Is Male Circumcision a Criminal Offense?

100% in agreement Gwendolyn - but when it is required for ritual reasons [ think Jews and Muslims ] I think we have to permit it - to do otherwise would be demonstrating religious intolerance and that would not be a good thing

On a practical but crude side in defense of circumcision(as I am) it sure is nice to be able to go number 1 without having to lift back some skin

Anhelyna said:

100% in agreement Gwendolyn - but when it is required for ritual reasons [ think Jews and Muslims ] I think we have to permit it - to do otherwise would be demonstrating religious intolerance and that would not be a good thing

Click to expand...

This is how I feel. On the whole, it should not be practised except when required by religious law.

Athanasias said:

On a practical but crude side in defense of circumcision(as I am) it sure is nice to be able to go number 1 without having to lift back some skin

Click to expand...

Wife probably appreciates the fact that she can be treated for yeast infections without the danger of you re-infecting her again. (Learned that often happens when the man isn't circumcized from my sister-in-law who is a practicing registered nurse. Since I'm not in the medical profession, I had no idea.)

AMDG said:

Wife probably appreciates the fact that she can be treated for yeast infections without the danger of you re-infecting her again. (Learned that often happens when the man isn't circumcized from my sister-in-law who is a practicing registered nurse. Since I'm not in the medical profession, I had no idea.)

Click to expand...

1 dose diflucan for male, yeast infection gone.

And males can still pass yeast infections back to females even when they are circumcised. Males often don't show symptoms if the infection is mild.

Yup - agree with Gwendolyn there.

More or less standard procedure here - treat both partners in the relationship [ err more than 2 if necessary ]

AMDG said:

Wife probably appreciates the fact that she can be treated for yeast infections without the danger of you re-infecting her again. (Learned that often happens when the man isn't circumcized from my sister-in-law who is a practicing registered nurse. Since I'm not in the medical profession, I had no idea.)

Click to expand...

She sure does!

Nietzscheiswrong said:

I thought the gospel put away with circumcision. Ppl can believe god wants it even if he don't. Putting a kid through circumcision - a genital mutilation because of archaic traditions spun into a religious ground by concocting a fairy tale on it to give it a sense of sacrament is appalling in 2012.

Its just madness. Even more insane to go "its more hygienic" which no medical journal has ever demonstrated. The hygiene bit is just an excuse to say we're doing it for religious reasons but lie to you and say it is for medical reasons and use medicine as we wish to support the religious stance.

Its ideological bias pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Hi there, Nietcheswrong!

You and I have never interacted that I know of, so maybe you do not know this:

I am the sole Catholic in my family. My Father is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and my brother and his family are also Orthodox Jews.

For Orthodox Jews, the Covenant remains in place.

I agree. Every male in my family has been circumcised, my kids, etc. Nobody has turned out to be a serial killer yet or Hannibal Lecter. Much ado about nothing. Instead of being upset about foreskins, maybe Europe should get upset about all the baby fetuses being thrown in the trash after being jabbed in the skull

AMDG said:

I know the hospital where my son was born *automatically* did it for reasons of hygiene.

No blood. No cutting. The hospital would put a little "bell shaped things" on the baby boys and within a few days the extra skin would fall off.

Can't remember a single boy baby from that hospital that wasn't circumcized. Never heard of any problems or even objections.

At the time there was even a study that circumcized boys would actually help the boy's wives when they later married. Less chance of harboring disease and infecting their wives and them later playing "disease tag".

I hear this recent "hub-bub" over circumcision and I'm

Click to expand...

AMDG said:

Wife probably appreciates the fact that she can be treated for yeast infections without the danger of you re-infecting her again. (Learned that often happens when the man isn't circumcized from my sister-in-law who is a practicing registered nurse. Since I'm not in the medical profession, I had no idea.)

Click to expand...

You are apparently unaware of the fact that circumcised males also give yeast infections back to their sexual partners with regularity? How can you be a married woman in your 60s and. It have even the most basic understanding of the way men and women's bodies work?

There is a very easy, relatively pleasent way to treat both man and woman concurently.

I never quite understood why it's considered ok for a parent to have their child circumcised strictly for religious reasons.

Why not let the child decide when they are considered old enough to be able to? It's the child's body, not the parents. The parents do not own their children to do with as they wish.
It not like circumcision is reversible, nor is it impossible to get done when the child is older.
What if the child decides they aren't going to follow their parents religion? The decision to have a child that young circumcised is done on the assumptions and preferences of the parents, not considering what the child would want...because you can't possibly know what the child will want at that age, can you?

I see this as a step forward really.
Considering the child's rights, as it is a part of his body being removed, over the parents, often religious based, preferences.(Which they force on the child through circumcision.)

THe difficulty in making an exception for religious reasons is that is the same reasoning claimed by many who practice female circumcision. You can argue it isn't really religious but rather cultural, but that is a pretty hard line to walk. I'm not sure there is a good answer to that problem.

As far as doing it, I don't see the point. There is no real medical benefit to childhood circumcision and there are risks attached to it. Things do go wrong, the most extreme (and of course unusual) being death by bleeding and actually destroying the penis. But even if rare those seem like fairly serious complications for what is a cosmetic procedure on a child. And less horribly but more commonly there are other complications like the kind of damage MikeK mentioned or infection (I had a boyfriend many moons ago who consistently peed on the toilet seat as a result of this sort of thing - he always had two slightly different streams of urine.)

As for old men in nursing homes with infections - those are not caused by the foreskin. They are caused by caregivers not cleaning the patients and leaving them to stew in their own waste.

MKJ said:

THe difficulty in making an exception for religious reasons is that is the same reasoning claimed by many who practice female circumcision. You can argue it isn't really religious but rather cultural, but that is a pretty hard line to walk. I'm not sure there is a good answer to that problem.

Click to expand...

Which is, I admit, precisely why this is problematic for me. No one should have a part of their body removed without consent (or by force, for that matter)

hi

been a long time since i've poped in this forum

the church and some Popes have already cleared this dilemma for us, at least regarding the religious standpoint.

Galatians 5:2-6: “Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you. I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God’s favor! It is in the spirit that we eagerly await the justification we hope for, and only faith can yield it. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.”
Philippians 3:2-3: “Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our trust in the flesh.”
1 Corinthians 7:18-19: “Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not hide his circumcision. Did the call come to another who had never been circumcised? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.”



​

The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christ 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."

as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law" (N. 2297).

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]From the document, "Cantate Domino" (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439, a continuation of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, and the Council of Ferrara, A.D. 1438) :[/FONT] The most recent statement by the Roman Catholic Church was that of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI: "The Church of Antioch sent Barnabas on a mission with Paul, which became known as the Apostle's first missionary journey . . . Together with Paul, he then went to the so-called Council of Jerusalem where after a profound examination of the question, the Apostles with the Elders decided to discontinue the practice of circumcision so that it was no longer a feature of the Christian identity (cf. Acts 15: 1-35). It was only in this way that, in the end, they officially made possible the Church of the Gentiles, a Church without circumcision; we are children of Abraham simply through faith in Christ."

Religious male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circumcision
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Circumcision
Catholics Against Circumcision - Respecting Bodily Integrity
peaceful parenting: The Morality of Circumcision According to the Catholic Church

Michie said:

After years of international campaigning against female genital mutilation (FGM), attention is now turning to the fact that the circumcision of boys, which is a religious precept both for Jews and Muslims, is also a form of “mutilation”. And obviously, what is wrong for one gender cannot be right for the other. After all, we live in the age of enlightenment and “gender equality,” don’t we??

No wonder, then, that the Landgericht Köln (Cologne High Court), found in a recent judgment that the circumcision of a young boy at the request of his parents was an illegal assault against the boy’s bodily integrity, which, in principle, constitutes a punishable crime. According to a report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of today, the Court abstained, however, from condemning the doctor who had performed the procedure, holding in his favour that he had not been aware of the illegality of what he was doing.



Continued- http://catholicexchange.com/is-male-circumcision-a-criminal-offense/

Click to expand...

No no no - huge difference...

Female mutilation removes the ability to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Period.
Male circumcision improves the sensation of the male organ.
It is healthier for all involved.

If I were to have a son, I don’t see why I wouldn’t have him circumcised, given the potential benefits, in terms of cleanliness and what we’re finding about HIV and STDs. As I see it, there really are very few negatives. After my procedure I did feel a twinge of loss when I thought about my father—that I was different from him now. He died in 2006, but he knew about the surgery, and was a little perplexed by it. He gave me that look of Why on Earth would you want to do that? But my dad was a good liberal dad—do what you want to do. For me, circumcision made sense on every level: medically, sexually, and emotionally. I have never regretted it for a single day.


Hugo Schwyzer on Why He Got Circumcised at Age 37 -- New York Magazine

I know that Catholics no longer need to practice circumcision, but the question is is if the practice is crimininal. I don't think so. Some religions practice circumcision. In that I think we should practice tolerance. And some places (even hospitals) consider it to be more hygenic. If they do, they do. Don't see why we should get "all bent out of shape" over it.

Anygma said:

hi

been a long time since i've poped in this forum

the church and some Popes have already cleared this dilemma for us, at least regarding the religious standpoint.

St. Peter dismissed circumcision as unnecessary and disadvantageous in Acts 15:10, "And now are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles with a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" ​

St. Paul often condemned circumcising the flesh, as seen in the following passages: ​

Galatians 5:2-6: “Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you. I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God’s favor! It is in the spirit that we eagerly await the justification we hope for, and only faith can yield it. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.”
Philippians 3:2-3: “Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our trust in the flesh.”
1 Corinthians 7:18-19: “Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not hide his circumcision. Did the call come to another who had never been circumcised? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God’s commandments.”



​

The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christ 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."

as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law" (N. 2297).

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]From the document, "Cantate Domino" (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439, a continuation of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, and the Council of Ferrara, A.D. 1438) :[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif][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 [Jewish] 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.

[/FONT]​

The most recent statement by the Roman Catholic Church was that of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI: "The Church of Antioch sent Barnabas on a mission with Paul, which became known as the Apostle's first missionary journey . . . Together with Paul, he then went to the so-called Council of Jerusalem where after a profound examination of the question, the Apostles with the Elders decided to discontinue the practice of circumcision so that it was no longer a feature of the Christian identity (cf. Acts 15: 1-35). It was only in this way that, in the end, they officially made possible the Church of the Gentiles, a Church without circumcision; we are children of Abraham simply through faith in Christ."

Religious male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Circumcision
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Circumcision
Catholics Against Circumcision - Respecting Bodily Integrity
peaceful parenting: The Morality of Circumcision According to the Catholic Church

Click to expand...

Circumcision was seen by the Jews as baptism is to a Christian. THAT was the only point of contention in the entire dialogue.

The point was - the ppl didnt need it to be saved.

BUT Paul himself had Timothy circumcized when he became an Apostle. So it wasnt a condemned act - by Paul - or he condemned Timothy.

And:

Circumcision may lower a man's risk for developing prostate cancer, a new study suggests.
Can Circumcision Prevent Prostate Cancer?

Click to expand...

Obviously God gave the Jews many things for cleanliness - circumcision included. And we now are only discovering the health benefits for it - also due to cleanliness.
Though HE gave them all these forms for their health - washing pots and pans, cleaning hands - etc - none of which is salvific - it is still the healthier alternative and has benefits.
Paul also speaks out against their hope in man's traditions - such as hand washings - but we know today - it is rather unhealthy to skip washings.
And to wash pans - because the bacteria growth from old foods.

God gave them this - so they wouldnt die sooner from illnesses - the Jews took it to a new level of salvation...which was where there took a wrong turn.


I am using health sites - not blogs for this.

WHO | World Health Organization
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

Click to expand...

WA, I recall you being against the HPV vaccine, but now you're talking about circling and citing reduced likelihood of STD transmission when having unprotected sex with an infected partner as an advantage. Please explain the difference.

WarriorAngel said:

Male circumcision improves the sensation of the male organ.
It is healthier for all involved.

Click to expand...

Male circumcision DECREASES sensation, doesn't increase.
And no, it isn't healthier on the whole - if we can teach girls how to keep vaginas clean, we can teach men how to keep penises clean. No need to cut organs off.

Gwen, one man i quoted above - said his was uncomfortable because it moved and his tore causing scarring. He finally - for his wife - got it removed.

It has health benefits as already listed. That it is less likely for a man circumcised - by a 60% margin - who is hetero - to contract HIV/AIDS.
It seems less likely he will get prostate cancer.

Mike, thats not what it said - it said it could be linked to an infection....

One theory is that some prostate cancers may be linked to sexually transmitted infections.

Click to expand...

The evidence is cautious but optimistic - circumcision lowers the risk of cancer in the prostate, and ...it has been shown to eliminate the risk of penile cancer.

“Urologists recommend circumcision at birth for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and penile cancer.”

Click to expand...

IF it didnt matter so much to God - then why did He recommend it to the Jews?

The problem that occurred in the Apostles times - the Jews demanded the Gentiles be circumcised to be Christian - as THOUGH it were a salvific purpose behind circumcision... and that was never the point.
Christ was circumsized - if it was not necessary - not good for humanity - then why did God succumb to it?

And furthermore; Paul circumsized Timothy - so he was NOT against the practice... he just didnt want the Jews to hold it as a means of salvation - it is like everything else allegorical in the Bible.
God wanted their physical health to give them a LONG life - which was a blessing in those times. So they didnt suffer ailments or die young. The Jews distorted the purpose behind the cleanliness - and as Paul explained - their ways - [traditions] wouldnt save their souls - baptism - the sacraments via Jesus Christ - would.

Just as there was a first Eve - Mary became the new Eve.
Just as cleanliness 'saved lives' so to speak - Christ - His Church - His teachings - His sacraments were the fulfillment - and by water sins were washed - leading to not a long life on earth - but an eternal life in Heaven.

There is no way circumcision will ever be considered for salvation - but it is for cleanliness and health - just as we still wash pans and hands when eating - we still should have circumcision.

Outlawing it is absolutely a crime against freedom. Male circumcision is not a mutilation - as God deemed it be done.
However; no where does He demand a woman lose her ability to enjoy sex. Reducing the beauty of procreative sex - and unity in a marriage.

The two cannot even be comparable.
Circumcision does not mutilate a man to destroy his ability to enjoy sex OR [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

To even compare them shows a certain gross ignorance....per the law makers.