mutilation. Parts are good inasmuch as they contribute to a whole, and the foreskin not only aids the generative act but protects the male faculty from injury. So, to justify excising it (which again, Old Covenant circumcision did not do) you need to have a commensurate reason. Suppose an infection sets in which, if the foreskin is not removed, would cause serious permanent injury to the man's potency. That would be an instance where medical circumcision could be justified.
. The usual medical argument is that circumcision promotes cleanliness. First off, even if this were true, it's not a proportionate reason to actually cut off the foreskin. There are lots of body parts that might be easier to clean if we chopped away at them. Second of all, even if this were true, the result of circumcision is the scarring of the male faculty since it is left unprotected... forever. Thirdly, the whole "it promotes cleanliness" argument is ad hoc. The real reason circumcision became popular is that a Protestant doctor in the nineteenth century believed it was an effective strategy to discourage self abuse among boys. Now after a while that isn't a very good reason to be billing parents for the procedure, so they had to give a more medical reason to continue justifying the practice. And that's that it's "clean" to circumcise. Just wash, problem solved. . And to be clear, while I say that medical circumcision is an evil, I certainly don't mean to imply that parents who've done it are guilty. I don't think they are, generally speaking. We're supposed to trust in professionals. The problem is that the professionals lied to us. Such are wrong in a matter of fact. I think they should be made aware so they can make a different decision, but it isn't something over which I think parents incur guilt. . Finally, with regard to the material posted, I believe Fr. Kelly is laboring under the wrong medical facts. This is what makes medical morality so challenging: we can know all the principles, but we have to actually know the science at play to understand if/when the principles apply. And how do we know the science? Well, we ask the doctors... who can be wrong. And who don't always admit to being wrong when they are. Kelly does not appear aware or considerate of the purpose of the foreskin, and seems also to be under the impression that some proper medical good can be delivered through medical circumcision. If he were right about these things he'd be right in his defense of the procedure, but since he's not, he's not. . Anyways, that's my opinion on circumcision. Inadvisable, objectively an evil (inasmuch as it is mutilative), but not something for which parents are normally incurring guilt over, and totally outside the scope of the Council of Florence's condemnations.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandylan on Oct 24, 2018 13:45:44 GMT -5
I think a case can be made for medical necessity. I am friends with several nurses, some traditional Catholics among them. They have worked in a variety of settings, especially nursing homes and I have discussed this with them. The level of care required for the uncircumcised is not always up to the standards of cleanliness we might hope. In fact, many caregivers are unwilling to give the situation the level of attention needed for good hygiene and the same occurs in institutional settings as well. The result is not pleasant. Each of nurse friends recommends it for that reason. Many men will possibly be in a situation at one point where they cannot physically take care of themselves and people who are paid to do personal care even neglect this situation. One would hope the task would not then fall on a family member either. Let's say nothing about the poor hygiene of some people in any regard! I think above all Catholic hospitals of past allowed and did it as standard procedure so this is really a settled matter where we would be free to do it or not do it. . This might (though I'd debate) be a sufficient reason to circumcise an old widower. But this is definitely not a reason to circumcise an infant boy. "We need to make it easier for the nurses who are going to clean you in eighty years." Don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Oct 24, 2018 20:43:55 GMT -5
Im just glad my sons and I arent damned.
|
|
|
Post by jen51 on Oct 25, 2018 14:35:56 GMT -5
Medical circumcision is not a popular practice worldwide. Most of the world doesn't do it, and most countries that do/have done don't do a lot of it anymore, besides the US. I think, but I'm not certain, that in some countries it's illegal.I guess the way I see it is, God did not make mistakes when designing the human body.
|
|
|
Post by jen51 on Oct 25, 2018 14:37:12 GMT -5
Rita, how exciting that you are expecting! Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Oct 26, 2018 17:54:15 GMT -5
Rita, how exciting that you are expecting! Congrats! Thanks, Jen! We are very excited! Only a few more weeks and we will be halfway there! 😊
|
|