If this ruling was made on the “bodily integrity” argument, you’d think they could use the same argument to outlaw abortion in Germany too.

This is truly fantastic. There has far too long been a double standard whereby female circumcision and genital mutilation is considered wrong and against the rights of a child unable to consent while individuals—religious, but often not religious at all—proceed to mutilate their sons, often with no deeper or more rational intention than that they ought to be “like Daddy.”

There may very well be religious implications for its institution in Germany. No matter. This will serve as an impetus to change elsewhere in the world and, handled well, can promote a restoration of a right which has been robbed of unconsenting children for 3,000 years.

hmmm, Is this the return of the Nazis? Hasnt Germany learned NOT to screw with peoples religious liberties?

@Josh, there is a huge difference between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. The former is always harmful with no offsetting benefit, and its purpose is to stop or inhibit the natural function of the body. The latter does not have any clear impact on function, and also has offsetting medical benefits.

What’s chilling about this ruling is that it applies only to religious circumcision. Medically motivated circumcision of infants is still allowed!

Male circumcision cannot be compared to female circumcision/genital mutilation, as the latter for a male would require the removal of the external genitals entirely. Thankfully, Koeln seems to be the only area where this law is in force. Will Jews, and others for which circumcision is a religious requirement, be able to go elsewhere to have their babies initiated into God’s family? I pray so.

If someone wants to have part of their body hacked off for religious reasons, sure, why not.  They should not be forced without their consent as children.  I am all for a ban on non-medically-necessary infant circumcision.  Good for Germany!

@ Scotty Ellis- Agree 100%.

Thank you Mary and Robyn for stating the differences so well.

I was in Germany a few years back and I found that it didn’t take hard to find anti-semitism still beneath the surface.  I remember staying at a house and when you lifted up the toilet, there was a cartoon on the lid of a stereotypical crooked nose Jew.  I saw a children’s book on religion that portrayed a rabbi the same way.  This is just part of it.  I think you will find with some of the anti-genital mutilation folks that there is a little of that beneath the surface as well.  It is cover for ulterior motives.  The majority of people don’t even have a high opinion of children since as the birthrate is so terribly low!  Same thing with secularists - just prick the surface and they don’t just want a radical separation of Church and state.  Some of them want to see us burn and if it was legal, would probably round us up in a prison camp.  And please, no one deny this: all we have to do is search the internet, youtube, and a new atheist book or two and you will find those sentiments expressed.  It cannot be hid anymore.

Besides God’s law, according to WebMD there are healthier benifits: There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Is any one out there asking, ‘could this happen here in the United Statesis?’

I also agree with Scotty Ellis.

Yes,  this could happen in the US because it has already been proposed in San Francisco!  I agree that this is anti-Semitism hiding under misplaced compassion.  This is a religious practice that is critical to the Jewish religion, and certainly shouldn’t be banned.  If Germany feels that this is “mutilation”, I agree with another poster who asks what about abortion?  Especially late term abortion.  Anti-semitism isn’t dead in Germany, its always been under the surface.  Since Moslems also do this, I wonder how it will effect them?  Germany should be ashamed of itself, and so should we as our religious liberties are gradually being taken away from us.  How do we know that the next thing will be infant Baptism—I can see secularists complaining that children should be able to make this decision themselves.  I think if I were Jewish in Germany, I would flee the country right now and go to Israel.  These people have always been persecuted.  And perhaps German Christians inconveniently forget that Jesus was a Jew and circumcised as well as most of the Apostles and early disciples.

Please, none of these anti-religious atheists care one rip for children.  If this were motivated by caring for kids, they would start with banning the killing of the unborn, pregnancy would be revered, not a disease; family life would be encouraged.  This is clearly the start of a new ethnic cleansing movement; starting, again, with Jews and a ceremony fundamental to their ethnic identity.

bodily integrity?? strange concept. what about ear piercings—both are done at birth in part because there is less pain associated with it than later. am i wrong about this?? adult circumsicion—isn’t it more painful? if parents can’t have a say in what constitutes “bodily integrity” then the state has much more control over all our lives. i understood that circumcision was necessary in the war trenches to keep men from developing infections. is that true?

Wait. I thought that every boy child was circumsised in America because it’s supposed to be “healthier”. I thought it was considered odd NOT be to be circumsised? I never had boys, but I know for friends and other family members who decided not to have their infant boys circumsized it was a bit of an issue in the hospital.

My goodness, you’d think that after 50 million dead to fight the Nazis, the Germans would have learned their lesson!

So the German state now owns its children and can tend to them better than their parents. This speaks volumes.

@Pete

All boys circumcised in the US?  That has never been the case.  Circumcision has experienced a significant decline in recent years.

Here’s the most recent CDC data on circumcision from 1979-2008.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/9circumcision/2007circ9_regionracetrend.pdf

The Nazis actually did win the Second World War, they just won it very slowly, after some significant setbacks in 1945.

Funny how the fanatical left, the “new agers”, the liberal establishment are all moving closer and closer to the very thing they supposedly abhor and usually blame their opponents in the right:  Nazism.  The totalitarian state strikes back but this time with a smile and instead of strutting storm troopers, now is with political correctness and lots of “tolerance”... paradoxical.

I truly miss my foreskin…

Since we’re talking bodily integrity too, I believe that Germany should outlaw cutting children’s hair or toenails or fingernails too, I mean, what if that poor kid wanted to set a record and his evil, ignorant parents ruined his chances? Perhaps the child will go bald once an adult, and the parents deprived them of their chance for long, flowing locks, popular amongst children today.  It’s ludicrous.

Rudy, Gregory, and everyone else who interprets this event as a fascist/nazi attempt to eradicate Jews (or whatever):  Really?  So, a ruling that forbids a man from unnecessarily cutting off part of an infant’s genitalia is equivalent to executing millions of people?  A bit absurd.  Besides, let’s put the religious question to the test: let men grow up with their foreskin and decide for themselves if they are willing to have it cut off.

So, what’s next? Outlawing the Mass because ‘canibalism’ is not acceptable in our enlightened society? Nothing surprises me anymore.

Scotty, this is clearly a religious law.  Germany and this judge knows darn well that circumcision is a religious rite that the Jews follow.  Yes, it could be interpreted as mutilation.  But what should have happened is that the parents have the right to either say yes to this or to avoid it.  It is not the job of the state to make decisions like this, particularly since they know some religions require it.  And with your reasoning, why did Jesus who did not need circumcision choose to have this done while he was a baby and not wait until perhaps He was beginning to do His teaching and then have it.  Because it was part of being a Jew and he chose to follow the law.  Perhaps God handed down this law because He wisely knew that it could prevent certain diseases.

When a woman is in labor, she is also in pain, yet no one would even suggest in this modern time to alleviate that and “knock her out” with anesthesia as they once did so she wouldn’t feel it.  And I’ve never heard of a case where a man could remember this and then either have a mental problem or blame his parents.  I’m sure glad my husband had this done, because it sometimes prevents cervical cancer.

@Scotty, I missed the comment that equated this ruling with Nazi attempts to eradicate Jews. I think the fear here is that it is the beginning of something that might end with history repeating itself. To the “bodily integrity” supporters, please note that a KEY part of the ruling is that ONLY religious circumcision is affected. Non-religious circumcision, for example as elective surgery for medical reasons, is still permitted for infants. So it is a clear assault on religious freedom. I would be surprised if the secularists went after baptism because to them, it’s just an empty ritual with no real effect.

rosemarie kury: It is not a matter of interpretation.  Removal of several square inches of the most sensitive flesh on the human body is, in fact, mutilation.  The fact that a religion requires such a mutilation is immaterial, because the issue at stake is that the mutilation is occurring without any medical justification and without the recipient’s consent.  If the person consents to such a mutilation for religious reasons, so be it.  Parents can tell children that they are required by God to get their foreskins hacked off, and when the children are old enough they can decide whether that makes any sense.

Katheryn: The big difference?  Nails and hair grow back.  Foreskins don’t.

Scotty, this is an assault on religious freedom.  Now with your reasoning what if a baby who is born needs to be operated on, say on his genitals.  Should the parents wait until he is older and have him decide?  What about if a toddler should need to have an amputation.  Should the parents wait “until he is older” to decide if this needs to be done?  And by the way, amputation could be a a real life case with flesh eating bacteria.  By the same reasoning, some babies are either born with club feet (that need surgery) or a cleft palate.  The surgery could be considered mutilation, but no sane parent would wait until the child is older if he needs it now.

It is true that where one is threatened, all are threatened. This German attack on the Jews will only enable attacks on other faiths, like Christianity. It is, therefore, the problem of every faithful person. As others have already said, why can’t this attitude towards the child’s right to choose be applied to abortion? Do they not also have the right to decide if they shall exist or not? Very two-faced of them.

rosemarie: I already said “the issue at stake is that the mutilation is occurring without any medical justification and without the recipient’s consent,” which clearly indicates that circumcision should still be available as a valid treatment for specific medical problems.  Such action is taken to preserve the child’s health, without which it would be impossible for the child to make any religious choices whatsoever.  I would appreciate a more careful reading of my comments.

By the way, I am against routine infant circumcision as well as abortion. I consistently vote Republican and believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church. It’s not just atheists and liberals who see something wrong with this.

I would like to thank my parents for having me circumcized as a baby.  If I had to make the choice as a youth or adult, I likely would be too squeamish to go through with it.  And, thus, I would miss out on all the health and aesthetic benefits.  Those people who claim to be anti-infant-circumcision are fools who have no idea how to birth, care for, or raise a baby/child.  Quite frankly, maybe male infant circumcision should be the default option during the first week or two after birth.

So, Baptism could be construed to be “water-boarding”?  Lord help us.

Jeff: I am an intactivist father.  I am proud to be raising a whole, intact boy.  I would appreciate you not slandering my ability to raise my children.

Marlin: how do they baptize at your church?  They sprinkle at mine.  If you are afraid of it being mistaken for torture, maybe it SHOULD be investigated.

Seems that the judge and the people who agree with him have forgotten Maccabees.  After reading that,they may want to rethink their position. We who truly believe in God also need to be ready to make a similar committment for our faith.

how are there so many catholic readers who are siding with the Germans in these comments??

it’s a part of the jewish religion and their rights are being taken away! give me a break on all the liberal crap! this is what God commanded of the Jews and its been done for thousands of years! why does nobody see the danger in all the new rules against religious freedom?

Our son was not circumcised because it was not medically necessary. BUT, no parent should be denied the freedom to decide or to follow their religion. Mark my words, this will be used to destroy Catholic schools in the US - the same rationale will be used - that it is criminal to force a child to learn a faith he has not chosen for himself. The logic is stupid, however, because the same could be true of not teaching him to use the toilet or brush his teeth until he “wants” to learn.

selah12: It is because there are many Catholics who recognize how precious the human body is in its fullness and who believe that no one should be unnecessarily mutilated against their will.  The fact that the Bible asserts that God once commanded something is absolutely not an ethical justification for that action; or are you prepared to allow fathers to prepare their children for sacrifice or justify genocide?  In any case, people can still be circumcised of their own accord, so yes, people are still free to pursue the rite of circumcision if they wish.  The only “right” being restrained is the faux right of a parent to have their child mutilated.

It’s obvious that this will not end with this ruling. Indeed, it opens the door for courts to decide what parents can teach their children without the child’s consent.

“Well, the child is not old enough to decide what it wants to believe (and, of course, if it does choose religion it will be ridiculed as a kook); therefore parents are not allowed to enforce their own beliefs upon their children. It’s tantamount to child abuse to teach them religion.

I’m sure though that over the past several years millions of children would rather not been slaughtered in their mother’s wombs either. Seems to me that a parent that chooses abortion is guilty of more than abuse.

The wise decision is for these Jewish parents to have as many kids as possible and in about 50 years when Germany & Europe essentially die off because they don’t have children, there will be no one to enforce these foolish laws.

Haven’t we been down this road before with Germany?  They just don’t learn easy do they?

Unfortunately Jimmy’s article is a typical knee-jerk reaction to a news report, and as such would look more at home on Spirit Daily with the rest of conspiracy theories.

Even a quick read of the article shows that it is from ONE judge in one state, and not a ruling on a federal level. A Google search shows that the German Foreign Minister has spoken out against it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gEMHE_R_SI6DId75rogmJv8ThOow?docId=CNG.c2e91f5d3f6cbbdac4b65aea00bf93ba.371

and further that even the judge’s ‘ruling’ does not outlaw circumcision

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/German_verdict_to_delay_circumcision,_not_ban_it,_jurist_says.html?cid=33013190

On top of that, German Muslims are calling on the Bundestag to pass a law protecting the right to infant circumcision.

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/457869-german-muslims-urge-circumcision-law.html

In other words ... get the whole story before making wide sweeping blog entries!

Pretty incredible,really unbelieveable. And I wouldn’t put anything at all past the secularists - there or here. Do they really imagine that the world would be better without religion, without believers who practice what they believe? I think we have seen that movie before.

Scotty, my own son is not circumcised.  It is not a religious practice of ours; God didn’t order me to do so.  Had He, as squeamish as I would be about it, I’d do it, illegal or not.  I would do it because I believe my religion is the best possible environment in which to raise my son.  If the German government had banned the practice altogether, I’d roll my eyes, but to target a religion specifically is gravely concerning.

During our Rite of Baptism the child is either immersed in water or has water poured over his/her head. Who is to say that in the future someone will say that this can be traumatic for the infant and should be banned. Remember the old saying about ” they took the jews away I said nothing b/c I was not jewish, they took the gypsies away, I said nothing b/c I was not gypsy [etc…) then they came for me and none said anything because there was noone left”.

All these “rights” now coming back to bite religion were founded upon liberal Roman Catholic ideals reached by perverting and/or ignoring Church teachings. 

The battle was fought on two fronts, the electoral process and the educational process.  The fruits of the latter are clearly seen in the judiciary.

The errors and perversions of Liberation Theology and Social Justice, carried on the bats wings of the “spirit of Vatican II”, are the seminal foundations for almost all evil judicial actions.  And they are evil.

The evil spread by these errors will not cease until the RCC is purged of the Judas’; they are the cracks by which the Smoke of Satan has entered the Sanctuaries.

I am a cradle Catholic who left the Catholic Church and Christianity. A large part of my leaving had to do with circumcision. I do not believe that God could ever have ordered babies to have part of their genitals cut away. I don’t care if that’s old Testament or New Testament, old or new Covenant. I cannot worship such a deity. I cannot reconcile such a grotesque, sadistic, violent command with a God of Love.

There are no medical bodies globally which support or justify routine infant circumcision for health reasons. I understand that this ritual has been performed for a few thousand years for religious reasons but would like to point out that rapid change has occured in the world in the last 100years and will continue to change at an even more rapid rate.
People need to open their eyes see the change and move with the times.
Not adapting to change will spell disaster to inderviduals and groups.
I beleive that circumcision will not be prominant in any way in society 50-100 years from now.

Okay….  Holocaust denial is illegal, swastikas are illegal…but they’re outlawing circumcision?  In Germany?  Do they really want to go this route?  Really?  To find a silver lining to this cloud, though, this might actually help our case in showing how religious freedom for all is being threatened, not just Catholics or Christians.

Something that surprises me in many of the comments that I’m seeing in this combox is that many of them center around some secularizing justification for this ruling; to wit, that the state has the power to enforce secularization upon society and trample on religious practices that have been around for literally two, three, four thousand years in the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, the example in this case is circumcision, which Jews, Muslims, and some Christians practice. Regardless of whether or not the medical community or various states around the world support circumcision, regardless of whether or not you approve of it personally, regardless of what vague direction you feel society is moving in, it is an Orwellian concept and a disturbing thing for any state or society to self-regulate, as it develops, beyond a certain point in order to keep people “in-check” with an ever-evolving sense of identity and cultural life philosophy. For instance, while self-regulation of society is necessary for the rule of law to impose basic moral precepts common to a Judeo-Christian heritage, and even more broadly, certain ethical standards that are pretty much shared by most cultures and civilizations, those precepts and ethical impositions of the rule of law ought not go so far as to prevent, say, a secular or strongly atheistic family from raising their children and their siblings to despise or disparage religion, or prevent them from having certain customs or traditions, even if they be anti-religious. In the same way, even if laws and cultural identity transition to become more and more secular in their perspective, when they start to assume the power to make the “wrong-thinkers,” even whole communities of them, cease to practice many millennia-old religious customs, or to raise their children differently, or to not talk about some things or to hide their religion; in short, if states assume the power to make men and women cookie-cutter in their life philosophy to the point of showing no respect for millennia-old customs and have no consciousness of the sacredness of the family and start to reach into families regularly, I would argue that the state has assumed an Orwellian level of authority that is dangerous to free thought, free expression, and religious freedom.

There’s no other way to interpret this sort of thing. Imagine you are a militantly atheist individual, imagine you hated religion, and you were living under a state where Islam was the state religion, and all of the laws were informed by Islam. Imagine if you desired to protest against some of the religiously-informed laws, and you were stopped with force from doing so, fined, and imprisoned. That’s even one level of injustice, but imagine if you simply kept to yourself within your own family and you simply wanted to pass on your beliefs and heritage to your children, to instruct them in what you, in conscience, felt was correct, and to influence them in various ways. Imagine if the Islamic state reached into your home and forbade you from expressing your life-philosophy to your children, and gave you a list of things that you were forbidden from speaking about, doing, or communicating, and a list of activities that were likewise forbidden, when you were with your children. That is roughly equivalent to this sort of secular trend of power-grabbing by the secular state, since all the state is doing then is imposing a particular life-philosophy upon parents and families and groups of people. It’s injustice in both cases because the family is a sacred institution and should be treated with kid gloves, as should familial and cultural heritage, and the right of a parent to influence and express their consciences, regardless of whether we agree with what is being expressed.

That’s my two cents, anyway. Have fun discussing, and don’t kill each other everyone. Let’s remember charity, so lacking on the internet.

@Rosemary
Your argument is not logical. All of your instances are medically necessary.  The proper equivalent would be, could parents get their child a nose job or ear pinning.  The answer would be, hopefully not.  That Jesus chose to be circumcised is an ad absurdum statement, as Jesus was a helpless infant like any other. Mary chose to circumcise Jesus but did not have the power to change the custom. Later however, Jesus did change the covenant, and circumcision was no longer required. (Col 2:8-14 among others.)

There is significant research showing that leaving an infant intact is to their benefit, is not hard to clean (self-cleaning organ), does not increase disease risk if chaste, etc.  This is why our son remains intact. View /read the following for more details Dr.momma has done her research. It is worth considering.

http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html

Now, having shown my dislike for circumcision, if the ruling only included religious circumcision, then that is wrong, and I would consider it religious persecution. It needs to be across the board to be non-discriminatory.

And for the record, I’m Republican, pro life, pro-breastfeeding, and intactivist.  I have not yet determined my thoughts on religious circumcision. It’s not my religion. My hope is that they could change the custom in some way. 

And for the record, “for aesthetic reasons ” is a ridiculous reason to support circumcision.  I would not argue that parents against it are bad, perhaps those who subject their children to this should be considered so? Just trying to follow logic /sarc/

Tom, actually, Catholics and many Christians teach that this is mutilation. There are many verses to support this beyond colossians that I posted earlier.  Christ changed the covenant. There are some who may be mistaken, but it’s not Biblical.

See:

Acts 15:1-2,7,10
Romans 2:17-19
Romans 3:1, 29-30
Romans 4:10
1 cor7:17

And more…for Christians, it is not required.

@anonymous
Jesus is God. He chose and willed from all eternity every aspect of his life on earth. Yes, He willed to be circumcized as an infant just as He willed to be born in a stable in Bethlehem, to have angels appear to shepherds to announce His birth, etc.
.
Jesus did not *change* the covenant; He fulfilled (completed) it and gave a new one.  Big difference.

I think it is concerning to see opposition to circumcision branded with genocide, which is the implication of your “final solution” headline. This is a dirty way of attacking and demeaning people with whom the writer disagrees.

I believe that the critics of circumcision are just as firm in their beliefs as those who promote and defend circumcision, and that when they speak it makes a lot of sense to listen carefully to what they say, even if you don’t agree with them.

I believe that critics of circumcision have a powerful point when they state that circumcision below the age of consent is questionable because the person who is circumcised has no say in what happens to his own body. The boy who is circumcised in infancy could well be of a different opinion when he is an adult.

I believe critics of circumcision are right in condemning any oral genital contact during a circumcision. Metzitzah b’peh is simply too dangerous. This practice should be discouraged by education and by firm action. Perhaps we need a general law to prohibit any oral-genital between an adult and a child, and that the practice be branded as child abuse.

I believe that critics of circumcision rightly point out that the circumcision of adult men against their will is wrong. In fact, one could fairly describe it as sexual assault, because it involves the genitals and it happens without consent.

I believe that critics of circumcision rightly point out that there are risks in circumcising, risks that include haemorrhage and infection. Every step should be taken to minimise the chances for such outcomes.

I believe that treating people who don’t like circumcision as anti-Semitic or being in favour of the slaughter of Jews is an outrageous slur. The arguments of circumcision critics need to be taken seriously. Even those who support circumcision can use the points that they make to curtail abuses and make circumcision safer.

In what other instances do we condone removal of a healthy, functioning, biologically normal body part for religious or (supposed) hygiene purposes?

For a Jew, circumcision is the sign of the covenant - commanded by God to take place on the 8th day of life.  Christ Himself was circumcised.  I did not have this done to my son because I am not a Jew, but I object with every ounce of my being to this being made illegal.  It is a matter of conscience for Jewish people. 
Richard Dawkins would like to see Catholic schools outlawed because he considers Catholic education psychologically abusive.  Wake up people.  When parental rights are trampled by the state and the free practice of religion is undermined, we are all at risk.

This does not surprise me, although it saddens me greatly.  This is yet another example of individual rights mistakenly trumping age old tradition of billions.

Also, should courts uphold the child’s right to name himself when he reaches an age to name himself? Ought children be without names until he chooses his own?  I understand that dissenters may say that naming a child does not alter body.  Yet, so much is held in a name.  James, Matthew, Claire, Muhammed, Jacob, Sarah or Mary.  The child’s identity is inextricably linked to his name. 

Today, on the eighth day after his birth, my son circumcised son Michelangelo was baptized into the Catholic Church. 

If I may share the my opening to the blessing before the meal following mass:

Can a child stop a parent from loving them?  Even if the child is ignorant of, rejecting of, or claiming there is no love, the child cannot stop the parent from loving them.

In the same way, we cannot stop God the Father from loving us.  He showers His love on us even when we are unaware of it.  No matter how hard we try to stop the Father from loving us, He will not.

Moslems also circumsize males. This ruling also impacts upon Islam. However circumcision of children has many practical reasons. The procedure is more complicated when it involves an adult. Some adults have to have it for practical reasons. There are hygenic considerations. Incidence of sexual disease is higher in uncircumcized. Various viruses and diseases are more easily communicated between male and female when the male is uncircumsized.
The religious dimension of this is crucial. Often religious practises are practical as well.
In any event the judge is stepping beyond his brief. There is a certain officiousness that is German no matter what idelogy or political leaning is prevalent. “All resistence must be destroyed. You vill follow orders!” The EU is the German conquest of Europe!

Thank you, Marie!  That’s precisely what I was going to say.  Do we think that if He was not to be circumcised, that there would not have been a legion of angels there in a second?
A lot of folks, including those who wrote this law and many commenters who argue that they should have a say, are missing the point in a big way: it’s a requirement, not an option.  If a young man *does* want to be Jewish, he can’t just turn back the clock to the eighth day and pretend to have been circumcized the whole time, and must live with the fact that his parents didn’t do what was asked of them, which I can only imagine would cause the same distress as if my Catholic parents had failed to baptize me.  I don’t know how it is in the Jewish faith in regard to the covenant, but if one of our Catholic children were to die before the age of reason without being baptized it puts their spiritual fate in serious question; we put it off at their peril.  Apparently nobody ever gives consideration to spiritual health, which is a whole lot more important than physical health.  Besides, do we not think little of having appendixes or tonsils or wisdom teeth removed?  There are several parts we don’t strictly need and are routinely excised.

All children have the right to their healthy, entire bodies. Medical circumcision, for genuine need, is a different situation.

http://oknocirc.blogspot.com and http://catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/ both have relevant information to this debate.

@Scotty- Since you’re such a firm defender of children having the right to choose circumcision on their own and not have a parent decide for them, do you think abortion is ok? I just have to know.

I am quite saddened that so many have voiced their approval of cutting off thousands of nerve endings of baby boys, shutting down parts of their sensory system and changing the sexual function of their bodies. Sick and shameful.  Such mutilation is directly in conflict with the teachings of christ.  Men that have these parts want to. Keep them.  Taking them is wrong. It is doing something to another AGAINST their will.  It is taking parts of their body, parts of their existence. 

The OT is not to my liking.  Jews being forced to committ genocide,  animal sacrifice, slavess.  Those things have stopped.  While baby boy penis parts sacrifice is better than killing the boy, can’t we stop this creepy thing? 

This mutilation proactive will end soon.  If religions don’t agree, they will end as we’ll.  Thankfully Catholics have always been against it.. If we don’t. Stand up to stop boy mutilation,  there will be ore:

“I am a cradle Catholic who left the Catholic Church and Christianity. A large part of my leaving had to do with circumcision. I do not believe that God could ever have ordered babies to have part of their genitals cut away. I don’t care if that’s old Testament or New Testament, old or new Covenant. I cannot worship such a deity. I cannot reconcile such a grotesque, sadistic, violent command with a God of Love.”

Tradiitons begin traditions end

I’m not a lawyer, but I read the Hosanna-Tabor case to learn the reasoning behind that remarkable 9-0 Supreme Court decision. If you haven’t read it, you should, as it makes interesting reading, at least for those reading this post.

The bottom line: the Court was unwilling to rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim since she was an ordained minister, so First Amendment considerations prevailed. Had the plaintiff been an ordinary employee, the case would have turned on other facts & law, which may well have led to an entirely different result, almost certainly decided at a lower level.

Assuming for puposes of discussion that modern Germany recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental right, it seems to me the same perspective should apply in the circumcision case as well as in the US with respect to the HHS mandates.

It is clear that circumcision is a practice that has been central to Jewish self-identity for millenia. It is also clear that regardless of modern sensibilities, Jewish and other males have not been seriously harmed, as is the case with the ritual mutilation performed on females in some parts of the world. Therefore, the court should be reluctant to intervene in the absence of a compelling state interest, which has not really been demonstrated, even in the most impassioned of comments above.

This same respect for longstanding tradition should apply in the matter of the HHS mandates. Contraception is widely & conveniently available for little or no cost. While Church teaching on the matter may somehow annoy those within or without her that disagree, it does not constitute a serious impediment to access to contraceptives for those who want them. Therefore it is entirely unnecessary for the stated purpose for the government to require objecting employers to furnish contraception, particularly abortifacients, in their health plans.

Both in the US & Germany, a radically secularlist agenda seems to be the only possible motivation for government, in whatever branch, to so cavalierly inflict such draconian measures upon substantial numbers of their population whose culture and practice has existed centuries longer than they have.

Even those who express profound disagreement about these old religions & their teaching should resist the tempation to use instrumentalities of the state to impose their view upon others. It was the remarkable genius of the Founders, who were the elite ruling class of their time, to deliberately limit their own power, so that less virtuous scions would not aspire to the tyranny they had so recently overthrown. Before the waning 18th century was over, a quite different result obtained in the French Revolution, where the struggle for power led first to an orgy of blood and then to the inevitable resort to the dictator Napoleon.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”. - George Washington

@ Scotty Ellis.  Why do you care? I’m male, and I’m not complaining about having been circumcised, and I don’t know even one male friend who has ever complained about his circumcision.  The attack on religious freedom from this ruling, on the other hand, is clear and egregious. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your religious orientation?

The governments of the world are trying to be true nanny states.  The same thing has been happening here in the United States.  They want mom and dad to work, let the state schools raise your children.  If you as a parent disagree with the teaching of the state you are indangering your children.  You can’t spank your children, you can’t teach your children sex education, you can’t feed your children properly but the state can and will. They don’t want your religion in the public square, in school or no even in your own home.  That child is not yours it is the states to be molded by the state.  What about freedom, freedom from an oppressive government.  You are only free to do what the state allows, the state knows better than God the state is God.  That is truely Hitler’s and Stalin’s philosophy make the state supreme, the only God is Man. When the state goes contrary to God’s law it is the people that suffer.  God’s Law is Natural Law the problem is just as it always has been from the begining you allow Satan to come between man and God and everything falls apart.  You get kicked out of paradise your kids go astray there is a lot of struggle and hardship.  I am circumsized, my boys are circumsized, never thought much about it obviously many on here think alot about it maybe to much.  God told Abraham to circumcize all males on the 8th day, did you get that God told Abraham, again God said.  When God speaks you need to listen.  It is not like Abraham made this up. The modern child of Israel believes he falls under this Law, they do not accept the New Covanent so they follow the old law, they should be aloud to do that. We should try to lead them to the truth but that was God’s law to the Jewish people.  I don’t have the same view about any other non-Christian religion how ever. 
God told me in a personal revelation before the tabernacle in our Cathedral to kneel to recieve communion and teach my children to kneel.  He was very clear, it was not popular in my local parish but we did it and do it.  In fact there were people in authority that wanted us to stop, we could not because God told us to.  My children kneel to recieve communion is that or will that be considered child abuse? To some progressive priests in my area I think they think it is.  The problem is when one recieves revelations that are contrary to the teachings of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one most High God or interpret the Word or Tradition differently.  We have so much division in the Church and in the Christian faith in general because of differing interpretation of God’s revealed Word.  Satan is at the heart of this confusion have no doubt. As Christians we should speek in one voice but that is not happening.  Satan has done a great job of divide and conquer.  United we Stand, Divided we Fall.  As for me and my house we shall serve the Lord. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

“the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights.
Very interesting! Does this apply to a child being prepared to be aborted?

It seems to me that because infant circumsision ,is so integrally associated with the traditional handing on of the faith of the first covenantal people of God ,pointing to our own sacramental baptism, that it would naturally be the place where secular humanism would begin to attempt to dismantle our “covanantal” understanding.The men of this early covental sign could clearly distinguish those who did and did not belong to that community,as could a bride on her wedding night be assured that her offspring would be able to continue in that tradition.In baptism christian women can easily distinguish (if she knows her faith)weather she is marrying a man who is commited and living that sacramental sign of the new covenant.Which is even more effecatious.

I am a pro-life, politically conservative, practicing Roman Catholic.  I believe in protecting all children before birth as well as protecting them after birth.  It is wrong to generalize and characterize all people who support bodily integrity for children as being atheists, etc.

Circumcision is unnecessary for Christians, and no national medical association in the world recommends it.

Father John J. Dietzen, M.A., S.T.L. wrote the following about The Morality of Circumcision in his column The Question Box (October 2004):  “Today, while nontherapeutic male circumcision remains common in some places, 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 the moral law” (N. 2297).

I encourage Catholics (including the author of the above article) to open their Catholic Catechism and read the section on “Respect for bodily integrity.”  Circumcision, the amputation of healthy foreskins for non-therapeutic reasons, falls under this teaching.  It is troubling that so few Catholics seem to be aware of this.  Catholics can learn more about Catholic teaching on circumcision at http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

Many Old Testament practices of the past were later abandoned, and thankfully so.  Abraham owned slaves (and circumcised them when he was 99), but slavery is no longer accepteptable.  Abraham later nearly killed his son Isaac, but human sacrifice is not acceptable today.  When Jesus walked the earth, Judaic law required stoning adulterers to death.  This Jewish law has been abandoned.

Old Testament circumcision from the time of Abraham until the second century A.D. consisted of amputating only the foreskin that extended beyond the glans.  Second century rabbis changed Abrahamic circumcision to the far more extensive and damaging removal of the entire foreskin.

God, in His wisdom, creates mankind perfectly.  We can’t improve upon His design by cutting off healthy body parts from innocent, defenseless children.  1 Corinthians 12: 18 says: “As it is, God has set each member of the body in the place he wanted it to be.”

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourself, and this includes children.  Children deserve to be loved, not cut for non-medical reasons.

I would rather deal with the imperfections of a free society based on the laws of a Constitutional Republic than one managed by a central totalitarian entity. This is not a good thing to hear.

After some prayer and mediation it dawned on me what this was all about.  Obedience.  Are we to be obedient to God or to the state.  In this case a judge representing the law of the state of Germany verses a covenant between God and his chosen people established with Abraham.  Why did God call on his servant Abraham to have all males be circumcised?  I looked at it like a sacrament.  What is a sacrament?  It is an outward sign of a greater spiritual truth.  In the case of circumcision what is this and why.  The outward sign was to remove the foreskin frame the penis of all males 8 days after birth.  Not seven not six but 8 days.  We celebrate the resurrection of our Lord on the 8th day.  Coincidence, I’m not sure.  Also by removing the foreskin from Jewish males distinguished them not only from other men but also from animals.  These were God’s chosen people and the males are called to be set apart from other males and animals.  All of which are God’s creation but these are his elect.  His covenant with Adam was that he was made in the likeness of God in that he had a soul and could communicate, be in communion with God and then God created Eve and sent them out to procreate.  Man’s organ to procreate with is his penis, with this new covenant with Abraham he distinguished His Chosen People by having them “mutilate” there reproductive organ and God’s promise to them was that Abraham’s seed would out number the stars in heaven.  The cost of disobedience was that those that were not circumcised that were not the elect of God their soul would be destroyed.  Now leap forward to the time of our Lord Jesus Christ.  The gentiles that Paul was leading to Christ in Asia Minor had a hard time with being circumcised as adults so he went to Jerusalem to discuss this with Peter and James at the 1st Council.  Two fisherman and an ex-Pharisee changed the covenant with God saying that circumcision was not a requirement for salvation but Baptism was.  They did not say you couldn’t be circumcised just that it was not required.  In the sacrament of Baptism we are reborn in Christ all sin is washed away and that is the outward sign of membership in the New Covenant, the new elect, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I think with circumcision by separating yourself from the animals and pagans is a good visible sign even though it has been superseded by Baptism and it is a reminder that we are to be in control of our carnal desires because we are called to follow God’s moral teachings.  As some one stated earlier that those that are not circumcised are at greater risk of infection and disease combine that with sexual impurity and you have a pretty bad combination.  Jimmy please feel free to correct any theological error in this post.

@Scotty Ellis: You said this: “I am an intactivist father.  I am proud to be raising a whole, intact boy.  I would appreciate you not slandering my ability to raise my children.”

But you don’t seem to have a problem slandering the ability of majority of Jewish fathers who, for the most part of the last few thousand years, believe that it is integral to raise their children in their Jewish religion.

David: I am against the abortion of fetuses older than about 24 weeks in development by reason of moral caution.  Before this time, the fetus simply does not have any of the structures required for even a minimal level of consciousness, feeling, activity, awareness, or anything else that would suggest personhood status.  However, I believe that the development of such faculties, even in a minimal form, results in some sort of consciousness or sentience that needs to be morally respected.

The Germans and the Russians, like the Bourbons, have neither learned nor forgotten anything.

Jeff: Yes, I do believe that unnecessary genital mutilation is a sign of imperfection in parenting.  Of course, I am not a perfect parent.  I do not mean by pointing out this imperfection to cast the Jewish parents in any sort of malicious light.  Jewish parents can be quite loving, and although I strongly disagree with their practice of circumcision I have the intellectual charity to believe that they perform this procedure in the belief that it is indeed the best thing, spiritually or otherwise, for their boy.  I simply believe that they are gravely mistaken to mutilate their child without its consent, so much so that I wish the law would protect their child.

@ Scotty Ellis: I really do find your comments rather interesting though somewhat lacking in substance. You do seem to believe that mutilation or the lack thereof is of superior value to the good of a child. But I can see also that the good of the child is important to you. What, however, you seem to miss is that the good sometimes involves mutilation as in amputations and several other surgical procedures. I believe too that you recognise your place in the moral and worldview formation of your children less your participation here.

To begin with I would like to point out that 1) there is obviously a controversy here and 2) the controversy has more to do with a judgement call than objective wrong. I am sure you will agree with me that circumcision has not resulted in any particular inequality in the world neither has the lack of the practice. There is actually a neutrality here that makes this a judgement call more than anything else. To make one judgement a requirement for all could certainly be termed tyrannical.

Precisely because of this neutrality therefore, one cannot say that people of any religious calling or medical reason should be deprived of the practice. In fact this is even attested to in medical practice by considering circumcision elective.

This is quite the opposite for female circumcision in which circumcision most often amounts to the excision of the clitoris and therefore the appeal of the sexual encounter itself! This certainly amounts to the subjection of a whole section of society to meaningless (for bonding as opposed to procreative) and often excruciatingly difficult sexual encounters which everyone would certainly believe to be unfair resulting in a situation referred to as inequality.

Finally, to single out a religion because of this neutral practice is simply unreasoned. This certainly, for the Jews especially, strikes at the very roots of their identity. Apart from breaking the social bond of the child from its people it deprives, in a significant way, the parents’ desires to impart on their children a hinge to the moral and worldview perspectives that their parents, in their conscientious understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, wish to transfer to their offspring for both their temporal and spiritual good. Ironically, it appears that for non-religious purposes parents can make that judgement call for their young.

An attack on Religious Freedom by a government that should have learned from past mistakes.  We can all see the direction this is going.  Another instance that requires prayer, AND action by people of all faiths.

@ Fr. Jay Finelli: Amen to that, again I say AMEN!

Joseph e: as I have mentioned in earlier comments, I am fully aware of specific (albeit rare) medical situations in which an infant may need to be circumcised to protect his health.  I support these operations because health is a primary good without which the pursuit of secondary goods is impossible.  I oppose the non-medically justified circumcision of infants; such a mutilation without consent is contrary to the child’s rights as a person.  I am fine leaving circumcision up to the judgment of the individual being circumcised, but this requires deferring circumcision to an age in which the individual is sufficiently developed to understand the gravity of the mutilation and give consent.  I am not for outlawing circumcision altogether; I am for establishing minimum age and consent laws that prevent unjustified circumcisions from being performed on the young.  If a man wants to practice a religious rite of mutilation on himself, I say he is free to do so.  I also say he is not free to perform such a right on someone else without their consent.  I am uninterested in religious justifications for such act.  The Aztecs believed they had to cut the heart out of a sacrificial victim to please the Sun God and allow the cycle of morning and evening to continue.  The Jewish rite is nowhere nearly as abhorrent, but it is still a lesser example of the same idea: we would normally condemn cutting parts off babies, and I do not see the point of allowing exceptions for particular religions.  Furthermore, a man can still be circumcised in conformity with Jewish law when he has grown and can make the choice himself.

We already have seen adults decide to be “unbaptized.” It isn’t a stretch at all that someone will sue his parents for baptizing him as a baby.

@ Scott Ellis: You haven’t addressed the neutrality based on its ‘good’ either which way.

Your Aztec question I believe was anticipated in its comparison to female circumcision.

Your position on ‘mutilation trumps all’ doesn’t hold much water to my thinking. Circumcision can be considered a health saving surgical maneuver, because you think it is not doesn’t make it communally required.  I personally think it has medical advantage, not just for the individual but also for the community, and for that reason I have no qualms practicing it, neither do I have any qualms with others not practicing same considering its narrow degree of danger it poses to the human community.

Maybe, I think, you should seek the consent of your children before you lead them down this path of yours.

Hart Ponder:  I agree—was just going to post that.

rosemarie kury:  Correct and BINGO.  Deception and hidden agendas are, unfortunately, hiding behind things that appears as ‘caring and good for you’ these days. Heads up, everyone.

Its shocking that those in favor of this law care so much for the foreskin of the infant but nothing about the unborn that are torn from their mothers in abortions.

Thank god. Well done Germany, may the world follow in your footsteps. :)

only Jimmy Aiken could write this without a trace of irony:

“is it difficult to imagine some judge in the future deciding that all children should have the ability to choose their religious identity later in life”

Actually I’m all for children being allowed to make informed decisions about their religious identity later in life. Freedom to make informed, adult decisions…what a *horrible* concept!

We have to remember this has everything to do with religious liberty. Most of us Catholics have stood up against the HHS mandate forcing us to acept and subsidize abortion and birth control which in our belief is equal to murder. Then how is it different for our Jewish (and Muslim)bretheren to be forced to give up one of the main commandments in their covenant with God? (and before you start with the female mutilation argument, remember FGM is subjugation of a woman to a (future) spouse NOT to God).
And second to the person who stated he is against abortion after the 24th week, but ok with it before that,because fetuses under 24 weeks don’t feel pain or are not aware of their existance, it has been proven that babies as young as 10-12 weeks in utero can feel pain and are able to interact with environmental stimuli.

Alex, can you please cite your source for the belief that fetuses as young as 10-12 weeks can feel pain?  The thalamocortical connections do not even form until around week 26.  Would you explain how the fetus can feel pain when it lacks the structures to experience pain?

I think one of the things that make an individual is our uniqueness. At the moment of conception we have UNIQUE. THAT, is the entire human person on top of which every other human feature generates. Defining a person as who can feel pain would certainly mean that if Scotty Ellis were to fall faint today and we all knew that he would need our attention for the next nine months we could decide, well, let us just do away with him. In other scenarios we could begin to say that some of us humans who have genetic, cognitive and physical challenges could as well GET LOST. We cannot limit the definition of the human person to likes of our own personal conditions. So, if I were deaf or blind, or lame I would say, “OK, I am less human than you”. I wonder what we’ll say?

Scotty, you said it all in approving abortion before 24 weeks!! On whose authority (not the Church’s) do you base your opinion on?  A baby’s heartbeat begins very soon after conception.  An ultrasound can show you the baby’s development within a very short time, and how do you know that the fetus (baby) does not feel pain?

This is much worse than circumcision.  As I’ve said before, and this is the last comment I"ll make is that this is a Jewish requirement.  I’m sure too that atheists deplore Baptism for infants—my goodness, the water makes them cry so we better stop that.  This is an anti-religious law and if it becomes law in Germany you will see other countries adopting it too.  Unfortunately, Jew (God’s chosen people) have had to endure this discrimination and hate for thousands of years.  Again, although the Church refuted these practices, before Paul’s vision, almost all of the Christians underwent this, the Apostles did, John the Baptist did.  If Jesus was NOT to undergo this Mary and Joseph would have known.

joseph e, luckily, I don’t have such a crude definition of personhood as the one you critique.  Yes, I do believe that having the most rudimentary structures necessary for experience is needed, but it is important to note that even with those structures, a fetus might not experience pain.  Pain might not be an actual experience until the third trimester.  However, the actual experience of pain is not needed for personhood - a person simply needs the most rudimentary experience of reality - the most rudimentary sentience - to deserve the protection of human personhood.  Inasmuch as it is unclear when this experience develops, it is a matter of moral caution to push back the protection of personhood to the earliest point at which the rudimentary structures necessary for such an experience develop.  Hence, 24 weeks or so.  And how in the world did a circumcision debate turn into an abortion debate anyway?

It appears that German justice is on two counts racist.

Indeed, it offers tenants of circumcision to wait till their majority to practise a mutilating, and thus forbidden by law and medical ethics operation. We cannot see how German doctors might accept to mutilate adult Jews, Muslims, and possible others, out of “strict and serious medical motives” (medical ethics).

Moreover, circumcision attacks the human species. No people may carve out an identity through knife for themselves upon the body of their children, without offending the rest of humanity. For founding a collective identity upon an assault against that of the species is not only degrading in itself, it is also discriminatory. Indeed, the three superstitions of circumcision: moral superiority (virtue, chastity, fidelity, purity, spirituality), hygiene superiority and sexual superiority, favour endogamy. An alleged superiority through artificial differentiation is discriminatory. It is power two racism: some neo-Gobineau enacted by Mengele. Sexual mutilation is not racist properly speaking but it aims at making supermen. It is artificial racism, more racist than racism. Since it rests upon antique customs and is committed within love, without intention of harming, the only means of criminalizing it is exposing the will of discrimination and segregation, under threat of exclusion of opponents, of this crime against humanity.

The issue of racism is particularly clear concerning excision the systematic justification of which is: “If we don’t do it, she won’t find a husband”, which is a gross lie in our countries where black girls may have more opportunities to marry a white man, precisely what the racist parents do not want!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133427/100-000-women-undergo-brutal-sexual-mutilation-illegally-Britain.html

rosemarie: Without the physical structures to detect and process pain or other sensory information - indeed, without a developed neurological structure - there is simply no way that a sufficiently undeveloped embryo can have experiences.  The heart does not begin forming until week 5, and in any case the heart does not provide an experience of reality.

Believe it or not, this is a trend to limit ritual religious activities in the Islamic emigre communities by directing that legislation at the parctices of the next most similar religion.  This is owing to the fact that the EU has effectively implemented the OIC’s Ten-Year Programme of Action that make any unauthorized discussions relating to Islam a crime.  Think I a joking?  The US State Department played the lead role in getting that initiave to pass under UN Resolution 16/18 back in December 2011.  I do belive that some West Coast city (San Francisco maybe) tried to pass a similar ban on circumcision.

Also, of a similar note but running in a different direction, a US military serviceman converted to a form of Baptism in which he deemed his service raised issues of conscientious objection in which he was awarded a discharge.  His claims were so far beyond any latitude given previously that it became truly noteworthy.  This is believed to be in response to the Fort Hood killer’s (Major Hasan) demands to be released under a new standard of conscientious objector status as briefed before he stuck.  His demand was based on Islamic legal requirements.  Now, when such requests of conscientius objector status are raised, it will be based on precedent set by a seemingly dissimilar case.  This whole activity comes under the title “lawfare.” 

Finally, and maybe most importantly, if you read the language of the German Court in this article, it clearly seems to derive its langauge from UN movements on the “Rights of the Child” that would have the effect of making child rearing an international legal issue in exactly the way stated in the article.  While a title with “Rights of the Child” seems all nice and gooey, you should take some time to see how wrong it is—that it effectively makes a parents choices in childrearing an issue of international law.  Sounds out there?  Its just one of the treaties this current administration is seeking to pass through UN treaty.

This type of blog is promotes confusion and should not even be associated with nc register. So sad Jimmy!

Scot here are 2 of my references, I can send you a few more but the posting would exceed the allotted length of a message.

1)www.aaplog.org,

2)Pain and its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus.  Anand and Hickey
K.J.S. Anand, M.B.B.S., and P.R. Hickey, M.D.,
The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 317,
No. 21, November 19, 1987, p 1321

3)Human Embryology and Developmental Biology   Carlson
Bruce M. Carlson, M.D., Ph.D.
Mosby (St. Louis), 1994

Trying to wrap my mind around the “several square inches of skin” characterization of foreskin. I doubt even a fully grown Adult intact male has several square inches of foreskin.
Abortion before twenty four weeks? But circumcision is cruel and inhumane? Wow.
A life begins at conception. God knew you before you were in the womb. That is all there is to it. Blurring the lines with shoddy science claims about whens and ifs of pain and sensory perception is not even the point. It is the death of a human being made in God’s image.
Lastly, and this is not relative to Jewish circumcision, but doctors use local anesthetic before they perform the procedure. Almost all babies sleep through it, and there is no pain, if you want to cite science.

Heather,

Babies do experience pain. Can you really not know that? This is the kind of irrational thinking that is required to defend genital mutilation. You are presenting a spiritual rationalization for giving babies an experience of torture. Babies do not sleep happily through it. That lie makes you feel better, but it doesn’t serve God or children. If a baby appears to be asleep, the baby has discociated- a common childhood response to trauma.

Should girls have genital cutting too to make them less like the animals? Of course not!

I know it’s a lot to take in- but babies have clearly died as a result of circumcision. It’s less dangerous now since it has been medicalized, but please don’t pretend children don’t sometimes die from it.

God is not, and never has been, behind the genital mutilation of children. This is a man-made horror. People who are not horrified by circumcision have been talked out of their natural abhorence of it by religion, pseudo-science or odd mental gymnastics.

Defending babies is not liberal nonsense or New Age claptrap.

It floors me that a district in Germany, of all the countries in the world, has decided to do this.  Freaking GERMANY.  Are they insane?  So after the massacre of millions of people, a generation or two can grow up and that bit of time is all it takes for anti-Semitism to start popping back up again…seriously, what does it take for some people to let go of that stupid Jew-hating obsession?

Now I need to add something :

“Babies do experience pain. Can you really not know that? This is the kind of irrational thinking that is required to defend genital mutilation. You are presenting a spiritual rationalization for giving babies an experience of torture.”

She said doctors use anesthetic.  Anesthetic.  Read ALL the words!

“Babies do not sleep happily through it. That lie makes you feel better, but it doesn’t serve God or children. If a baby appears to be asleep, the baby has discociated- a common childhood response to trauma.”

You think a baby can’t sleep while under the influence of anesthesia but that they can put themselves in a “fake” sleep while under extreme pain because they are…disassociating or something…

One significant fact is that circumcision is harmful. Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.

Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on the presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient. For more information see http://www.circumcision.org.

While the ruling appears to be only related to religious circumcision, I find missing the major reason some persons want to prohibit infant circumcision e.g. in San Francisco, is that it “supposedly” reduces sexual pleasure for males. This has never been scientifically proven nor would it be easy to do. But there are those among the secularists who place sexual pleasure as the highest goal to be achieved. I doubt that so many generations of circumcised men feel that their sexual pleasure has been so reduced that they haven’t begotten children. Since this came first in San Francisco perhaps this belief is more widespread although certainly not exclusively amoung the homosexual community.

Or maybe the pornography industry.

With all the disadvantages of circumcision as enumerated by the anti-circumcision community it seems to me that most of the world before and now lives with “Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression”. The guess world must really be sick.

Joseph, “most” of the world’s men haven’t now or ever, been circumcised. Quite the contrary. Routine circumcision is something that most of the world thinks peculiar.  The rates in the US are recently at about 35% of male babies, and dropping.

I think it important to note that the last note got it right.  There is an organized overly loud anti-circumcision community that seems to exist to glom on to such issues and create the over-illusion of medical risk and concensus in the medical community in this regard.  It should be noted that comparisons between circumcision and clitoralectomies are rediculis.  While the “street term” is “female circumsicion” provides the illusion of rough equivalency, the one is the removal of a few centimeters of skin and the other is the invasive removal of a discrete sensory organ.  Sorry for the sloppy writing - done on the fly!

Scotty, you hyper-focus on one detail, circumcision, to the exclusion of all else.  That’s how the debate about abortion entered the picture.  A balanced perspective is necessary, but some people have an opposition to circumcision that is excessive. 
The decision whether or not to circumcise is a judgement call.  Will you agree with everyone’s judgement?  Of course not.  But to make every parental judgement a matter for government to decide is a recipe for tyranny.  It is truly maddening that people can’t see that. 
You are very precise when speaking of the topic of circumcision, but go immediately vague and fuzzy when it comes to the topic of abortion.  “Around 24 weeks”, “26 weeks or so”, “About the time of…”, etc. 
Frankly, about fetal development, you don’t know what you are talking about.  I am a retired registered nurse who has taken care of premature babies born at even earlier stages than you have mentioned.  At no matter what gestational age, they deserve not to be killed.  We must never be vague about this.                                    Whenever people care about a pet issue entirely out of proportion to its actual importance, it’s always about SOMETHING ELSE.               
Circumcision is a judgement call.  Abortion is death.  Get your priorities in order.

I really am quite surprised by the re-occurring sentiment here of people who say “I don’t care that religious freedom is being trampled on, because I personally don’t agree with circumcision.”  Do you truly feel that other people have no right to religious freedom, simply because their faith is different from your own?  YOU have a right to decide for THEM?  What gives you this right?  Your opinions are more “worthy” than theirs? 

Since many are picking on our Jewish brothers and sisters here, let’s look at another religious freedom.  In the military, Jews are given the ability to eat Kosher food.  Would you support the same notion that they should have to for-go their religious freedom, and eat non kosher food, because YOU (or “the state,”) thinks that they should not be able to decide for themselves to follow the tenets of their faith?

Religious freedom is not an absolute. Jehovah Witness parents cannot refuse their children life-saving blood transfusions, for example. Those Muslims who want to cut their daughters genitals in observance of their faith cannot legally do so in this country.
In my religion, I have the right to shield every child from circumcision by physically interfering with the surgery/ritual. But I realize I have no legal right to exercise that belief.

We need more guys posting on here that they appreciated their parents having them circumsized. I know I appreciated it and I’m glad my parents chose that for me. And I’m fine with those parents who decide to not get it done for their baby too. I chose it for my son. And I’m sure we could get alot more Dr’s on here which disagree with Dr. Ron. When my son was circumsized at about a month old, it only hurt him for about a week and then it healed. HE WON’T REMEMBER THE PAIN OF IT. I don’t remember pain when mine was done. What young man (say 12years old) would decide for himself that he wants to be circumsized? NOT MANY. That’s why parents decide to do it for them. So they don’t remember the pain. It’s the more loving thing to do. The only way I can see men being against this religious practice is if they had some type of accident when theirs was done or that some people heckled them for being uncircumsized. I can understand that for these reasons it could lead to anger and revolt against the practice. But just because you had a bad experience, does not mean that it’s bad for everyone. Just don’t have your kid have it done. To me, for government to make a law against it is extreme and for government to make a law stating you have to do it would be extreme. So it should be reserved for parents who want their sons to have it done. It is a religious liberty. And give me a break…mutilation? Really? I don’t know what sexual pleasure is like for those men who are uncircumcised, but for me it’s damn good who is circumcised. After all, it’s just a flap of skin that is cut off that covers the tip. It’s not like it makes it shorter or interferes with pleasure. What’s the big deal? Maybe we shouldn’t allow young children to have their ears pierced. Is that mutilation cause it’s creating a hole in the ear…oh my gosh by golly! Call the cops.
I agree with the priest who said that this is the start of a Jewish persecution in Germany again. We all need to stick up for the Jewish faith on this issue and pray for Germany that this law doesn’t take place in more cities there.

What people fail to see is this decision is not against Judaism or Islam. It’s a decision against violence against children. It’s a decision to enforce the right to self-determination of the children, who are the future adults.

For one second put yourself in the diapers of a baby. You are sleeping peacefully. You are starting your life. Suddenly, someone starts handling your most private part, and when you try to move you realize that you are being restrained. You try to cry and a cube of ice with sugar or wine is brought to your mouth to keep you from crying. Then you experience the most intense pain you have ever experienced. You keep crying but the ice with sugar keeps coming to hush you and nobody helps you. It feels as if your end is coming. You go into neurogenic shock. They say: “he went to sleep”, but you are in shock. And when you come back from the shock, given that everything went right, that they didn’t cut through your glans as well, that they didn’t give you herpes through the oral sucking of the wound, that you didn’t bleed to death, you are still in for a painful recovery.

If what I described is not an act of violence, then please explain what is violence to you. If this act would not be okay to do it to a non-consenting adult, why is it okay to do it to a non-consenting baby?

We are not fighting religion. We are fighting violence and systematic violation of the rights of the baby.

In fact, there are many jews who are choosing to not circumcise. That does not prevent them from practicing their religion. Just visit http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Circumcision is not the crime. Forcing circumcision upon non-consenting, defenseless creatures IS the crime.

Religion at different times has justified acts of cruelty, such as stoning of women, killing of infidels, honor killings. Those things cannot be accepted in a modern society. Cutting a healthy part of the body of a non-consenting individual is also a cruel and irreparable act.

Respect the religious freedom of the baby. Do not circumcise him!

What I can’t understand is the ignorance of those who made this decision and those who support it.  Did they not check and see if this has been done before?  Did they not at least try to see if it has been viewed as anti-Semitic before?

The emperor Hadrian tried the same thing for the same reasons.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Hadrian/1*.html#14

And it is often taught as an example of ancient anti-Semitism.

http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antisemitism/antisemitism02.html

In fact, this is precisely what precipitated the Bar-Kochba rebellion, the end result of which was the final removal of the Jews from the Levant coast and the renaming of its southern portion as “Palestine,” after the ancient Philistines.  Hadrian was purposely trying to delegitimize the Jews by naming their land after their ancient enemies.

I understand the idea that people can think that this is not anti-Semitism in their own personal minds, but that is irrelevant.  History is the better teacher of how such things are judged.

For the record, I’m prolife.

A reader, Katheryn, says that “Since we’re talking bodily integrity too, I believe that Germany should outlaw cutting children’s hair or toenails or fingernails too”

Katheryn, hair and nails keep growing. Foreskins do not re-grow. Do you remember how in Africa in some communities they also cut females genitalia? Cutting males’ genitalia is pretty much the same.

Parents do not have the right to kill their baby or to cut a hand, or even a finger or toe of the baby. Why is the males’ genitalia not given the same protection?

Circumcision is not completely harmless. As every SURGERY, it has risks, which include dying from bleeding, dying from infections, mutilation or complete loss of the penis, impotence, pain during sex for the rest of the life. Those things happen, they happen every year over and over. They happen because we don’t reserve this MEDICAL PROCEDURE just for the people who need it, but our society imposes it on people who have no medical need for it.

Don’t forget the dead babies and the mutilated babies when you defend this barbaric practice.

@David M. You write “We need more guys posting on here that they appreciated their parents having them circumsized”

I am circumcised and I DO NOT appreciate having being circumcised. I was 5 years old. I begged the doctor NOT TO CUT ME. I was still restrained and cut. It was traumatic. It changed my self-image. I always saw my penis as a stump, as a mutilated organ.

I am also a parent of an intact child. He is a teenager now. When I told him what circumcision was, he was disturbed: “do people really DO THAT?” was his question.

@Kevin F, you write “I understand the idea that people can think that this is not anti-Semitism in their own personal minds, but that is irrelevant.  History is the better teacher of how such things are judged.”

Well, we intactivists undestand that brainwashed people may not think that this is a cruel practice, but that is irrelevant. It is cruel and creates harm. Many Jewish mothers don’t want to circumcise their children. They feel pressed to do it. Do you know how our society perceives female genital mutilation today as something cruel and against women’s rights? Male genital mutilation will be seen in the same eye in the future.

Remember that in “civilized” places as the U.S., FGM was also commonly practiced in the 50’s and was only outlawed in 1996, not that far ago.

Wow…I remember when I was a baby and when I came out of the womb, it really hurt and my head was all stretched out. And then…oh my gosh, they cut this thing on my belly. It hurt so bad. And I didn’t get my nutrients any more cause they cut off the supply. They should stop cutting that cord cause it really hurt me.

@David M, You asked for guys who appreciated being circumcised. I gave you the counter-example. I was not a baby, I was an infant and I remember it all.

Now, whether you can remember circumcision or not, it is a cruel and painful act that exposes babies to risks:

Remember that some babies die after circumcision due to loss of blood or infection. Just this year a mohel in NY passed herpes to a baby and he died.

Remember that some are mutilated. Just in Israel, again this year, a muslim baby had half his penis chopped off during circumcision.

And you may not know it, but some men suffer from pain through their whole life during sex thanks to circumcision.

But I guess those who suffer of those issues don’t count for you, do they?

The “Dreamer” comment that this has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam is simply ignorant.  It’s all about that.  Whether knowing or not, the whole note comes right out of UN “Rights of Children” resolutions and is designed to completely destroy the right of parents to make parental decisions - in increasingly bizarre notions of children’s rights that—ultimately are designed to make them subject to the state - by international processes. 

Of course, one of the goals is to demote “free exercise thereof (religion)” to a contained right to worship.  The way these bizarre views have over populated this blog post is itself indicative of such movements—to create the illusion of overwhelming support the reflects, among other things, the weight of the professional community - medical, legal, and psychological.

To Tom Morris, you said

Those Muslims who want to cut their daughters genitals in observance of their faith cannot legally do so in this country.
And I agree 100% with that, because that is TRUE mutilation.

Circumcision in an infant boy is about the same as getting your ears pierced.  (Much worse for older boys.)

One of my infant sons cried when circumsized, the other did not.  My daughter DID cry when she CHOSE to get her ears pierced.

@Dreamer- Sorry I may have seemed insensitive in my posts, but your case does not apply to what I was talking about. I’m talking about baby’s not 5 year olds. I don’t think I would of liked it much as a 5 year old either. Sorry you had a bad experience. And I’m totally fine with you or others not having thier sons have that done. If I had your experience, I would probably do the same. But again, I’m talking about baby’s having it done. They don’t remember it just the same as they don’t remember the embilical cord being cut. But I don’t think that the few (people that have had a bad experience) should make a law against it for the many (the Jewish religion in this case). More and more this is happening nowadays. It’s a form of persecution against religion. It’s like the few that didn’t like God mentioned in public schools, so now there is no God mentioned in public schools anymore. It’s insanity. And I’m glad, Dreamer, that you are pro life (I hope from time of conception), because usually those against this type of practice are pro choice…which makes no sense what so ever. And again, for you, go ahead and make your choice for your baby boys, but leave that out of the Jewish religions choice…please. You wouldn’t want them to tell you that you HAD to do it to your kid right?

@ Dreamer: In case you missed this before making your comment I’m repeating this post by Hart Ponder above “...according to WebMD there are healthier benifits: There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.”

This is why I commented earlier but better put, I think, by this post by Patty Bennet that “...The decision whether or not to circumcise is a judgement call.  Will you agree with everyone’s judgement?  Of course not.  But to make every parental judgement a matter for government to decide is a recipe for tyranny.  It is truly maddening that people can’t see that.”

I can’t really get what else we’re arguing about!!??

@enness, thank you :) sometimes people forget all that is entailed by Christ’s divinity.  It’s pretty awesome to be both God and man…Creator, taking on the nature of a creature.  Mind boggling! 
.
I mean, here He was going around the earth interacting with and obeying and submitting to His own creatures. Imagine what it would be like.  I can’t, really.  I mean, the closest thing I can think of a parent looking to the eyes of a rebellious teenage child and thinking, “I changed your diapers.” But with Him it was even much more than that. It’s looking into people’s eyes while they are talking and thinking, “I created you and the grass you stand on and the air you breathe and the light you see by. I hold you in existence this moment.”
.
I mean, to lower Himself to our level like He has…it’s incredible. Even just thinking about His years of public ministry, never mind His death.  He took it all, all the questions, mean spiritedness, insincerity, (and our sheer stupidity!) just as if He were an equal to us. Truly, “He did not think equality with God something to be grasped.”
.
(For the record, I only wrote the first comment above.  There appears to be a second Marie who has a son (I don’t) and to have very decided views about this German law (I’m not sure yet what I think about it)).

Mr. Akin, I agree with your column except that you impugn the motive of the German court, attributing their decision to anti-semitism.  There is no basis for that attribution other than that the ruling occurred in Germany, which caused the holocaust.  But the same thing happened in San Fran here in the good ole USA first.  This ruling—like the San Fran law—is about sex, rationalism and freedom.  Religion just happened to be in the way this time.  And I quite agree, next time the religion to be shunted aside for similar reasons might be ours.  [Um, a ruling approving HHS regs promoting contracepetion, for instance….]

To Scotty Ellis,

I am just curious, what is your view on vaccinating infants?

Dreamer,

The only support for your statement that it is “cruel” is the fact that you say that it is.  Just because some mothers don’t want it done, and just because it creates harm does not make it cruel.  There are other procedures, even mutilatory procedures that are done by people for the sake of other ends (removing gangrenous limbs, for instance) that at one time were indeed painful, but that were not cruel because they were done for the sake of a higher end.
The Jewish people believe that their covenant with their God, by which he maintains certain promises that he made with them, entails on their part the sign of circumcision, given on the 8th day.  They maintain that if they do not do this, it is breaking their half of the covenant, and for their conscience, this entails a great loss, the loss of a higher good, the special relationship with the God of their fathers.  To say that a law is not aimed at them means nothing… they are forced into a situation between choosing their God or the laws of their country.
I know that you will next insist that a God who commands such a practice must not be a true God, and that the state should intervene and ban such religious practices to such a God, etc.  That doesn’t matter.  That’s what Hadrian thought, but that is not what the Jewish people think, and such a law impacts them; it makes them unable to follow their religion.  It’s what made Hadrian the prime example of the Anti-Semitic Roman Emperor.

Last of all: it is not argumentation to label those who disagree with you as “brainwashed”. Some may be, but some may not be, but you don’t know.  I am not a Jew, and I do not believe that circumcision is binding for salvation.  But I do understand what they believe, and I was not put through intensive reeducation sessions to understand it. One who really wants to argue needs to at least grant the intellectual abilities of his opponent. To be unable to do so is the end of civil discourse.  If you don’t think I can think, just don’t talk to me.

Kathy16670: Vaccination is a medically justifiable procedure that does not permanently mutilate the child.  I support it.

Patty Bennet: My comments have focused on circumcision because the article is about circumcision.  I don’t believe that is an odd circumstance.  The fact that people have derailed the argument into an abortion debate troubles me, because it suggests that the pro-infant-circumcision camp has a difficult time defending itself on its own turf and must instead misdirect the conversation.  I agree that genital mutilation is a matter of judgment: the judgment of the person receiving the mutilation.  It is not a choice to be made by others.  I am vague about the cutoff date because (as you know as a medical professional) it is unclear when the vital structures necessary for sensation are developed.  You should also know that viability before 24 weeks is extraordinarily rare.

Heather: a fully grown man has about fifteen square inches of foreskin tissue - that’s about the size of a post card.  You probably have never seen an uncircumcised penis, but the foreskin covers the entire glans and girth of the penis, which means it can be anywhere from about 2x3 inches to up to 4x4.  When a baby is mutilated against his will without medical justification, it is robbing him of this tissue.  Do you mind defining what you mean by a human being, exactly?

I thought that some vaccinations DO harm children. Am I wrong on this?

Years ago, most parents believed the myths surrounding circumcision.  Today parents are becoming educated about the fact that no national medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision.  As far back as 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated, “There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.”  In 1999, the AAP did NOT recommend circumcision, and they looked at all the reasons joseph e. uses to promote circumcision. Those reasons were not sufficient to advocate for circumcision. Health myths die hard.

Tragically, too many babies have suffered from botched circumcisions, and some have died from this medically unnecessary surgery.  A long and unfortunately growing list of these tragic cases that have been publicized can be read at http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=581

If these children had not been subjected to this bodily harm, some might still be alive today, and others would not be suffering the tragic consequences resulting from circumcision.  I find it sad that so many Catholics here want to see more innocent children suffer.  That is not what my Catholic Christian faith teaches me, nor is it how my Lord Jesus Christ expects me to treat His children.

David M.: There have been persistent, quasi-conspiratorial rumors that vaccines are secretly responsible for things like autism, but no studies back up this claim.  Of course, many vaccines do result in the child experiencing a mild fever.  There are individuals who are allergic or have severe reactions to certain vaccines; like any such medical procedure, the child’s reaction should be carefully watched.  But in general, the only lasting effect of a vaccine is immunity to a certain strain of contagion.

First off, it is a very disingenous tactic to harken back to the days of Nazism rather than explicitly confronting the issue which the court has ruled on. Circumcision introduces potential harm to a person, and should therefore not be allowed until that person is old enough to consent to it.  Religion cannot be used as a cloak in which to hide from this fact.

I am married to a Jewish woman and we did not circumcise either of our two boys (and I myself, brought up Catholic, was circumcised). Granted, she is not a very religious person, though she agrees with the central tenets of Judaism and cherishes her culture. However, there comes a time when one needs to look at one’s cultural practices and realize when those practices fly in the face of rationality or law. There is no medical reason (except in extremely rare circumstances) to circumcise a baby boy, but there is indeed evidence that harm can come from it. Every parent (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc) should respect the fact that their child is not THEM, it is an individual. That individual may or may not adhere to your beliefs - that is, a boy born to a Christian may not be a practicing Christian as an adult; and, even if your child does practice your religion as an adult, they may not agree that circumcision is a necessary part of their religious practice - if they do, they can consent to it. Any religious practice that maims a child should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sexual wellness researchers recognize that male circumcision has significant public health benefits. The World Health Organization and UNAIDS currently recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic disease rates. Kenyan health officials want more than 1 million men to get circumcised by the end of 2012, because the procedure can reduce the risk of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent. If the effort succeeds, it will likely prove a model for the rest of Africa.

I do not believe that male circummcision should be legally mandated for all.  However, having one’s infant boys circumcised is a reasonable decision: neither ignorant nor barbaric.

The word “mutilation” in this context is misleading.  Mutilation connotes crippling or maiming: the deliberate deprivation of overall function.  This is not the case with the circumcised penis:  its reproductive function is unimpaired, and circumcised men find intercourse an intensely pleasurable experience.

This makes male circumcision significantly different from female genital mutilation, which truly is maiming. 

Another attack on freedom of religion!  And based on the precedent established by our Supreme Court last month, we can now be taxed in to supporting ANY behavior!

Dear PJ, I just wish some of you would read to understand what some of us are saying. So, I here repeat myself in the hope that some reason will be taken from it. Circumcision or not is not evil any which way. There are dangers in which side you are on as I have listed above in response to dreamer’s list. This ends up being a JUDGEMENT CALL. Because children have died as a result of botched circumcisions doesn’t mean children haven’t died because of penile cancer as a result of no circumcision. Because children have contracted infections during circumcision doesn’t mean that uncircumcised children do not suffer from higher risk of urinary tract infections. But because these issues are so few and far between for either side government cannot start making legislation on such. This is best left to the judgement of parents themselves. And because of the neutrality of the issue it can be used for religious issues as the moral health of the individual almost always based on a spiritual value.
.
The main issue that commentators have here is that there is pain involved. So if there is pain involved in something that means it is bad? Not the least. The same arguments that apply to other medical procedures apply here too. Pain is not the indicator of what is right or wrong otherwise, I guess, the Jews would be one of the most injured races in the world but for where! They are as happy as you and I. This is an indication that circumcision is not critical to the psychological well-being of our children and is only a matter of how we want to manage their physical well-being.
.
I just wish this silly argument should stop and let the Jews, Muslims and whoever wish to use circumcision make up their minds about same without the government playing nanny to every single little detail of the upbringing of our little ones.

Griffin Byrnes: circumcision=‘maimed’???

Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was circumcised with the approval of his holy parents Mary and Joseph.

Dude!!!  God commanded His people to be maimed???

Where is your Catholic respect for the freedom of conscience which is at the root of the freedom of religion?

I grant you and the Cologne court this much: you have to use reason when making decisions about what religious practices are allowed.  We don’t allow satanists to murder people just because their religion might require it.  It is fair to ask, ‘where do you draw the line?’

So, this is why I think you should not draw the line at circumcision:

1- Judaism is an ancient religion, a source of the religion which is a basis for our civilization.  It is not a religion whose practices we should therefore feel we can alter by law lightly, anymore than that we should change our morals lightly, or because our latest lights have suddenly determined that one of its practices is wrong.  Such points of view are the ones which are often quickly relegated to ‘the dustbin of history’ in view of later human experience.

2-Its antiquity and longevity are also important in considering how much respect we should give to the view that its teachings are inspired by God.  To say that God has commanded maiming for 2500 or 4500 years, just doesn’t sit right; it’s more than a bit rash.

I remember a story I heard about a man who explained that he believed in the existence of God for this reason alone: the Jews have, and continue to, exist.  The jews consider circumcision to be a covenant with God and to be one of the means by which their existence has been able to endure.  I don’t think you should lightly throw that idea away.

3-For jews, circumcision is still an extremely important means of identifying with their community.  A community includes children.

4-for all the talk about maiming, the burden of circumcision is in reality very small.  I have seen a child circumcised and in my opinion it was no big deal, though the child obviously wasn’t happy about it for the next few hours.  I don’t see this burden as outweighing the other considerations I have listed.  The supposed burden of a reduction of sexual feeling is very dubious and scientifically unproven so far as I am aware.  Even if it were proved, the burden does not weigh more than the other considerations I listed, in my mind.

Cheers!

Yan: Yes, circumcision is maiming.  Mutilation.  Disfigurement.  It consists of the removal of a large portion of tissue which will never regrow.  How, exactly, would you define “maimed” in order to avoid circumcision being included under that definition?  I am skeptical that a benevolent God would ever require such an ordeal.  As to your reasons:
1 - Tradition does not remove the responsibility to examine a practice.  It is traditional in some cultures to have the youth place their arms inside hollow tubes filled with bullet ants.  I do not believe the tradition behind this practice justifies it any more than circumcision can be justified by appeal to tradition. 
2 - I agree that it is absurd to assume that a benevolent God commanded mutilation.
3 - An individual’s rights stand prior to the community’s desire to mutilate him. 
4 - That is a judgment the individual should be able to make for himself, not a decision to be foisted on him by others.  I assume you would be unhappy if, while you were sleeping, someone tattooed you against your will - even if the design he used had some spiritual significance to an ancient religion?  Much more so should you consider the right of an individual to choose whether what will become fifteen square inches of the most sensitive flesh on his body should be sliced off.

* Headlined, “The Crime of Circumcision,” [Gerson’s column] deals with a ruling issued by a judge in Germany that prohibits Jews from circumcizing their baby boys….*

First, the legal ruling applies to ALL circumcisions other than those for medical purposes. It does not apply only to Jews. Second, the ruling is undergoing further clarification. The judge maintains that circumcision for religious reasons should be delayed until the boy is old enough to understand the procedure and agree to being circumcised.

Here’s a link to a selection of articles (in English) from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/search-results

Scotty Ellis:

According to the free online dictionary, ‘maim’ means:

1. to mutilate, cripple, or disable a part of the body of (a person or animal)
2. to make defective

And ‘mutilate’ is defined as follows:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of.

It’s hard to see how circumcision fits any of the above.  To say that circumcision is a radical alteration that makes the penis imperfect seems a large stretch.  The penis works just fine for all its natural functions after circumcision.  There is certainly no cutting off of a limb in circumcision, and the foreskin is clearly not an essential part of the penis, as just explained.

Nor is the penis made defective and as explained, it is certainly not disabled.  So the use of the word ‘maim’ seems to be no more than colorful propaganda for those like yourself who hold to the view that circumcision is not a good thing.

I will try to get to your other points later.  I have to go to mass now, and receive the Body and Blood of my mutiliated Lord.

For those who like studies:

“What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean?  Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive.  Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive”, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%, which is not
statistically significant.”  (Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011; 19:316-34.)  See:

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

HIV infection rate higher on circumcised men
Sunday, 08 July 2012 09:40 peter nyoni
“According to the latest Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey (ZHDS 2010/2011), the prevalence rate among the circumcised is 14 percent while that of the uncircumcised is 12 percent.”

http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8811:hiv-infection-rate-higher-on-circumcised-men&catid=38:travel-tips&Itemid=18

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 61% higher rate among females in the group where the men had been circumcised.  See:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract

Danish Study- Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life

http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life

November 14, 2011

Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.

How Male Circumcision May be Affecting Your Love Life- by Christiane Northrup, M.D.

http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm

Jesus was circumcised because He was Jewish, in the manner of Jewish circumcisions of the 1st century A.D.  (Remember, circumcision was changed in the following century.)  Jesus was also crucified.  Do those who favor circumcision because Jesus was circumcised also favor crucifixion because Jesus was crucified?

Just because a religion or culture has done something for centuries does not validate the practice, especially when it harms children.  Look at the practice of Chinese foot binding, which affected billions of little girls.  This was only abandoned a hundred years ago.  Was it the right of Chinese parents to bind the feet of their daughters, or did little girls have a right to be free of this bodily harm? 

Respect for bodily integrity makes no distinction between the genders, and it is a good guide for people to follow.  Respect for bodily integrity respects the natural law when it says that non-therapeutic amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations violate the moral law.  It’s a shame that some Catholics don’t want to follow teaching #2297.

Yan: You need look no further than the first definition given.  Circumcision mutilates the penis by removing the foreskin and disabling the functions the foreskin provides for the penis.

IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

What about parents who claim it is their Freedom of Religion to not take their children to doctors when they are seriously ill? 

I recall reading about a young girl who died of Type I diabetes (a treatable disease) because her parents believed God would heal her, and they refused to seek medical treatment for her based upon their religious beliefs.  Would you claim Freedom of Religion in that case, or does a child’s rights trump the parents’ religious beliefs?  The child died for her parents religious beliefs, just as children have died from circumcision for their parents’ religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion doesn’t give parents the right to harm their children, despite their religious beliefs.  I say that as a Catholic parent with religious beliefs.

Lin: That’s a nice, if superficial, sentiment.  Let us think about it this way: there are religious practices, like private prayer in one’s own home, which clearly harm no one and violate no one’s rights.  Then there are extreme and obviously horrendous religious practices, such as the practice among ultra-fundamentalist Mormons of blood atonement, in which apostates are murdered.  Clearly, not all religious practices are protected by the notion of “freedom of religion.”  The question at hand is where the line is to be drawn (as it clearly must be): what sorts of practices are such that their religious nature does not protect their practitioners from the law?  In this case, I stand with the German court that infant circumcision (that is, the mutilation of a baby’s penis by removal of the foreskin) is not protected by an appeal to “freedom of religion.”

Scotty ...since you are so concerned about mutilation of the penis
regarding circumcision, tell me the studies that show circumcised
penises become less functional. Actually, sex for a circumcized male
is likely to be easier and more gratifying for both male and female..
and certainly far “healthier” (less disease organisms trapped in the
foreskin, etc)for the partner.
As for religious freedom factor, why in order to secure/support your point do you have to go to the extreme? Infant circumcision is done every
day in all hospitals that have maternity departments. It is considered
a common occurance. Why do you find a centuries old Jewish custom so
threatening and bizarre? Really, why do you care so much? How does this
in anyway affect your freedoms? You frankly sound more like the voice of bigotry than the voice of reason. What do you fear?

To Scotty Ellis,

I have heard anti-vaccination people make the same claims you are making (it can cause harm, there can be complications, etc.)  But, at least you can see the benefit of vaccinations.

So it boils down to this…as a parent, YOU have the right to choose what is best for the child you love. (And some parents, who love their child, opt to not have their child vaccinated.  That is their right, although personally I see THAT as much more dangerous than circumcision.)

You can call it “maiming” if you want, but it’s “maiming” in the same way that ear piercing is maiming (when done as an infant.)

The whole “let them decide when they are older” argument fly’s in the face of reason.  It is a simple, and relativity painless and safe procedure when done on an infant, and a very painful and much more serious operation when done on an older child (and psychologically painful, as YOU YOURSELF have attested to above.)

It boils down to a religious freedom, and parental rights argument. You are on the wrong side of it.

Hi Scotty Ellis,

Again, I don’t see how circumcision is mutilation, given the definition I adduced:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of.

Definition 1 says there must be a cutting up or radical altering.  There is certainly not a radical altering.  There is a cutting, which has to make it imperfect.  As I wrote before, to say that circumcision is a radical alteration that makes the penis imperfect seems a large stretch.  The penis works just fine for all its natural functions after circumcision. 

As for definition 2, as I said, there is certainly no cutting off, or destruction of, a limb in circumcision, since the penis remains.  That the foreskin is clearly not an essential part of the penis is shown by the fact that it is still functional for eliminatory and sexual functions, which I would judge to be those functions for which it is essential.

Thus, circumcision is most certainly not a mutilation, and therefore your objections made in points 2. and 3. above, dealing with mutilation, do not succeed.

Your first point is that tradition alone is not a sufficient justification for a practice.  I agree and conceded that point earlier.  My argument was that tradition, however, is a factor that must be considered even when reason seems to point you in a different direction than tradition at the moment.  The direction in which reason points often changes with the time, place and culture.  One of the reason that tradition is important as a factor to be respected in making the decision about a practice is that it has stood the test of time.  In the case of circumcision, we are talking millenia.

Not all traditions are created equal.  Some have more argumentative force than others.  I already listed reasons why I think Judaism’s traditions deserve more attention than your average tradition.  I would ask you to look at them again and reconsider them, as I don’t believe you have adequately done so yet judging by your responses.

Your last argument is an assertion which agrees with the judgment of the German court: the decision ought to be made by the individual, not the parent.  That is a conclusory argument.  I do agree that many decisions ought to be deferred until a child is an adult.  The question in this case is, does the family’s adherence to the religion of Judaism [not just ANY religion] justify circumcision without consent?  Not all religions are created equal.  I think you should reconsider the tradition of Judaism and the arguments I made [and any others you can think of] before deciding that circumcision must be deferred until adulthood.

One has to wonder if anyone reads their Catechism! Circumcision is an amputation and a mutilation and is NOT done for any therapeutic purpose. Amputations and mutilations are an offense against the moral law. See paragraph 2297 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In addition, non-therapeutic circumcision of children already is a criminal offense in the United States. See the case of State v. Baxter (2006) in which Edwin Bruce Baxter was found guilty of a criminal offense and sentenced to serve three years in jail.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1115226.html

You do that the AAP no longer recommends routine circumcision…...this isn’t some fringe, liberal, hippie thing. It’s called new and pertinent information. I am a former nicu nurse and I don’t know anyone in the profession that thinks this is a medically necessary procedure. If we go by the reasoning some of you present here, wet might as well perform routine appendectomies and tonsillectomies while we’re at it.  I understand that this challenges convention, but that’s not always a bad thing. I do think that a law specifically targeting Jews is wrong, especially considering that the method of circumcision that they use leaves much more of the foreskin intact. More Dr’s that circumcise are using that method now thank goodness. The way it had typically been done is NOT what Jews have traditionally done (removal of the entire foreskin)

The court in Cologne created a protective fence around children. The only people who find this fence objectionable are those who want to do harm to children.

“It boils down to a religious freedom, and parental rights argument. You are on the wrong side of it.”

Actually, Scotty is on the right side of this argument.  Religious freedom does not give parents the right to harm their children.  Those who think parents can do whatever they want to their children are misguided.  I don’t know how many commenters here are actually Catholic and believe everything the Church teaches, but those who are should read what the New Testament has to say about circumcision.

If you read any of the articles below, you should hopefully understand better the harm from circumcision. I don’t know if you will read them, but I encourage you to do so. If you live in the U.S., you live in what until recently has been a circumcising American culture.  You may either be circumcised, married to someone who is circumcised, or have chosen circumcision for your children.  That makes it difficult for you to admit the harm, because then there would have to be a recognition and an admission that mistakes were made. These mistakes were probably made out of ignorance, and not deliberately. People in other cultures where circumcision is not common are rightfully horrified by what is done to BOTH male and female children by circumcision.  They usually don’t wear cultural blinders when it comes to circumcision.  In Germany now, males are protected from circumcision, like females who already have had that protection.  That is a good thing!

Danish Study- Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life

http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life

November 14, 2011

Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.

What is Lost List
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/

How Male Circumcision May be Affecting Your Love Life- by Christiane Northrup, M.D.
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm

PJ:

You cite a study of Zimbabweans thus: “According to the latest Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey (ZHDS 2010/2011), the prevalence rate among the circumcised is 14 percent while that of the uncircumcised is 12 percent.”

That is a difference of 2%, which you think is negligible.  Zimbabwe has a population of 12 million, 6 million of which are male.  If no male Zimbabwean were circumcised, the infection rate of 14% would equal 840,000 men.  If all were circumcised, the infection rate of 12% would equal 720,000.  That is a difference, in a small country, of 120,000 men.  That’s nothing to sneeze at.  And, this only shows the effect of circumcision on one particular venereal disease.  It is probable that there is also a reduction in the amount of other VDs for circumcised men.

Of course, if fewer men are infected, it stands to reason that fewer women would become infected as well.

You cite to the catechism paragraph #2297 as a justification for your argument.  The pertinent portion reads:

‘Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.’

Now, I am sure you do not argue that circumcision is either an amputation or a sterilization.  That it is not a mutilation, I have shown above, using the definition of mutilation.  Thus, catechism #2297 is not violated by circumcision.

But if you don’t want to circumcise your male offspring for some good reason, I would support your decision.

There is no mention of circumcision in the Catholic Catechism #2297!!!
so those pretending to be Catholic here should stop!!!
Since when should Judges make medical decisions more practically and
professionally done by medical practitioners. Again, it is one more
attempt at government interference in private lives….and abuse of parental rights. Whose children are these? The parents? or the govenments?

PJ: Woops!  It seems I read your study incorrectly.  I retract my criticism of it.

To PJ,

Please list the New Testament verses you reference.  Galatians deals EXACTLY with the problem of ADULT circumcision! 

Just because the religious freedoms of our Jewish brothers and sisters is being violated, and not our own, you think we should not speak up?

In cases where there is no therapeutic reason (having healing or curative powers) for circumcision, circumcision IS non-therapeutic foreskin amputation.  Most circumcisions are non-therapeutic foreskin amputations.

In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics described circumcision as “amputation of the foreskin,” and the American Medical Association called elective circumcision “non-therapeutic” (Council on Scientific Affairs 1999).

If you don’t like those definitions, you’ll have to take that up with the AAP and the AMA.

No. 2297 of the Catechism, “Respect for bodily integrity,” states: “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”

If you don’t like what #2297 teaches, then take that up with the Vatican.  These words have their approval.

I suppose they could kill their child in the womb because of gender or some apparent defect but they cannot cut off a bit of fleash.

What I was trying to convey above was said better by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, at http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/07/06/the-jerusalem-post-the-europeans-skewed-view-of-circumcision/#.T_mmpCtYtKy

“Did it know that banning milah was the route chosen by two of the worst enemies the Jewish people ever had, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and the Roman emperor Hadrian, both of whom set out to extinguish not only Jews but also Judaism? Either the court knew these things or it did not. If it did not, then how was it competent to assess the claim of religious liberty? If it did, then there are judges in Germany quite willing to say to religious Jews, in effect, ‘If you don’t like it, leave.’ Do judges in Cologne today really not know what happened the last time Germany went down that road?”

He goes on to make some great points:

“Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life – on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state – must be cast in the language of human rights. Hence the by-now routine accusation that Israel has committed the five cardinal sins against human rights: racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide and crimes against humanity. This is not because the people making these accusations seriously believe them – some do, some don’t. It is because this is the only form in which an assault on Jews can be stated today.

That is what the court in Cologne has done. It has declared that circumcision is an assault on the rights of the child since it is performed without his consent. It ignored the fact that if this is true, teaching children to speak German, sending them to school and vaccinating them against illness are all assaults against the rights of the child since they are done without consent. The court’s judgement was tendentious, foolish and has set a dangerous precedent.

In historical context, however, it is far worse. By ruling that religious Jews performing their most ancient sacred ritual are abusing the rights of the child, a German court has just invented a new form of Blood Libel perfectly designed for the twenty-first century.”

It’s striking how it was the Pharisees who were advocating for circumcision, creating dissension and controversy.  Jesus had a lot to say about the Pharisees in other passages, and not very favorable! People can continue to argue about circumcision here, but the matter was already settled centuries ago in Acts 15!

Acts 15:  1 Some men came down to Antioch from Judea and began to teach
the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice,
you cannot be saved.”  2 This created dissension and much controversy
between them and Paul and Barnabas.  Finally it was decided that Paul,
Barnabas, and some others should go up to see the apostles and presbyters
in Jerusalem about this question.  3 The church saw them off and they made their way through Phoenicia and Samaria, telling everyone about the conversion of the Gentiles as they went.  Their story caused great joy among the brothers.  4 When they arrived in Jerusalem they were welcomed by that church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, to whom they reported all that God had helped them accomplish.  5 Some of the converted Pharisees then got up and demanded that such Gentiles be circumcised and told to keep Mosaic law.  6 The apostles and the presbyters accordingly convened to look into the matter.  7 After much discussion, Peter took the floor and said to them:  “Brothers, you know well enough that from the early days God selected me from your number to be the one from whose lips the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe.  8 God, who reads the hearts of men, showed his approval by granting the Holy Spirit to them just as he did to us.  9 He made no distinction between them and us, but purified their hearts by means of faith also.  10 Why, then, do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?  11 Our belief is rather that we are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus and so are they.”  12 At that the whole assembly fell silent.  They listened to Barnabas and Paul as the two described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Jesus answered:  “I have performed a single work and you profess astonishment over it. Moses gave you circumcision (though it did not originate with Moses but with the patriarchs).  And so, even on a sabbath you circumcise a man. If a man can be circumcised on the sabbath to prevent a violation of Mosaic law, how is it you are angry with me for curing a whole man on the sabbath? Stop judging by appearances and make an honest judgment.”

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 fact that this blog entry was headlined with the words ‘Final Solution?’ as reference to the Nazi actions of the Holocaust shows an incredible lack of sensitivity toward those who died in the death camps. They had no choice, no they had no court of redress.

This is a decision by one judge in one German state and is not enforceable in any other jurisdiction, and in fact can be taken to higher courts to be overturned should actual enforcement be attempted. On top of that it can be taken to the European Court of Justice. These are luxuries the Jews killed in gas chambers never had.

However, the most ironic part here is that this ruling has nothing to do with Jews. It was in fact the result of a case involving a 4 year old Muslim boy whose parents had him circumcised. That procedure went wrong and resulted in the court case.

I can just hear the change in gears now as people suddenly side with the judge in defense against the creeping tide of Islamic law. In Islam, circumcision is considered Sunnah, or usual practice, and in fact is considered Shariah by many.

Here are some Catholic thoughts on the topic:

http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-thoughts-on-whole-body-and.html

I don’t think it matters whose religion requires it, the courts have no business interfering in what is typically a minor procedure that removes a piece of skin unnecessary to physical & sexual functioning.

Those who suggest waiting have no clue how painful this is for an adult, as a close family member can attest as he had to have it done as a twelve-year old due to the foreskin being too tight and impeding function.  If someone’s religion requires it, do it while they’re newborns so they will have no memory of the procedure. (Our boys never even cried.)

In addition, the religions that require it also have in their beliefs that a person must stay true to the religion.  Circumcision is just one tenant of faith, they must still live the rest of it.  So for those who think the child may be “trapped” into a religion, circumcision does not remove free will and has no public stigma that will follow the child should he decide to leave that religion as an adult.

PJ,

No Christian here is doubting the New Testament teaching that circumcision is not profitable for salvation, since the New Testament promises are initiated at Baptism.  But the issue here is one of the rights of the Jewish people.  For them, the vehicle of relationship with God is the Torah, and their consciences still bind them to that covenant.  The New Testament texts are not making a moral issue out of circumcision, they are dealing with divine positive law: for the Jews, circumcision was binding before the New Testament, and it still binds their consciences today.  For the Christians, to place our hope in it is to invalidate the Cross of Christ.

PJ,

Acts 15 -
NO ONE here has argued that circumcision is necessary for salvation!  Nor trying to state the case that Christians must circumcise.

Circumcision is a Jewish ritual, and THEY have a right to follow the tenets of their faith.  And let’s not forget, Jesus was Jewish!

Do you feel that you should tell the Amish that their kids should ride around in a car?  Why would you (or the state,) feel that YOU should make that decision?

Galatians - deals specifically with some Christian Jews who felt that the new Christians, who were Gentiles, had to be circumcised (despite the fact that they were adult men, some even very old.)  St. Paul is explaining in Galatians that for Christians, it is not the Mosaic Law that saves you.  St. Paul is sending a “resounding declaration of the true nature of justification by faith in Christ.”

Philippians - again, Christians do not need to follow the practices of the Mosaic Law.

Corinthians - If you were an Orthodox Jew, and became Christian…it’s OK!  Be a good Christian.  If you were a Gentile, and became Christian…it’s OK!  Be a good Christian. Everyone, Jew or Gentile, Slave or Free should try to retain his particular state in life.

Since I have not heard the argument that Christians have to circumcised, nor that circumcision is necessary for salvation anywhere on this board, I’m not sure why you posted these scripture references (?)  They do not, condemn the practice of circumcision, as you propose, only explain that for us Christians, it is not necessary for salvation.  They do NOT imply that it should not be done!

@ Scotty Ellis

With regard to an unborn baby’s capacity to feel pain, it has been clearly demonstrated that an 8 week fetus has already developed face skin receptors.  I don’t where you came up with this idea ???  but - hopefully, this incontrovertible evidence will disabuse you of your erroneous notions. 
In May 2012, members of a U.S. House subcommittee heard graphic testimony on a bill (H.R. 3803) prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy within the District of Columbia, explaining the extent to which preborn children have the capacity to feel the pain of being aborted. 
Several doctors, including a former abortionist, testified.
“In the neonatal intensive care unit, we can witness firsthand the change in vital signs associated with pain,” said Colleen Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology/Dept. Of Pediatrics, Northwestern University. Her testimony is on YouTube Her statement: Http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings 2012/Malloy 05172012  

Also, Dr. Anthony Levatino, a gynecologist who estimates he performed more than 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, described in graphic terms abortions performed at the twenty-second week. Watch his compelling,  chilling 5/17/12 testimony on YouTube

I hope that you will take the time to watch these and will have a change of heart.

Oh my, I quit reading the comments a few inches down!

First off, I’m a faithful Catholic and I also identify most closly with the “attachment parenting” philosophies.  I left my son intact because I didn’t think the benefits of circumcision outweighed the possible negatives of a surgery. I think routine infant circumcision is cultural and not medically necessary and any surgery or medical procedure that is done due to cultural pressures and not medical necessity shoudl be doubly scrutinized IMHO. 

Saying that, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER support a ban on circumcision.  First, from my understanding the current medical procedure of circumcision differs in technique and severity (extent). From a bibilical standpoint, I cannot argue with God’s chosen sign of a covenant with his people. (that is huge! how can it be bad if God commanded it?!) However, from a secular point of view, and most likely how it should be argued, this is infringing on religious rights. The fact that the ruling allows for medical circumcision is embarrassingly transparent of that fact.  I am shocked, but after reading some comments realize maybe I shuldn’t be.

God help us. Religious liberty is under attack all over the world. China, Germany, US, etc

@Scotty - I don’t know if you’ve ever been privy to the private talk among pro-circumsion women.  I can’t speak for all of us, but I do know I’m glad my inlaws had my husband circumcized.  My husband and I had all our sons circumcized - one day, I’m confident their wives will also be be quite grateful.

BOTTOM LINE:  IT IS ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!

To PJ and Scotty…....There are already laws on the books against murder.

I read through almost all of the comments and did not see anyone note the difference between a Jewish circumcision and a medical one. The Jewish circumcision only removes about 1/8 of the foreskin, leaving plenty behind. The medical circumcision removes the entire foreskin. The foreskin is the male equivalent of a clitoris. My husband and my brother-in-law both resent that they were circumcised. If we were Jewish and really thought it was necessary to salvation, we would still ix-nay the weird rabbi-sucking-the-baby-penis thing because herpes is a bad Bris gift. But we wouldn’t be choosing to rob our child of the majority of his sexual nerve endings.
~
Yes, guys here are saying, “I was circumcised and I think sex feels pretty good.” Hmmm, just imagine what it would feel like if your parents hadn’t reduced the majority of your nerve endings down there? ;) Also, circumcision frequently leaves men less symmetric, which leads to discomfort for women. Not to be too detailed, but the penis often veers left, right, or way up because of circumcision, and all of these things are associated with female pain during sex. Of course with fewer nerve endings, many men, especially once past their sexual peak at age 18 find it takes longer and longer to climax….which can make sex something hard to enjoy and hard to make time for.
~
But mainly, please note that even intactivists might be able to get past circumcision if it was really just 1/8 of the foreskin instead of the entire thing. Just note, God did not command the removal of the entire foreskin, so anybody who goes out there and does that to their child is in fact going beyond God’s commands, and in this case, creating real harm.
~
http://lettersto.us

I had two boys, one was, one wasn’t (don’t ask, long story). My point in sharing this is - of the two, the one who was, was healthier overall, had much easier basic infant hygiene (and as a teenager.the younger one is still being reminded to pull it back and wash), and the one who wasn’t, well, not.  If I could get a do over, both boys would have been.

For all you non-circumcision folks, consider this: changing Junior’s diaper just went for basic ick to serious issues if you don’t get EVERY LAST BIT OF POOH out from under/around/in foreskin. So simply being a baby that wears diapers meets your medically OK standard.  This might be TMI, but some of you obviously have no blinking idea what you are talking about, whether no experience, or one-sided experience.

A reasoned view IMO of the situation is from the Chief Rabbi of the UK. He has insight into European religious relations that add light without heat.

http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/07/06/the-jerusalem-post-the-europeans-skewed-view-of-circumcision/#.T_mmpCtYtKy

Honestly, how many Jews do you know that even observe the sabbath? Why is it so important they observe the commandment to circumcise when they ignore most of the rest?
The bible says a lot of things we find repugnant by today’s stanards. Here’s one more.

Danielle: you know not of what you speak.

The foreskin does not retract when the child is a baby. It is like this precisely to protect it. You do not need to clean the foreskin of a baby; just the opposite, to do so would be harmful. There is no special care required, you just wipe it like you would a finger.

If you retract the foreskin of a baby boy forcefully and prematurely, it can cause infection and physical damage. It should never be done. If you were doing this to your child, it was your mistake, not nature’s.

For Catholics:  Here are what two more Popes have had to say about circumcision:

At the Council of Florence (1438-1445), Pope Eugene IV (1442) issued a Papal Bull which states, “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.”
(*bull, papal (L. bulla, a seal) An important document issued by the pope
and sealed with a disk of lead called a “bulla,” whence derives the name. Each bishop is appointed by a bull.  Other major papal documents are often called bulls, though they have various special names.)

Pius XII, Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi
t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329
“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.”  [The key point here is “cannot be countered in any other way.”  Pope Pius XII was speaking to urologists, and he makes it clear that circumcision should not be performed if there are other ways to prevent a disease.  There would be very few cases where circumcision would fit this criteria.]

You’re pretty brave to post an article regarding circumcision.All the anti-circumcision fanatics will come out of the woodwork & totally ignore the religious liberty aspect of the issue.
Thank you for your article.I agree completely.

Posted by MrBBQ on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 3:31 AM (EST):Honestly, how many Jews do you know that even observe the sabbath? Why is it so important they observe the commandment to circumcise when they ignore most of the rest?
The bible says a lot of things we find repugnant by today’s stanards. Here’s one more.
********************
My guess is that some cultures still find Jews repugnant & find politically correct ways to restrict their practise of religion under the guise of “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity.”

Don’t forget that this ruling also targets Muslims, who also practice mandatory circumcision.

Again, I repeat no where does the Catholic Church forbid circumcision on the basis of medical practice. Cathechism #2297 no where mentions the medical procedure of circumcision. Period! Where it has been a religious issue in past history of the Church the position the Church has taken is strictly based upon the convenental relationship between God and His People following the Incarnation and the Birht of Christ, the New Covenant.
Those earlier popes and councils were verifying (as does Paul) that the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites has been replace by the New Convenant of Jesus Christ…so to circumcise, as in the case of the Gentiles, Paul was defending non-cicumcision based upon that..no longer necessary. We are Christians, followers of Christ. The covenant relationship of circumcision was fulfilled in Christ. We now have a new circumcision…a circumcision of the heart. And if one reads further, Peter et al agree.
This is not an argument to be used here anyway, as the issue is one of parental rights and religious freedoms. Catholics who are self interpreting the faith without knowledge of the Church’s true teachings should refrain from offering confusing and conflicting comments here.

So, just to be clear, this article is still about defending the practice of restraining and cutting off part of the external genitalia of a non-consenting individual - which incidentally exposes the non-consenting individual to non-trivial risks such as death, infections, loss of the penis and impotence - when there is no medical need for such a procedure?

Great.

After posting this article, I suppose one could also say that all the
pro-circumcision “fanatics” will come out of the woodwork and totally ignore the human rights of children. [At a Catholic site, I wonder why one would resort to calling other people who disagree with them names like “fanatics”.  That sounds rather un-Christian.]  First Amendment rights are a treasured right, but one person’s religious rights end where another person’s human rights begin. My rights end where your rights begin.  Your rights end where my rights begin. Children are human beings with rights, both before birth and after birth. They have a right to life and a right to having their bodily integrity respected, among other rights. When their rights are violated or threatened, the government has both a duty and an obligation to step in and protect all children, especially since defenseless children are in a more vulnerable situation than are adults.

“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” - Matthew 18:10

PJ:
There are fanatics on all sides but I think the most vocal are the anti-circumcision folk.
The article was concerning religious liberty & anti-semitism.
Our Lord was circumcized.You might take your arguements to the Holy Family.

Posted by David Murray on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 8:32 AM (EST):Don’t forget that this ruling also targets Muslims, who also practice mandatory circumcision.
*********************
Yes, I don’t think the German judge forgot that either.

Kathleen,

You are correct.  These are unmoored fanatics who would take away your right religious freedom.  That is what this is ALL about.  Of those who give voice to such extreme views, it is worth noting that their association with the truth is tangential - (do a wiki search for anything that will back up what they say - damned the actual context that would shed higher truth as “Shamrock” exposed just a few entries above). 

This is the same argument being used by HHS to suppress the Church.  It is important to note their is a concerted effort in such strings - including this one, to keep the issue in the offensive.  (There are actual groups who lurk, spot an issue, and infiltrate, and then call in support).  The other notorious type group that does this is the Muslim Brotherhood on a different bundle of issues (ISNA, CAIR, MPAC, IIIT, etc).

PJ, you are in fact completely correct, pro-circumcision Jews and Christians who follow the practice ARE deemed human rights abusers.  To establish this argument, the athiest crowd jumps in to assert that belief in the Old Testament is belief in genocide.  I believe Catholic Answers had an athiest (associated with a Athiest group) who made just this argument last December (or so). 

The sad thing is that too often, in the name of charity, entities like the NCR will not take action to smoke such practices out when, in the interest of truth, it should.  This type of activity needs to be confronted because it is the ideological side of the destruction of your free exercise thereof (of religion). 

The value of this string is in smoking this stuff out.

Steve,
From past experience in reading threads on this subject I think there are well meaning folk who are zealously opposed to circumcision for health-rights/perceived compassion reasons.They are not anti-religious nor anti-semitic but a bit fanatical.Circumcision is a sort of rallying cry.Post any article about it (or vaccinations) & you know what will happen.
The darker side of this issue does involve restriction of religious liberty & targets Jews & Muslims.That’s what this article was about but my guess is the posts which follow will not stay on topic much.
Thank you for drawing the conversation back on track.

That’s not drawing the conversation back on track. Banning circumcision is not meant to ban religions. Nobody is proposing a ban on baptisms, Mass, communion, Bar Mitzvah, Brit Shalom, prayer, etc.

Banning circumcision of infants is about banning cutting off part of the external genitalia of a non-consenting individual. This should be common sense, not a debate on religious freedom. Religious freedom should not go as far as the body of other person.

Dreamer ,
It is about religious liberty, per the original intent of the article.
No surgical procedure,religious or non, performed on an infant involves the infant’s consent.

No doubt this same judge believes in a women’s right to choose.  The hypocrisy of the untruthful way is unbelievable, ‘don’t dare take off a little foreskin for risk of hurting the child or not giving him the right to choose his own religious affiliation” but if you choose to kill the child outright before its born that is a good sound practice of medicine.  I wish every judge was as worried about the future wellbeing of children.  Just think an unexpected mother enters an abortion mill and they tell her “a judge has ordered us not to committ anymore abortions until we ask the child if they want to be aborted, so please come back in 7 years and we will ask the child at the age of reason if he would rather not live because he was unwanted?”  I suspect the number of abortions will drop drastically!  God bless us all.

It’s about time someone stood up to these wackos who still believe that the genital mutilation of baby boys is an acceptable practice in the 21st century. If they want to chop their own let them. But doing it to a defenseless baby is, or should be, a crime.

Having a natural penis is awesome. For those that don’t have the parts, isn’t it apparent that having all of ones penis is better than having innervated parts cut off. For the male, the long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a baby is creepy.

BTW, Catholic doctrine is very much against cutting baby boy penis parts off.  Christians do not circumcize because it is a mutilation of the human form—harm to Gods creation- and repugnant to western culture, which Christianity developed in. It may be noted that the traditions of Western Civilization may well have rejected the message of Love of JC if it was also a requirement to harm your child. Paul picked up on that and his view prevailed. Western culture looks at circumcision as harm to the natural form, harm to a defenseless baby and therefore at odds with the Christian message of love your neighbor. It is never appropriate to take erogenous tissue away from another human without asking them., not to mention pain and permanent lose of pleasure, function and mechanics.

Religious freedom to take a little baby boy, RIP mucosa membrane and glans apart and then cut off (amputation is the only precise word) blood vessels, skin structure, muccosal membrane and nerves estimated from about 10000 to 100000 specialized nerve endings. What is a less humane cultural practice than that?  And that is just what happens to the baby.  The man the baby becomes really has issues, particularly as he ages. Men that are cut have lost function as to sex (the dynamics are changed) and have lost the mechanism that helps gain and maintain erection. The lost pleasure is the loss of the main pleasure zones.  Many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity.  Some have a curved penis and many a tight painful erection. Most will get ED at a much younger age than natural men.  Circumcised men consume most of the VIAGRA and are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED.

That is not a religious freedom that is an assualt and that is doing bodily HARM.

What sick sick stuff some of your are advocating…

@ Dreamer on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 9:01 AM (EST):

Your quote; “So, just to be clear, this article is still about defending the practice of restraining and cutting off part of the external genitalia of a non-consenting individual - which incidentally exposes the non-consenting individual to non-trivial risks such as death, infections, loss of the penis and impotence - when there is no medical need for such a procedure?”

With all due respect, I find your comment highly uninformed, reactionary,  and inflammatory! You cannot possibly substantiate your bigoted remarks. It is extremely rare for children die from circumcision , contract infections,become impotent (never documented in credible medical literature) , and lose their penises during this routine, religious, life-affirming ceremony. It has just never happened. The only possibility of a very rare problem is if the baby suffers from hemophilia; if that would be be the case, the child would never be circumcised. We are discussing a tiny little piece of foreskin. The process involves a little nick and is over in a matter of seconds. I married into a Sephardic Jewish family over 27 years ago (BTW I am a practicing orthodox Catholic)  and have observed at least 85+ bris (Jews circumcision)- I have only heard 10 babies cry (and then for just a 1/2 minute or so). Believe me, the ceremony is anything but barbaric; it is a life affirming celebration.

I work for a major research university. I showed your comments to one of my colleagues, a professor of pediatrics. After he finished hitting his forehead up against the wall several times (out of frustration from having to frequently deal with—his words - pompous ignoramuses), he asked me to direct you to the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Circumcision
Policy Statement http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

Have you ever been to a bris? I suspect not—yet you pontificate on a subject of which you have very little knowledge. Are you suggesting that God was wrong to command his people to circumcise their male babies as part of the covenant that He entered into with his people? Have you ever thought of the fact that you are engaging in blasphemy? 

“Like Jewish identity itself, circumcision carries a dual significance, both ethnic and religious. It is the Jewish male’s quintessential sign of ethnic belonging and biological lineage. Though only a small percentage of Jews today consider themselves believers in any traditional sense, nearly every Jewish male undergoes circumcision. Indeed, circumcision is the most popular custom observed among our people.
First commanded to Abraham, circumcision in the Bible does not constitute the brit (covenant) itself, but is the most permanent ot (sign) of someone who undertakes to live in covenant with God. Without this commitment, circumcision carries only surgical meaning; and without circumcision, the Bible’s commandments that were intended to be suffused with higher religious dimension lose their value. Hence, according to rabbinic tradition, the Jews in Egypt had to circumcise themselves before performing the first paschal sacrifice, and according to the Book of Joshua, 40 years later the next generation of Jews circumcised themselves before they entered the Promised Land.

What is this Jewish brit, the covenant of which circumcision is only a sign? In rabbinic parlance, it is to accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven—a life of responsibility, or as God tells Abraham, the imperative “to teach your children to do righteousness and justice” (tzedakah and mishpat).’
“Commandments are about improving ourselves, raising ourselves from mere biological objects to moral beings, about moving from facts to values, and about constantly striving for spiritual perfection. Judaism knows no noble savage. On the contrary, Jewish nobility is found only in the elevated being who has overcome the brute conditions of nature. On a national level, it means the transformation of an ethnic collection into a holy people. Individually or nationally, this transformation does not come cheap. It requires effort and sacrifice — the blood that transforms a medical procedure into a covenantal event.

Perhaps this is the deeper meaning of the old purity/impurity rituals — the staking out of values, and the importance of human striving to improve, purify and elevate. Though the rituals are relegated to antiquity, their underlying spiritual message seems eternal.” 

source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/jewish_life/sabbath_week/significance_circumcision

I think it’s wrong to make assumptions about what the judge might believe about abortion.  If such a judge were to rule that an abortion couldn’t be performed without the consent of the child, think of how many children such a ruling would protect.  The lives of many unborn children would be saved.  Similarly, this German ruling protects some children from the bodily harm of circumcision.

It troubles me that advocates of circumcision don’t express any concern for or compassion for the child. They are all wrapped up around Jewish and Muslim religious beliefs and parental rights, but the child is an afterthought if even that. As a Catholic, we are taught to love our neighbor as ourselves, but I don’t see love for the child expressed when the newborn child is involved. 

I suspect that many pro-circumcision advocates here have never seen an infant circumcision and watched what the child experiences.  Most hospital circumcisions take place behind closed doors, where the child is not seen or heard.  Many of us who have seen the horror of circumcision inflicted upon a child have had our eyes opened.  We care about the welfare of children and do not want more children to suffer unnecessarily from this surgery. I wish more Catholics above did as well.

I invite those who favor circumcision to view one at:
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html
Scroll down to view this 6 minute video.  If you think it’s too painful for you to watch, then perhaps it’s too painful for a child to experience.

Perhaps Mr. Akin will next be brave enough to write about the movement to outlaw kosher slaughtering…
Internationally, there’s a slow chipping away of religious rights.

Lux et Veritas:
Thank you for your comments.If every circumcision was performed as in a bris it would be better for all concerned.As you state, it’s religiously significant, but trauma-wise insignificant.

I don’t think male circumcision is going to be prohibited in America anytime soon.  Not only does America have a large Jewish population that would not stand for it, but most Christians in America also have their boys circumcised, including Catholics.  The majority of Italian-American boys are circumcised, as are the majority of Irish-American boys, and many Latino-American boys as well.

@Kathleen you are seriously misled. There is significant trauma associated with circumcision. We know that babies can feel pain in utero, yet you accept that they feel no pain after birth?  Are you aware of what the pain response of the release of Cortisol in the body does to the infant brain? People really need to get informed about this procedure. Do you know how many babies die every year die to complications from circumcision?

Shannon,
I disagree but think the discussion would be best if kept on topic of religious practise & discrimination, especially re. Jews & Muslims.(Even though from past experience I believe that will be difficult to do.)

@Lux et Veritas, for someone who uses “light and truth” as your nickname, you sure don’t mind lying - or expressing uninformed opinions as absolute facts.

You state “It is extremely rare for children die from circumcision , contract infections,become impotent (never documented in credible medical literature) , and lose their penises during this routine, religious, life-affirming ceremony. It has just never happened.”

I hold you to your word “it has just never happened” and your nickname of veritas.

Verifiable link: CDC: 11 infants contracted herpes due to controversial Jewish circumcision practice
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57449105-10391704/cdc-11-infants-contracted-herpes-due-to-controversial-jewish-circumcision-practice/ <—At least one of these babies died.

Muslim Baby hospitalized after botched circumcision - In this case the penis was cut, but fortunately it could be re-attached in a hospital. Not all are so lucky:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/baby-hospitalized-after-botched-circumcision/

As for your pompous colleague, please invite him to visit http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ - he might feel well in doctoral company.

Everything else in your post was religious related, and I won’t discuss religion anymore. I, like you, am Catholic, but the German ruling was not about religion, but about an unneeded medical procedure. Circumcision.

So can the grown-up child sue for the greater pain and suffering he will have to endure to have a circumcision as an adult?  What if a Jewish family crossed the border to say, France, had the circumcision and then returned would they be arrested?  Will parents of young boys with circumcisions be sought out and arrested?  Why after thousands of years of tradition and history is it suddenly wrong to circumcise? Has any Jewish man complained to the state?  Messed up ruling.

@Mayfly, that’s exactly what some African families living in Europe and the U.S. do to get their daughters circumcised. What we call FGM today, and has also been a practice in Africa for thousands of years.

As to why the tradition of circumcision is being questioned? Perhaps because due to the internet, it is possible for people from distant places talk about those issues that usually were considered taboo among families at the dinner table. Have you even seen a penis with a botched circumcision? Until this information became available in the internet, there were men living with penises deformed from a botch circumcision that had no idea why their penis looked like it did.

PJ: on second thought, it seems that circumcision fits the definition of amputation: ‘to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.’  Thus, #2297 would seem to apply to your argument that circumcision is not permitted by the natural law.

However, I think there are 2 arguments which can be adduced to show that #2297 either does not apply by its own terms, or should not be applied to the case of religious circumcision.

1] You could still argue that circumcision is therapeutic, since the matter is not settled whether or not it is therapeutic.  If it were found to be therapeutic, then #2297 would not apply.  However, if it were found that in general it is not therapeutic, then recourse would have to be had to my second argument [or some other].  The matter of whether or not it is therapeutic would of course be best determined by science, not the Church, which is not an expert in these matters.

2] It would be very odd in view of Church teaching on the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, the Church’s relationship to the Jews especially over the past 50 years, and biblical history, to argue that #2297 should apply to prevent jewish circumcision.

a. freedom of conscience and religion: religions sometimes command us to do things that other people think are odd.  The freedom of conscience is basic to man; it is one of the most important facts relating to our being human.  Therefore, decisions deriving from informed conscience ought to be weighed against what in other circumstances might be violations of the natural law.  A prototypical example of where the moral law might take precedence over the natural law is the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac.
In the case of circumcision, we are dealing with what, on one hand, Jews take to be the command of God to keep their covenant with Him, and on the other, the cutting away of part of the penis which does not impair its essential functions.  The factors of the burden of conscience and the belief that the command is from God are greater than the loss of some foreskin, in my opinion.

b. Biblical history: in the case of Judaism we are not talking about any old religion.  We are talking about, if not the first monotheistic religion [there is some dispute on that point], still, from a Christian standpoint, the calling of the people of God by the one true God.  Never before in human history had such a thing occurred.  Moreover as Christians we are obligated to respect our older brothers in the faith, even if we were supersessionists [broadly speaking] who gave us Christ, the prophets, the apostles, and the holy scriptures.  If they believe that circumcision is still part of their covenant, it is not our part to tell them it is not.

c. the Church’s relationship with the Jews: I think it would be very odd indeed if the Church meant to apply #2297 against Jewish circumcision given our relationship of dialogue with them today.  It is the Church that has led the way in making the world safer for Jews by demanding respect for them on the basis of their inherent right to practice their religion due to their consciences being informed by their faith in the revelation which God gave to Moses.  Given that teaching, I think you would need an express statement from your bishop that #2297 is meant to apply to the practice of Jewish circumcision before averring that it did so.

The use of the phrase “Final Solution” in the title of the article is indefencible. It trivialises the Shoah :(

manticore ,
If you read about the events leading up to WWII & “The Final Solution” you’ll see incidents similar to this used to incrementally control the Jewish population.The Holocaust didn’t happen in a day.
Catholics who react to the healthcare mandate react because we’ve seen where small curtailments of liberty progress to large infringements.Someone said the Jews were “the canary in the mineshaft”.They can sense religious oppression first.Maybe Catholics feel it next.

@Kathleen: you wrote “you’ll see incidents similar to this used to incrementally control the Jewish population”.

Yeah, but this ruling had nothing to do with anyone Jewish. It was a Moslem boy whose circumcision was botched, and not a Jewish child. The ruling came about purely on medical grounds. At a huge leap of faith, the only anti-semitism that can be drawn from the case is that Moslems are also Semites.

Moslems in Germany are leading the charge to guarantee the right to perform infant circumcision and have been the most vocal group in protest.

Again, the religious aspect was not a factor in the ruling. The judge has aid as much.

From Der Speigel Online:
“In its ruling late last month, the court held that circumcision represents minor “bodily harm” to children. Here, that terminology is legally important, because public prosecutors are not required to pursue cases of minor bodily harm. A case would only be opened if an injured person or that injured person’s parent files charges. It is not expected that many cases will ensure as a result of the court ruling.

But a German Justice Ministry spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity according to government regulations, told the AP that legislative action might be needed to protect religious traditions in Germany. “It’s being examined whether there needs to be a change to the laws and if so, in which form,” she said. “
***********************************************
So, I think Germans do understand religious practises are at risk.

yan

The Catholic Catechism is followed by Catholics, and Catholics should take seriously its teachings.  Jewish people, unless they are Catholic converts, would not take seriously the teachings in the Catholic Catechism.  Most Jewish people would not accept a lot of what the Catholic Catechism teaches.  Catholics, however, should take these teachings seriously and apply them in their own lives.  Jewish converts should as well.  Judging by some of the comments above, many Catholics are either unaware of teaching #2297 or choose to not follow it.

#2297 sets down guidelines to follow for different types of surgery,  including circumcision.  You are right that circumcision is an amputation. Therapeutic circumcisions are allowed under #2297, as they are in the German Court ruling.  Such circumcisions are those done to correct a disease or defect that is present.  Hopefully physicians would use surgery as a last result, after other non-surgical treatments have been tried first to treat a problem. Circumcisions done for true therapeutic reasons are rare, but they are allowed under #2297.  Most circumcisions performed today in the U.S. are done for either religious or cultural reasons and do not fit the definition of a therapeutic circumcision.  For Catholics who follow #2297, such non-therapeutic circumcisions (foreskin amputations) violate the moral law.  Catholics need to show “Respect for bodily integrity” of their own children.  In addition, they need to respect themselves and the natural law by not subjecting themselves to direct sterilizations, as #2297 teaches.  The beautiful document Humanae Vitae makes that clear and so much more.

Sadly, most Jewish people do not accept the Savior who came to save all people, our Lord Jesus Christ.  If they did, they would hopefully know that circumcision is no longer required of them or of anyone else, and their children would not be suffering from ritual circumcisions now. A small but growing minority of Jewish people today are rejecting circumcision and welcoming and naming their sons in a non-cutting brit shalom ceremony. They are still Jews, but they no longer believe in cutting their children. I commend those who welcome their children that way.

Most posts are still missing the whole point of this article and that is freedom of religion!  

After reading the policy statement of the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS about circumcision, it appears that It is less risky health wise to circumcise the newborn. 

And God does not care either way!  

Lin:

Unnecessary circumcision surgery is less risky than not doing unnecessary circumcision surgery?  You have got to be kidding!  Have you ever heard of complications resulting from surgery, any type of surgery?  Infection, MRSA, excessive bleeding, surgical mishaps, death, etc.  I suggest you read the AAP statement more carefully.  All surgery has risks, and not doing unnecessary surgery is the LESS risky option!

God does not care either way?  Is this a private revelation?  Catholics aren’t obliged to believe private revelations.

@Kathleen, you can disagree, but the trauma to the child related to this procedure is relevant to the argument because people are still of the impression that it’s harmless. If we were taking about removing the tip of a finger for religious purposes, we’d be hearing vastly different responses. I’d still like someone to answer the question, in what other circumstance would we condone the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body party of an infant?

PJ:
I am in general agreement with most of what you just wrote.  However you do not address the main issue: do Jews, if they choose, have a right to circumcise their children?  For reasons already stated, I would aver yes.  Additionally, the issue of whether or not a circumcision is generally therapeutic has not been sufficiently resolved to my mind.  Therefore, I would judge that it is still permissible for Catholics and others to circumcise their boys on the basis of their belief that circumcision is therapeutic.

We are dealing with matters of law here—of what is or should be legally permissible, not just morally permissible from the standpoint of a Catholic understanding of moral law.  It is because the German court ruled on a matter of law that we are having this discussion.

In any event, bringing up #2297 was a good call on your part.

Cheers.

Yan:

Circumcision is only therapeutic when it has healing and curative powers for a disease or defect.  What you are probably thinking of is circumcision that might or might not be prophylactic, or preventative.  There is a difference.  Whatever the case, you should remember that NO national medical association in the world today recommends infant circumcision for preventive reasons. 

I think that from a legal point of view, Jewish people in Germany will probably be able to have circumcision protected for religious reasons.  Do I think Jewish children and all children should be protected from the harm of circumcision?  Of course I do, but legally that probably won’t happen, just as unborn babies aren’t protected from abortion in so many countries. Hearts will have to change for that day to come. 

Do parents have a “right” to amputate healthy body parts from their children?  I don’t believe they do, and I do believe it violates the moral law as spelled out in #2297.  However, lawyers will probably argue that Jews and Muslims can circumcise for religious reasons, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this German court decision overturned.  I wish that weren’t so and that children would be protected and loved as they are, but in this world we live in, that probably won’t happen.

In response to….....“Whatever the case, you should remember that NO national medical association in the world today recommends infant circumcision for preventive reasons.”

If you read the AAP policy closely, the health benefits out weigh the risks. However, NO medical organization or doctor can recommend anything today in this litigious culture.

There are some VERY strong opinions on this subject!  But whether you are for or against circumcision, this is about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!  Do Catholics NOT care about that anymore?      As Catholics we need to unite and crush any and all attempts to suppress religious freedom!  Do you support our bishops who oppose the HHS mandate?  Are we as Catholics going to unite and vote an informed conscience?  WAKE UP, AMERICA!

PJ:
I am not an expert on the medical consensus in regard to whether circumcision is therapeutic from the standpoint of being prophylactic.  [I think you are right to use the term ‘prophylactic’ for most cases.]  However it seems to me that if it really were so bad, it would be outlawed.  But perhaps that is coming in the future.  Until I know better, I have only my personal experiences to judge by, and what I have been taught.  Frankly, before this discussion, I was of the opinion that the anti-circumcision crowd were an insignificant minority.  I am open to being corrected.  If you are correct that the therapeutic/prophylactic value is substantially outweighed by the harm, then I would support discouraging it, albeit with a religious exception.  As you see however from the comments, the matter seems to be controverted, with both sides claiming that the medical consensus supports their point of view.  By the way, are you a doctor or a member of the medical profession?

Lastly, while you seem to accept a religious exception as being a necessary evil, I fear that you do not think that a religious exception is justified on the basis of respect for religion and conscience.  On that point we must part ways.  Even if circumcision were proved to me beyond any doubt as constituting an unqualified harm, I would still be in favor of a religious exception.

I would suggest to you and to any Catholic commenters who feel that Jewish practices are passe to study these Church documents regarding the relationship of the Church and the Jews.  I do not think that your attitude towards the Jews is in conformity to the attitude espoused by our magesterium and held out to us to be followed.  The links are all from the Vatican website.  Good luck my friend!

We Remember: Reflections on the Shoah (at the end of this document are footnotes from over a dozen speeches made by JPII in various contexts [angelus, addresses to symposia,etc.] on the subject of the relationship of the Church to the Jews):
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching
and Catechesis in the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_jews-judaism_en.html

Nostra Aetate: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar
Declaration Nostra Aetate: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html

It is high-time that Catholics and all Christians and all religious people rise against this kind of intrusion by Governments. Next the secular govts may ban child baptism or even celibacy for priests or secrecy of confession. The western nations project FREEDOM of Conscience and human RIGHTS. Why do they forget these ?

So defenders of the German ruling against circumcision feel it is an amputation, mutilation, of the human body.  So that makes abortion…?  Hence any botched elective surgery should be reevaluated in court as a legal or illegal procedure?

yan and others:

Are you aware that many of the most outspoken critics of circumcision, both non-therapeutic and religious, are Jewish?  Many have written books and made movies against circumcision. I have nothing but the highest respect for these individuals, who are starting a discussion about the harmful practice of circumcision within their own communities.  Please do not generalize and think that ALL Jews favor circumcision. They do not. Those opposed to circumcision, both Jewish and non-Jewish, do so for valid, compassionate reasons.

The first to examine circumcision was the late Edward Wallerstein, who wrote the first book in 1980, an award-winning book.  Others include:
1. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy- Edward Wallerstein  
2. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma-  Ronald Goldman, Ph.D.
3. Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective- Ronald Goldman, Ph.D.
4. What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Circumcision- Untold Facts on America’s Most Widely Performed-and Most Unnecessary- Surgery: Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., and Frederick M. Hodges, D.Phil
5. Marked in Your Flesh; Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America- Leonard B. Glick
6. Prisoners of Ritual- An Odyssey into Female Genital Mutilation in Africa- Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (In chapter 7, she discusses the similarities between male and female circumcision.) See her discussion of these similarities at:  http://www.nocirc.org/articles/similar.php

Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon
http://www.cutthefilm.com/
Eli wrote “Outlawing Circumcision- Good for the Jews?” in the Jewish Daily Forward.  Read this Jewish man’s perspective at http://forward.com/articles/137577/outlawing-circumcision/

Dr. Dean Edell, a medical doctor who hosts a radio talk show, is an outspoken critic of male circumcision.

Here are websites run by Jewish people who question the practice of circumcision: 
http://www.circumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
http://www.beyondthebris.com/

I am not a doctor, but I have studied this issue for several years to be knowledgeable about it.  A question for you- Did you watch the video of an actual infant circumcision that I posted above?  If not, please watch it so you’ll better understand why so many people are opposed to this practice and what a child undergoes.  Then I hope you’ll tell me your reaction to what you’ve seen and heard. 
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html

Posted by Lin on Monday, Jul 9, 2012 6:24 PM (EST):Most posts are still missing the whole point of this article and that is freedom of religion!”
*************************
Exactly. 

@Mayfly, I can’t figure out why every time that there is a discussion about circumcision, someone brings up the abortion issue. It’s like trying to control one fire, and someone screaming: but what about the ozone layer? Those are 2 different issues.

Intactivists have one thing in common: they reject routine circumcision of infants. Where they stand about abortion? Well, each one has his or her own point of view. That’s when you have the pro-life and pro-choice groups, different groups. In terms of Geometry, you could make Venn diagram to find the possible combinations of groups on these 2 issues.

Personally, I’m pro-life. I believe, based on ethical and scientific reasons, that life is contained within an embryo. Some will disagree, some will be with me. The thing is, this is irrelevant to the discussion of circumcision, but if it appeases you then there you have it.

Actually, my question is why people who are opposed to abortion based on religious ground, are so vehement on cutting off part of the genitalia of the born baby? It doesn’t register in my mind, it just makes no sense. One would think that if they want so much to protect and cherish this new life, they would like all to protect all of it, not all minus the tip of the penis?

On the other hand, you are asking if any botched elective surgery should be made illegal by court. No, a botched elective surgery is just a botched elective surgery, and if there was malpractice that’s something to be evaluated on an individual cases. But you just said the key word: “elective”.

Circumcision is elective, but circumcision of a minor is IMPOSED on the minor, the minor is not given the right to choose, to ELECT to be operated on. So if the procedure is botched, who is to blame? The parents who chose, the doctor or mohel who performed… but guess who has to live with the consequences? The baby, the future adult.

That’s the big ethical issue. There is this elective surgery, that as any surgery has risks, and it is imposed on someone who is just starting to live and has no way of preventing it or stopping it from happening. It’s been a big tradition based on patriarchies, where the individual is bound to his/her community, but modern society is more about the rights of the individual, so those are two conflicting views of the world. A government has to protect those who can’t protect themselves, that’s what I believe.

Actually most posts are missing the real point: the forced removal of part of the genitalia of a non-consenting individual.

Those who repeat ad nauseum that this is only about freedom of religion and nothing else are missing the point, and they are not adding anything to the discussion.  This is also about the rights of children, and the fact that freedom of religion does not allow us to harm other people, including children.  There are limits to what one can do to other people under the umbrella of freedom of religion.  This seems to be a hard concept for people like Kathleen and Lin to grasp. 

In Egypt, many Islamic clerics circumcise females because that is their freedom of religion.  No, their freedom of religion stops where the rights of others begin, in this case young girls.  In 2001, over 3,900 Christian men and women were forcibly circumcised in the Maluku Islands by Muslim clerics during forced conversions.  These Muslim clerics were practicing their “freedom of religion”, but most of us would condemn their actions because it violated the rights of these Christians.  One person’s rights to do as they see fit end where another person’s rights begin.  Freedom of religion does not exist in a vacuum.  See:  http://www.cirp.org/news/morningherald01-27-01/

I really enjoy reading all the comments…. especially the consiracy theories… nobody knows the facts, but everybody is quick on the “reducio ad hitlerum”.... = when you know nothing, but want to make a point and strengthen your own opinion, play the nazi card. A proven move to derail any discussion.
Are you aware, that the juridicial system in germany is different from the anglo-saxon system? In germany, the legislative makes the laws. not the courts. A muslim family had their boy circumcised. Some days later the family showed up at the hospital with the boy bleeding heavily from the wound. They had to do a bigger surgery to help the boy. The mother was upset and the doctors got the impression that the parents didn´t agree with each other on the circumcission. Since hospitals have to report abuse, neglection or severe dangers to the childs life, prosecutors went to work. The court ruled, that the child has the rigt to grow up unharmed (sorry, if this is a very strong expression, but english is not my mother language). And that this right collides with the right of religios freedom (of the parents), because the circumcission is permanent (tatoos for minors, or breast enlargement on minors are banned in germany for example). The judges stated, that the infant has the right to choose himself to alter his body, when he is 18. Since until now a circumcission was seen as a consensual body modification.
The regional court cited, that there is a gap in the laws regarding circumcission. So if anything, this court ruling is a call to the politicians to modify the law. I´m sure, that in the lawmaking process the rights of religios freedom will be considered (especially since the lobby groups are already up in arms).
So there is no ban, no dark shadows from the past etc. only the usual knee jerk reaction. (When I read the headlines of many of the anglo-saxon media my first thought was: “Damned, this gonna cost us another one or two submarines…)

Perhaps this artcle will put the German court decision into perspective.To not think this is another element of a European backlash against Jews & Muslims is naive, I think.

Jewish World Review :
...“In Switzerland, however, where Jews have seen a backlash related to Holocaust restitution efforts, the government earlier this year not only resisted efforts to rescind its 100-year-old ban on shechita but considered a resolution banning the import of kosher meat.
The Swiss Animal Association had called for a national referendum that would ask Swiss citizens whether kosher meat should be barred.
“A poll said 76 percent of the population would have supported the ban, and debate on the subject prompted the government to abandon discussion of lifting the ban. Meanwhile, Swiss Jewish leaders received hate mail.
Jewish leaders increasingly are concerned that the anti-shechita movement is a harbinger of an assault on other religious practices.”

Posted by JF on Tuesday, Jul 10, 2012 8:49 AM (EST):I really enjoy reading all the comments…. especially the consiracy theories… nobody knows the facts, but everybody is quick on the “reducio ad hitlerum”.... = when you know nothing, but want to make a point and strengthen your own opinion, play the nazi card. “
*********************************
If I were a Jew I’d feel safer playing the “Nazi card” every single time & especially if in Germany.

Kathleen’s post about the Swiss is yet another example of scaremongering. The facts there are:

The Swiss banned kosher slaughter in 1893, well before the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust.
The Swiss Animal Association is a fringe group similar to Peta. A different group, Swiss Animal Protection, and the Association against Animal Factories have tried to extend this to a ban on the import of Kosher meat, and has failed on numerous occasions through the past 12 years, gathering only 60,000 of the needed 100,000 signatures needed for a referendum.
The Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities [SIG] discusses this at:
http://www.swissjews.ch/en/religioeses/koscherfleisch/schaechtverbot.php

The abortion issue gets tacked onto this discussion because the motivation behind a law protecting children from “mutilation” unnecessary surgeries etc. is sort of in a next-door category.  The circumcision argument is fought to ultimately define just and fair treatment of children regardless of the faith practices of their parents.  Are the parents of children with circumcisions (who had them done in a neighboring country)going to be reported after this law is made? Wait until they tell you you can’t baptize your infants because they cannot consent, or that telling your children Christ is in the Eurcharist is filling their heads with nonsense and you are not allowed to do that until they are of age and can decide for themselves.  Yeah, you’re right.  Government is the new religion, why do I keep forgetting….

Baptism however is not a next door issue. Baptism does not irreversibly modifies the body of the person. Circumcision does.

And many Jews are already opting for an alternative to the Bris Milah, the Bris Shalom.

I thought from your last post that you were starting to see where circumcision harms babies, but I see you are back on the “it’s an attack on religion” wagon. No, this had nothing to do with religion and all to do with non consensual body modification. They are not trying to outlaw “Jew Circumcision” or “Muslim Circumcision”. They are not trying to outlaw religions. They are trying to outlaw circumcision of infants, regardless of faith. Faith is not a factor here. Damage to the body is the factor.

But if your faith depends on your ability to cut babies’ genitalia… I don’t have words.

I’m done.

Dreamer:

Amen.  My Catholic faith and the faith of other Christians has never depended on the ability to cut babies’ genitals.  In fact, that sort of action is anathema to Christianity.  I’m beginning to think that cutting the genitals of babies is the only thing Judaism and Islam cares about, at least based on the comments of the pro-circumcisionists.  If these commenters are Catholics or Christians of other denominations promoting this practice, then God help us all!  I hate to see you leave, but it’s hard to get through to those with hearts of stone.  Pray for them.

PJ:
As I stated in an earlier post, I have watched a circumcision of a child in person.  I did not think it was horrible.  They doctor used local anesthesia.  Still, the boy wasn’t too happy about it for a few hours.  That’s the whole story.

It’s fine if Jews debate the merits of circumcision among themselves.  That is their business.  But it should also be their business, and not yours or mine, if they choose to circumcise their boys when their religious conscience demands that they do so, since respect for the freedom of religion and of conscience requires that they be permitted to do so, in this case, for reasons I argued previously.

Your general point about #2297 is a good one and if your facts are correct then you have made a good argument for the general discouragement of circumcision.  But you have not made any good arguments, to my mind, which justify interference in the particular case of religious circumcision.

Dreamer:
You shouldn’t judge the faith of the Jews if it depends on circumcision.  This is what the Bible tells them to do.  Read the Bible, my friend.  Moses himself was going to be slaughtered by an angel of God because he delayed circumcising his son.  God says that whoever is not circumcised will be cut off from being His people.  These are extremely strong statements and examples, and there are many others.  In fact I would say much stronger than the biblical evidence we Catholics adduce to prove transubstantiation.  We need to have respect for the faith and conscience of others.  And to PJ as well: you are slandering them to say that their faith is just based on circumcision.

yan:

So you witnessed a medical circumcision that was done by a doctor, but not a religious, ritual circumcision?  What was the therapeutic reason for it? (What disease or defect was it a treatment for?) There wasn’t any?  Then could it have been a non-therapeutic amputation done on an innocent person?  That sure sounds like a violation of the moral law to me, based upon Catholic Catechism teaching #2297!  At the very least, circumcision is not a loving way to welcome a child into this world.  But we Catholics don’t need to care about the well-being of children, now do we?

You didn’t think the circumcision you saw was horrible?  Well, it wasn’t done to you, and we shouldn’t care about the suffering of others, should we?  (My Catholic faith teaches me that we should, but hey, we don’t need to love others if we don’t want to.  Jesus didn’t really mean those words about loving others, did He?  After the anesthesia wore off from the baby you saw, I would guess that he was in pain, but that wasn’t your problem, so why worry about it? 

Of all those expressing favor for circumcision above, I have not once seen one person express any sort of human concern or compassion for the child.  To me as a Catholic, that is so troubling.  The God I worship is a God of love, but that love is not demonstrated toward these children except by those who want circumcision to stop. Some of the people who want to see an end to the genital cutting of children may not be Christian, but they do seem much more Christian in their thinking and attitudes than do many of those who are baptized Christians.  If I were a non-Catholic, I sure wouldn’t be attracted to the Catholic faith if the Catholics I encountered were people without love and compassion.  If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

JF:
I think you are basically right.  In American constitutional law, before the Court will strike down a discriminatory law where there is no evidence of past discrimination, a discriminatory intention has to be proved by reference to facts extrinsic to the effect of the law.  For example, if the police dept. has a test that results in only a small percentage of blacks passing the test, and therefore only a few black policemen, the fact that there are only a few black policemen is not enough to strike down the test.  There must be other evidence to show that the intent of the test was to reduce the number of black policemen.

In the case of the German court, they simply applied reasons of general applicability and decided that freedom of religion and conscience were not sufficient to permit circumcision without consent.  I believe that is the wrong decision, but I don’t see how it was motivated by anti-semitism.  As with the American rule: just because a law or rule has a discriminatory effect, does not mean there was discriminatory intent.

The good Rabbi Lord Sachs argued that the decision is absurd because we innoculate children and make them go to school and learn how to read without their consent.  But it is quite reasonable for a court to say that society obtains a benefit from innoculating children and sending them to school to learn to read without their consent, but that circumcising a child does not benefit society [not in a way that they could see], and that therefore, it should not be done without consent, since children also have rights including the right to bodily integrity.

If this had not occurred in Germany the hubbub would be much less. The fact that the ruling simply occurred in Germany, where the holocaust ended almost 70 years ago, is not enough to prove discriminatory intent to my mind.  Rather this seems to be a case of guilt-by-association.

PJ: I am circumcised; no doubt there was pain at the time but I have no recollection of it.
Of course I care about the child that was circumcised.  Actually I love the child more than any human being in the world.  Now you are starting to do what some of your interlocutors have done to you in judging you and attributing false motives.  Please be better than that.
At the time of the circumcision my understanding was that the medical profession approved of the circumcision.  I did make some basic inquiries at the time and the professionals that performed the operation told me that it was the right thing to do in general for the health of the child.  I trusted in their judgment.  Obviously, if the procedure is medically justified, temporary pain should not be a reason to forbid the operation.  You have made arguments that it is not medically justified; if those arguments carry the day then I have no problem with that result, so long as you allow religious people their right of conscience and religion to continue to practice circumcision for religious reasons.

Defender,
No,I don’t hold much credence with animal rights activists,either, but what is trying to be conveyed is the idea that they & anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant,& anti-semitic groups fan the fires behind the kosher meat/slaughtering restrictions.The same anti-immigrant sentiment has joined up with anti-semitism I think as well in the issue in Mr. Akin’s article here.
I saw this from the Chief Rabbi of Rome.
From the Jerusalem Post:

“Chief Rabbi of Rome Riccardo Di Segni, the author of a book in Italian on the laws of kashrut, said the anti-shechita laws come from two sources: Green parties defending animal rights, and “extremist” parties that opposed immigration.

Those who proposed the bills were not openly anti-Semitic, but it was not difficult to find a connection with such activity and opinions, Di Segni said.

He added that the growing presence of Islam in Europe threatened shechita, in that anti-Islam measures ended up hurting Jews, and that bills banning circumcision came from the same motives”

yan

You are not alone in being told that circumcision was healthier, etc. by the medical profession.  Millions of parents were told that and misled about circumcision by doctors (through misinformation that doctors may have believed) in the 20th century. Today more and more parents are becoming informed and saying no to circumcision, but that wasn’t the case years ago. 
Please understand that there is money to be made in circumcision, but not all in the medical profession will admit that.  Do you think a doctor is going to discourage you from doing something that he or she will make money from?  Look at the abortion industry.  (Of course, killing children is a far more serious matter.) Abortionists make millions and millions of dollars killing children.

As far back as 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated, “There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.”  The AAP hasn’t recommended circumcision since then, but individual doctors who profit from doing circumcisions have not been too up front about telling parents that.  After I asked a doctor about circumcision in 1982, he admitted that circumcisions were unnecessary and that he had seen babies die from them in medical school.  In 1977, I was solicited for circumcision by a hospital before my daughter was even born- this AFTER the 1971 AAP statement!  Circumcision is big business for both hospitals and physicians, and it drives up health care costs for everyone.

Great Britain’s national health insurance dropped payment for infant circumcision around 1949-1950.  Canada’s national health insurance does not pay for circumcision either.  Medicaid in 18 U.S. states no longer pays for infant circumcision because it is medically unnecessary and a waste of money.  Some private insurance companies no longer waste money on this either. It violates my conscience to be forced to pay for not only abortions, but also infant circumcisions in the state where I live.

When we know better, hopefully we do better.  Years ago, parents knew little about circumcision.  (I suspect that was the case for you and so many others.) Today parents are increasingly becoming informed about the harms and risks of circumcision.  Through education, the circumcision rate has fallen, and more babies are being spared from this harmful surgery.  If you didn’t know that circumcision was unnecessary when your children were born, let your children know this for the sake of your grandchildren.

I encourage anyone whose doctor recommends any sort of treatment for themselves and those they love to research and investigate the proposed treatment.  Be informed, and don’t just accept something because a doctor said you should. Be discerning and questioning. Doctors are people who can and do make mistakes, so look out for yourself and for your family.  That is the only way you can protect yourself and those you love.

Yan, I didn’t say that the faith of the jews depends on circumcision. Many have moved away from it: http://www.beyondthebris.com/ and http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

However, when people think that protecting the human rights of a baby is an attack on religion, then those people’s faith depends on circumcision. If preventing the mutilation of a child amounts to forbidding them the free exercise of their religion, they are the ones saying that their faith depends on that.

I’m not stating that “they” are the Jews or the Muslims or anyone. Just some of the people commenting here - just read their words, that’s what they are saying.

Being aware that some babies die as a consequence of circumcision and some have are mutilated (losing their penis or part of it), or endure lifelong consequences (such as pain during sex), wouldn’t you call this practice potentially harmful? Wouldn’t you want to restrict it to those cases where it is medically necessary?

After all, while those consequences don’t happen to all of them, not to half of them… they DO happen. And aren’t those the same consequences (although in smaller scale) that horrify us about FGM (even if the Egyptians and many African countries consider the practice of FGM as normal and as vital to their cultural heritage as some people consider the circumcision of males)?

We can always be better. Ending cruelty towards our children makes us better, whether our children will remember or not, whether are children are males or females. Anyone denying this does not believe in a loving God, sorry to say so.

yan:

You want to “allow religious people their right of conscience and religion to continue to practice circumcision for religious reasons.”
I’m sure your motives are good, however, here’s a question for you.  If I would allow non-Jewish children and non-Muslim children to be protected from the harm of circumcision, but I wouldn’t allow Jewish and Muslim children to be protected from the harm of circumcision, wouldn’t that make me anti-Semitic?  That sounds like an anti-Semitic position to take, and some Jewish men have made that case- that they deserve protection as much as non-Jewish men do.  To not accord protection to ALL males based upon religion would be a discriminatory position to take.

PJ:
Do we have to advert to anti-Semitism here?  Now both sides want to claim that if you disagree with their side, then you are anti-Semitic?  This is ridiculous.  Calling each other names does not get us any closer to understanding each other.  Calling each other the same name seems reminiscent of a Bugs Bunny re-run.  I am not calling anyone anti-Semitic either because they oppose or are in favor of circumcision.

It was not your opposition to circumcision per se that made me feel that your attitude towards Jews was incorrect.  It is your failure, in my opinion, to understand or give sufficient consideration to the importance of history and Jewish-Christian relations and our Catholic teachings on the importance of the freedom of conscience and religion for everyone, but most of all the Jews, in relation to this topic.  Since you are a Catholic you really should get up to speed on our teaching in regard to the Jews, and I suspect you are not where you should be in this regard.

I think I have been very fair in considering your arguments.  I hope you will return the favor and check out the links I posted and consider the arguments I made above in favor of a religious exception to the idea of a general ban on circumcision.

Dreamer:
You wrote: ‘But if your faith depends on your ability to cut babies’ genitalia… I don’t have words.’
And now you add: ‘when people think that protecting the human rights of a baby is an attack on religion, then those people’s faith depends on circumcision.’
And: ‘We can always be better. Ending cruelty towards our children makes us better… Anyone denying this does not believe in a loving God, sorry to say so.’

Seems to me, you are judging those Jews who believe that circumcision is vital to their relationship with God as not believing in a loving God, and as doing something which is indefensible.  And that is why I suggested you read the Bible so that might be get a larger view of what goes on in the mind of a Jew who believes that circumcision is required of him in order to keep faith with God.  Whether all Jews believe it or not, is not the issue.

Jesus was circumcised.

yan:

That was a serious question I posed, since I was asking you about not advocating for all children equally, Jews and Gentiles alike. I’m sorry that you didn’t see the seriousness in the question.  I was interested in how you might answer it, since it does pose a dilemma.

Here is what a Jewish man wrote, when an initiative was underway last year to delay circumcisions until adulthood in San Francisco.  His words should help us to understand how this affects some Jewish men.  Jewish people, like Catholics, are not all the same in how they think or feel about this issue. This man has written thoughtfully about circumcision and how it has affected him and the Jewish community. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/circumcision-debate-other-side_n_895132.html

PJ:
I wouldn’t parse the debate as being a decision not to treat all children equally—although some day, a lawyer might do so.  I think the issue should be thought about as deciding how the rights of children and the rights of parents with a sincere religion should be balanced.  That is, I agree with the German court in that respect.  I just don’t think they struck the correct balance.

Obviously, not every Jewish man is going to agree with a decision to allow circumcision for Jews.  But a Jewish man above all ought to be able to understand and sympathize with the conscience of fellows Jews that think of circumcision as a ratification of their covenant with God.

We can’t eradicate every evil in the world.  When we attempt to eradicate one, we have to consider if the cost of doing so entails a far greater evil.  Assuming arguendo that circumcision is harmful, if we eradicate circumcision for Jews in order to prevent harm to an extremely small number of people, we have to consider that we would be violating the religious conscience and identity of a far greater number of people.  I think the latter wrong is far worse than the former.  If you check out those links, I think you may understand why.

RE:  “If this had not occurred in Germany the hubbub would be much less. The fact
that the ruling simply occurred in Germany, where the holocaust ended almost
70 years ago, is not enough to prove discriminatory intent to my mind.
Rather this seems to be a case of guilt-by-association.”

In this day and age, one must assume the worst case intent. Give an inch and Satan and/or government takes a mile.

I think a similar case could made in the abortion issue.  Pro-life people work hard to protect the right to life of unborn children. We want ALL children protected.  When a law is proposed that protects a majority of children (for example, stopping funding for abortion), but it makes an exception for children conceived by rape or incest, that poses a dilemma.  Do we reject such a bill because it isn’t all inclusive, or do we work toward passage of the bill because it will save a lot of, if not all, unborn children?  Out of necessity, we work toward passage of the bill and work in incremental steps to restore the right to life, although that is not the ideal.  Children conceived by rape or incest have just as much right to life as anyone else, and those adults conceived that way feel abandoned when we make an exception for rape and incest. 
Some Jewish men want their rights to bodily integrity protected too, and I can’t blame them for wanting that.  Their human rights matter as much as anyone else’s, and I hate to see them get thrown under the bus.  I hope you see now that this was a serious question.  I think that you do.  I do plan to read your links later when I have more time to read them carefully.

PJ:
Cool.  Thanks for the discussion.  God bless, and peace to you brother…

yan:

Thank you for the discussion.  Just so you’ll know, I’m a mother and a grandmother, so that makes me a sister.  If you remember nothing else about me and this discussion, I hope it is that I love children.  May the Peace of Christ be with you.

OH NO!!!! I hope Obama and the Democrats don’t hear about this , it will give them another idea on how to control our lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!scien

Yan,

Okay, I’ll step back in terms of religion. I will apologize, I get heated. But I will repeat part of my previous comment, since you failed to address my points about bodily harm:

Being aware that some babies die as a consequence of circumcision and some have are mutilated (losing their penis or part of it), or endure lifelong consequences (such as pain during sex), wouldn’t you call this practice potentially harmful? Wouldn’t you want to restrict it to those cases where it is medically necessary?
After all, while those consequences don’t happen to all of them, not to half of them… they DO happen. And aren’t those the same consequences (although in smaller numbers) that horrify us about FGM (even if the Egyptians and many African countries consider the practice of FGM as normal and as vital to their cultural heritage as some people consider the circumcision of males)?
We can always be better. Ending cruelty towards our children makes us better, whether our children will remember it or not, whether our children are males or females.
Additionally, you asked if parents who take their children abroad to get them circumcised should be prosecuted. This made me think of a very specific case that I had read about: FGM in the UK. This link shows how the UK deals with this situation: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page;&MigrantHealthAutoList;/Page/1281954682566
I do understand that many Jews feel that belonging to their community is of more value than their individuality, and so, sacrificing the foreskin of their children reaffirms their belonging to the community as it did a couple of thousand of years ago. However, laws are written for a country, not for the members of a religion, and what a judge found (who does not have the power to write laws but can rule on specific cases - and was ruling in the case of a Muslim minor who suffered bodily harm), is that the procedure harms the rights of the minor. As PJ wrote before: “Children are human beings with rights, both before birth and after birth. They have a right to life and a right to having their bodily integrity respected, among other rights. When their rights are violated or threatened, the government has both a duty and an obligation to step in and protect all children, especially since defenseless children are in a more vulnerable situation than are adults.”

@Mayfly: Jesus was circumcised because he was born a Jew. Jesus was not a Christian, how strange is that fact? Jesus was actually somebody who left his religion, and created the core of teachings and rituals that would become a new religion… after his death.

The disciples, in forming the new religion, found that circumcision was of no value to them. They wrote: “let the circumcised remain circumcised, let the uncircumcised remain uncircumcised” if I’m correct. There are several passages of the New Testament dealing with circumcision. This decision was of vital importance, because maintaining the practice of circumcision would have made Christianity just a branch of Judaism, rather than a new religion, and because by having no position regarding circumcision they could be open to the Greeks and Romans -who were not willing to become circumcised- but would also be open to the conversion of Jews -who already were circumcised.
With the exception of the United States, Catholic and Christian majority countries do not practice circumcision of infants.

The hyperbole used in some of the posts is so intellectually dishonest as to be insulting.  Circumcision = mutilation?  Really?  Please. The practice has been around and accepted for millenia. Is there anyone out there that really believes that if circumcision were truly harmful or it in anyway interfered with a man’s sexual performance, that men wouldn’t have done away with it long, long ago. I mean, after all, it’s a well known fact that men don’t suffer quietly.  And if our sexual performance was negatively impacted.  Are you serious?!  Circumcision would have been toast.

And then on the issue of when is it “ok” to terminate a pregnancy, since when does the ability to “feel” pain or not become the determining factor in whether an action is just or not?  Such folly when man tries to play God, especially evident when we invoke such arbitrary measures to justify our prideful and selfish ends.  Taking the “no pain, no harm” logic to its illogical conclusion, it should be perfectly acceptable to “painlessly” euthanize other segments of society that we deem to be undesirable or overly burdensome, e.g., the elderly, infirm, unproductive, etc.  And just think of the money we’d save!  Brilliant!!  “No pain, no blame.”

I was circumcised. This was after my birth with the umbilical chord wrapped around my throat. My heart stopped for three minutes. Then I was baptizef and it started again. A miracle> I think so.
Even so by not getting oxygen for those minutes my brain was damaged. I have cerebral palsy and epilepsy.
Those who think losing a foreskin is a big tragedy really should be grateful if they walk, have normal speech and care for themselves. I don’t understand why people are so upset about foreskins when some of their fellow men. women, boys and girls who are severely disabled don’t get the care they need, get abused and are generally ignored by society as a whole. including “good Catholics.“I am not one of these so I try to e a voice for them and I say again: If you were circumcised but aren’t disabled, show some gratitude for what you have and don’t moan so much about what you don’t.

Jim and David…......You both made VERY good points!  We need to pray for religious freedom and the repeal of the HHS mandate. Circumcision will be the least of our worries if health care is rationed.

Jesus was circumcised. If it’s ok with God the Father that his only begotten son be circumcised, it’s ok with me.

The dumbest arguments are those comparing male circumcision to female “circumcision” [female genitalia don’t fuse into a circle]: The former being the removal of a biologically redundant and dangerous piece of skin, the latter being the removal of the clitoris, the male equivalent would be removal of the entire head of the penis.
Second dumbest is portraying this as a “Jewish thing”, when about 90% of cultures throughout history have practiced circumcision including Australian aboriginals whose culture has beeen separated from the rest of the world for 40,000 years. Most african tribes practice it, and studies in africa on the spread of STI’s show it HALVES the rate of transmission. STI’s are the number one cause of severe spinal birth defects [1 in 750 births - i.e. 300,000 Americans look it up at the DA website if you doubt me]. Most viruses that are harmless to adults can cause severe deformation in embryos.
Their is a better health care argument for compulsary circumcision than for banning it i.e 150,000 Americans needlessly in wheelchairs

Jim Mazzarelli :
Great post.Thanks.

Jim Mazzarelli, FGM has also been around for millenia and is still rampant in Africa and the newly free Egypt -does that make it any less of a mutilation? Permanently removing a healthy part of the body IS a mutilation, whether that part is an arm, a finger, a toe or a foreskin.

If you doubt that some men suffer, why do you think there is even a discussion about this? Google “foreskin restoration forum” and stop to read there for personal testimonials of men who have been negatively impacted by circumcision. What is your rationale to keep the practice alive?

David P. Rundle. You suffered several tragedies at birth. I feel very sorry for you. But if we could get rid of cruelty one step at the time, the world would be a better place, and believe me, getting rid of circumcision of infants is one of those steps. Your tragedy does not invalidate that.

Anon, there are several kinds of female circumcision. One of them is the excision of the clitoral hood, the equivalent structure to the male foreskin. Besides that, there are babies who suffer the loss of the glans or the full penis during circumcision. It happens. It’s not the purpose, but accidents happen, and more often than one would like to acknowledge. What would you tell to those babies?

Oh I like how you describe the foreskin as a redundant and dangerous piece of skin. Study some anatomy.

South American tribes don’t practice it. Most Asians don’t practice it. 80% of the men in the world are intact.

The anti circ folks are like a cult. It is a type of fad. Circ is a good idea. It is hygienic and has been proven safe decade after decade. This new wave of faddism not based in science but in politics and kooky ideology.

What?? A dangerous piece of skin? Are people really that brain washed about foreskin?  Hygenic? What hogwash. Circumcision isn’t now and has never been the norm, except in the US where the puritanical protestant mindset about the body and sex has a firm hold. There is nothing dangerous or un hygienic about foreskin. Do you really question God’s of the human body that much to declare a normal, healthy, functional party of the body dangerous? Talk about fanatical.

Lin:

This is for you.  I copied it from the new theological movement website.  It pertains to your comment about ‘assuming the worst case intent’:

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

Our Lord tells us that we must not judge our neighbor, and he does not say that we may judge sometimes, or when the case is clear and obvious to us, but rather that we must never judge.

St. James says the same: He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver. But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour? (James 4:11-13)

What shall we say, then, must we never judge another? Is it wrong to form any opinions at all about others?

Magistrates and judges must judge

Commenting this verse, Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide tells us:

‘Christ does not here prohibit the public judgments of magistrates, by which they condemn the guilty and absolve the innocent, for this is necessary in all commonwealths, but only private judgments, and that when they are rash, envious, detractive, for they are repugnant to charity and justice, yea to God Himself, whose office of judgment is usurped. For we have not been set to be judges but companions of our neighbours. Wherefore if we have an evil opinion of him we do him an injury. And we take away his good fame if we let this judgment go abroad; for reputation is a great good, greater far than riches. So S. Jerome, Bede, and Basil.’”

My friend, even officials of the government are our neighbors and ought to be treated as such by the command of Christ, and not to be subject to judgments which are ‘rash, envious or detractive’.

Peace to you….

What an incredible contrast between this comment urging Christ-like ideals:

From yan: My friend, even officials of the government are our neighbors and ought to be treated as such by the command of Christ, and not to be subject to judgments which are ‘rash, envious or detractive’.

and this vindictive comment:

David Risher: OH NO!!!! I hope Obama and the Democrats don’t hear about this , it will give them another idea on how to control our lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes me wonder in either case which one is tied to the Catholic Church first and a political ideology second or vice versa

yan is right that we shouldn’t judge other people.  We can judge actions, but we shouldn’t judge other people.  We don’t know what is in another person’s heart.  Only God knows.

For example, I can judge abortion to be wrong, but I shouldn’t judge the woman who has the abortion. I don’t know what is in her heart.  Similarly, I can’t judge people who circumcise their sons or daughters, but I can judge the action of circumcision to be a wrong. Perhaps people who circumcise their children may not have the benefit of being informed or they may have been given misinformation. Knowing that circumcision is not recommended by any national medical organization, that it’s unnecessary, that it’s painful to the child (even with anesthesia), that it has short term and long term risks and harms, that it does not respect the bodily integrity of another person and his or her right to the intact body God has given them, that it undermines successful breastfeeding, that it goes against the natural law, that it is not a good way to welcome a child into this world, that it adversely affects the sexual experience for both men and women, etc., I can judge circumcision to be a wrong in societies that practice it.  Through education and talking about circumcision (it was a taboo subject for many years), more and more parents today are questioning this surgery and deciding to protect their children from circumcision. They are accepting and loving their children they way they are, and leaving them intact.  That is good. Admittedly some people may still want to cling to the old health myths (as evidenced by some of the comments above), but truth won’t support myths. 
I believe that the German judge who ruled that circumcision causes bodily harm to male children made his public judgment because he is looking out for the best interests of children.  I think his heart is in the right place, because he wants to protect children.  Now male children will have the same protections as female children in Germany, removing the inequality that existed before this ruling.  Equality is not a bad thing.

My friend, even officials of the government are our neighbors and ought to
be treated as such by the command of Christ, and not to be subject to
judgments which are ‘rash, envious or detractive’.

Yam:  Who said anything about judging?  Assuming the worst case scenario is an act of self defense. One must always be prepared to defend one’s soul as required. Peace be with you!

PJ:  I, too, would like to believe that German judge has his heart in the right place. But in this broken world that is not always the case. As I told Yan, I am NOT judging. My skepticism is an act of self defense. And this whole discussion ignores the original point of the article, freedom of religion which is under attack every day.  God bless you both!

Lin:
Acts of self defense are justified if they are based on sufficient evidence of imminent harm.  In the criminal law context, the majority view is that the harm must be objectively imminent, not just believed by you to be imminent.  However some jurisdictions think a subjective belief that harm is imminent is enough.  In either case, those are good examples of why we must not be rash.  You can’t just shoot me if, some time in the past, I punched you in the nose, when on this occasion, I just say ‘hi’.

I think it’s fine to be skeptical if you have good reasons for being skeptical.  But in this case, you have very few facts to go on in relation to this judge’s decision.  JF supra made some excellent points in that regard in his post.  You can’t equate a judge in Cologne with K. Sibelius/Obama simply by virtue of the fact that both are part of a government.  In my opinion, that could be rash; thus if not unwise then at least unfair to those that are judged in that way.  And really that is my only objection to Mr. Akin’s otherwise excellent, in my opinion, post.
Peace…

I have no anger nor animosity in my heart. I love my brothers and sisters but my trust is in our LORD. Peace be with you!

Lin: I believe you….peace…

All of the “anti-circumcision” rhetoric reverberates with a “human rights” theme in these posts. This is well and good, but as the rate of penile cancer increases and the spread of AIDS in underdeveloped regions increases, you can all haughtily continue your anti-circumcision tripe until the cows come home. There are MEDICAL benefits to circumcision that most detractors irrationally choose to ignore.

“PJ: Equality is not a bad thing.”
**********************
Objectively, no. But if used in a way to deprive God’s chosen people from practising their beliefs, then yes it is.
Jews aren’t equal so much as “chosen.“One size fits all” can be totalitarian in application & effect.

My regrets for failing to post the following link in my original post:

http://www.circinfo.net/

Dr. Mark ,
I hear you.
As much as I do not want to comment off topic from the religious freedom theme intended by the original article,I’ll mention that women’s health is affected, as well by lack of circumcision.Cervical cancer rates are higher & the spread of HPV is greater where circumcision is not practised.
I think the Lord knew the health benefits,too.
:)
It’s a family’s health choice to make.For Jews & Muslims, it’s much more than that.

Dr. Mark listed a site run by Brian Morris, an ardent
pro-circumcisionist in Australia.  Morris has a very strong bias, and you should be aware of this before trusting his site.  He promotoes circumcision on his own, even though no national medical association in the world recommends circumcision. (Perhaps he’s the Dr. Mark who left this comment?  Sometimes Morris does things like that.)

Penile cancer is a rare form of cancer that usually affects older men.  It can affect both circumcised and intact men.  The AAP in 1999 said this about penile cancer.  “An annual penile cancer rate of 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 translates to 9 to 10 cases per year per 1 million men. Although the risk of developing penile cancer in an uncircumcised man compared with a circumcised man is increased more than three fold, it is difficult to estimate accurately the magnitude of this risk based on existing studies. Nevertheless, in a developed country such as the United States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, is low.” 
Breast cancer is much more common among women than is penile cancer among men, and we don’t amputate the breast buds of baby girls to prevent breast cancer later in life, nor should we.  That would violate Catholic Catechism #2297 and sound medical practice.
The AAP concluded this about HIV, that “behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status.”  As Catholics, we know that chastity- abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage- is the best and most effective way to prevent HIV.  A recent study reported this about HIV and circumcision.  “What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive.  Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive”, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%, which is not statistically significant.”  (Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011; 19:316-34.)  See:

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

Just this month, a new study found that HIV infection rate is higher among circumcised men in Zimbabwe. “According to the latest Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey (ZHDS 2010/2011), the prevalence rate among the circumcised is 14 percent while that of the uncircumcised is 12
percent.”  See:  http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8811:hiv-infection-rate-higher-on-circumcised-men&catid=38:travel-tips&Itemid=18

From the USAID report “LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS: EVIDENCE FROM NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS”- Findings from the 18 countries with data present a mixed picture of the association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence (Table 9.3) . . . In 10 of the countries—Cameroon, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe — HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.” (page 109)  See:

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

Kathleen- “Jews aren’t equal so much as chosen”?  I wonder what Jewish people would say about that? If not equal, then do you think they are superior or inferior?  Would you say that black people aren’t equal either?  Yikes!  Jesus said this.  “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” (John 15:16) Jesus was speaking to all of us, Jews and Gentiles alike.  We are all people chosen by God. I’m sure Jesus loves us all- not only Jews and Christians, but also Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, etc.  (At least that is what my Catholic faith teaches me.)  I am not allowed to think that one group of people is “more equal” than another.

PJ:
I said “chosen.” That doesn’t imply anything other than chosen, & oppression masked as “equality” doesn’t change God’s original choice either.

From the BBC today:
“Muslim and Jewish groups denounce German circumcision ruling
Jewish and Muslim groups in Germany want legal protection for the rite of circumcision
European Jewish and Muslim groups have joined forces to defend circumcision for young boys on religious grounds after a German regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm.

A joint statement says the practice is fundamental to their faiths and calls for it to be awarded legal protection.

The ruling by the Cologne court - also criticised by the Israeli parliament - does not apply to the whole of Germany.

But Germany’s Medical Association told doctors not to perform circumcisions.

Thousands of Muslim and Jewish boys are circumcised in Germany every year.

The unusual joint statement was signed by leaders of groups including the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Parliament, the European Jewish Association, Germany’s Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs and the Islamic Centre Brussels.”

People of faith- Muslim, Christian, Jewish, et. al., need to band together against the forces of secularism and fight for religious freedom instead of fighting each other.

Thanks for providing a good example, Kathleen.

I am German, and this court decision makes me proud!

I have no problem if an adult wants to be circumcised, as there are some advantages too, of course. Let the boys chose when they are old enough.

But a little child - with an obvious ability to feel pain? Amputating the foreskin for what? Ancient cults? For pleasing one god among so many gods mankind has invented during the millennias? No way I say!

But what really makes me submit this: All those people who cry out “Naziism! Facism!” should be ashamed! It is so easy to bring this up on us! That court made its decision very carefully, looking at the pros and conts, and making its the decision in favor of the visible child - and not the invisible God! That’s free-thinking! That’s what will prevent fascism, not support it!

Typical child circumcision is an amputation and a mutilation which has NO therapeutic purpose because no disease is present. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says quite clearly:

“2297
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”

It is shocking to see Catholics urging Jews and Muslims to violate the moral law. It must be offensive to God when his people behave in such an immoral way.

It sickens me that infant circumcision is justified in the name of any religion.  It is brutal, unnecessary, and a violation of human rights.  I pray for the day when people will see this procedure as harmful and barbaric and end the madness.  As a childbirth educator, I am so pleased that I have had the opportunity to dissuade many parents from making the horrible choice to circumcise their precious, non-consenting baby boys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html
.
The link above is to a NYT article where a newborn baby died because the mohel who circumsized him had Type 1 herpes. If you’re so “Pro-Life” before the birth of a child, the preventable death of a newborn due to a primitive ritual should offend you.

I am pro-life, and this ritual practice and the death of children from circumcision and from metzitzah b’peh (oral suction!) does offend me.  What’s more, it’s an offense against the innocent child.  Catholics were horrified by the sexual abuse of children by some Catholic clergy.  What Jewish mohels do to male children doesn’t seem any less abusive to the child.  Children deserve to be legally protected both before they are born and after they are born, from adults who would harm them.  That is so basic, but some believe that religious freedom is the only thing that matters, and that it gives an adult the right to harm a child.  It was wrong when some Catholic priests abused children, and it’s wrong when other religious groups harm children.  Jesus never spoke out in favor of circumcising children in the New Testament, but He did speak out in favor of loving them.

Benjamin’s entry should make 2 things clear: 1] this ruling is motivated by the forces set in motion by Enlightenment rationalism, not anti-Semitism; 2] rationalism doesn’t always care about, nor understand, the respect that should be owed to the conscience in the form of legal respect for the freedom of religion.  What Benjamin wrote could have as easily been written by Thomas Paine.

When free-thinking is blind to what makes us truly human, the results can be just as bad as fascism.  What makes us truly human is not just our wonderful ability to learn and progress and make a better future for mankind, but above all our relationship to God.  Religions are how most humans have that relationship, and as a result religion has rights which demand that we take a hands-off approach to its practices whenever reasonably possible.  I think if the German court had thought more about that, it would have decided differently.  The deist founders of America, most of whom were not traditionally religious people, nevertheless understood the importance of respecting the consciences and practices of others and their religions, and would never have made a law that was like this ruling.

God bless America….

Received the following in an email tonight.  Nothing we have not heard before but an important reminder how easy it is to lose sight of the TRUTH. God bless! 

It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.
Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing:

He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”
He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.”
He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure.
He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers.
He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived.
He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment.
He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous.
He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.
He sings to us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and, with this lullaby, we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and false confidence.

You feel sorry for me, Dreamer? Pity is useless. All things considered, my life is good. I have read stories of abuse. Disabled kids have been starved to death by their moms. Feel sorry for them!

We have prayed for the union of all people of God, and here we have it. God brought to all of us the very same enemy. Now, we will need to join our hands in prayer. Recently, my Muslim friend offered to go with me to protest against HHS. He understood that it is about religious liberty, and that failure to defend it will at the end will turn the same attack against His faith.

BTW, in the US the practice of circumcision was being performed routinely, and only because they found no, zero, zilch, nada side effects. In other words, strangely, it brings no problem - not like in case of appendix which they used to think was unneeded and learned they were wrong.
I guess God knew was He was doing… Or maybe we do not need God? We protect Bald Eagle eggs, but we do whatever we want with people’s children calling it embryos, or clump of tissues (sometimes the ‘smarter’ try to call them ‘potential humans’, like there could be a bird being born instead…)

How about a little bit of talk to God, and asking Him for help to understand why circumcision is okay? Why contraception is wrong? Why killing His children is abomination? Why sex outside of marriage is living against the ‘image of God’? How about smalltalk with God asking for the Truth instead of trying to being smart, and definitively showing everyone that you are right ‘regardless’.

Blessings,
Greg.

I am circumcised and I am great with that.  My Dad had to be circumcised at like 45 because of problems.  Friends who work in nursing homes say that circumcision is the best thing you can do for your child if only to save them from the hassles of nurses having to deal with you.  I have four sons and each is circumcised not for any religious reasons but because we did very thorough research.  Will they resent me?  Not any more than I resent my father’s decision.  Come’on do you think that we feel horrible about it? We ourselves are circumcised…grow up!!  Look up circumcision and cervical cancer or AIDS transmission.  Even secular jews keep this tradition.  Come on people, you don’t care about anonymous children you are just after making other people conform to your ideas.  Who is going around telling everyone who is “intact” that they need to get circumcised?  Mind your own business.  The minute you get the right to speak for my child over me is the end of civilization.  Mind your own business!!! Some of these “intactivists” seem overly infatuated with the penises of young boys for my comfort.

Women’s health is not affected. That’s ridiculous. Honesty you people need to get informed.  I got my masters degree in nursing ten years ago and routine circumcision was dying in the medical community then. Why? Because new information on the effects are available. A for the anesthetic some mentioned, most Dr’s feel that the shot in the groin is more painful than the procedure itself, and anesthetic Carries risk of it’s own. Have you ever watched the change in an infant that has undergone a traumatic painful procedure? They disassociate, that’s why they don’t (as some of you testify) cry. They also change their behavior with their mothers, n have troble nursingu etc…We have no right to take an infant from his mother to cut a normal, healthy body part off. Please don’t tout your pro life ness if you don’t believe an baby is an individual with rights to his own body after he’s born.

As Catholics, we submit to the authority of the Church. There are several comments on here that clearly point to the Church’s disapproval of circumcision. The Church recognizes the human dignity of all people, pre-born and born - we should too.

I disagree with the religious grounds of the decision, but hope that more people will seek what their church teaches about circumcision. In our case, Holy Mother Church does not approve.

@ Shannon, I completely agree with everything you say. I had a baby boy two months ago and wept when the doctors did the heel stick at his first doctor’s check. Seeing my child in pain was torturous. I can’t imagine willingly consenting to having part of his body cut off. To use pro-life rationale: when my baby doesn’t have a voice, that’s when he needs to be advocated for the most!

This case was recently settled in Massachusetts- a religious circumcision gone terribly wrong.
http://masslawyersweekly.com/2012/06/21/infant-sustains-partial-amputation-during-bris/
Infant sustains partial amputation during bris
Parents say they suffered severe emotional distress; $700,000 settlement
Published: 9:25 am Thu, June 21, 2012
By Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff
An 8-day-old baby suffered an amputation of a portion of the ventral glans of his penis at a Jewish brit milah circumcision ceremony, or bris, at a private residence. The plaintiffs maintained that the doctor/mohel was negligent in his performance of the procedure.
The doctor/mohel allegedly failed to re-examine the child between the ceremony and the time that the child left for the hospital. Upon arrival, the child was rushed to an operating room for emergency surgery as a result of an amputation of his ventral glans and a traumatic hypospadias, or damage to the opening of the urethra.
The child was released from the hospital the following day with a catheter inserted into his penis, only to return to the hospital later that night because the catheter had fallen out. After a lengthy effort to re-insert the catheter, during which time the child screamed in agony, a decision was made to have family members insert a tube into the child’s penis numerous times a day over a 10-day period.
The child suffers from a permanently disfigured penis, a hypospadias and remaining foreskin. He has experienced night terrors and may require further surgery for medical and/or cosmetic reasons.
His parents, who claimed to have suffered severe emotional distress, fear the emotional difficulties the child will face as he matures and deals with, among other things, school locker rooms and/or romantic relationships.
Action: Medical malpractice
Injuries alleged: Amputation of portion of ventral glans, emotional damage
Case name: Withheld
Court/case no.: Withheld
Jury and/or judge: N/A (mediated)
Amount: $700,000
Date: March 2012
Most helpful experts: Henry E. Simkin, M.D., and John P. Gearhart, M.D.
Attorneys: Paul J. Klehm, James B. Krasnoo and Benjamin L. Falkner, of Krasnoo|Klehm, Andover (for the plaintiffs)

The website Fisheaters, a traditional Catholic site, has two very good, informative articles about circumcision and Catholic teaching at: 
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

If the Jewish people still circumcised in the manner of Abraham, as opposed to the manner of the Pharisees who changed circumcision around 140 A.D., it’s possible that the baby in Massachusetts who suffered from a botched circumcision by a doctor/mohel probably would not have had such extensive injuries. 
Catholics are to be other-centered, rather than self-centered, people- caring about the welfare of others.  That is why a comment like this should be disturbing to all Catholics:  “Mind your own business.  The minute you get the right to speak for my child over me is the end of civilization.  Mind your own business!!!”

Just a fellow ,
Thanks for your post.
I agree, there’s a kind of obsession over body parts in some comments that verges into creepiness.
More disturbing is comparing Jewish practitioners of circumcision to sexual perverts.The “primitive ritual” comment speaks for itself.
In all charity, can you imagine what practising Jews would think after reading comments like these on a Catholic site?
Folks are free to make their own health decisions for themselves & their families & express those views freely.Defaming other religions is something else entirely.Free speech is our right but some speech has consequences to others.I think as Christians we need to think about the implications of our words.

The Church is not against medical circ. Those cultists that are against it have an agenda and that agenda is counter to moral theology, common sense, and they twist things to foist it on others.

Male circ is performed on the sons of many pediatricians and sons of other physicians. The propaganda I read in these comments is right out of some kooky liberal handbook.

BTW, using medical organizations to make your point is silly. These same groups support abortion, direct sterilizations, contracepted sex, and homosexual acts as normal. We need to discern what is authentic medical care and what is a liberal fad.

The Church is not opposed to therapeutic circumcision, but it does state very clearly that non-therapeutic amputations (which includes foreskin amputations, whether you like what #2297 says or not) violate the moral law.

No national medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision, but some want to cling to the old health myths or invent new excuses for circumcision.  Many think they are wiser than God, who in His wisdom designed the human body just the way it should be.  It is arrogance to think that we can design the human body better than God can.
Years ago, tonsillectomies were also very common, and many children had healthy tonsils removed for no valid medical reason. Hysterectomies were also done far too often.  Thankfully that has changed, and with the circumcision rate falling in the U.S., people are waking up about that unnecessary surgery too. (There is a financial incentive for physicians and hospitals to continue to do unnecessary surgery, but profit should never dictate morality.)
Amputating healthy body parts from others goes against the moral law.  If I favored amputating healthy, non-diseased body parts from another person without his consent, I suppose I could make the case for a lot of other types of amputations.  If we amputated toes, we could prevent ingrown toenails.  If we amputated fingers, we could prevent trigger fingers.  If we amputated breast buds on baby girls, we could prevent breast cancer.  If we removed everything, we could prevent all types of diseases!  It is absurd to favor the amputation of healthy body parts, but so many Catholics(?) here don’t want to accept Catholic Catechism teaching #2297. This teaching also forbids sterilizations for non-therapeutic reasons.  I can understand why non-Catholics would not want to follow Catholic teaching, but what excuse can Catholics use for ignoring what the Catechism says?

@ Anon medical circ is not the same thing as elective circ. No one is arguing that when medically necessary (which is RARE) then circumcision can and should be performed. I am so weary of hearing the arguments that circumcision can eliminate possible problems later in life.  We don’t do surgery on people for possible problems.  We don’t remove breasts or ovaries that can someday cause cancer, or testicles that can become cancerous.  And those possibilities are life threatening! Not being circumcised is never life threatening. It’s normal!! The fact is that we have more information now than in the past. Why is it so hard for people to accept new information?  As for having to have surgery later in life…..well gee, a lot of people have surgery, painful surgeries, for a variety of maladies.  Are you really going to tell me that a grown man, if he had to, couldn’t deal with a medically necessary surgery? Yes it would be painful, yet some of you argue that it’s not painful for infants?  A grown man can express his pain. Ask for meds, do things to make himself feel better. An infant is completely helpless and voiceless.  No, i’m not going to cry any tears over an adult man having to be circumcised. The chances of it ever being necessary anyway, are slim.

Dear PJ. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church is for you and me, and not for others.
Circumcision by Catholics is against the Church’s teaching.
The Jews are NOT abided by our Church.
Circumcision is a religious procedure and not a health one.
It has no ‘forbidding’ or ‘blocking’ or ‘constraining’ character.
It is a sign of an Old Convenant which is NOT to be abided by you or me, becuase we are not saved by the works of the Law but by Love.

We are NOT to forbid Jews this practice. The circumcision as a religious procedure preceeds German government!
The same with mariage - it was before the President Obama was even born.

You cannot force people to live moraly correct. You can only show them how to live, and that is the right path they should follow.
If you have to force it then it is definitively wrong path. Step away from it.
If it is right path they will follow you if they see that you stay on it no matter what (when they see your faith.)
They will NOT follow you if they see in you (or me) fakery. That is, BTW, what we, today’s Catholics, show to the world, and that is why we are being trampled by the world as this salt that lost the taste (or we should understand it as that we were never salt in the first place.)

Blessings,
Greg.

Male circ, as practiced widely in the USA from decade after decade, is not an amputation as the CCC uses the term. We live in a fallen world. There are medical benefits to circ whether the anti circ faddists like it or not. And no it is not morally equal to removing toes or breasts.

Despite the propaganda the foreskin is not central to bodily integrity or any other aspect of life. Circ is an elective medical procedure with authentic health benefits. It is not mutiliation unless we redefine mutiliation to suit are liberal agenda.

Not circumcising, as has been the norm throughout human history, is now” liberal agenda”. I’ve heard it all.

@Shannon

Actually even more astounding, as this case was rooted in a circumcision performed for a Muslim family as a part of Sharia law, is that support of their right to practice said Islamic law is now a part of a the ‘Conservative Agenda’, yet the right to build a mosque in some areas isn’t.

Good news out of Germany.

BBC, 13 July 2012 :Angela Merkel backs circumcision right after German ruling:
“The German government says Jewish and Muslim communities should be able to continue the practice of circumcision, after a regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said it was a case of protecting religious freedom.

Steffen Seibert said: “Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible without punishment.”

... “For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany.”

He said the government would look urgently at establishing “legal certainty”.

“It is clear this cannot be put on the back burner. Freedom to practise religion is a cherished legal principle,” Mr Seibert said.”

Circ is “amputation” now I have heard it all. These faddists are making a type of god out of the foreskin. It is weird and contrary to Catholic teaching. Jesus was circ. It is not mutilation. Stop the propaganda.

Shannon,

If you do not want to have circ for you that is your licit choice. Please stop claiming it is wrong medically or morally. The Church allows circ for medical reasons. Those medical reasons include potential health benefits, hygiene, and other reasons.

The foreskin is not a breast, or a heart, or a toe. I know the propagandists want to make the foreskin central to life, but it is not. Not medically and not morally.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, says she wants to continue circumcision in Germany, however, it may not be easy.

1. The Cologne court decision is based on a court application of the Basic Law, which is Germany’s constitution. The Chancellor of Germany has no power to overturn the Basic Law, and neither does the Bundestag, so it is unclear how Angela Merkel would do this.

2. The Jewish Hospital in Berlin says it won’t permit circumcisions.

3. The German Medical Association has advised doctors to not do circumcisions until the situation is resolved. This could mean no circumcisions for a long time, perhaps forever.

4. The court found that non-therapeutic ritual circumcision inflicts harm and violates the rights of the child. Of course, this is absolutely true.

5. Given this court decision, one would think that adult males who were circumcised as boys might bring a civil lawsuit for damages against their parents and circumciser.

The Catholic Church has a record of supporting human rights, so I fail to understand why so many on this blog want to deny human rights to boys in Germany.

The only person whose religious rights are at question here is the male child. He has a right to chose his religion and to have his body altered or not altered as necessary, depending on his choice. No one can make that choice for the child.

In 1442 the Church said,

“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.”

This is from the Bull of Union with the Copts.

Nuff said!

@ anon. Many body parts are not essential to life yet we don’t condone cutting them off for religious reasons or elective reasons. The human body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. If removing healthy body parts is ok then why is female circ not ok? No one needs a clitoris to survive, or function.

Roland,

The Church is against circ if done by Catholics for religious reasons, not if done for medical benefit.

Shannon,

No one is saying to excise tissue that will not pose a problem. The fact is foreskin often is a problem.

Anon,
Correction- The Church is against circumcision if done by Catholics for religious AND non-therapeutic reasons.  Medical is too broad a term to use.  Sterilizations are medical surgeries, but they are non-therapeutic unless a disease like uterine cancer, for example, is present. Sterilizations done in a medical setting to prevent future pregnancies are non-therapeutic.
Therapeutic circumcision means that a disease or defect is present. Circumcisions done in hopes of preventing a future disease are not therapeutic circumcisions. Those are done for prophylactic reasons, which are not therapeutic reasons. Infants born with healthy foreskins do not have a disease or defect that is present that requires surgery, and only those done for strictly therapeutic reasons are allowed under Catholic Catechism #2297. Catholics and Catholic institutions need to follow Catholic teaching.
In rare cases, the foreskin might cause a problem, just as at times the ears might pose a problem (ear infections), or the breasts might cause a problem (breast cancer), or the brain might pose a problem (brain cancer), the eyes might pose a problem (vision problems).  All body parts can potentially pose problems at some point in the future, but the Church does not allow the amputation of healthy body parts that might or might not pose a problem later on in time.

PJ,

Your assertions are not Church teaching. Misapplying the CCC does not make your position true.

Prophylactic surgery is not automatically immoral. Therapeutic does not mean one must be experiencing acute pathology at this very minute to undergo medical treatment. That would abandon all types of medical care that is done right now on Catholics including priests and bishops.

Ear piercing would be immoral by your standard. Wisdom tooth removal would be immoral. Treating certain genetic disease which may or may not manifest would be immoral.

You are using a criterion that fits your preconceived conclusion. You will not find any magisterial document that prohibits circumcision for medical reasons.

@ Anon, define often. The stats show otherwise. I would not be able to find a colleague in my line of medicine that would agree with you. Again, we don’t remove body parts that might cause problems. We remove problem body parts when then problems happen. There is no way to know, if you remove healthy foreskin of an infant, if it was truly beneficial to him or not. The vast majority of men in the world have always been intact. Problems with foreskin do not occur ‘often’. Problems with labia and cervices of women DO occur often. Let’s go ahead and get rid of those while they are babies and they will never know what they are missing!

It is more than likely that Jesus himself was circumcised—he was Jewish. The problem I have with circumcision is that it is done as a religious ritual, usually on an infant or young child that is incapable of making the decision to do so, and without medical practice. Anything that is done as a religious ritual usually overlooks the facts of medical consequences from the practice. They put their God above reality.
.
http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/
.
They will make up any reason to continue doing the ritual because it’s “God’s will” and NEVER acknowledge that is intrinsically wrong.
.
The importance of the penis, and sex in general. is the essence of culture because it is our only acceptable means of reproduction. The debate of whether to circumcise male infants will be a long debate in this country, but it should be done under medically safe conditions. Innocent babies should not have to die for religion.

anon:
Pope Pius XII (Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329) said this to Italian urologists about circumcision.  “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.”
Some mention diseases they believe circumcision might prevent, but the key point of the sentence is this - if “it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.” 
HIV and other STDs are diseases that can be prevented in other better ways- most effectively by living a chaste lifestyle. Concerning HIV and STDs, the AAP in 1999 stated that “behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status.” Cervical cancer in women can be prevented today with a vaccine against HPV.  As for UTIs, the AAP said, “the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%).”  One way they mentioned to counter UTIs is this- “breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants.”
The AAP stated that “many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer.”  They also said that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimum penile hygiene.”  Good hygiene among both circumcised and intact men is the key to preventing penile cancer, and even circumcised men can get penile cancer.  Not smoking is also beneficial.
Foreskin problems can be treated non-surgically in many cases.  For example, steroid creams and stretching are used to treat a tight foreskin. Liquid acidophilus (a probiotic) applied topically and taken orally treats foreskin infections quickly and effectively in many cases.  European doctors are more likely to know about these alternative treatments than are U.S. doctors, but these treatments do exist.
The AAP said, “Medical therapy has been successful in resolving both secondary phimosis and paraphimosis, but surgical intervention is sometimes indicated.”  In other words, foreskin problems can be treated non-surgically at first, but in those rare cases where the treatment is ineffective, circumcision becomes a non-therapeutic surgery that is allowed under #2297.

There are rare cases where circumcision fits Pope Pius XII’s guidelines. Circumcisions that don’t fit these guidelines are reasons like these. “I’m circumcised and I want my son circumcised.” “I think it looks better.”  “Everyone in my family is circumcised.”  “It’s my parental right to circumcise him if I want to.” None of these social reasons fit the therapeutic guidelines.  The perceived “health” reasons expressed by some parents today go against the findings of all the national medical associations in the world today that do not recommend routine, elective circumcisions. 
Pope Pius XII made his above statement in 1952, when circumcision was rampant in the U.S.  Circumcision is not common in Europe and among Catholics in most other countries. In fact, most of the world’s men today are left genitally intact.  Only in the U.S. do some Catholics still try to justify the practice, despite the guidelines set down by the Catholic Catechism and the most recent medical findings. 

People have the procedure done for medical purposes in adulthood. It’s painful, but not a big deal.  Why can’t boys choose for themselves to have it removed or to keep it?

It’s not just a flap of skin. There are nerve endings that respond to stimulation and it maintains the sensitivity of the head of penis. Removing it removes a major part of the sexual experience.

Anyway, this is all about indoctrination. Let the child discover your religion. Don’t force it on him.

Germany is the same country that outlaws homeschooling in contravention to Catholic teaching. This decision to outlaw circumcision is not only plainly anti-Semitic, it reveals the rotten nature of a socialist welfare state - telling parents what is best for their children in a very heavy handed manner. I’ve had my four sons circumcised and have no doubt they’ll be grateful for that when they get older. I’ve known enough grown men that have been circumcised in adulthood and it is much more painful and complicated for adults. 

David - your comment about “Let the child discover your religion. Don’t force it on him” amounts to spiritual malpractice.  Parents with those lackadaisical attitudes generate members of the world’s second largest denomination - ex-Catholics. Such parents will be held accountable on judgment day. Do I force my 13 year old to get out of bed in time to serve at liturgy on Sunday?  Darn right! Does he resent it?  Not at all.

Jeff B said, “I’ve had my four sons circumcised and have no doubt they’ll be grateful for that when they get older.”

You can’t be sure of that.  No parent knows for certain how any of their
child(ren) might feel about anything in the future.  [Just look at how Brad Pitt and his Baptist mother differ on the issue of homosexuality, and who they support for President.]  You might be surprised if/when they are not “grateful” for what you’ve done to them.  They might feel the exact opposite of how you feel.  They might not tell you how they feel, but you are only guessing about how your children might feel about circumcision or anything else in the future. After all, children are not clones of their parents..
With circumcision being more openly discussed today, and with nearly half of all male children being left genitally intact in the U.S., your children could potentially resent the fact that they were circumcised.  You just don’t know.

If you are Catholic and didn’t know about Cathoic Catechism teaching #2297 on “Respect for bodily integrity”, then you acted out of ignorance by circumcising your children.  But if you did know about this teaching but chose to ignore it, then you can’t claim ignorance about it.

Many men are not “grateful” to have been circumcised.  Your sons might someday feel the same way. I encourage you to read the words of these men. Whether you like it or not, your sons might someday feel as they do.
http://peacefulbeginningsrosemary.wordpress.com/circ-information/comments-from-men/
http://www.sueeasy.com/class_action_detail.php?case_id=258

For all you men who have been circumcised and are “happy” or “grateful” for it, and all you parents who have had their infant sons circumcised and expect them to be grateful for it:
.
YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF EVERYONE’S UNIVERSE—JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE HAPPY DOES NOT MAKE IT GOOD FOR EVERYONE ELSE. GET IT?1?

@Jeff B
Your comment that “This decision to outlaw circumcision is not only plainly anti-Semitic” show how lite you read about this issue, as there were no Jewish people involved inteh case, and that it ws made as a result of a Moslem child’s circumcision. In a broad sense, the only connection to anti-semiticism is that Moslems are also semites.

Also please consider that you cannot indict the entire Germany nation as this was doen at a state level, not a federal, and that Germany’s leader Angela Merkel has stated that she will work to guarantee religious freedom in this affair,

Finally—you obviously have no idea what socialism is. Consider this before you start tossing everything you disagree with into the socialist bucket—are you a veteran and use the VA, do you collect Social Security, do you rely on the police to preseve the peace, do your children or gandchildren go to school, public or Catholic, for even Catholic schools do rely on some small level of ‘state’ control. With regard to schools, further consider the non-socialist alternative—schools run by Halliburton, Exxon, or Coca-Cola.

Finaly—on the side—I consider most curious that the author of this blog entry has never come forth the justify his tasteless allusion to the holocaust (Final Conflict), or the half truthes in his commentary

Why do people consider religion as a legitimate excuse to continue practices that cause tangible harm to others? Do you think Satanists have the right to practice ritual human sacrifices? What about pagan sexual rituals? Suttee? Druids burning people in wicker cages?
.
How many lives have to be destroyed by religion before anyone of you will begin to question the “morality” of religion above everything else?

First, yes the issue of freedom of religion is what is pertinent here and this ruling in Germany, coupled with our own government’s HHS Mandate against the people of the Catholic faith in our own country makes me believe we are reliving the Third Reich. May our Good and Loving God help us!!! 

That being said, circumcision is a good thing medically speaking. As a nurse and mother of six sons who are circumcised I am amazed at the opinions and statements against circumcision. Wow! They should get as exercised over the real problems of our world today. The nonsense being spouted to support the anti-circumcision stance is ridiculous. And female circumcision is not to be compared to male circumcision.  The only thing they really have in common is the name.  Their purposes and what they cut out are not comparable.  Besides this is not the forum to debate this issue. People need to get balanced and accurate information.  This is not the place to do so.

Mary:
Your saying that “circumcision is a good thing medically speaking” is in conflict with the findings of the medical associations around the world, and troubling that you would say this as a nurse.  It is time to become more informated. No national medical association in the world recommends non-therapeutic circumcision.  Here is what some of the major medical groups have said about it.
2010 Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Circumcision of Infant Males: “Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognized that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent. After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of disease modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision, and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
2010 Royal Dutch Medical Association, Non-therapeutic Circumcision of Male Minors: “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene… Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to the rule that minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child… Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.”
2009 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Circumcision (Infant Male): “Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention.”
2006 British Medical Association, The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision: Guidance for Doctors: “To circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate… The medical benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven… The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”
2002 American Academy of Family Physicians, Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision: “Evidence from the literature is often conflicting or inconclusive… A physician performing a procedure for other than medical reasons on a non-consenting patient raises ethical concerns.”
1999 (reaffirmed 2005) American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision Policy Statement: “Existing scientific evidence… [is] not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
1996 Canadian Paediatric Society, Neonatal Circumcision Revisited: “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
1996 Australian Medical Association, Circumcision Deterred: “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”
1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Guidelines for Circumcision: “The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants, or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce [foreskin], based on the current evidence available… We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure which, had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.”

Mary, you are the kind of person I was talking about—putting religion above everything else. Female circumcision is practiced because of religion—why don’t you support it? And the purposes for both are comparable—the purpose of religious circumcision started as a means of making sex less pleasurable so that lust would not distract them from God.
.
Like others on this site, you are only paying attention to the information that supports your views. If freedom of religion is at stake-and that bothers you—you should defend all religious rituals against government action.

Also, Mary—
Comparing your “Catholic victimization” to the Third Reich was in poor taste.

So how is banning this hideous mutilation of boys genitals an affront to religious freedom exactly. Religious freedom entails the ability to be free from it, or to choose one’s own religion. This backlash is nothing to do with freedom, it’s to do with parents choosing their children’s religion, which they have no right to do; at least not while using the argument that they are entitled to religious freedom.

Wow I’m impressed with the number of comments on this issue( or should I say tissue:).  Just a few things of logical import.  1.Unless we are to believe that the God of the Old Testament was other than The True God then we cannot without impunity declare circumcision to be intrinsically wrong.  2.  The Catholic Church would not have condemned circumcision with the other acts of bodily harm or mutilation.  And the fact that the Catholic Church does not approve of Catholics circumcising as if it were some religious requirement for christians does not mean that circumcision has been condemned as a practice.  3.  For a father to say that the parents have the exclusive right to make decisions on behalf their children and which they believe to be for their benefit should NOT disturb catholics as a commenter insinuated.  Many Popes are on infallible record giving this right to parents.  This is not a central issue of faith or morals.  It is rhetorical and sophistry to to equate circumcision with other forms of mutilations.  Time-honored, God-honored, and even if the Christian faith no longer requires it as a sign of the covenant there is no scriptural indication that the act itself was ever considered immoral.

“Just a few things of logical import. 1.Unless we are to believe
that the God of the Old Testament was other than The True God then we cannot without impunity declare circumcision to be intrinsically wrong.” I like the reasoning of that recent post.
It is exactly that reasoning that caused me to reject the God of the Bible. I don’t believe God ever commanded that children have their genitals cut as an initiation in to his community. Think your belief through: your God commanded that babies suffer and bleed from their genitals. That is the command of the God of the Bible. Can you reconcile that with the God of Love, the Creator, the Father? That would take a lot of mental gymnastics

OK, Tom Morris, first of all this is the National CATHOLIC Register…therefore it is quite safe for me to assume that people here believe in God and respect the Bible.  I am sorry that you left “God and the Bible” over the reasoning that God should ask some sign of loyalty of mankind.  But seriously now…You could have left when God asked a Man and a Woman to be married exclusively for life…Or why not at “unless you take up your cross and follow me you are not worthy of me”  Or what about the absolute barbarism of handing your only-Begotten Son into the hands of evil men so that they could scourge Him and nail Him to the cross.  What about the martyrs?  Were they not asked to give their lives in the arenas, lit as torches, thrown to animals, boiled in oil etc.  So where precisely would I lose breath doing mental gymnastics trying to explain a God who asks a difficult thing?  God doesn’t ask christians to circumcise their children anymore…its NOT a religious question…but it is also not a point against a betrayed God that He should require a token of love from a creature who has nothing without Him.

By the way I am surprised that this thread has attracted so many proselytizers for agnosticism, atheism and paganism.  Are there people just trolling the internet to talk about the foreskins of little boys? 
I like this one…
“How many lives have to be destroyed by religion before anyone of you will begin to question the “morality” of religion above everything else?”

Could I logically deduce from this ridiculous statement that atheism has shown more humanity and “morality” in history-maybe the tender fist of communism could enter here. Or could I remind people that the genocide of WWII was largely perpetrated against those who were circumcised by those who weren’t.  So forgive me if I don’t feel the “sincerity” of people’s compassion who “defend” the foreskins of my descendants.  Get over it…
if circumcision is medically necessary should we go into mourning?
...Why not decry the moral implications of lost virginity among teens?
I hope you all have a good rest of this discussion…I think I will move on to real life…and no…I am not mourning my foreskin and I’m pretty sure my boys would kindly ask detractors stop trying to step back and see if there be more to life.

Wow - as a first time poster on this site I apparently thought there would be more of a traditional orientation respecting the prerogatives of the parent to shape the lives of one’s children without the interference of the state. For a moment there, I thought I was on the Seattle Times website arguing with secularists. Call me narrow, but if circumcision was good for Jesus without his explicit permission, it’s good enough for my sons. My parents raised four sons and we’re unanimous in appreciation that our parents didn’t wait until we were 18 to ask “hey, do you want that circumcision done now?”  My wife is glad too…and her opinion matters most. With regard to those charging “mutilation,” did Mary and Joseph mutilate their son? To all the dads out there, I say “man up” and do what’s best for your boys. If that means you don’t want to circumcise, then so be it.

Posted by Jeff B on Monday, Jul 16, 2012 1:23 AM (EST):Wow - as a first time poster on this site I apparently thought there would be more of a traditional orientation respecting the prerogatives of the parent to shape the lives of one’s children without the interference of the state.”
*********************
Dear Jeff,
You will find more traditional orientation of that sort on the NCR site but probably not currently on this particular issue.My guess is that folk on the fanatic-cusp troll through google listings, looking for a forum to post their views. They may only be here because of the subject matter, not because they’re Catholic, or even necessarily religious, though some Catholics do hold strong personal views on this & other health issues like vaccines.It’s a free country & that’s their right.
But the original issue was simply about religious freedom in Germany.Everything else is a side issue or an attempt to derail the conversation away from religious rights.

Posted by Shannon on Saturday, Jul 14, 2012 10:07 AM (EST):

@ Anon, define often. The stats show otherwise. I would not be able to find a colleague in my line of medicine that would agree with you. Again, we don’t remove body parts that might cause problems. We remove problem body parts when then problems happen. There is no way to know, if you remove healthy foreskin of an infant, if it was truly beneficial to him or not. The vast majority of men in the world have always been intact. Problems with foreskin do not occur ‘often’. Problems with labia and cervices of women DO occur often. Let’s go ahead and get rid of those while they are babies and they will never know what they are missing!
#################################################################

What “line” of medicine are you in? Routine circ has been done for decades, only in the past few years has any change happend as the result of anti circ activists push for changes. National med organizations are political bodies. Just as the “gays” force the hand of the APA so you people try to force the hand of these other groups.

Keep in mind these same groups support all types of evil procedures like direct sterility, contraception, abortion and much else.

Gloria,
We are religious people, on a religious website.  Religion, to us, trumps all.  There are plenty of folks on the web who agree with you. 

This is totally an issue of religious freedom.  Just because it’s going after an issue some folks don’t like is missing the point.

This is all about the all powerful State dictating to people how to live their lives.

Posted by PJ on Saturday, Jul 14, 2012 11:05 AM (EST):

anon:
Pope Pius XII (Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi, t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329) said this to Italian urologists about circumcision.  “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.”
Some mention diseases they believe circumcision might prevent, but the key point of the sentence is this - if “it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.”
HIV and other STDs are diseases that can be prevented in other better ways- most effectively by living a chaste lifestyle. Concerning HIV and STDs, the AAP in 1999 stated that “behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status.” Cervical cancer in women can be prevented today with a vaccine against HPV.  As for UTIs, the AAP said, “the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%).”  One way they mentioned to counter UTIs is this- “breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants.”
The AAP stated that “many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer.”  They also said that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimum penile hygiene.”  Good hygiene among both circumcised and intact men is the key to preventing penile cancer, and even circumcised men can get penile cancer.  Not smoking is also beneficial.
Foreskin problems can be treated non-surgically in many cases.  For example, steroid creams and stretching are used to treat a tight foreskin. Liquid acidophilus (a probiotic) applied topically and taken orally treats foreskin infections quickly and effectively in many cases.  European doctors are more likely to know about these alternative treatments than are U.S. doctors, but these treatments do exist.
The AAP said, “Medical therapy has been successful in resolving both secondary phimosis and paraphimosis, but surgical intervention is sometimes indicated.”  In other words, foreskin problems can be treated non-surgically at first, but in those rare cases where the treatment is ineffective, circumcision becomes a non-therapeutic surgery that is allowed under #2297.

There are rare cases where circumcision fits Pope Pius XII’s guidelines. Circumcisions that don’t fit these guidelines are reasons like these. “I’m circumcised and I want my son circumcised.” “I think it looks better.”  “Everyone in my family is circumcised.”  “It’s my parental right to circumcise him if I want to.” None of these social reasons fit the therapeutic guidelines.  The perceived “health” reasons expressed by some parents today go against the findings of all the national medical associations in the world today that do not recommend routine, elective circumcisions.
Pope Pius XII made his above statement in 1952, when circumcision was rampant in the U.S.  Circumcision is not common in Europe and among Catholics in most other countries. In fact, most of the world’s men today are left genitally intact.  Only in the U.S. do some Catholics still try to justify the practice, despite the guidelines set down by the Catholic Catechism and the most recent medical findings.
###################################################################

The quote frpm Pope Pius has no link to examine exactly what was said in context. Even if we take the quote at face value that still would not exclude circ because the decision is not made by any medical/political groups but by an informed physician with the parents.

Why do you see these political groups as the final judge?

So, where do we draw the line at what can be done in the realm of physical modifications of our childrens’bodies for religious reasons? Seems like fgm should be ok then, since it’s a religious practice that has been performed for a millennia. Or do we have to line the religion that the practice stems from? We like Judaism more then Islam, right?

anon:

The Pope was speaking to urologists, medical doctors.  He was telling them which circumcisions are and which are not permissible.  This wasn’t the judgment of a medical/political group, but the words of the Pope.  His words don’t exclude circumcision.  Rather, he says it’s permissible if it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.  Those cases are very rare, if they even exist at all today, considering alternative treatments are available for foreskin problems.  These guidelines are not as permissive as you might wish them to be, but you were asking for something the Church might have said, and the Pope is leader of the Church and this is what he specifically said about circumcision.

I’m the super religous right. I am American as apple pie, chaste and pure, and God has me in his favor. I say I have love for my fellow nations but given my comments only have love for my own. I am all for protecting religous liberty but would love nothing more than for the gay to be exterminated. In fact, I have billions of dollars but prefer federally banning gay marriage, invitro fertilization, contraceptives, and anything else I deem unpure rather thanhelping the poor find jobs and services and helping the lonely and struggling. I am always Republican in all ways and things, always looking to claim victimization even though the president has to pretend he is christian in order to get the job. I’m the oppresed religous right, have pity on me-but see what will happen

Posted by PJ on Monday, Jul 16, 2012 10:50 AM (EST):

anon:

The Pope was speaking to urologists, medical doctors.  He was telling them which circumcisions are and which are not permissible.  This wasn’t the judgment of a medical/political group, but the words of the Pope.  His words don’t exclude circumcision.  Rather, he says it’s permissible if it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.  Those cases are very rare, if they even exist at all today, considering alternative treatments are available for foreskin problems.  These guidelines are not as permissive as you might wish them to be, but you were asking for something the Church might have said, and the Pope is leader of the Church and this is what he specifically said about circumcision.
#################################################################

You are a bit confused. By political groups I was referring to medical groups that issue policy statements that are influenced in part by science and in part by political agenda.

As to the quote from Pope Pius that is thrown around by anti circ zealots, yet I find no verification for it. Let us see the citation with the full address.

Your determination as to what therapy is best is based on these political groups and other boased information. As I said even talking the quote you gave us possibly from the Pope that alone does not mean therapeutic circ as practiced today is illicit. That determination would be based on medical information and that information is not unilaterally decided by you or political interested groups with medical names.

Circumcision is not medically necessary. To those that say being uncircumcised is less healthy or is dirtier do not know what they are talking about. I am proud of being uncircumcised and I have never had any problems. I am also well versed in anatomy and physiology. The studies that proclaim circumcision as a disease preventative were mostly done in third world countries where hygiene is not up to what we would consider acceptable here. Being circumcised is NOT healthier. These “problems” with being uncircumcised are myths that keep being passed down and are totally false.

Sam,

It is your choice not to circ and you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. The medical literature actually shows a modest benefit to cir over non circ.

The real myth is that circ is harmful and immoral.

Actually, those who view the medical facts are realizing it is better to be uncircumcised. I repeat, the so called problems are myths perpetuated by those in favor of circumcising. If you choose to reject the facts that is your affair, but you cannot say that I am making things up. You should know that medical associations around the world are starting to admit that there is no medical necessity to circumcise.

Sam,

Again these political organizations you mention are not all about science. They make policy statements based on many factors.

And once again, if you were familiar with the science behind it, as I am, then you would see the benefits of the foreskin and not see it as a piece of useless tissue to be cut off. Seriously, you need to study anatomy and physiology. There is plenty of scientific basis for what I’m saying. Not only is there science but also personal experience to know the problems people spout are greatly, greatly exaggerated.

If you have access to running water there are no hygiene issues with having normal foreskin. To say otherwise is an insult to hundreds of millions of men. The human body isn’t dirty. My husband wasn’t circumcised. My almost 13 yr old son, who is severely autistic is not circumcised. There are no issues. There is no special attention required. There are some really old and outmoded misconceptions about foreskin that people need to get informed about.

“If someone wants to have part of their body hacked off for religious reasons, sure, why not.  They should not be forced without their consent as children.  I am all for a ban on non-medically-necessary infant circumcision.  Good for Germany!” - Stephen

I 100% agree with statement. Good job, Germany! Now if only the U.S. would also stop mutilating children.

Will you stop that nonsense, please?!
Jewish (and some Muslim as I heard, but I don’t know, so don’t take my word for it) do the circumcision not because of any health reason (why would God made us unhealthy?) but because of religious reason. If you believe in God then stop arguing that God incorrectly accepted this sign of the Jews (Jesus was circumcised as all the Jews and Hellenists were.)
You cannot prove or disprove presence of Christ in Eucharist. We, who know it is Him, know it through Faith and God’s grace. It’s a heart thing, not brain thing.
You cannot prove of disprove original sin through any apparatus. However isn’t it amazing seeing a two-years old boy destroying a sand castle of another boy, just ‘because’? Or simply turn on the tv.
You cannot prove or disprove hell. However, as Padre Pio said, you will believe in hell when you get there. Many people are already there, walking among us and hating others.
You cannot prove or disprove Heaven. However Heaven is at your hand. Very, very close. You can even touch it. And you will receive it when you ask for it. You will know it in your heart. The peace world cannot give you. The peace you always craved, always desired, always cried for. It is amazing, and is given only if you stoop down, and ask Him for it. You need to stoop down as low as it was low for Jesus to stoop down and become a man. It is really, really low. But it is sweet and freeing.

Historically, circumcision as practiced at the time of Christ did not remove the whole foreskin as it does today. It only removed a little at the end. Thus it did not take away the protective qualities of the foreskin. However the Old Law was fulfilled and so circumcision is no longer required. the radical circumcision was a man made custom and not even the Old Law required the removal of the entire foreskin.

@Shannon - I agree, it isn’t dirty to be uncircumcised. It is insulting to here people talking like I’m dirty or contaminated because I’m intact. The cleanliness issue is one of those myths propagated to get people to think it is the right thing to do.

I was circumcised but I would not have chosen it if the choice had been left to me, which it should have been. Now there is a part of my body I cannot get back. My son(s) will not be circumcised. The people here who want their sons circumcised should, at a minimum, have the fortitude to stand in the room and watch while the procedure is performed. If you cannot so much be in the same room as your infant son while he screaming in pain, you really have no business supporting the practice.

I agree, it should be each guy’s choice. My boys will not be circumcised either. I know that some people are arguing that it is a religious practice but here in the US the religious practice aspect is kind of the exception rather than the rule. Most are doing it strictly as a social custom which I don’t think is a good enough reason. I have to say that I’m glad my parents didn’t do that to me even though more than 95% at that time and place were. It is my choice and I chose to keep it!

Bill Took
.
So, this religious website has the right to promote hate against homosexuals, people who use contraception, Liberals, Barak Obama, Richard Dawkins and atheists in general? It’s OK to let your children die rather than admit them to a hospital that might have doctors who perform abortions?
.
How am I supposed to tell the difference between Catholics and other hate cults?

Lin—Bottom Line:
.
IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM <U>FROM</U> RELIGION!!!!!

To the people who run this site:
Please try to remember that believing in God does not make you God.

Gloria….......It is about freedom from religion if that is your choice.  Faithful Catholics who believe in all that our Church teaches, do not spew hate. There are those who are Catholic in name only and they often are very public about their disputes about the precepts of the Catholic faith. They are free to leave the Church at any time. We pray for those who promote hate or appear to be far from the TRUTH. Peace!

To just a fellow,
I liked your comment. I feel like you get the main thrust of what I’m talkinmg about: violence, martyrdom. Please understand that I was a very serious Catholic, not just a casual one. This move out of Christianity was not a cranky, easy or political move for me. You may make fun of this, but I mean this seriously: I believe God gave me the gift of understanding circumcision, of seeing through it. My belief that God did not ever require the genital cutting of even a single baby ever: that is a cornerstone of my faith. I could not worship or love a God that required a baby to be cut. That may seem a silly or unimportant point to you, but it is not to me. After my understanding of circumcision it was harder to accept the Bible. I also cannot understand (did I ever?) the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection and how that is salvation. I am not being mocking or disrespectful here. (It’s so easy to misunderstand each other on email.) I simply don’t understand what it all is supposed to mean.

Well, Lin—then very few people on this site are “faithful Catholics who believe in all the church teaches” because most of these blogs and their responders are spewing hate every time they write in. You’re a very good example (sarcasm).
.
What about my religious ritual of abortion? Don’t I and my fellow Pastafarians have a legal right to it as part of our religion? After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an equally valid God (may you be touched by His Noodle Appendage!). Why are you attacking my religion? By your argument, I should be able to put my religious beliefs above everything else—even the so-called “right-to-life” of others.
.
You talk about “freedom of religion” but you really have given up any right to choose anything. You can’t make your own decisions anymore because the Church does it for you. You’re too frightened to take responsibility for anything you might think for yourself.

The current matter in Germany has nothing to do with antisemitism. The case arose because a (Muslim) boy aged four was brought to the ER with bleeding and other, serious, circumcision complications. An ER medic blew the whistle and the doctor was charged and convicted with bodily harm (but not punished because he acted in ignorance). The Cologne court upheld the ruling, on the basis of the Basic Law:
1. 1 Human dignity shall be inviolable. ...
1. 2 The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights ...
2.2 Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. ...
3. 1 All persons shall be equal before the law.
3.2 Men and women shall have equal rights.
Ironically, the Basic Law is so strong on human rights precisely in order to ensure that there can never be another Holocaust.

It will be hard to change this to allow any infant male genital cutting AND not allow any infant female genital cutting (which many Muslims think is part of their religion) AND maintain equality of the sexes.

Believers seem to think that religious belief (and antiquity) can justify any practice, but if this were the case we would have no way of outlawing, say, human sacrifice - just so long as believers were sincere that this was what their god/s wanted.

And those who want to bring up abortion, are you saying that human rights END at birth? Thise people are not pro-abortion: http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/

John 7: 21-23 - “21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 3 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?

In this passage from John above, Jesus heals a man and makes him “whole” on the Sabbath, but he is criticized by the Jewish leaders for doing that.  He then tells them that “because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.”

Who were the patriarchs, who Jesus said actually gave them circumcision? “The Patriarchs of the Bible, when narrowly defined, are Abraham, his son Isaac, and Isaac’s son Jacob, also named Israel, the ancestor of the Israelites. These three figures are referred to collectively as the patriarchs of Judaism.”
What is interesting here is how Jesus says that circumcision actually came from the patriarchs.  He does not say circumcision came from God.  Instead, he says that circumcision came from Abraham and the other patriarchs.  We know that these men were not God, but Jesus IS the Son of God. Abraham, who was the first to practice the ritual of circumcision upon himself, his son, and his slaves, was 99 years old when he heard God tell him to do this, in what was a private revelation. Later on, when Abraham was even older than 99, heard God tell him to kill his son Isaac.  I can’t help but wonder how we might react today if a man in his late 90’s said God told him to cut the genitals of himself and others, and later on when over 100 said God told him to kill his son. 
Jesus contrasts His healing a man on the Sabbath to make the man “whole” with the Jews circumcising a male on the Sabbath, which makes a man less than whole.
Jesus had a lot to say about the Pharisees and even called them “hypocrites” and a “brood of vipers.”  He reproached them for being more concerned with the letter of the Law (while not following it themselves), and not following the spirit of the Law (which is Love).  See: Matthew: 3: 1, 2, 5-7, Matthew 5: 20, Matthew 9: 10-13, Matthew 9: 32-34, Matthew 12: 1-14, Matthew 12: 22-24, Matthew 12: 38-40, Matthew 15: 1-14, Matthew 16: 1-12, Matthew 21: 45, Matthew 22: 15, Matthew 22: 34-39, Matthew: 23: 1-7, 13-33, Mark 2: 18-19, Mark 12: 13-17, Luke 5: 17-25, Luke 7: 36-39, 44-47, Luke 11: 37-44, 53, 54, Luke 16: 13-15, Luke 18: 9-14, John 7: 45-49, John 8: 1, 3-7, John 9: 13-16, 39-41, John 11: 45-48, 57- 45, John 12: 42,John 18: 3, 12, Philippians 3: 2-5.
After Jesus’ death, it was the Pharisees who wanted converts to Christianity to be circumcised. Acts 15:5 “Some of the converted Pharisees then got up and demanded that such Gentiles be circumcised and told to keep Mosaic law.”  Peter (our first Pope) said to them in Acts 15:10, “Why, then, do you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?”
Jesus himself spoke several times about the harsh practices of the Pharisees.  In Matthew 15: 1-3: “1 Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem approached Jesus with the question: 2 “Why do your disciples act contrary to the tradition of our ancestors? They do not wash their hands, for example, before eating a meal.” 3 In reply He said to them: “Why do you for your part act contrary to the commandment of God for the sake of your ‘tradition’? ”
The Pharisees are the ones who changed circumcision in the 2nd century A.D. to complete removal of the foreskin.  The Pharisees also added to circumcision the ritual of sucking the blood from the circumcised penis with the mouth, called metzitzah b’peh. (This is practiced by some Orthodox Jews today and has killed children who acquired herpes from this practice.)
From Abraham until the 2nd century A.D. Pharisees, the patriarchs only required removal of the tip of the foreskin.  See:  http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html
This Pharisaic form of circumcision is what mohels and doctors do today to children. No national medical association in the world recommends circumcision, and Christianity teaches that it is unnecessary.

I think people need to think about the time frame in which circ originated.  Lack of adequate bathing facilities (clean running water and soap) could TEND to be problematic for an uncircumcised male in a warm climate in a world without antibiotics.  In Acts 15:6-12 Peter made a decision that gentiles who converted did not need to be circumcised.  He ended the controversy and all the others who opposed fell silent.  So, while it is not required for Christians to be circumcised, it does make cleaning easier and thus a bit more likely to happen - especially with young boys.  Cleanliness will TEND to reduce infections.  So there was good practical reasons for the Jewish Laws and these reasons remain true today, but too a much lesser extent because we have much better hygiene.  The comment above about having to VERY carefully clean uncircumcised males’ penises is right on target, but missed by most of the trolling secularists on this blog.

Just to inform everyone, circumcision does not make cleaning easier. In a child only the outside is supposed to be cleaned. The foreskin often does not retract until puberty. Until this happens naturally it is not to be retracted at all. Forcibly pulling it back damages the sensitive tissue. So especially for young boys, under the foreskin is not supposed to be cleaned until IT RETRACTS ON ITS OWN. This is propagated by those who think uncircumcised penises are dirty and they try to get those who don’t circumcise to pull back the foreskin to clean. This is wrong. This rips the skin and introduces the very infections people think they are preventing by cleaning.

New Yorker - I am not a trolling secularist, I am a Catholic and I oppose circumcision (I commented on this thread previously). Four objections to your comment: (1) The argument that circumcision makes for better hygiene did not emerge until the 19th or 20th century (and has lately been called into question or outright repudiated by a number of reputable medical organizations around the world). I am not aware of any document created before that time that supported circumcision on these grounds - and certainly not one coming from ancient times. If you do know of such a document (e.g., the Bible) please let us know. (2) If you think a warm climate and a lack of antibiotics would create problems for a boy’s foreskin, imagine how a section of bleeding, sliced-off skin would fare in the same conditions. (3) It is no great chore to clean a baby’s foreskin. It just takes a couple of moments and a minimum of attention. (4) All of what you’re saying could be applied to female babies, as well. But I assume you would be horrified to find a large number of people all together on the Internet seriously arguing that cutting off any part of a girl’s genitals is in her best interests.

One other item I noticed above was the above comments regarding the acceptance of abortion up to 24 weeks.  That’s 6 months!!  No compassion for a 6 month old child, but plenty of compassion for 8 day old infants being circumcised.  This is simply twisted logic and misplaced compassion.

I totally oppose abortion as well. There is never any reason or excuse for it. I just see it as a totally separate issue from circumcision so I’m not addressing it here.

@PJ - Thank you for so much time and work to prepare your response! It required effort and sacrifice of your time to do that. We, including me, very often respond through uncontrolled outburst of ...uncontrolled… emotions with disregard to the harm we may do to others.
To all of us - if you share your opinion disrespecting the fact that other people could have different opinions, and assume that others should accept your opinion as valid, or ‘else’ then you are doing absolutely wrong. You have no power to convert, convict or make people love. You usurp the power of God. You are not God. Share in love. At the end, are you children of God not beasts.

David, circumcision is not required to be Catholic.  You are certainly free to oppose it.  Speaking from experience with both circumcised and uncircumcised males in the family, you need to be just a little bit more careful when you’re uncircumcised and while that is not a big job, it does need to be done consistently, something younger boys might not be too good at.  Sure, cutting the foreskin could cause an infection, but the parents would be likely to know about such things and take very special care to keep the area clean - much better care then say a young uncircumcised boy.  I don’t think it requires too much imagination to see how this could be a potential problem.  As for female babies, don’t you think removing the labia and clitoris would be quantum leap from removing a little bit of foreskin?  Do you really think this is the same?

@ New Yorker
Nothing extra needs to be done hygiene wise. If someone is doing something extra then they are not doing it right! For a child, the foreskin is never to be retracted for cleaning. Removing the foreskin is a much bigger deal than people seem to be thinking. Its not a little bit of foreskin. Its a big deal. Why is it that it seems to be only women and circumcised guys that get so hung up on this hygiene myth?

Funny how ya’ll are gung-ho for freedom. Yet, the freedom for those little jewish boys to choose their religion and rituals does not exist. That is the only loss of freedom I see here.

Myopics.

Hi, New Yorker - Not only is circumcision not required by the Church, I don’t see where it is even encouraged. For the sake of clarity I do like to break things down into points so please permit me to do so here again. (1) Again, cleaning the foreskin is not hard. As Sam pointed out, the foreskin is not even to be retracted until it does so naturally, otherwise harm can be caused to the child. After that time, it is no harder to clean the foreskin than it is to clean any other part of the body. You have to remember to clean beneath your fingernails, too - should we cut off the tips of our fingers to make it easier? (2) Please note what I actually said in my 4th point in my last comment: “cutting off any part of a girl’s genitals is in her best interests.” Emphasis on the word ‘any’. I myself did not suggest removing the foreskin is equivalent to removing the clitoris, so please do not put me in the position of defending this argument. However, I don’t consider removing the clitoral hood a ‘quantum leap’ from removing the foreskin. This is different insofar as the clitoris is more sensitive than the glans but the two are more alike than unlike. Disagree if you wish, but please note my point is this: What would your reaction be if you found a group of Americans seriously contending that it is favorable to remove ANY part of a girl’s genitals? Suppose you found a father commenting, “I found a doctor who was willing to cut off a portion of my last daughter’s labia because I found it difficult to clean my first daughter in her first year. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to give her anesthetic, but it had to be done: I didn’t want my daughter to get an infection.” What would your reaction be?

David, I’m not advocating circumcision. Sorry if I gave that impression.  What I am saying is that I can see the reasoning that went into promulgating this procedure a few thousand years a go, when keeping good hygiene was not as easy as it is today and when medicines were not too good.  Uncircumcised men should not be getting infections in 2012 in the USA.  That should be a rare thing.  So if someone decides they don’t want to do this, fine.  There shouldn’t be any health consequences in our modern world.  But if Jewish people want to do this for religious reasons, I don’t think it is right for a government to tell them it is illegal.  That’s how we get to the point where a government can try to tell the Catholic Church it has to pay for birth control pills and sterilizations.  This is a slippery slope.

Sanity, is that what happened to you?  Your parents let you decide what you wanted to believe in?  The attitude you’re espousing comes from such parenting methods.

Opinions are so polarized on circumcision that it is impossible to come to any agreement on whether circumcision is good or bad, right or wrong. What then is to be done?

One thing that could be done is to ban the forced circumcision of adults and brand it as a form of sexual assault. Such forced circumcisions occurred in Ambon, Indonesia in 2001 and in many places in Africa including Kenya, Darfur and South Africa.  Are there any objections here to banning the forced circumcision of adults?

A second thing to do is to ensure that only qualified operators are allowed to circumcise. This would ban people from circumcising their own children, something that happens from time to time, and which leads to serious injuries. Are there any objections to banning unqualified operators from hacking off foreskins?

A third thing to do is to ensure that circumcision cannot take place against the will of a parent. If parents cannot or will not agree on circumcision, then it is up to the owner of the foreskin to decide what to do with it when he reaches adulthood. Are there any objections to the general rule that both parents have to agree to a circumcision before it may take place?

Does anyone have any problem with these three proposals?

[the following article was published in the Catholic periodical SOCIAL JUSTICE REVIEW, Vol.102, No. 3-4, March-April, 2011; a lengthier article applying Catholic moral principles to modern elective infant circumcision is being published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2012]

Implicit Catholic Teaching against Non-Therapeutic Child Circumcision
 
Parental rights over their children are not absolute, contrary to some current popular thinking.  For example, the natural moral law restricts the way in which offspring are generated – artificial reproductive technology being prohibited as a violation of the dignity of human persons.  A more obvious precept (though also one contested in secular society) forbids killing babies in the womb (through abortion) or after birth (infanticide).  Although the Church designates parents the primary educators of their offspring, charged with the task of inculcating moral values in them, some parental choices are clearly off limits, such as teaching them to earn their livelihood by theft.
The Catholic Church needn’t issue a list spelling out all the possible ways in which parents can err in raising their children.  Undoubtedly most (or all) of these errors are subsumed under more general principles.  For example, maiming children as a punishment for disobedience or for some idiosyncratic cultural reason would come under the general precept forbidding mutilation, defined as the direct (or deliberate) infliction of organic injury on a healthy bodily part causing a foreseeable loss (whether actually or potentially permanent) of normal physical functioning.  Trimming long finger (or toe) nails or head hair wouldn’t constitute mutilation, since no organic injury with loss of normal function results from the removal of excess nails and hair, which consist of essentially dead (keratinized) tissue and which will grow back anyway.  On the other hand, it would be mutilation to uproot hair follicles or tear off nails.  To commit either of these deeds would disrupt the body’s natural state of well-being and cause disfigurement: the former rendering the child irreversibly bald (with all that entails, including possible emotional humiliation) and the latter exposing the child’s delicate mucous membranes to loss of protection.

The Magisterium condemns all kinds of human mutilation, without necessarily specifying the variety of forms it can take.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:  “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops asserts:
 
All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity. The functional integrity of the person may be sacrificed to maintain the health or life of the person when no other morally permissible means is available. 
 
This so-called “Principle of Totality” was articulated centuries ago by Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58), who wrote that “the amputation of any part of the human body is never legal, except when the entire body cannot be saved from destruction by any other method.”  At the time, he was applying this moral doctrine to castration, which some parents had chosen for their prepubescent sons because they mistakenly believed that the preservation of the boys’ soprano voices was in the best interests of everyone in the family (perhaps for monetary reasons).  Pope Pius XI repeated this principle in one of his major encyclicals:

  Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their own bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends: and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

        Another point of application, which the Church needn’t explicitly cite because it already falls under a broader heading, is the cutting and removal of the foreskin (or prepuce) that covers both the female glans clitoris and the male glans penis.  Female genital cutting of this strictly limited kind (as well as the more brutal forms of infibulation, clitoridectomy, or vulvectomy), though widely practiced in some countries (especially Egypt) in order to diminish or eliminate feminine sexual sensitivity, certainly comes under the blanket condemnation of mutilation – whether or not the Church ever issues any particular directives or definitive pronouncements on it.  Unless some pathological condition affects a girl’s outer reproductive zone, the elective or non-therapeutic excision of her naturally protective clitoral hood would be a senseless violation of the bodily integrity and healthy functioning with which the Creator endowed her.

Likewise for male circumcision, defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics as “amputation of the foreskin” (or posthectomy).  But how could non-therapeutic circumcision be forbidden by the natural moral law?  Didn’t God command routine circumcision for all males in the Old Testament, even for infants who could not consent?  So how could such an operation be intrinsically unethical? The answer, according to many researchers, is that the Abrahamic-Mosaic circumcision rite mandated in Genesis 17 is not the same procedure as the modern form.  There is a big equivocation on the term “circumcision.”  The Old Covenant rite, though painful, involved only what is called brit milah: a token cut (prophetically symbolic of the blood to be shed by the promised Redeemer and a foreshadowing of Baptism) that clipped off merely the overhang flap or tapered neck (akroposthion) of the prepuce.  The Hebrew words used for Old Testament circumcision were namal, which means clipping or snipping, and muwl, which means curtailing or blunting.  Although the Hebrew language contains terms for a cutting off tantamount to entire removal, such words are not employed in this scriptural context.  Now this curtailing, though visibly detectable, left sufficient skin to cover the glans, thus maintaining normal male physical function.
 
Around the middle of the second century A.D., however, the rabbis instituted a much more drastic version.  These guardians of Judaic culture aimed to prevent Jewish men from tacitly repudiating their religious identity by appearing uncircumcised in Greek gymnasia – athletic facilities demanding precise standards of modesty.  The situation is described in 1 Maccabees 1:16 (D-R), which reports: “They made themselves prepuces” (preputia sibi fecerunt in the old Latin translation of the Septuagint).  Since these Hellenizing Jews would simply stretch their substantial preputial remnant forward, the rabbis decreed that henceforth all circumcisions must completely denude the glans, leaving no loose skin behind.  This total uncovering is called brit periah ( “opening”), accomplished by cutting, tearing, and ripping away the whole preputial sheath.  The Jewish Encyclopedia, in its article on “Circumcision”, makes clear that the Muslim practice (essentially milah) differs from the Judaic radical version (periah).  The latter is the brand of surgery performed in modern times with the use of various surgical instruments (probes, forceps, clamps, scalpels).  Without precedent in Christendom, it was adopted in the West by the medical establishment of several English-speaking nations in the nineteenth century, but recently in vogue only in the USA, which for a century has had a high rate of (non-therapeutic) routine male infant circumcision (RMIC).  The operation (with varying degrees of severity) is practically universal in the Middle East, in the Philippines and in South Korea, but, except among the Jews, it is usually not performed on babies, the preference everywhere else being to wait until the youth is at least a few years old.
Although the ancient biblical form of milah doesn’t constitute a mutilation according to strict definition, the later form of periah certainly does.  The prepuce is an integral part of the masculine reproductive system bestowed by the Creator.  In eradicating it, periah destroys an extensive amount of healthy tissue (a large percentage of what would have been the normal adult male epithelium, muscles, blood vessels, and an entire network of nerves with thousands of free nerve endings), hence obliterating all attendant organic functioning.  Dr. Christopher R. Fletcher (of Doctors Opposing Circumcision) attests to this devastation when he writes: “Circumcision is not simply a little snip, but a major and brutal surgery on the most sensitive part of a male’s anatomy, with lifetime consequences for all cut boys.  Erectile dysfunction, increased infections in boys, such as multi-antibiotic resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), lack of sensitivity, etc.  I prescribe many times more Viagra, Cialis, etc. for circumcised guys than normal men.”    This subtractive operation externalizes the glans, which is naturally designed to be a soft, moist internal organ, in the process rendering it tough, dry, and desensitized (after years of chafing).  In married life a man is robbed of a gliding, cushioning, and lubricating mechanism for smooth and gentle (non-abrasive) intercourse.  Surely when God mandated the original rite of Old Covenant circumcision (brit milah), He didn’t intend the institution and perpetuation of a total destruction of what He in His infinite Wisdom ordained for the intact functioning of His human sons.  Such a conflict between the Divine positive law and the natural moral law would involve a metaphysical contradiction.

Speaking directly to the ethics of modern circumcision, Fr. John Dietzen explains in a column published in the official newspaper of the Diocese of Brooklyn:
 
  “[W]hile nontherapeutic male circumcision remains common in some places, as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity….  It is an amputation and mutilation, and, to my knowledge, … no significant medical group in the world defends it as having any therapeutic value.  In 1999 the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated that neonatal circumcision is nontherapeutic because no disease is present and no therapeutic treatment is required.  Modern Catholic Church documents do not deal explicitly with the morality of elective circumcision.  The above basic principles, however, clearly render it immoral.  It violates the bodily integrity of infant male children and unnecessarily deprives them of a part of their body that can protect the glans of the penis during infancy and serve at least a sexual function for adults.  My understanding from physicians is that circumcision rarely if ever arises as an ethical consideration.  Usually it is requested by the parents for more social reasons such as, it’s always been done in our family.  In that case, the procedure might be carried out in some places rather routinely, even if it is not what the child needs and no curative or remedial reason renders it ethical.”
 
The reasoning behind Fr. Dietzen’s conclusion is simple (but not simplistic, on account of the careful distinction that must be made in formulating the minor premise of a syllogism).  The major premise is the general precept: “All mutilation is contrary to the natural moral law (and thus forbidden by Catholic doctrine).”  The minor premise is historically factual: “Modern elective child circumcision (periah) is a mutilation.”  The conclusion is inescapable: “Therefore, modern elective child circumcision (periah) is contrary to the natural moral law (and thus forbidden by Catholic doctrine).” 
 
        Many Americans, who have innocently (certainly with invincible ignorance) viewed it as a harmless and morally neutral option, might be stunned to hear this verdict about the objective immorality of modern elective child circumcision.  But their astonishment arises from seeing it through a provincial lens: the entrenchment of RMIC in US society ever since some famous British and American physicians of the Victorian period conducted a crusade to introduce it (virtually unheard of in Western Christendom until the mid-nineteenth century) for supposedly prophylactic reasons.  These well-meaning but misguided medical doctors sought to prevent two kinds of disorder, which for them were intimately connected: physical disease and moral turpitude.  Since surgery was almost the only weapon in their arsenal during an era devoid of effective drugs, they decided to inaugurate a mass campaign of excising the “filthy and malodorous cesspool” of the preputial cavity that could harbor the seeds of physical decomposition.  Since they were mostly Protestants (along with some high-profile Jews) lacking the spiritual healing of the Sacraments, their pragmatic approach to inhibiting moral vice from taking root was to extirpate the mobile sheath they deemed the source of “irritation” (i.e., stimulation).  Aware of the foreskin’s pleasure-enhancing attributes, they knew what they were doing when they espoused surgery as the surest way to blunt male erotic excitation.  After a short period (during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) of experimentation with solely punitive circumcision of boys caught materially transgressing the sixth commandment, the American medical profession (assuming a pseudo-divine jurisdiction) gradually settled into the prevalent routine of prophylactic male neonatal circumcision, whose rate peaked at about 85% around 1980 and apparently stabilized (with annual variations) somewhere between 50% and 60% after 1990.  Thus, RMIC arose in America as an ostensibly “noble” application of the pernicious ethical dictum: the end justifies the means.

Though performed in scattered places throughout human history, elective circumcision has generally been regarded with loathing and revulsion. Even the OT Israelites found it an unpleasant task to carry out their non-invasive token ritual, as St. Peter indicates in Acts 15:10.  And still today most of the world (Europe, Russia, Latin America, and the Far East with the exception of the Philippines and South Korea) views it as barbaric.

The Catholic Church has reprobated the practice of circumcision (done for religious motives) from her very beginnings, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles.  In a General Audience, Pope Benedict XVI summarized the scriptural evidence:
 
“Together with Paul, he [St. Barnabas] 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.” 
 
The letters of St. Paul, in particular Galatians 2:3-5; 5:1-12; 6:12-15 (cf. Acts 21:21), are replete with criticisms of those who would impose the burden of Old Covenant circumcision (milah) on members of the New Israel of God, the Church.  Although he was writing well before the introduction of the severely reductive surgery of periah, in Philippians 3:2-3 he could be uttering a prophetic warning about its coming, since he uses peritomai (“cutting around”) to refer to traditional circumcision but by contrast katatomai (“cutting away” or “cutting off”) in the pejorative sense of an injurious excision: “Beware the dogs, beware the evil-doers, beware the mutilation [katatomen], for we are the circumcision [peritomai].”  Of course, henceforth this new “circumcision” would be of the heart, bearing only spiritual significance (cf. Romans 2:29; 4:9-12).  Evidently, then, the token physical circumcision of St. Timothy in Acts 16:3 was a singular exception for St. Paul, to which St. Timothy obviously consented, making it (merely an act of milah) completely unlike the pre-emptive, non-therapeutic radical surgery (periah) done on a non-consenting child in later times.

        Traditional Catholic opposition to circumcision of any kind (even merely milah) continued into subsequent centuries.  Many Church Fathers (for example, Sts. Justin Martyr, Cyril, Jerome, John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Augustine) spoke against it, not surprisingly, for religious reasons.  Writing after the start of periah, St. Ambrose explained its detrimental character on ontological grounds: “Nature has created nothing imperfect in man, nor has she bade it be removed as unnecessary.”  In other words, if God created the prepuce as a universal component of human genital structure (for both male and female), then it must have an important and a “very good” purpose (see Genesis 1:31, Wisdom 11:24).

According to the General Council of Vienna (1311), “Christians may not be enticed into Judaism; neither may they be circumcised for any reason.”  During the Council of Florence (1438-1445), Pope Eugene IV signed the bull Cantate Domino (1441-1442), which warns:
 
“All, therefore, who after that time [the promulgation of the Gospel] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the [Mosaic] law, it [the Holy Roman Church] declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless some day they recover from these errors.  Therefore, it 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.”
 
In this sweeping injunction against circumcision in general (a fortiori the mutilation of periah), no exceptions are made for parents who vainly desire cosmetic or aesthetic re-sculpting for their son, thinking “he will look better that way” – a frivolous reason in light of the considerable risks of unnecessary painful surgery on a neonate (hemorrhage, infection, ulceration, partial or total disfigurement, and even death).  Nor for those who are pressured by quasi-compulsory social norms into feeling that their son must “match” a mutilated father or brother or cousin or classmate.  Neither personal nor cultural ends can justify the morally objectionable means of confiscatory surgery on a healthy body, coercing a lad into surrendering a valuable part of his God-given masculine endowment (nowadays for the gain of biotech companies who reap huge profits from processing foreskins acquired through cooperative hospitals). 

Even if the statistically prophylactic benefits that have been alleged amidst much controversy were confirmed (and all have been debunked thus far, including such standard reasons as preventing penile cancer and AIDS), there would still remain blatant ethical problems in damaging a presently healthy organ in order to prevent the possible contraction of some future ailment.  Either the purported benefit would accrue to the boy or not.  If not, offering instead only potential advantage for some hypothetical parties (such as theoretically reducing the odds of transmitting cancer to a future wife or a venereal disease to other so-called “sex partners”), then the boy’s currently healthy body is patently being treated as a mere object of utility for society, and hence his sacred human dignity is being gravely debased.  In such a case, the surgery is inherently abusive.  But even if the intention is to benefit him personally, there is no way for anyone other than God to know whether a projected unfavorable scenario will ever materialize, and thus no way to know what a proportionate trade-off now would be.  Operating in infancy with no medically warranted justification guarantees a definite deformity and disability for a formerly normal system – a wound that could well have turned out to be utterly needless.
Of course, it is true that if organs are excised, then every possibility of localized disease is thwarted.  But this logic would lead to everyone walking around with missing bodily members (not even walking, if the feet were to become a prophylactic target).  A principle of routine pre-emptive surgery, if applied consistently, would require the universal removal of several bodily organs much more susceptible to serious disease than the prepuce (for example, tonsils, appendix, prostate, breasts). 
With regard to hygiene (an obsessive concern of the Victorian era), a baby is actually safer with the defense of a prepuce to hinder urethral entrance of diaper contaminants.  Yes, it would be “convenient” (saving time and effort) not to have to wash certain bodily areas, for example the folds of the ears, but no one advocates routine slicing of the outer ears for this reason.  Similarly, females have genital folds more interiorly convoluted than what intact males have, demanding more meticulous cleansing, but in the West it would be viewed with horror to advise the removal of healthy female parts for the sake of convenience for girls and women.  It promotes a double-standard, then, for male circumcision to be recommended on the grounds of better hygiene; indeed, surgery is certainly an extremely drastic substitute for the remedy of simple water and mild soap.  The counsel of “convenience” has undoubtedly been a scare tactic aimed at parents, as has the discredited diagnosis of “congenital phimosis” (which stems from ignorance about the duration of time required for a fully retractile foreskin).  If given the option, it can be presumed that an ordinary man would rather take an extra minute for daily washing than to have lost a normal part of his anatomy as a baby without his consent.  This tube is fleshly matter that really does matter: it is indispensable in the sense that no other bodily organ can replicate its function.

Moreover, non-therapeutic child circumcision is a violation of the Golden Rule, a cardinal principle of morality.  Indeed, how many people would want a portion of any organ (never mind a most intimate one) of their body to be cut off without medical necessity and without their consent?
The bottom-line is that, while parents enjoy many prudential prerogatives in their children’s upbringing (where they live and attend school, how they worship, what they eat, which amusements they engage in, whom they associate with, etc.), parental rights end when it is a question of irrevocably altering a child’s natural anatomy and physiology – as though their offspring were designer property instead of precious gifts granted them by God for their loving custody.  Though infinitely less grievous than legalized abortion, this socially-sanctioned option for routine infringement against the inviolable human right of babies to their own bodily integrity is nevertheless unjust and should be banned.
 

Resources Used
 
Books
Rosemary Romberg, Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma (1985)
Ronald Goldman,  Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (1997); 
                    Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective (1998)
David Gollaher, Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery (2000)
Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain (2005)
Leonard Glick, Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America (2005)
 
Websites
www.mothersagainstcirc.org
www.CatholicsAgainstCircumcision.org
www.DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org
www.nocirc.org
www.cirp.org
www.historyofcircumcision.net
 
Videos
Several videos of actual circumcisions are available on YouTube for those who feel they can tolerate watching even a portion of one of them: Circumcision Video (Plastibell Circumcision) by Selva3310; Plastibell circumcision by lindies 18; Circumcision by Brownyman; Medical Gallery – Male Circumcision by medicalgallery; The Surgery: Infant Circumcision Part 1 by newbornbabycare; Circumcision Video by Nathan1097; Birth As We Know It: Circumcision by mgmbill; Neonatal Circumcision; Mother Nurse Intactivist: Gillian Longley, RN by Bonobo 3D.

David:

Do you have links you could share, of where to find these original articles from SOCIAL JUSTICE ONLINE AND the NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY?  These are excellent articles, and thank you for the work you did to post this.  Did you have a printed copy that you typed up all yourself?  That would have been a lot of work to do.  Who authored these two articles?

The following article was published in the Catholic periodical SOCIAL JUSTICE REVIEW, Vol.102, No. 3-4, March-April, 2011; a lengthier article applying Catholic moral principles to modern elective infant circumcision is being published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2012] Implicit Catholic Teaching against Non-Therapeutic Child Circumcision

David,

The anti circ hit miss is more propaganda. It is a polemic and is biased.

Just taking one point, as I mentioned before, appealing to so-called medical authorities is without merit. These political groups issue policy statements based on their reading of the current literature. That is not “infallible” medical science. That is their opinion. Other scientists disgaree and clinicians disagree.

The moral argument in that piece is also biased. They presented no authentic evidence from the magisterium that medically useful circ is illicit. They gave their private interpetation and the opinion of one priest.

Why there is such an over zealous anti circ cult around I am not sure. But, I do hope the legitimate authorities in the Church clear this matter up so that the agitprop may stop.

Wow. Thank you all of you - you, who in love and patience explain things to others regardless of our reactions, and all of you who are reacting without love and concern for others. All of you taught me a great lesson of our brokenness, and our need to use reason in search for good. Emotional subjects require so much love to tackle, and it is more than ever I could see the power of the Holy Spirit allowing a few of yours to respond in love and grace rather than defending an emotional response.
God bless you all!

Wow, what a debate over this.  We had our son circumcised.  We erred on the side of caution as I heard about other uncircumcised males having some issues.  His weiner was a bit sore for a few days, but otherwise it wasn’t much of an event.  He fed fine, slept fine, no bonding issues, etc.  He’s 21 now and not having any issues.  This is being blown out of proportion.  People are thinking about this way too hard.

You say you err on the side of caution? But what about all of the issues circumcised guys have, the botched circumcisions, or complications afterwards? If you want to cut off whatever someone else has had a problem with you might as well amputate the whole body. Scientifically there is no basis for it. It is a social custom that people try to justify by claiming health benefits. There is no basis to this.

Yeah, Sam, I’m 50 years old from a big family where most of the cousins my age and younger have been circumcised as infants.  Maybe I’m prejudiced by my experiences, but I’m not seeing all the gloom and doom, only some sore weiners for a few days.

Im not denying that is common practice even to this day. 50 years ago it was considered to be the proper thing to do. Im not saying you are a horrible person if you do. Im just saying that it is not necessary. I’m also trying to inform people that if your uncircumcised it doesn’t mean you have to spend hours keeping it clean, it doesn’t mean you get infections all the time, etc. It just seems that everybody thinks it is a huge hassle if you are not circumcised and that is not the case. Everyone seems to think it is harder to keep clean or that it is just plain dirty or unsanitary and that is not true.

I don’t intend to get my boys circumcised either but once when mentioning this to a nurse her first comment was “well you’ll have to make sure he keeps it clean!” This just goes to show how deeply engrained in our society the thought that uncircumcised equals dirty is. It is not dirtier than anything else on the body. This nurse was older (probably around 60) and obviously this was what was taught when she was training. I think people need to realize uncircumcied does not mean extra care!

My father and some uncles were not circumcised.  Those older fellows (now deceased) based on their experiences, thought it might be just a little bit better hygiene wise, so they had most of us circumcised.  But you’re right, in today’s world, with much better hygiene, it really should not be an issue.  But even if a parent did decide to circumcise their baby boy, I haven’t personally seen it to be an issue at all.  If a male hasn’t been circumcised as an infant, I wouldn’t bother with it later in life.  I could see there being more problems at that point.

Some of the problems uncircumcised guys have had is because when parents did not want it done they were told to retract the foreskin and clean under there. This is bad and causes lots of problems. It is not supposed to be retracted until it does so naturally often at puberty. Mine did not retract until I was 13-14, but I had no issues and the vast majority who are not forcibly retracted have no issues either. Its the forcible retraction, that many were told to do and did in good faith, tha seems to have given being uncircumcised a bad name.

A lot of people are taking up the defensive position of saying circumcision is not necessary to be Catholic, which is beside the point.
.
The question is: How far can religion be allowed to practice traditions/rituals without legal intervention?
.
Anyone here can look up news articles, statistical reports, and other information on the abuse/damage done in religious traditions such as the brit milah, female “circumcision,” and self-mutilation (e.g. men who annually have themselves crucified to experience Christ’s suffering) and so on.
.
Religious parents also home-“school” their children to prevent the exposure to science (evolution) and any other education that contradicts the Bible, limiting the future prospects of their kids in the fields of biology and life-sciences.
.
Religious zealots think they have “freedom” to impose their religion on to others and the most vulnerable victims are children. How many of you would try to stop parents from slamming their kids into a wall because it is part of their religious traditions? That is an extreme speculation, but it is not a straw man (IMO—arguments are welcome) because the essence of the argument is the question I wrote above.
.
On the side—it’s been a full day since Lin replied to me. Has she left the thread?

EWTN has several links about the licitness of circumcision:

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=384207&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author;=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=8&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start;_at=

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=379492&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author;=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=15&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start;_at=

There are many more and all state male circ for hygiene reasons is morally licit.

The question is: How far can religion be allowed to practice traditions/rituals without legal intervention?”
******************************
If you go back a number of posts or check the news, you can see that Angela Merkel’s already found that answer for Germany.Beyond that,much of the conversation’s gone off topic & become troll-bait.

“Dear Steve. So glad you wrote. I just hung up my phone, having inquired from one of Erie’s most experienced ob-gyn doctor who delivered a goodly number of our areas’s babies. He insisted that 1.most ob doctors circumcize males these days still, 2. that the reason is for cleanliness, and 3 to avoid adult circumcision where the infant uncircumcision was the cause of difficulty, and 4. greater satisfaction in marital living. So, Steve, in short, cleanliness seems to be the major reason for circumcision yet and still. I have no moral objections in any way to circumcision since the tiny surgical intervention is for therapeutic reasons.”

From EWTN: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=384207&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author;=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=8&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start;_at=

that was 9 years ago….

Angela Merkel is a politician who is worried about being a “laughing stock” (sound familiar?). She does not answer for Germany, only her own political concerns.
.
The conversation has gone off-topic. That is why I tried to return it to the question. In a more blatant context, How much can the “it’s freedom of religion at stake” pretense get away as a reason for causing harm to people?

As a point of interest—Wikipedia writes that circumcision for therapeutic reasons and/or done in a hospital without the ritual does not count as the ceremony. Blood must be drawn (sucked) from the part of the penis where the foreskin was located, by the mohel whether or not if the foreskin is there. The ritual is basically a blood sacrifice involving sexual anatomy.
.
Akin’s post suggests a revival of government sponsored antisemitism in Germany—an attack on “religious freedom” as an irrelevant argument to the so-called “Liberal war on religion” touted by the Religious Right. Another example of the self-righteous hate propaganda published on this site.

Again, the (rephrased) question is: How much abuse should religious people be allowed to commit as ritual/tradition before reasonable legal intervention can be enforced?

Once again, there are still those, even in the medical profession unfortunately, who keep insisting that circumcision is for cleanliness. This is, however, an old wives tale that is totally inaccurate. Being uncircumcised is not dirty.

Gloria….....I’m too frightened to think for myself!  Where do you stand on the HHS mandate?

I do not think circumcision is useful as I can see more and more new members at HerpesFish.c0m, a dating and support community for people with HERPES I have been in for years.

Posted by Gloria on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2012 5:26 PM (EST):” The ritual is basically a blood sacrifice involving sexual anatomy.”
*************************
This suggests some of the ugly,anti-semitic myths that circulated centuries ago.

Gloria,

The real question is why do moral relativists think simple circ is abuse?

Shannon,

You can search their site for mor recent answers. No change.
Btw, why would the moral law change after 9 years?

anon sites a response by Fr. Bob Levis from 2003, where Levis said, “I just hung up my phone, having inquired from one of Erie’s most experienced ob-gyn doctor who delivered a goodly number of our areas’s babies. He insisted that 1.most ob doctors circumcize males these days still, 2. that the reason is for cleanliness, and 3 to avoid adult circumcision where the infant uncircumcision was the cause of difficulty, and 4. greater satisfaction in marital living.” Note that none of this doctor’s reasons qualify as therapeutic reasons to correct a medical disease or defect, and they are not recognized as medically valid by any national medical association today.
Levis quoted an ob/gyn who was profiting financially from doing
non-therapeutic circumcisions. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics found that neonatal circumcisions in the United States added between $150 and $270 million annually to healthcare costs.
There is big money in circumcision, just as there is big money in abortions.  Hospitals and physicians profit financially from doing circumcisions, so it is not in their financial interest to discourage this surgery.  The June 22, 1987 “Boston Globe” quoted Thomas Wiswell, M.D., as saying, “I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that’s over $1,000 a week, and they don’t take that much time.” (Lehman 1987) Of course, in 2003 the cost of circumcision would have been even higher than it was in 1999.  This doctor’s response indicates that he seems unaware of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ statement that they did not recommend routine circumcision.
Soap and water are all that is necessary for cleanliness and good hygiene, and circumcisions for therapeutic reasons later in life are rare. Circumcision is rare later in life in countries where most baby boys are left genitally intact.  In addition, this circumcising doctor’s 4th reason is discounted by a Danish study from November 2011, which found that “circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life.”  See what this study found at:
http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life
Finally, the teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity” (#2297) comes from the Catholic Catechism, which was published by the Vatican in 1994.  This predates Fr. Levis’ response by 9 years.

PJ,

You basically call into question the motives of the physician in the answer and all physicians. That is rash judgement and uncalled for. Then you offer, again, “evidence” from these political organizations like the AAP. These policy statements are based on who sits on a particular committte, what biases they have, and what literature they give credence to. So please do not make it sound like all physicians agree with this policy statement or you prersonal views.

The point remains that the Church does not call male circ mutiliation, practicing physicians know from science and clinical experience that male circ is beneficial. If you do not want it then do not have it but please do not attempt to bind others, including parents, to your private view.

As for hygiene yes male circ is better. You may not like that fact but it is true.

I do not think many folks will see EWTN as heterodox. So, people of good will can check out their site and see for themselves that the CC does not teach against male circ for hygiene reasons and other medical concerns:

” It is for hygenic reasons that many Christians have long preferred that their children be circumcised. The Church has never regarded circumcision as mutilation.”

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=498400&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author;=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=24&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start;_at=

Practicing physicians in countries where circumcision is uncommon know that male circumcision is not beneficial, except in rare cases where there is a true therapeutic reason for doing it.  They are shocked and surprised that American doctors would circumcise male infants, just as Americans are shocked that some female children in Africa are circumcised by doctors and others.  In Africa, it is not uncommon to hear people say things like this about female circumcision- ““An uncircumcised vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter uncircumcised. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone.” ““Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her vagina.” ““Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing.”  See:  http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html [Hanny Lightfoot-Klein is author of the book PRISONERS OF RITUAL: AN ODYSSEY INTO FEMALE GENITAL CIRCUMCISION IN AFRICA.]
anon:  Circumcision is foreskin amputation.  Some might call it mutilation (or “mutiliation”, if you prefer), but the AAP has called it “foreskin amputation” and so have I. Non-therapeutic amputations go against the moral law. (#2297- Catholic Catechism) If you don’t like teaching #2297, you can ignore it and become another “smorgasbord Catholic” who picks and chooses what he likes, but the teaching still remains. If believing that circumcision is good makes you feel better, then nothing anyone says will be able to convince you otherwise. Thankfully, more and more parents are becoming informed about circumcision today, and the U.S. circumcision rate is declining. (According to the CDC).  That is a good development for children in the United States, and more children will have a better and more loving start in life than did male children in the past.

Lin—why are you changing the subject? Are you to scared to think about how much abuse should religious people be allowed to commit as ritual/tradition before reasonable legal intervention can be enforced?
.
Kathleen—
The Semites did not invent blood sacrifice—sexual or not. Egyptians would kill a whole palace of people when a pharaoh died so he would have his staff with him in the “next life.” Stop trying to dodge the question I’m asking.
.
Anon—
Ditto—the question is not about moral relativism. The question is directed to people who have already claimed that religion “trumps all.”
.
All of you:
Stop trying to avoid the argument with ad hominem attacks. Are all religious rituals exempt from legal intervention, even whey they involve human sacrifice and/or cause harm to others?

Gloria,
Thanks for your comment.
From your previous posts it appears you may have issues with religion in general & while you do not always single out Judaism alone,the remarks I commented on directly referenced Jewish practise & were very reminiscent of myths that have resulted in the persecution & death of Jews in the not too distant past.That’s why I felt the need to respond.While I believe in free speech, some comments are troubling & disturbing.

Some may find this debate between Brian Earp and Ari Kohen of interest.  They discuss in a collegial way the issue of religious liberty and circumcision. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so1NiRlkumk

Ari Kohen is the Schlesinger Associate Professor and Director of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Program at the University of Nebraska. Brian D. Earp is a Research Associate at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. In this clip, they debate the ethics of religiously motivated circumcision.

Kathleen—
Well Duh! Did you figure that out all by yourself?
-
I’m still waiting for YOUR answer to the question. You seem to be avoiding it by trying to imply that I’m antisemetic and/or anti-religion, and/or have Nazi sympathies. Stop slandering me and answer the question:
.
Do you or do you not believe that all religious rituals are exempt from legal intervention, even when they cause harm or death to others?

PJ,

That a particular medical group uses a medical term like amputation does not mean it is illicit by Catholic teaching.
Firstly, the foreskin is not equivalent to limbs. Secondly, you have substituted your private interpretation for magisterial reaching. That means you place yourself above the Church. You are the cafeteria Catholic.
As for physicians outside America, well friend, for that is fine. For me and mine we will take the best.

Medical/political groups endorse direct abortion, contraception, and much else based on their understanding of the medical literature. Their standards are not Catholic standards.

Gloria,

Circumcision is not abuse. That people want to call it such is simply a mixture of a contrived kooky ideology mixed with post modern misunderstanding of what truth is.

Gloria…...........The subject was changed MANY posts ago!  This is about freedom of religion!  And no one has convinced me that circumcision is a life threatening procedure. Quite the contrary, it appears to be a life enhancing procedure. The angry rants from many are annoying at best. C’est la vie!  Peace!

I think most reasonable rational people who read these comments can see there is an agenda
to make male circ be seen as abuse, medically wrong,
and against Catholic moral teaching. All three are false, contrary to justice and charity, and are not supported by Catholic teaching.

This ideology is dangerous. It attempts to usurp parental rights and substitutes the state as arbiter of theology, medical care, and prudential judgement. It is worrisome.

Anon…..........Well said!  It is worrisome at best!

Lin,

What is happening in Germany can happen in America if
we let ideologues control the debate and misstate Catholic teaching.

anon first said in a comment: “That is rash judgement and uncalled for.”

later anon said: “You are the cafeteria Catholic.”

I’ll repeat what anon first said: “That is rash judgment and uncalled for.”

The teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity” in the Catechism is not against Catholic teaching, false, or dangerous.  Comments that consistently attempt to tear down other people are uncharitable, unloving, and not at all Christian (Catholic or otherwise).  Some seem to think they are better Catholics than others, and that is worrisome. 

If you watch the youtube debate with two men on opposite sides of this issue, you will see that is possible to discuss different positions in a charitable and respectful manner.  At a Catholic site, that would be the right approach for a discussion where there are differences!

Anon, you said
“I think most reasonable rational people who read these comments can see there is an agenda
to make male circ be seen as abuse, medically wrong,
and against Catholic moral teaching. All three are false, contrary to justice and charity, and are not supported by Catholic teaching.
This ideology is dangerous. It attempts to usurp parental rights and substitutes the state as arbiter of theology, medical care, and prudential judgement. It is worrisome.”
You hit the nail right on the head!

PJ,

You asserted I was a picker and chooser. My reply to you was that not I but you are the cafeteria Catholic.
That is not uncharitable that is setting the record straight.

I note that when liberals are losing an argument they play the Charity card.

You keep self defining male circ by your private standards and then impute that to Church teaching. That will not fly. I have linked to authentic experts in moral theology who are as loyal to Rome as anyone can be.

You offer personal opinion and biased policy statements from non Catholic med/political groups.

I am not interested in your debates. I am interested in magisterial teaching and Catholic medical ethics.

Kathy16670,

Thanks. Someone has to stand against this silly propaganda.

Anon….........Perhaps you misunderstood my last post!  I totally agree with you!  This is ALL about freedom of religion and we are under attack in our own country, too!  Peace!

Do you or do you not believe that all religious rituals are exempt from legal intervention, even when they cause harm or death to others?
.
The issue of whether circumcision is a crime or an abuse is a distraction. You have made this an issue of religous freedom because a judge has ruled that a ritual mandated by a religous faith violates human rights. Akins is dangerously close to slandering that judge by suggesting that the ruling echos the “Final Solution” and antisemetism.
.
All of you are claiming that the judge has made some kind of attack on religous freedom in Germany, and Lin is getting hysterical about the possibility of it happening in America—the old slippery slope fallacy.
.
I am asking you if you believe that the law can intervene and make it illegal to practice a religious ritual if that ritual is abuse. Please answer “yes” or “no” and then I will be open to changing the discussion back to whether circumcision is an abuse or not.

Lin,

No misunderstanding. We agree.

Gloria,

You need to define your terms first.

What is abuse?

anon:  I am a conservative, pro-life Republican.  To imply that I was a liberal is an incorrect judgment, and you warn people not to make rash judgments.  Since you say you are interested in Catholic medical ethics, then I suggest you read the article “To Circumcise or Not to Circumcise?
A Catholic Ethicist Argues That the Practice Is Not in the Best Interest of Male Infants”  BY FR. PETER A. CLARK, SJ, PhD
Fr. Clark is professor, theology and health administration, and director, Institute of Catholic Bioethics, Saint Joseph’s University; as well as bioethicist, Mercy Health System.  See:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/clark2006/
He discusses Catholic Catechism #2297, as well as the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs).”

Conservatives do not want to ban prudential judgements. Liberals want the Nanny state.

I have read that piece before. He gives his opinion. I gave the opinion of moral theologians as well. Why don’t your write to your Bishop or the CDF and see what they tell you.

The problem with the anti circ position is that it is novel and has no support from the magisterium. The Church position is that it is licit.

To get back to religious rights:

Everyone is concerned about the religious rights of the parents. Everyone forgets that the child also has religious rights that he may exercise when he is of age.

The German court observed that involuntary non-therapeutic circumcision in which his bodily configuration is altered to satisfy some else’s religious views violates the child’s right to choose his religion for himself in accordance with his rights under Germany’s Basic Law.

The court was protecting the child’s rights, including his right to choose his religion.

Surprise, surprise!  When I looked Father Peter Clark up on the internet the first picture I saw of him, he was not wearing his Roman collar. Please do not let him near my death bed. He has a very liberal opinion on palliative care, too!  There is no problem these days finding an errant Catholic religious to support every non-Catholic position. Peace!

Roland,

The parents are protecting the child’s rights. It is the state that is interfering.

Lin,

Thanks again. The plot thickens as expected.

Roland…........Circumcision or lack of does not prevent the child from choosing his own religion or disavowing it entirely as an adult!

My Bishop wrote this: “Review of the current approach of regularly providing circumcisions reveals that there is growing support for the end of this practice.  I suggest that you contact the Catholic Health Association as the appropriate vehicle to forward consideration of this issue on the national level.”
We know from history that at one time the Church participated in and did not speak out against castration.  (Which today would not be supported by “Respect for bodily integrity” #2297.)  “In Europe, when women were not permitted to sing in church or cathedral choirs in the Roman Catholic Church, boys were castrated to prevent their voices breaking at puberty and to develop a special high voice. The first documents mentioning castrati are Italian church records from the 1550s.  The last castrato was Alessandro Moreschi (1858–1922) who served in the Sistine Chapel Choir. It was not until the late 19th century, that the Roman Catholic Church officially condemned the production of castrati.”  Since the Church said nothing against castration for a few hundred years, do you want me to conclude that castration was licit?  Or, should I recognize that there was a higher moral law that was being violated with castration-the “respect for bodily integrity” of the young boy?

Who is your Bishop? What does growing support mean? How does that relate to the moral theology tradition?

CHA??  Not exactly known for orthodoxy.

So, again, no evidence it is illicit from the magisterium.

PJ,

The more you write the more we see that a small subgroup is agitating to ban circ.
Fortunately, the Church does not base moral theology on ideologies, but on Truth.

Anon—I will take your reply as a “yes” because if you did think religion trumps everything else, it wouldn’t need to define abuse for you. You sound like Bill Clinton asking to define “sex.” You already wrote that “circumcision is not abuse”—what is your definition of abuse?
.
Lin, what’s your answer? Or is it too much effort to think about it?

The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D., settled the question of circumcision.  Catholics can learn what was decided about circumcision by reading Acts 15.  Church teaching about circumcision has not changed since then, although some “holier than thou” Catholics don’t seem to like what was decided by the first Pope.

Roland ........Misread your comment. We are on the same side of this issue.

Anon…......hope to meet you in another National Catholic Register blog! 

God bless!

Are you ignoring me Lin?
.
I’m pretty sure you consider it an attack on your religion when some one passes a crucifix and doesn’t cross him/herself, but can you answer a straight question objectively?
.
Do you or do you not believe that all religious rituals are exempt from legal intervention, even when they cause harm or death to others?

Gloria,

You refuse to define your terms which makes you question meaningless.

If you want definitions, here are some dictionary definitions of abuse, which you can easily find. 
“Abuse is defined as any action that intentionally harms or injures another person. . . Physical abuse is the infliction of injury by another person.”
“Sexual abuse of a child refers to sexual behavior between an adult and child or between two children, one of whom is forcefully dominant or significantly older. Sexual behaviors can include touching breasts, genitals, and buttocks while the victim is either dressed or undressed. 
Sexual abuse behavior also includes exhibitionism, cunnilingus, fellatio, or penetration of the vagina or !@#$% with sexual organs or objects.”
Here is a definition of metzitzah b’peh, a Jewish ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews during circumcision.  In recent years, several Jewish babies in New York City have become infected with herpes, and some have died or become brain damaged as a result of this practice.
[metzitzah b’peh- oral suction, where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound, on the baby’s penis.]
Gloria does ask a serious question that should be answered by Catholics who favor circumcision despite the Church’s pronouncement at the Council of Jerusalem that circumcision is unnecessary. “Do you or do you not believe that all religious rituals are exempt from legal intervention, even when they cause harm or death to others?” 
I’ll pose the question a different way. Are there any limits on religious belief or lack of religious belief that you would place on parents?  For example, can an atheist mother kill her unborn child by abortion because she believes that is her right, or does the child have a right to life?  For you, can a parent do anything they wish to a child, or does a child have rights that need to be protected?  Where do you draw the line, or don’t you draw any lines?  Are parents free to do whatever they wish to their child, or are there limits?  When I look in the Catholic Catechism to see how the Church might answer these questions, I see in #2222 that it says, “Parents must regard their children as children of God, and respect them as human persons.”  “Respect for bodily integrity ” comes later in #2297, but the Church advocates “respect” for others, including children.  Thus, I can see how the Church would advocate limits on parental behaviors that harm children.

Anon—that is total bulls**t and you know it. Look up “abuse” in the dictionary if you want to know what it means, or look at PJ’s message above—then answer yes or no. Then we can discuss circumcision, moral-relativism, and attacks on religion and you would have solid ground for your arguments. Right now you and Lin are just playing victims of “the liberal war against Christianity” that was invented by Fox News.
.
Lin is ignoring me for the same reasons. She would prefer to play victim rather than speak her own mind. I’m taking her silence on the subject as a “no.” Lin believes that religion does trump everything else, even if it includes abuse and even death as a consequence of ritual. It’s the only stance she can have it her claim that religion is under attack.
.
Anon—Should I change your “yes” to a “no” as well?
.

PJ—atheism is NOT a religion, so the question does not apply. Parental abuse of their children is a crime there are laws that mandate legal intervention and take away parental rights when children are abused.
.
Tell me how that is moral relativism.

I apologize—I may have confused my Yes or No above.

To clarify:
,
“No” means that you do believe there are no legal restrictions and you do believe religious ritual trumps everything.
.
“Yes” means that you do believe there is a legal limit to religion and it should not cause harm to others.
.
Anon—if that is what you mean by defining terms, then I apologize for the confusion. You know what abuse means, so pleas answer the question.

Gloria,

Definitions matter because certain people hold erroneous notions of abuse. For example people call all vaccines abuse. People claim religious instruction is abuse.

If you are asking, specifically, if male circ is abuse the answer is no it is not abuse by any reasonable definition of the word. Can religious rituals be abuse? Yes, if you want to give your child a deadly snake to play with that is abuse.

PJ,

You know the Church prohibits male circ for religious reason performed by Catholics. That is all She prohibits. Medical circ on males is licit.

Are their limits to what a parent may do to a child, yes. That seems common sense but I guess that is in short supply here.

anon:  At http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
Atheism is listed as a religion.  Atheists believe that there is no God.  I do not agree with atheists and I am a Catholic Christian, but I can’t deny that a lack of belief is still a belief system.  Agnostics are a group who do not know if God exists or not and they differ from atheists, although sometimes they are lumped together.  Whether atheism is or is not a religion misses the point of answering the question about whether or not you believe an atheist mother has a right to kill her unborn child.  I say no.  Instead of answering the question, you’d rather quibble over words?  [God help your wife if you’re married!]  If you prefer, atheism is not a religion, so now you are free to answer the questions.
I’ve never brought moral relativism into the discussion (or in your case, an argument), so you’ll have to discuss that with others who have. 

When did i say atheism was a religion?

anon:  If you mean by medical circ, circumcisions performed for “strictly therapeutic medical reasons”, then of course that is allowed.  Catholic Catechism teaching #2297 says as much.  It is the
non-therapeutic circumcisions (healthy foreskin amputations) that are not licit under this teaching. “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” (No. 2297) [One needs to be careful to not confuse the terms therapeutic and prophylactic.]
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD), Fourth Edition, (June 15, 2001) also supports respect for bodily integrity. [These come from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.] Part III, Directive 29 reiterates what the Catechism teaches under “Respect for Bodily Integrity” when it states, “All persons served by Catholic health have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity.”

PJ,

When will you stop the propaganda? Everyone who reads this may contact their priest to see that your position is not the Catholic one. Yours is part of a militant subgroup that has this unusual ideology that drives them. I have seen your posts on other sites and your friends posts as well. As soon as male circ is mentioned the propagandists come out in force.

We do not worship the foreskin. The foreskin is not medically or morally equivalent to limbs. Misapplying the CCC is wrong.

I have linked to orthodox moral theologians that disagee with you. You have given us your private opinion and a couple of links to sites of dubious orthodoxy and a list of groups that make themselves a private magisterium.

No sale.

anon ,
Don’t expect to have the last word.
:)
Several hundred posts back I mentioned “fanatics” that flood any online discussion on this topic.You use the term “propagandists” which might be a better choice in words.Either way, it’s very strange.
The religious freedom issue is really the only important part of the conversation.The rest is personal,parental choice.As you say.

Anon—
The question is a general moral question—the examples you give have already established the definition of abuse.
.
PJ and/or a dictionary defines “abuse” for this question. I have clarified my definitions of “Yes” and “NO” as answers to the question.
.
“No” means that you do believe there are no legal restrictions and you do believe religious ritual trumps everything.
.
“Yes” means that you do believe there is a legal limit to religion and it should not cause harm to others.
.
Once you answer the question, we can debate about whether your examples count as abuses or not. I’m specifically asking if secular law should restrict religious ritual when it causes harm. Yes or No? Stop squirming and answer the question.
.
Everyone is debating whether circumcision is harmless or abuse—but the debate is really on whether the judge’s ruling (which can be reversed in higher courts) is an attack on religion because he has ruled that the ritual of circumcision is child abuse and that the law should restrict the religion from practicing that ritual.
.
By avoiding the moral question of whether secular law can limit religious ritual if the consequences of that ritual are abuse or harm, you seem to be uncertain on the general moral principle.
.
Lin has decided to ignore the moral question altogether. I take her silence as being unwilling to say that religion is above secular criticism. What she “thinks” are her own moral convictions is really defined by her church and she has no moral convictions of her own.
.

My objection is when you seem to see the foreskin as evil. Circumcision is usually NOT medically necessary and I object to it on these scientific grounds. It is not forbidden by the Church probably because for most of the Church’s 2000 year history it was something that was done primarily by Jews and Moslems. In the Catholic/Christian world it was practically unheard of. So it was a non-issue. It is only since Victorian times that it became a social practice. I don’t think social practice is a good enough reason to deprive a boy of his foreskin.

Atheism is NOT a religion—there are no “rituals” or even mandated practices in atheism. It’s like saying baldness is a hair color. In a listing of religions “atheism” means “not theist.” Some atheists believe their is not a god, but most atheist just don’t give a damn whether or not there is a god, because there is no evidence of god and therefore irrelevant.
.
If you want to believe atheism is a religion so you can believe that religion is necessary, that is your opinion, and beside the point of my question.
.
Again, will you please stop squirming and answer whether or not religion trumps everything else?

anon:

It is clear that you don’t want to accept the Catholic Bishops’ words that are expressed in the ERDs, the finding of the Council of Jerusalem, the words of the New Testament, or the Catholic Catechism teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity.”  It is wrong to consider these quoted words as “propaganda.” 

I have decided to no longer continue the discussion with you, because now you are resorting to personal attacks.  You seem filled with a lot of anger and hatred inside of you that is hard to understand, and I assure you I’ll pray for you.  St. Paul encourages us all to express our faith through love.

I hope you’ll read the words of St. Paul carefully.  When speaking about circumcision, St. Paul warns Christians to be on guard against those who “mutilate.”  St. Paul’s own word choice may make anon even madder, but this is what he said.

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.”

Kathleen—
“Several hundred posts back I mentioned “fanatics” that flood any online discussion on this topic.You use the term “propagandists” which might be a better choice in words.Either way, it’s very strange.
The religious freedom issue is really the only important part of the conversation.The rest is personal,parental choice.As you say.”
.
First of all, do you really want to bring up the subject of “fanatics” and “propagandists?”
.
Second, I think my question does address the question of religious freedom. Do parents have the legal right to abuse their children when they believe it is demanded and/or condoned by their religion? Or is there any limit where the secular law can and should intervene and restrict a religious practice?
.
I think you stand with Lin and Anon on this question—You are trying to avoid the question by suggesting it is propaganda from a fanatic atheist. Ad hominen and slander do not change the question and are shallow means of trying to avoid answering.
.
Do you have any moral convictions of your own or are your morals solely defined by your church? Can you think for yourself, or does the Church do it for you?

Gloria,

What exactly is your point here? WE all agree the state has an interest in protecting children from harm. The problem is how we define harm both in its nature and in its context. It really is a case by case issue.

Posted by PJ on Friday, Jul 20, 2012 12:22 PM (EST):

anon:

It is clear that you don’t want to accept the Catholic Bishops’ words that are expressed in the ERDs, the finding of the Council of Jerusalem, the words of the New Testament, or the Catholic Catechism teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity.”  It is wrong to consider these quoted words as “propaganda.”

###################################################################

Nice try. I am not calling any Bishops words propaganda. I am calling your words propaganda. The Bishops have not said routine male circ as presently practiced is morally illicit. You can repeat it all you want, but it does not change the truth of the matter.
*******************************************************************
I have decided to no longer continue the discussion with you, because now you are resorting to personal attacks.  You seem filled with a lot of anger and hatred inside of you that is hard to understand, and I assure you I’ll pray for you.  St. Paul encourages us all to express our faith through love.
##############################################################

There are no personal attacks or hatred. That angle is used by those who want to suppress debate. Either you are terribly misinformed or you have some deep seated reason to beat this drum.

*******************************************************************
I hope you’ll read the words of St. Paul carefully.  When speaking about circumcision, St. Paul warns Christians to be on guard against those who “mutilate.”  St. Paul’s own word choice may make anon even madder, but this is what he said.
#############################################################

He is not talking about medical male circ as we are here. Now either you are being disingenuous or you are unteachable on this matter.
I suggest you seek out an orthodox priest to help guide. I am sure all who read these comments will pray for you and the others who insist on binding where Mother Church does not bind.

*****************************************************************

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.”
******************************************************************

What has that to do with the discussion we are having here?
#################################################################

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.”

******************************************************************

I say this in all sincerity and Christian love. I think you need some guidance. I hope you get some. I will ask the BVM to cover you with her mantle.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Jul 20, 2012 12:05 PM (EST):

anon ,
Don’t expect to have the last word.
:)
Several hundred posts back I mentioned “fanatics” that flood any online discussion on this topic.You use the term “propagandists” which might be a better choice in words.Either way, it’s very strange.
The religious freedom issue is really the only important part of the conversation.The rest is personal,parental choice.As you say.
*****************************************************

It does seem to be a concerted effort. As a culture we are headed in the wrong direction. Instead of Catholics standing with our elder brothers in the faith on this important issue we fight among ourselves over an issue that is a nonissue. Why? Male circ brings out this group that has this deep seated needed to oppose it and make all Catholics oppose it even when the Church has not bound us. It is a mystery.

Anon—You are still avoiding my question. I have explained my point above.
.
July 19th you posted:
“I think most reasonable rational people who read these comments can see there is an agenda
to make male circ be seen as abuse, medically wrong,
and against Catholic moral teaching. All three are false, contrary to justice and charity, and are not supported by Catholic teaching.

This ideology is dangerous. It attempts to usurp parental rights and substitutes the state as arbiter of theology, medical care, and prudential judgement. It is worrisome.”
.
There is a debate among everyone here as to whether or not circumcision is an abuse—many who think it is claim it doesn’t have to do with Catholicism. You have brought up a “so-called” agenda to “make male circ an abuse” as an ideology that “attempts to usurp parental rights and substitutes the state and an arbiter of theology…” (Whether circumcision is medical care or prudent judgement is beside the religious question.) Boiled down, you are suggesting it is wrong for secular law to judge a religious practice on whether or not it causes harm to others—including a parent’s own children. Do you believe this?
.
If you do, then your so-called agenda against Catholic moral teaching and the ideological danger of the state taking over theology might be rational—at least worth rational debate. If you do not really believe it, then you are blowing a lot of hot air and inventing a false conspiracy theory against Catholics.
.
So again: Yes or No—Can secular law restrict a religious practice that is abusive and causes harm?

Anon—I also think you have just admitted that the state does have the right to restrict religious ritual that causes harm.
.
Cut out the conspiracy theory—there is evidence of a agenda against Catholics in this case.
.
Or am I wrong?

Sorry, I was typing too fast.

I meant to write that there is NO evidence of an agenda against Catholics in this case. The “attack on religious freedom” crap is just that—crap.
.
There is no left-wing/atheist/Obama conspiracy against Catholic faith except on Fox News.
.
Lin, Kathleen, Anon-if you want to frighten yourselves go rent a copy of The Exorcist. If you’re so damn worried about what your taxes pay for, stop paying taxes and/or leave the country.
.
And don’t pretend that you are NOT moral relativists. Every one is a moral relativist, and can change their opinion, but you cannot change facts.

It is multilation, pure and simple. NOT necessary. And as a Catholic it is part of the OLD covenant. I agree with Germany.

Is someone paying you to harass people who believe in religious freedom?  It would not be the first time. And yes religion trumps everything because NO legitimate religion breaks the moral law. AND there are civil laws that are IMMORAL like making it legal to kill a baby in the womb and now the HHS mandate.

And I loved The Exorcist and subsequent movies on the subject because it reminds me that Satan does prowl the earth looking for easy prey. And some people are possessed!  Do not waste any more time on this. You will not convert us!  It is my choice to believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches.  Just as it is your choice to not believe.  The TRUTH never changes.  Peace!

Lin—
Am I correct in assuming you are directing your comment about payment to harass people who believe in religious freedom to me?
.
Well, that answers my question to you—you obviously believe religion (particularly YOUR religion) trumps everything else. You even feel personally harassed by me.
.
Fortunately, for YOU, this is the 21st century and the Catholic Church has abandoned its policy of burning heretics, witch hunts, and a few other doctrines, like “the sun revolves around the earth,” and there is a “scientific controversy” on evolution.
.
I’m not trying to convert you—I can see that is impossible. I am suggesting, however, hoping my questions and comments may make you think about your faith and what it means to you.
.
Other people have different concepts of the world we exist in. Like it or not, culture changes, and if the Catholic Church doesn’t compromise and change with it, the Church will eventually become a relic of the past—as is Greek, Roman, Norse, Druidism and other past religions.
.
Have you really made a choice? Do you care?
.
People are not being harassed—ideas are being debated. I don’t see why you feel so threatened as a person just because I find your passion for the devil’s existence to be somewhat questionable. I find it fascinating and very creepy that you believe in demonic possession, but psychology is another subject.
.
Of course there are civil laws that are immoral—just as there are religious traditions/rituals that are immoral. Is religion supposed to be above debate? Are you God’s representative or the Church’s pawn?
.
You can believe what the Catholic Church teaches, but know that you really have given your “freedom of religion” over to the Catholic Church and you no longer have any “free will” if you cannot rationally consider what it means to have unquestioning faith. That is why you are disturbed by my question and don’t dare answer it.
.
As I wrote, I believe you do think secular law should have no restriction over religious practice even if the practice should directly cause abuse/harm. For you, religion cannot be “wrong.” I now ask you, how do you know it is unfailingly “right?” Are morals dictated by the Church—if so, you have no moral conviction of your own. If not, and morals are independent of the Church, the Church is redundant.
.
So, Lin, are morals objective or subjective? What do you think? Remember we are discussing ideas and I cannot harm you.

By the way, Lin—can you define a “legitimate religion?” Who decides whether a religion is legitimate? The Pope? Parents who practice the religion? Why would a so-called “legitimate religion” be above secular criticism?

The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against the Church.

OK-The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against the Church.
.
Can you come back to the real world? I’m not the “Gates of Hell.” Will you accept that I’m only human, or do you really think I’m spawn of Satan?.
,
If you can believe that I’m only a human asking questions so I can understand why you believe, there is no reason to be frightened about being converted by me or anyone else.
.
If you think I am a spawn of Satan, then you are psychotic and nothing short of drug treatment could change your mind. Either way, I’m certainly no threat to your faith and you have nothing to get hysterical about.
.
The Gates of Hell are not relevant to my question, if you are not psychotic. Even if you do believe that “legitimate” religion trumps everything else, I don’t understand why you feel threatened by me, or why you think I have to be paid to ask my questions.
.
Enjoy your copy of The Exorcist. Believe in your Church if it hurts too much to doubt. Whatever makes you feel better is OK by me—I don’t want to convert you. I think you are unreasonably frightened that I can or should want to convert you. I am not that powerful.
.
What exactly is making you so upset? It was honestly not my intention. I am genuinely interested in your point of view, and I thought it was a part of Catholic practice to evangelize people like myself into your faith.
.
I’m not apologizing for myself—I just don’t get why you are so upset about me.

The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against the Church…......This was in response to your comment that the Church will become a relic of the past.  And you do not upset me in the least.  So you are not Catholic?  Contrary to what you may think, I have not sacrificed my ability to think for myself. My belief system frees me to be the happiest person on earth. May you find such happiness. God bless you! 

Lin—
What makes you think I’m not as happy as you?
.
You don’t convince me that you haven’t given your mind over to your Church—Nothing you have written in this thread indicates you have your own opinion about anything.
.
If I didn’t upset you, why did you suggest that I was being paid to “harass” you? If you are totally “free to be the happiest person on earth” why do you think I’m a threat to your faith, and would want convert you?
.
And I think you are upset—you have turned to quoting your scripture to bring you “peace of mind.” Religion may make you the happiest person on earth, but so does sex, alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, meth-amphetamines and numerous other chemicals that boost dopamine levels.
.
Should you wake up sober, I still want to know what you call legitimate religion and who is to say which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. Otherwise, I suggest you don’t ruin your ignorant bliss by participating in this thread.

Lin—
Since you were so kind as to quote scripture for me, I have a poem in reply:
.
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert…Near them, on the sand
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
An on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
—Percy Bysshe Shelley

I can’t seem to stop thinking about Lin—her childhood must have been a nightmare if she can honestly believe in Satan and that I’m possessed. Really gives me the creeps when I think of what kind of upbringing she must have had. Anyone who insists they are the happiest person on earth (except maybe when a man says it when his proposal of marriage is accepted) is really frightened.
.
With that put down, I’ll check in from time-to time, but it looks like this thread is coming to an end.

Gloria- I’m sorry to see you go.  During this discussion, I was disappointed to see so many Catholics not seem to have much love or compassion for little children.  I want to assure you that this is not representative of the Catholics I know.  There are many Catholics who do care about the suffering of others, and who treat others with decency and respect, including people who are atheists.  I don’t know if there is such a term, but I think I encountered here Pharisaic Catholics who, like the Pharisees, are more concerned with legalisms than they are with loving their fellow man.

God is love, and I do see God’s love at work in your heart when you empathize with and speak out on behalf of suffering children.  I hope in your life’s journey you do find God.

Here are some words by Mother Teresa of Calcutta that I hope will speak to your heart.

“The same loving hand that has created you has created me.
If he is your Father, he must be my Father also.
We all belong to the same family.
Hindus, Muslims and all peoples are our brothers and sisters.
They too are the children of God.

Our work among the Hindus proclaims that God loves them.
God has created them.  They are my brothers and sisters.
Naturally I would like to give them the joy of what I believe,
but that I cannot do.  Only God can.
Faith is a gift of God, but God does not force himself.

Christians, Muslims, Hindus, believers and nonbelievers
have the opportunity with us to do works of love,
have the opportunity with us to share the joy of loving
and come to realize God’s presence.
Hindus become better Hindus.
Catholics become better Catholics.
Muslims become better Muslims.
(From “Words to Love by”)

PJ-
Thank you for your kind intentions, but please don’t use Mother Teresa as an example. I have researched Hitchens’s work and tend to agree with him on his opinion of her.
.
If she is your best example, I am not impressed.
.
I do hope Lin finds a better way to cope.
.
Cheers!

Gloria- I hope you will read what others have written about Mother Teresa too, to have a balanced opinion.  I suspect if someone said only terrible things about you, you would want others to know the good things about you as well, to have a balanced opinion of you.

I’m curious- In the words that Mother Teresa said, what do you agree with and what do you disagree with?

My thought right now are for the families in Aurora CO, but already there are Christians out there who are blaming atheism, homosexuality, the teaching of evolution, liberals, and so on for the tragedy. I hear many bad things about atheists, liberals, and any other rational people who dare to criticize conservatives who wrap themselves in the flag and wave around the Christian bible.
.
I’ll agree with you that no person is all good or all bad, and if, as you say, we are god’s image, it follows that god is not all bad or all good either. That’s why I find Lin’s belief in Satan so creepy. One god is enough—two or more will always get into a fight.
.
Anyway, enough of the metaphysics. A mass murder spree is not an occasion to blame atheists or religion.
.
Peace

I have not heard Christians say those things, but if that is happening, then it should stop. The person who is responsible for these killings and the wounding of other people is the one who walked into the theatre and chose to start shooting. We should keep the victims and their families in our thoughts and prayers now.

I’m willing to bet that evidence will point to the gunman believed he was some kind of hero. The most difficult thing about fighting an enemy is not becoming the enemy.

WOW!!!  I just finished reading all of the posts and have to say I think about 80% of you are whacked.  Lets start with the court decision, which is what this is really all about.  In GERMANY of all places a judge has said that a religious practice of Jewish people can not be performed.  Whats next? No long sideburns?  No fasting? No kneeling?  If we allow the State to determine what we can and can not do within our religion, within our family, within our home then we will find ourselves in a totalitarian secular/facsist world.  If circumcision is “bad” or “wrong” then debate it, prove it, and ban it in all circumstances, not just within a religious context.  Furthermore, let me say my family lived and sufferred through both world wars in Europe and we never want to see them repeated.  My family lost many members in combat against the nazi’s and quite a few friends and neighbors from the bombs that fell on them during air raids.  Millions perished at the hands of a secular State that said it knew what was best for everyone.  The Jews are God’s “chosen” people and we should not raise a hand against them or let them be persecuted again.  Each time “The State” takes away one of our freedoms, even a “minor” one, not that this is a minor issue,  we come a little closer to having no freedoms at all.  If I as a parent am denied the right to pass on my faith to my children then I have had taken from me one of, if not “the”, most important rights there is.  Whats next? I can’t teach my children liberal or conservative values?  Only the State knows what is best for my child?  Only the State can educate my child?  Pretend for a moment that I am the State and you are just one of the people living in my land.  Now I, the State,  have decided that I know whats best for you and for your children.  So here is the list of my, the State’s, decisions,  all of which are law and binding on all people no matter what their beliefs are:  No circumcision,  no infant baptism,  marriage is the union of 2 or more people,  no fountain drinks over 16oz, no printing distributing or reading of books not approved by me, the State, no media/art that depicts violence and/or sex/nudity,  all children must be given medication that dulls their senses so that they do not suffer any emotional trauma before they are old enough to serve the State,  all children are required to attend twice weekly meetings of State sanctioned activities (while wearing their brown shirts), and no speaking against the State or its laws.  Sound stupid?  Read your history!  It has happened before and will happen again if we do not stand up and fight for rights/freedoms as well as protect those among us who can not stand up for themselves.  It is either freedom for all or tyranny for all.  Just my opinion.

Jon—there is no reason to go to such extremes. Most of us know history and the shooting in Colorado is another powerful example of psychotic behavior in individuals, while the Taliban is another powerful example on how an entire culture can be psychotic. Civilized, rational people will put a limit on both civil and religious ritual. That is why I asked about whether people on this post think there should be a point where the law can and should intervene. There has to be some compromise on both sides if abuse on either side can be avoided.
.
The Wikipedia article on circumcision (not a bad source of information and it has valid references) tells of mohels modifying the practice to use sterilized tubes to suck the blood of the ceremony—in other words they are acknowledging that the direct oral contact can transfer disease and harm the child and the ritual needs to change.
.
I think the controversy about the ritual removal of foreskin is in itself abuse is a good thing in that each side has the right to scrutinize the other. For the most part, people are both religious and secular citizens.  It is not, however, the time to get paranoid about religious freedom and argue that one side “trumps” everything else. People should not be complacent about the authority of either side, or the routine, banal evil of “following orders” that is the hallmark of the Holocaust will take over again.

Some things seem so clear, and yet all the ‘opinions’ want to tell the Jews what to do within their own religion.  Many of the opinions stated want to do just what the over-reaching German government is doing:  Treading into family life and Jewish Religious Customs which is not their domain.

Anti-Semitism probably is driving it, but that is somewhat irrelevant, other than as an important cultural marker.  Most civilized societies(think back…), usually enforce very strict laws to protect the sanctity of family life and religious freedom.  It’s not a debate.  As soon as we allow it to be ‘debated’ we are giving lots of ‘wiggle-room’ for anyone’s zany ideas to infringe on the true human, family and religious rights of people everywhere.

  It’s unconscionable that Germany is even attempting to do such a horrendous thing.

KateriT2,

You are so correct. That this would even be a debate, especially among Catholics, is troubling. The problem is our consciences must be properly formed.

You have no problem telling atheists and other non-Catholics that they can’t use contraception—even exaggerating and down-right lying about “health risks” and “lack of effectiveness of various methods.
.
Stop raising your fears about a bogus attack on religion while you plot to control other people’s lives.

Gloria,

You have it all backwards. The relativists want to tell people how to practice their religion and then want us to pay for immoral acts like using contraception. So, you want to tell us what we can and cannot do and make us pay for your immoral activity.

It is genital mutilation.  A part of the penis is cut off.  If part of the clitorial area is cut off and considered mutilation, so is circumcision of the penis.  What is so difficult to understand here?  It is also extremely painful to the child, who cries his head off under the knife, as a girl would when subject to clitorial circumcision.  Both circumcision of the clitorial area and the penil area should be voluntary and not forced on children.  Again, what is so hard to understand here?

Tantor,

You are a bit confused here. Male circ does not change the form or function of the organ. It is not mutilation any more then wisdom tooth removal or a rhinoplasty is mutiliation.

The attempt to redefine male circ as mutilation is similar to the attempt to redfine marriage. Words have meanings and they whould not be co-opted for a political agneda.

anon is still confused.  Male circumcision is a foreskin amputation that does change the form and function of the organ. 
The American Heritage Dictionary defines mutilate as: “1. To cut off or destroy a limb or essential part. 2. to render imperfect by excising or radically altering a part.”
The foreskin is a protective and sexual organ that covers and protects the sterile urinary tract environment; contains tens of thousands of specialized, erogenous nerve endings; and provides the sliding and gliding mechanism that allows for nonabrasive, lubricating, normal sexual intercourse for both the male and female.
For those willing to learn more about the anatomy and function of the foreskin, see:
Foreskin Sexual Function
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
What is Lost to Circumcision
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/
How Male Circumcision May be Affecting Your Love Life- by Christiane Northrup, M.D.
http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm
Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.  See:
http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life
Many circumcised men find it too disturbing to learn about or admit what they lost by circumcision, and some prefer to stay in a state of denial.
For some, ignorance is bliss.
God in His divine wisdom designed the human body perfectly.  It is wonderful to contemplate His wisdom in how He designed the human body and made a function for each part of it. God did not make a mistake.  Men in their arrogance sometimes think they can do better than God, but they can’t, and that is their mistake.

More propaganda. The organ is not destroyed or altered in any significant way. In fact, health is improved. Male circ does not offend God. The Church does not prohibit it as long it is not done for religious reasons.

All the propaganda links do not prove your point. Just more bias from the ideologues.

Anon you don’t know what you are talking about. You seem to think it is better to be circumcised. It is not, nor is it beneficial scientifically. You seem to think that being uncircumcised is dirty and causes problems. Again, this is totally false.

Also it is crazy that you seem to be trying to put those of us against circumcision with those for gay marriage and evil like that. I am totally against that and it is not even rational to equate the two.

I’ve also noticed that every link someone gives you that doesn’t support your point you just dismiss as political or propaganda. Convenient for you.

We can all see the danger of allowing these propagandists to redefine acts as they desire. Male circ is “mutilation”, homosexual acts are “natural”, direct abortion is “therapeutic”. There is no end to what the left will do to our society.

All his links are anti male circ. So far I have posted links to EWTN from orthodox moral theologians that contradict your position. Your side posts anti circ propaganda and self interprets, or re-interprets, Church teaching to align with the anti circ sites.

Look, I have said several times, I am not arguing about whether or not the Church allows it. I am arguing that it is not medically sound. You seem to be arguing quite strongly for an operation that has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is clearly not a Catholic requirement so since it is not medically necessary why do it? That is what I am saying. The church does not pronounce on medical necessity. She merely protects the boundaries of what is or isn’t allowed morally. On a neutral act therefore, the Church doesn’t make a moral pronouncement. Hence, I am not saying you are sinning if you circumcise. I am just saying it is a bad idea.
You cannot link homosexual behavior and abortion with circumcision. As I said circumcision is morally neutral but the others are intrinsically evil and will always be so. Being against circumcison does not make one for homosexuality and abortion.
As for the the other guy’s links all being anti-circ…. aren’t yours all pro -circ?

It was only a couiple hundred years ago that people “redefined” circumcision from being a Jewish procedure to being the greatest thing since sliced bread and the cure to all sorts of evils!!

Once again, anon is making rash judgments, which he previously warned others not to do.  As for me, I don’t support gay marriage and I don’t believe homosexual acts are “natural.”  I also believe that direct abortion is morally wrong.  I am a political conservative, so if anon is trying to imply that everyone opposed to circumcision is part of the left, he is mistaken about that. 
Canadian pathologist and medical researcher John Taylor described the anatomy and functions of the foreskin in a British Journal of Urology article published in February of 1996.  This medical journal article is based on Taylor’s work as a pathologist, and the BJU did not consider his findings to be “propaganda.”
I suspect anon is circumcised and prefers living in a state of denial.  For those who instead prefer knowledge, the link to Taylor’s article “The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision” can be found at http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Also, you also seem to have me confused with some raging liberal. I am a very traditionally minded and well-informed Catholic who studies the encyclicals of the popes includding those of Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, etc.

Uh huh. What I see are agitators looking to force others to accept their private teachings. I am against this German ruling. I am against Catholics claiming it is immoral to perform mal circ on infants. I see liberals who want these laws. I see liberals redefining terms to make their argument.

As for the science that too has politics.

“Opponents of male circumcision argue that the procedure constitutes genital mutilation performed with parental consent but not the infant’s assent and recommend that male circumcision be delayed until 18 years of age when the man can provide individual informed consent to the procedure. However, parents provide consent for preventive procedures such as immunization including hepatitis B vaccination, acting in the best interests of their children. UNAIDS recommends providing information on risks and benefits of early infant neonatal male circumcision so parents and guardians can make informed decisions on behalf of their children with the best interests of the child as the primary consideration.7 Additionally, a ban on neonatal male circumcision denies religious freedoms to Jewish and Muslim parents, which would be potentially unconstitutional.

Neonatal male circumcision provides other potential benefits during childhood such as prevention of infant urinary tract infections, meatitis, balanitis, and phimosis,8 as well as protection from viral STIs.

Some who oppose male circumcision cite anecdotal reports that male circumcision can cause sexual dysfunction. The male circumcision trials evaluated sexual satisfaction in adult men and their female partners before and after the procedure and compared men randomized to male circumcision with uncircumcised controls. There were no significant differences in male sexual satisfaction or dysfunction among trial participants, and in one trial, circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.9 In addition, 97% of female partners reported either no change or improved sexual satisfaction after their male partner was circumcised.10

Parents should be provided with information derived from evidence-based medicine about the risks and benefits of male circumcision so that they can make an informed choice for their children. It would be ethically questionable to deprive them of this choice.

The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision JAMA”

Efforts to Defund or Ban Infant Male Circumcision Are Unfounded and Potentially Harmful, Experts Argue

ScienceDaily (Oct. 4, 2011)

The Johns Hopkins experts argue that delaying circumcision until adulthood, when young men can legally decide for themselves, not only carries added risk of infection, but also challenges the long-held rights and responsibilities of many parents to make decisions about the long-term health of their children, including vaccinating them against hepatitis B, measles, polio, whooping cough and influenza. The proposed ban or delays also counter the religious rights for parents who observe Jewish and Muslim faiths, in which infant male circumcision is a prescribed religious obligation.

However, the Academy’s policy on male circumcision, last issued in 1999 and re-affirmed in 2005, is ambiguous with respect to medical benefits. The CDC’s policy also takes no firm position on the medical benefits of male circumcision, but that policy is expected to be updated shortly.

“In light of the latest medical evidence, the medical community and government officials at all levels would do well to revisit their policies on male circumcision, so as best to counsel parents on the potential health benefits to their children well into adulthood,” says Gray.

anon is now quoting pro-circumcision propaganda.
Aaron A. R. Tobian, MD, PhD and Ronald H. Gray, MD, MSc wrote a “Commentary”- their Opinion in the JAMA that anon quoted.  These two men are ardent circumcision proponents with a political agenda. They get funding to do their studies on men in Africa from taxpayers, studies that some have compared to the Tuskegee experiments in the U.S. It is in their own financial interests to find circumcision to be effective, because then their funding doesn’t dry up and then can get funding for more similar studies.  What Tobian and Gray failed to tell African men and others is this. 
“What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean?  Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive.  Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive”, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%, which is not statistically significant.”  (Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011; 19:316-34.)  See:

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

Tobian and Gray also promote condom usage following circumcision, and condom usage also goes against Catholic teaching.  One man in Africa appears to have more common sense than Tobian, Gray, anon, and others who are promoting circumcision. “Jackson Dlamini, 25, a strapping man taking a break from weight training at a local gym, told IRIN he was considering circumcision as a way to protect himself from HIV/AIDS. When told that counsellors at Mbabane Government Hospital would advise him to carry on using condoms even after the operation, Dlamini said, “It is painful to get circumcised.  If I have to wear a condom anyway, what is the point?””
The Church teaches chastity to prevent HIV- abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage, not condom usage or circumcision.

anon - I see, you call it liberal because it goes against your agenda.

Sam….......This article is about freedom of religion. Most posts are not adressing the real issue. Peace

Lin, The article is about a ban on circumcision for minors. Certainly this raises questions about religious freedom but the topic also raises questions about whether a man has the right to decide for himself whether or not he keeps his foreskin. Therefore there is a clash between the religious (and secular) practice of circumcising children and babies and the right of men to decide whether to be circumcised or not. The German court came down on the side of individual rights. Critics of this decision have asserted that parents have the right to circumcise their children on religious grounds.

This clash between the positions of both parties is what makes this debate so hard-fought.

Sorry you see it that way!  The article is specifically about religious freedom which is under attack these days. And any of these attacks can be turned inside out and upside down by political doublespeak. If we do not stick up for each other when it comes to this freedom, we will all lose it. Divided we fall!  If you are not Jewish, you have no skin in the game (so to speak). If you are, your fight is with your parents and you can choose other options for you children. I do not understand the anger in some of these posts!  We are free to choose how to practice our faith and we want to keep it that way.

Catholicism should be given all the privileges because it is the one true faith. False religions should not get all the rights and freedoms as the Truth. There is an old axiom that ““Error has no rights”!! All religions are not equal. So, here we are not talking about religious freedoms but about the freedom for guys to keep their foreskin.
Besides, I haven’t been talking about it as a religious ceremony because in the United States the vast majority do it for social reasons and health reasons (and these reasons aren’t even scientifically sound. So I have been arguing against it on those grounds.

Sam….....We Catholics believe we are the one true faith but everyone believes they have the truth. That is what freedom of religion is all about. Peace!

Unfortunately, they are banning this practice.  Why?  As a nurse, I take care of many uncircumcised males & I find it appalling—as a man ages, many are unable to retract the foreskin to clean the smegma that forms—this is unhygienic and gross.  I certainly would prefer taking care of a circumcised male vs uncircumcised in the healthcare field.  Not every man is guilty of smegma buildup.  Some males can’t even retract their foreskin anymore.  It sure makes catheter insertion a very difficult chore.  Once the catheter is in, one better remember to retract the foreskin or it swells up and cuts off the circulation to the glans penis.  Now, how about that??  Sounds delightful, right guys & gals?

Sally sounds like she’s in the wrong profession.  If she finds it “appalling” to care for her intact male patients, this doesn’t sound like this is her vocation.  Her words don’t sound like the words of a Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who didn’t find it “appalling” to pull maggots from a man she found lying on the street. She saw this man as another Jesus.
Caring for intact females can be difficult also, especially as they get older and can’t care for themselves as they used to do.  Caring for a female during and after childbirth could also be considered “appalling”, and caring for any woman during menstruation could be considered “unhygienic.”  If Sally worked in a neonatal intensive care nursery and had to change dirty diapers of premature babies, she could also consider that “gross.”
I suggest that Sally retire from nursing if she finds nursing tasks of caring for intact males so “appalling.”  She would be doing herself and her patients a favor, since she views them with so much disgust.

She did not say people were appalling . She said the health hazards of being uncirc
is appalling. Most people prefer good hygiene.

Sally said:  “I take care of many uncircumcised males & I find it appalling”
I wrote : “If she finds it “appalling” to care for her intact male patients” and “if she finds nursing tasks of caring for intact males so “appalling”,” then this might not be the right vocation for her.
anon needs to read words more carefully.  There are many things that a nurse might find unpleasant to do, like caring for a patient who is vomiting or has diarrhea or is hemorrhaging, etc.  If Sally finds some aspects of nursing “appalling”, then others who don’t find those tasks appalling might be better suited to the nursing profession.  Sally’s words denigrate (speak ill of) intact males, and they certainly shouldn’t be coming from someone in the nursing profession, Catholic or non-Catholic.
Good hygiene can easily be accomplished with soap and water, which is readily available in the U.S.  All people should be encouraged to practice good hygiene, including good dental hygiene.

I agree that Sally’s comment betrays a cool inhumanity towards men, whom she disparagingly refers to as ‘males’.  If Sally finds that a some body part on these ‘males’ makes her life inconvenient (God forbid), Sally advocates just cutting that body part off. Of course Sally herself would never have something of HERS cut off - she is just advocating for this on behalf of another population - that is, her frustrating, inconvenient ‘males’. Sally sounds more like a veterinarian than a nurse. It does not sound like she is emotionally capable of working with and relating to adult human men.

Sally, would you prefer to be a circumcised female or an intact female?

You should never cut off part of the body just because someone else might find it more convenient for them!!

and Anon - being uncircumcised IS hygienic! It seems to be only women and circumcised guys who think otherwise and that is because they don’t know any better.

Lin -
you said “We Catholics believe we are the one true faith but everyone believes they have the truth. That is what freedom of religion is all about. Peace!”

This idea is not Catholic. Read the encyclicals of Pope Pius IX and you will see that this equal freedom for truth and error is not a Catholic idea. These are ideas very popular today especially in the United States but they are not Catholic concepts. We should respect the rights of other people but not of their false religions. To do otherwise is part of the heresies of Modernism and Indifferentism.

All who read these comments can see the cult-like
mentality of the anti circ crowd. It is strange to say the least.

I love being a nurse—I just find it very unhygienic when males are unable to care for their glans!  Mothers of boys—make it easier for them as they age—get them circumcised—-plus, men who were circumcised after birth—do you really have a memory of this?  Really?  If so, then u have a better memory than I do—I don’t remember anything in the hours or days after I was born.

& to PJ—you are right—an uncircumcised male makes me laugh—-it looks so goofy—so glad my husband & boys are circ’d!  & I’ll bet you anything, they don’t remember one bit of it!  Why would they???  Plus, @ least they’re hygienic.

anon’s accusation that those opposed to non-therapeutic circumcisions are “cult-like” is an insult to faithful Catholics who believe that circumcisions are unnecessary now for religious reasons, and also medically unnecessary unless there is a true defect or disease present for which circumcision is the only treatment.  (This insult would include most Catholics, since most Catholics worldwide do not circumcise their sons or daughters and do follow the teaching expressed in “Respect for bodily integrity”.)  “The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.”  It sounds like anon approves of the suffering of innocent, perfect, defenseless children while they have part of their healthy genitals cut off for any reason or no reason, and it is truly bizarre for someone who calls himself Catholic to want that.
When a person can’t argue his position on the merits of his arguments, and instead resorts to personal attacks, he has lost the argument.

Here’s an article by a German medical doctor who is Catholic.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-circumcision-without-medical-justification-is-wrong-a-846395.html

There goes Lin about the “threat to freedom of religion” crap again. This “explanation” about the Aurora CO shooting is right up her street:
.
http://www.patheos.com/Catholic/Aurora-Murders-Demonic-Possession-Dwight-Longenecker-07-24-2012.html
.
“The Devil Made Me Do It!” used to be a cute slogan - now it’s reality for some Catholics. This is why people like Lin scare me.
.
Also, the whole argument about whether circumcision is hygienic, or whether uncircumcised penises look funny is a total insult to non-circumcised males to make them feel ashamed of themselves. Shame on you people who stand by this—it is no defense for your religion or your self-righteous “faith.”
.
Maybe this article will be informative about what Catholics believed about circumcision:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

@ Sally - I am Not circumcised and I AM hygienic. I will never get circumcised nor will I have my boys circumcised.—-and you want to laugh at me because I am as God made me without any “alterations”? You’ve got it backwards. Being uncircumcised is not dirty and if you think so your knowledge is a little faulty when it comes to the anatomy and physiology of the foreskin!

@Sally: You are entitled to your opinions, but it is sad to see a fellow nurse speaking so insultingly about their patients or of men with normal, natural genitalia. As you probably know, elderly women can have some pretty funky genitals, with all those disgusting folds (sarcasm). Why don’t we also cut their labia off when they’re babies? They won’t remember it, and it’ll make it much easier to clean when their old and in a nursing home, right? If older intact men have trouble keeping themselves clean, it’s more a condemnation of the care they are getting or the training of the caregivers, than of their natural body. There are a couple of excellent handouts about care of the intact penis in children and in the geriatric/diabled population at www.nocirc.org. I know from experience that nurses are given little accurate information about the anatomy, function, development, care, or conservative treatment of the intact penis in their education. For the sake of your patients, and the families ever have the chance to educate, I hope you’ll step back from your biases and take it upon yourself to learn a little more about the God-given body part you are, sadly, so disgusted by.

I love how the vast majority of the commenters on here advocating the supposed benefits of male genital mutilation are female.

Sorry, ladies, just because you like cut better than uncut for sex doesn’t mean you get a say in what happens to male bodies.

You said it!!  I don’t get why women seem to think that they are the ones who get to decide!

Anon,
“You have it all backwards. The relativists want to tell people how to practice their religion and then want us to pay for immoral acts like using contraception. So, you want to tell us what we can and cannot do and make us pay for your immoral activity.”
.
So, how do you know your practices are moral? I think molesting children is immoral. I think lying about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and STDs is immoral I think revising history to suit what you want to believe is immoral. I think delcaring that any Catholic who has been caught being immoral has excommunicated him/herself, and is not “really” Catholic is moral relativism.
.
I also think you believe yourself a moral person simply because you think you are a “real” Catholic. Like Lin, you have no moral convictions of your own and depend on the Pope and the Church to decide what you should think is right and wrong. Your morals are subjective to the Church, which is being found to be more and more corrupt as time goes by.
.
Sally—
How come a good Catholic female like you is judging the apprearances of penises?

Missed you Gloria!  Great article on demonic possession and evil Thank you!  As the good Father says, he may or may not be possessed.

The posts CONTINUE to go off message!  It is about freedom of religion. If we don’t guard each other’s back, we all lose.

Gloria—how do you even know I am Catholic?  & I could be an Italian male—hmmmmm….a male advocating for circumcision, nonetheless!  Us men & our penises—we follow them through life—-& don’t the ladies know it!!  Proud of my circ’d penis.

All of this discussion regarding the merits or evils of circumcision is beside the point. Jimmy’s title says it all: if circumcision were outlawed, the Jewish race would be extinguished, at least in their self-understanding. So Hitler’s Final Solution would tragically be realized.

It’s not clear from the handles, but I would guess that few or none of the commenters are Jewish, particularly those who are so passionate about eliminating this practice. I’m not Jewish, and I certainly understand the Church’s teaching and current medical practice and so forth, but I think it would be arrogant and dangerous to attempt to use the power of the state to compel Jews to abandon the Abrahamic Covenant.

So if you have any respect for “our first, most cherished liberty”, find a way to persuade the Jews to abandon circumcision in favor of some other covenental ritual. But don’t object to the practice when it costs you nothing; because for our Jewish brethren, it would cost everything.

Posted by Sally on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 12:54 PM (EST):
“so glad my husband & boys are circ’d!”
Posted by Sally on Thursday, Jul 26, 2012 9:53 PM (EST):
“I could be an Italian male—hmmmmm….a male advocating for circumcision, nonetheless!  Us men & our penises . . Proud of my circ’d penis.”
This sounds like Sally is a pro-circumcision, homosexual male who is “married” to another male and has male children.

Sally, the letter ‘y’ is not a part of the Italian alphabet. If you were an Italian man whose nickname was Sally, it would be spelled ‘Salli’ or, more likely still, ‘Sali’.

Well, “Sally”—that is interesting. There was another poster (I think it was on JF’s blog) that also used a lot of assumed names and really upset anna lisa and Claire. Are you her/him?
.
Whether you’re male or female you have quite a hobby comparing penises. I’ll bet you’re happy to finally find a blog where you can show off what you know!

Lin—I thought The Exorcist was your authority on demons—I’m sure that pastor is another Blatty fan.
.
Well, you have another “authority” to think for you. Hopefully he won’t be caught up in the whole abuse scandal the church is downplaying. But then what do you care?
.
Tell me, are you also a Creationist? Do you believe angles are flying around you? Is there one holding an umbrella over your head so you won’t realize there are ideas over your head?

This whole discussion is so out of hand & mostly made up on my part & I’m not even afraid to say it—just wondering who out there has time to waste responding to all my silliness!!  Way to go wasting your time, people!  But, I must & will say to David Paggi—good point & well said—now if we all could learn from David Paggi’s comment…...

& to Gloria, this is the 1st blog site I’ve ever been on.  But it was really fun riling up all you peoples!!!

@ David Paggi
Personally, my wish is to see circumcision, practiced for non-religious reasons, stop.

It is all about freedom of religion!  I have been stating that since my first post. And please note, that I have been ATTACKED for my religious beliefs. Especially by my friend Gloria. Because I believe inn the TRUTH I apparently have no ideas of my own. The attacks are irrational. Peace.

Lin—
It must be a part of your psychosis that you call me a “friend.” Do you are you “in” to SM?
.
You don’t know what is TRUTH because you gave your mind to the Catholic Church to save yourself the trouble of thinking for yourself. Does that give you a thrill?
.
Anyway, since you believe the law has no right to constrain religious ritual, I will go refill my contraceptive prescription on my way to the Planned Parenthood center where I volunteer as a patient escort for women who don’t want to be pregnant because their families are already too big for them to support.
.
Fantasize about that for a while.

Lin, in your opinion the argument about circumcision is all about religious freedom. Trouble is, it’s not only about religion. It’s also about other considerations like the right for bodily integrity. When it comes to infant circumcision, the two considerations come into direct conflict.

Simplistic statements, even if they are endlessly repeated, are still simplistic, and fail to account for the complexities of the questions posed by infant circumcision.

With all due respect, the point of this article is about religious freedom. Most posts were way off subject. The TRUTH is simplistic. An action is either right or wrong. Our secular culture makes everything a subject of debate. 

Gloria…....As you volunteer at PP, think about this head line today (AP July 30, 2012),  “Iran urges baby boom to avoid aging demographic.”.  Also, your posts exhibit a spiritual hunger that only God can fill.  HE will find you if you let him. God bless!

Lin—
It’s what I’ve been trying to get across to you. Every one knows and action is right or wrong—my question to you is how do you know whether your action is right or wrong. It is my contention that you cannot figure out for yourself—you need the church to tell you.
.
How do you know if circumcision is right or wrong? Is it right because it’s part of a religious ritual, even though it kills or maims a child from time to time?
.
You’ve already written that secular law has no authority to constrain religion, so I contend that you will forgive anyone of doing harm, even killing some one in the name of their religion. You believe the 9/11 terrorists were justified in killing over 3,000 people, that couples who pray over their sick children instead of getting medical help have no responsibility if their child dies. With you, nothing is wrong if it is motivated by religion.
.
Do you ever wonder what life would be like if you’d had enough oxygen at birth?

Why are Catholics so interested in defending circumcision? It is not a Catholic practice. Stoning women for adultery is illegal, too. If a group of Muslims were convicted for murdering a woman who committed adultery by stoning her to death, would Catholic protest that, as well, in the interest of defending religious freedom? Why should inflicting intense, needless pain on a helpless baby boy be the work of the members of Christ’s Church? I am writing as a Catholic.

I stopped reading this awhile ago, and for some reason, Gloria’s post above came to my e-mail.

Lin, all I can say, is count it all joy! When the “tolerant” people run out of arguments, they attack the person.  The TRUTH in it’s essence is not something, it is somebody.  His name is Jesus Christ.  Some can see it, some cannot.  Peace to you!

Regarding those who are so eager to defend routine infant male circumcision, I also wonder how much those people have given serious consideration to just how much pain they are causing their baby boys. Have these people thought about how painful it is to cut straight through the skin of a penis? Do they realize babies are not immune to pain? And how can you make a judgment about the importance of circumcision without taking this intense pain into consideration? Just think of the kind of welcome this is giving a helpless baby boy. “I love you so much I’m going to cut off the skin on your penis.” How terrifying this must be to a newborn baby who knows nothing.
.
Here is the challenge I would give to supporters of circumcision: there are YouTube videos showing infant males being circumcised. These videos are uncensored. Watch one. If you want to write in support of circumcision, watch one of these videos straight through. Watch the procedure. Listen attentively to the way the baby screams and see if you think it’s a normal sound for a baby to make. If you can’t make it through to the end, ask yourself: If I can’t even watch this, should I really be advocating that this be done to real human beings? And if you can watch it through, ask yourself: Just how important is this procedure? How important is it that I defend it? Why am I defending it, anyway?
.
In short I think defenders of circumcision need to do a little examination of conscience.

David C.- Good suggestion about watching a video.

It’s somewhat like people favoring abortion who have never seen an abortion or the results of what it does to the baby.  Many commenting in favor of circumcision have probably never even watched an infant circumcision, or if they have, they minimize the pain of the child.  Hopefully viewing one would turn their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. I encourage people to follow David’s suggestion.

Yeah. Hearts of stone into hearts of flesh - that’s exactly right.
.
I don’t want to overdo my commenting here, but whenever the subject of circumcision comes up, it’s like the people who support it never make the connection that a baby can feel whatever they would feel. Buy a scalpel and cut straight through the skin of your genitals. All the way through. What does that feel like? Now, what reason in the world is there to believe a baby wouldn’t feel exactly the same sensation? I wish people would stop and think about that: the pain that I would feel, this doctor is making a baby feel. I think that if folks would really let that thought sink in, they’d have to ask themselves why they feel it is so important to defend this practice. What is this really about, that I’m sitting here vigorously supporting the infliction of pain on newborn boys? Why am I so invested in the appearance of the genitals of another human being? In the end I think the answer is simply that this is a tradition, and sometimes we accept traditions without thinking about them. Thus defending them becomes reflexive. We think it’s important without really knowing why. As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to circumcision, there is no ‘why’. Circumcision was initially made widespread in the U.S. by people who believed it discouraged masturbation. It now stands on dubious and frequently contested grounds in the medical community. It’s not important; let it go. Let baby boys have the bodies God gave them. It isn’t a crime to leave a newborn child be. Instead of a scalpel, give him a hug and kiss. It’ll be much better for his health.

One final word: some folks were writing earlier that this is all anti-circ propaganda. I don’t understand that. I strongly disagree with circumcision but it’s not something I think about much. I’m just a guy who’s sharing his beliefs and views. I have a job and a girlfriend and I rent an apartment and hang out with friends. I also wonder if some of my fellow Catholics here are making these connections: Secular laws that interfere with religious freedom -> People opposing circumcision -> Secular people who don’t care about the invasion of the secular world into communities of faith. A group of people who feel strongly about this act of German government and a group of people who feel strongly that babies should not be circumcised. One can see how this would make it difficult for a conversation to take place on either topic, especially since they are being set in opposition to one another. Well, I’m not a secular person. I’m very happily an orthodox Catholic who stands in union with Rome, who prays, who goes to Mass and confession, who enjoys reading spiritual things, and who spends much time thinking about - not circumcision - but how I despise the ubiquity of hollow, secular, and dare I say liberal culture, and how I believe said culture is a mechanism utilized by elites to destroy a people who could otherwise check the extent of their power and wealth. They are destroying us by mutilating our traditions, our heritage, our identity, our self-awareness, and replacing all this with an endless series of vapid, short-lived titillations. I really, really hate this stuff with a bitter and violent passion (that’s not holy I know).
.
What I don’t understand is why Catholics so ardently defend circumcision. Are Catholics now left in the position of defending the beliefs and practices of every other religion? Must we now justify a practice that is not Catholic but Jewish and Muslim? I think that’s going too far. Let Jews and Muslims defend Jewish and Muslim practices. You can’t bill circumcision as a Catholic item. It’s not. St. Paul handled this when it became an issue among gentiles. What I feel is most prudent - I won’t say ideal, because I don’t believe that - is leaving the law out of this. Let this be a matter of conscience. And in that way let there be a discussion between those who support the practice, those who oppose it, and those who are ambivalent. Let people choose what most accords with their own consciences. In this I hope that some day there won’t be a need to legislate against circumcision, because the great majority of people simply won’t do it.
.
I’m sure I’m overwhelming the discussion now so this will close it.

The anti circ propagandists are at it again.

The issue of religious freedom is not separate from male circ.
The extremists want to make male circ as “mutilation” so as to make it not a matter of religious freedom.
They must redefine terms as propagandists must.
To be crystal clear - the Church does not bind our consciences on this matter. As long as it is not done for religious reasons male circ is licit.

The anti circ zealots should stop attempting to bind where the Church does not bind. Yours is a secular ideologie.

As a Catholic, I accept the teachings of the Catholic Catechism on “Respect for bodily integrity” (No. 2297).  Anon wants to ignore that Catechism teaching because it does not fit with his pro-circumcision propaganda, but other faithful Catholics who are not secularists believe in following that Catholic teaching.  As long as circumcision is done for non-religious, therapeutic reasons, then it would be licit, but those cases are rare.  Non-therapeutic circumcisions done for social, cultural, and alleged prophylactic reasons are not therapeutic circumcisions.  This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, but Anon has trouble understanding this.

Directive 29 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD; Conference of Catholic Bishops states that “All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity.” The 1977 ERD, Directive 33, states that “unnecessary procedures, whether diagnostic or therapeutic, are morally objectionable.”

PJ,

Às usual you obfuscate the truth. The sections you refer to DO NOT refer to male citc.
The form and function of the organ are not changed.
If anyone is still lurking write to your Bishop or the CDF in Rome.

Anyone who reads these comments and is even slightly reasonable can see the anti cutc zealots want to control your life. They will redefine terms, misstate Catholic teaching all for this odd fetish.
Very strange. Please pray for them.

Anon, as you know the name Catholic means universal. You have to understand that when someone defends circumcision he is not defending a Catholic practice. Yes, it’s true that the Catholic Church has not issued an authoritative judgment on the question of circumcision. Instead it has so far left the problem to the prudential judgment of its members. To this extent PJ’s remarks are perfectly legitimate. Knowledge of Church teaching - and he did quote Church teachings - is an integral part of forming a prudential judgment on a moral matter. PJ is simply making his case, and as a Catholic he is perfectly within his rights to do so. In my opinion one of the documents he quoted most certainly includes circumcision in its scope. That document stated it is immoral to remove any part of the body whatsoever without a valid reason for doing so. The reasons for circumcision are highly disputable.
.
However, as I said, circumcision is not a Catholic practice and there is no reason whatsoever for Catholics to feel a particular need as Catholics to defend it. What’s actually being defended is an *American* practice as well as one that belongs to orthodox Jewish and Moslem circles. Few European men, for example, are circumcised. This group includes Catholics. So from a Catholic, i.e. universal, standpoint, what is add and fetishistic is actually the practice of circumcision which *American* Catholics are, for whatever reason, so eager to defend.

Anon prefers ignorance over knowledge.  His points have been made before and refuted, but he clings stubbornly to his opinion over the facts.  For example, Anon says, “The form and function of the organ are not changed.”
Here’s what Dr. Maximilian Stehr, a Catholic medical doctor, wrote at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-circumcision-without-medical-justification-is-wrong-a-846395.html

“After birth, the foreskin protects the head of the penis (the glans) and prevents the external urethral orifice from abrasion and drying out. Following circumcision, the surface of the glans regularly thickens and calluses. This can lead to a constriction of the opening of the urethra, the most common complication associated with circumcision in infancy, occurring in up to 30 percent of cases. It’s not unusual for several operations to be required before affected children can empty their bladder properly.

The foreskin also plays a role in arousal. In contrast to the glans, which has deep sensitivity, the foreskin has what are known as tactile corpuscles which can only be found in similar density in the tips of the fingers, the lips and the eyelids. It’s therefore hardly surprising that the foreskin is considered a male erogenous zone. A significant majority of men who are circumcised in adulthood, and are therefore in a position to make comparisons, say they are less sensitive in this area after surgery. But that’s not the only reason why circumcision affects sexuality: Couples in which the man is circumcised uniformly report a loss of male secretions during sex and therefore greater friction and resulting pain. It can therefore be assumed that circumcision can indeed have a negative impact on sexuality and the sex life of both circumcised men and their partners. These findings are not new. Major studies and surveys have been conducted and published as far back as the 1990s.”“Medically, there is no evidence of advantages for boys. Therefore non-medically indicated circumcision is not in the child’s best interests either . . . Doctors have to weigh potential risks and benefits. There are no medical benefits to circumcision on religious grounds. For this reason it’s all the more significant that it’s a serious surgical procedure fraught with risks and complications. Whether it’s carried out under local or general anesthetic, circumcision causes boys undue suffering. This procedure must therefore be rejected from both a medical and an ethical perspective.”

The origination of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy’s entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of enhancing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing “excess” pleasure, as a means of increasing a man’s attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one’s ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader, and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin. It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread.[1][2][3] Darby describes these theories as “conflicting”, and states that “the only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it.”[2] Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practising circumcision, leading to its spread.[4] Wilson suggests that circumcision reduces insemination efficiency, reducing a man’s capacity for extra-pair fertilizations by impairing sperm competition. Thus, men who display this signal of sexual obedience, may gain social benefits, if married men are selected to offer social trust and investment preferentially to peers who are less threatening to their paternity.[5] It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision
.
Italics are mine:-o

To Kathy16670….........Thank you!  Peace and blessings to you!

PJ.
It’s a hallmark of Catholic faith to be ignorant—if they knew anything they couldn’t be Catholic. Arguing with a devout Catholic is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. All they do is knock over the pieces, crap on the chessboard, and strut around as if they’ve won.

David C,

It is a prudential judgment and as such one may support or not as a personal choice for themselves or their children.

What one may not do is claim the Church teaches it is illicit to choose it or claim it is mutilation. Of it is
prudential then it most certainly cannot be evil.

As to the history of male circ that really is not relevant. What matters is that it is licit.

Gloria,

You are on the right team. Obfuscation, misstating things, and more.

PJ,

If you want to play dueling experts go ahead. The evidence points to benefits for male circ.

I have refuted your propaganda including from moral theologians from EWTN.

Not all experts agree with your experts. It is not as you claim. You may not chose circ as is your licit choice.
What you may not choose is to tell other Catholics their decision is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Go see an orthodox priest and get some help.

Anon doesn’t want to accept that no national medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision.  I don’t think he has an M.D. after his name, but he won’t accept the medical findings because he is circumcised and in denial, he lives in a circumcising culture, and he thinks circumcision is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  He does not want to face the truth, because then he would have to face the question about why this was done to him. 
Routine circumcision is non-therapeutic foreskin amputation.  Only in rare cases where there is a true therapeutic reason for circumcision can it be considered licit.  In other cases, we are taught “Respect for bodily integrity” (No. 2297) for ourselves and others.
Years ago, I wrote to the (now late) Fr. Richard John Neuhaus about circumcision and Catholic teaching on “Respect for bodily integrity.”  This priest, who may or may not be Orthodox enough for the judgmental Anon, made me aware of the 1977 ERD, Directive 33, that states that “unnecessary procedures, whether diagnostic or therapeutic, are morally objectionable” and how those words relate to circumcision.  I trust this priest’s judgment over the flawed judgment of Anon, but Neuhaus might not be orthodox enough for Anon’s air of superiority and his form of Pharisaic Catholicism. 
Anon needs to examine his conscience and see his priest in the confessional.  I expect he wouldn’t accept absolution from any priest he doesn’t judge to be “orthodox enough”.

PJ,

You only trust physician’s that agree with your ideologie. You refuse
to accept that these political groups are influenced by things other than science. That is why these
medical / political groups endorse evil actions such as abortion, contraception,
and homosexual acts.

This medical procedure is accepted by physicians. It is a medically sound and morally licit choice.
Your private magisterium does not have any authority.

As for your medical education that seems as advanced as your moral theology education.

Anon - you also seem to accept only an authority on circumcision that happens to agree with yours. If a medical doctor or medical organization disagrees with you then you say that they just have an agenda. You can’t have it both ways.

Sam,

The authority in matters like this is the magisterium, the parents, and the
attending physician.

The magisterium has not bound our conscience,
parents have the RIGHT to decide, the attending
Physician by law and training has the medical authority
in such cases.

Again, one may choose or not choose male circ.

Claiming it is illicit is unreasonable both medically and morally.

I agree with PJ. If Fr Neuhaus responded to his inquiry on circumcision by providing some statements of the Church for PJ’s consideration, clearly there is room for applying these statements to the subject of circumcision. I’d trust Fr Neuhaus over Anon any day. For whatever reason, Anon seems particularly invested in this aspect of American culture.

No. 2297 of the Catechism, “Respect for bodily integrity,” states ,“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”
This teaching comes from the Vatican, the teaching authority of the Church, which Anon claims he follows. 
By Anon’s teaching authority, No. 2297 should be changed to read as follows: “Except when performed for no strict therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations performed on innocent children at the request of parents does not go against the moral law and is licit.”
I suggest Catholics follow the Catholic Catechism the way it is written and approved by the Vatican, and not the way Anon wishes it were written to suit his personal beliefs.

Anon - nor has the Church approved the practice. I can therefore say, and rightly so that it is a bad idea and not medically sound. Therefore it shouldn’t be done.

David C,

Fr. had passed. All we have is PJ’s assertion.

No magisterial authority. EWTN has priests/moral theologians
that disagree with PJ.

I will stick with them over you anti citc zealots
that swarm sites with your propaganda. That
is why this topic is banned at Catholic Answers forums .

It brings out the folks with an odd interest in this topic.

PJ,

Your private magisterium has no authority.

Sam,

It is a matter of free opinion. You Mary argue the medical merits
if you wish but morally you would be exceeding your authority.

Anon, your comments leave one with the impression you suffer from quite a case of projection.

Anon - you are the one who keeps trying to make it a catholic issue. It is not. Remember the Council of Jerusalem? The Church decreed there that it was not required to be Catholic. End of story.  You are the one who seems to be excessively intent on defending the practice. How about you leave it alone and let boys decide when they are older if they want it rather than decide for them since it is not a Catholic requirement.

Anon - you are the one exceeding your authority and being quite bigoted I might add. You act like those who are opposed to circumcision are nut jobs, crazy, etc. This is not the case.

I saved a printed copy of the letter from Fr. Neuhaus.  It would take time to find it in a large pile of papers, but Anon can rest assured that it exists.  It is not an allegation, and he is wrong to assert that someone is lying with no proof. My conscience is clear on its existence.
For Anon, EWTN has become his Magesterium now?  I too watch EWTN and enjoy the programming.  I remember seeing the late Fr. John Neuhaus in the past on Raymond Arroyo’s show. 
Anon seems to believe that he is more Catholic than other Catholics, which is sad. That sounds like arrogance to me. Arrogance is defined as “overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.” 
Sam is right.  This question of circumcision was settled at the Council of Jerusalem, under our first Pope St. Peter. Anon doesn’t seem to like how it was settled then.  Circumcision is unnecessary now.

No doubt about it—this ruling undermines religious liberty in Germany, and very well may be a factor in the growing intolerance of Christianity here in America. God help us and save us.

PJ—circumcision may be “unnecessary now” for Christians, but that is not the primary problem here. The problem is the government deciding which religious practices are legal and which are illegal. That absolutely is facism—and, under Obama, we are headed full-speed in the same direction.

David C,

If it were projection I would assert that one must
be circ. and not to do do would be a sin.

So, no I do not project but bind myself to the Chuch.

Sam,

You have it backwards again.

I am defending against those who claim the Church
forbids med male circ. It is for each to decide
and for parents to decide.

It is not for you or PJ or David C to decide.

It certainly is not for the state to decide.

Sam,

I am pointing out the way anti circ behave and that
their position is one that must bind others to their
private view.

My position is the same as the Church. It is a matter
of free opinion not to be dictated by the State or other
private individuals.

PJ,

You are the arrogant one and the one who obfuscates.

I have taken the time here do that others will not be misled.

I have said multiple times for people to ask their bishop or
the CDF in Rome. I have no problems changing my position if
the Church changes Hers.

So, you claim to have the opinion of a deceased priest,
some anti circ propaganda groups, and your misinterpretation
of the CCC.

Jim,

The religious liberty issue and circ cannot
be separated. The anti circ groups mistakenly
view circ as mutilation. This allows them to claim
religious liberty is not at stake.

Do you see the problem here?

First you must redefine the medical procedure
to suit your position and then say that it should
not be an authentic religious practice because
it is immoral.

This is left wing thinking 101.

Anon - you know that Catholicism is the one true Church right? Circumcision is not a Catholic practice. Therefore it doesn’t infringe on the religious liberty of Catholics. We are having other liberties infringed upon - Obamacare anyone?  The practices of false religions therefore is not something that has equal rights with the True religion. Error has no rights. That being said, I do know that the forbidding of certain practices definitely leads to others. We should be standing up to defend the rights of the Catholic Church and not that of false religions. Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, condemns the notion that the freedom of false religions should be on equal footing with the rights and freedoms that belong to the Catholic Church.

Finally a judge with guts enough to stand up to this horrible practice.

I consider myself fortunate to have been born in Scandinavia where this horrible practice of genital mutilation is very uncommon. I hope that more judges and law makers will follow suit to hopefully finally put an end to this. This is a clear violation of basic human rights, the right of any child to be protected and not have his/her perfectly healthy body violated due to any “whacky” beliefs of his/her parents. Should we allow any religious sect out there to amputate parts of their babies’ bodies as they see fit? Should we allow this simply because it has been performed for thousands of years? So was the ritual of sacrificing children to the gods.

Bible literalists are not known for rational thinking so I guess they are not able to grasp the concept that if “God” created man in his image, as they believe, and equipped him with a foreskin then, perhaps God intended it to be there.

Of course the actual explanation why every male mammal has a foreskin is that it serves an important purpose in nature as it protects the pubic gland from injury and being desensitized over time. If it was not important or a negative trait it would have evolved away long ago.

It is sad that so many men can not enjoy sexual pleasure to the same degree that I can due to a choice their parents made that they had no say in. It is no question that the lack of a foreskin causes desensitization. If I pull back my foreskin and walk around with the pubic gland rubbing against my clothing I cannot function. It is very uncomfortable.

Unfortunately we cannot count on the hospitals to help stop the practice of circumcision as it generates big revenues for them.

As a circumcised Catholic I have no problem with this procedure or tradition. 
Like all issues on the left, they will go to any lengths to create motivation and reasoning for their attack.  False reports like: “The British Medical Association (BMA) states that “it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.”
Nonsense.
Another leftist crusade to attack religion and parental rights. Yet they are quick to murder children in the name of the mother’s “choice”. What hypocrites.

You do know that there are also extremely conservative Catholics such as myself who are against circumcision too right? I am an uncircumcised Catholic and I know that it is completely not necessary. The so called medical benefits to being circumcised are myths.

@Sam
I’ve seen your posts. Obviously not being circumcised is something you are sensitive about. Yes there are “studies” on each side that weigh the pros and cons. Yes the early church did say that for Christians circumcision is not required. But as a conservative Catholic you can surely see that imposing a law against circumcision is wrong.  YOU are not attacking religion and parental rights.  You are just making the argument that it is a tradition of the Jewish faith that you respect but that has no need or value in the Catholic church.
As a conservative I agree that you should not be forced or pressured to circumcise your sons and I should not be forced or pressured to not circumcise mine. We should not be making emotional arguments or calling one another “unclean” or “mutilators”.
—-
Paul did not argue that Jews converting to Christ must stop circumcision, he argued that gentiles need not be forced to take on this tradition.  Peter received the message from God that we should be open and universal, so why would we now after 2000 years impose a law against that position?

I am mainly showing the errors in myths about uncircumcised guys. I am glad to be uncircumcised. I am not sensitive about it. (Sensitive would imply I don’t like being the way I am). But like I said I am glad I am uncircumcised. I just know that the scientific evidence is simply not there to justify doing it as a cultural norm. To do it because ” that’s what everyone does” does not justify it and is not a good enough reason. Historically, even the Jews didn’t circumcise as it is done now. They only took off a small piece at the end so all the benefits of having a foreskin were still there. The pharisees and those like them changed that in the early centuries after Christ because they didn’t like that Jewish men could compete in the games and such and hide the sign of their circumcision. So, they decided that more had to come off. So even that is beyond what the Mosaic law required. Today, people who are going to circumcise, need to realize that they are doing it because they want to and not because there is a scientific reason for it.  I do feel sorry for all those guys who will never know what they are missing.

PARENTAL RIGHTS MUST TRUMP ANY GOVERNMENT.

YES!!! IF A RABBI KILLS MY SON WITH HIS HERPES, I WILL TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY!

I am reminded of a favorite quote: “Forbid a man to think for himself or to act for himself and you may add the joy of piracy and the zest of smuggling to his life.”  I wonder if it isn’t healthy for believers to have to break the law once in a while (for example, Catholics under 21 receiving communion wine are outlaws in some states).  If Germany outlaws Jewish circumcision, they may indeed strengthen the faith there as Jews “go underground” for worship.

Posted by Hart Ponder on Saturday, Jul 7, 2012 12:17 PM (EST):

Besides God’s law, according to WebMD there are healthier benifits: There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
(Same with yeast infections of female genitalia if labia/vulva/hood is removed.)
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
(Because there is less membrain tusure to be exposed. Obviously the same with labia/vulva/hood being removed.)
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
(Breast cancer could be reduced by amputating breasts, you must be for this as well?)
Prevention of balanitis :inflammation of the glans and balanoposthitis :inflammation of the glans and foreskin.
(Amputate anything that can become inflamed, thus reducing chances of amputated flesh becoming inflamed, works with every body part)
Prevention of phimosis :the inability to retract the foreskin and paraphimosis :the inability to return the foreskin to its original location.
(So we answer every potential problem by wide spread amputation in infants? She might have a tipped uterus when she grows up, take them out of all female infants now, just to be sure)
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
(And because the same is with any flesh folds we should cut off ears because it is then easier to clean behind them, and ofcourse remove mostly every part of the vagina because, yeah folds that need to be cleaned, right?

You can make any sort of argument that hay occasionally people get various problems and so we should use enforced amputation on infants to cure such. Insanity.

Also as for religious freedom, if my faith has me carve up the face of my child to mark them involintarilly into my faith, do I have the right? If my faith says that my wife and children are nothing but property, are they, that overreaching each person’s right to choose?

We need to support for Stop to female Genital Mutilation all the world where would be happened around the world.If we all put combine efforts to stop FGM.With these efforts We will definitely get rid the female genital mutilation from all around the world.

For Support we have Launched EBOOK for Female Genital Mutilation.You can check the eBook from our Official website.http://www.fgmasylum.com

Are you using a messenger such as Skype, Whatsapp, ooVoo etc.? Participate in a survey and win iPad (mini)! This is not spam – you can contact us directly: Gleb Zhukov at gleb.zhukov@axience.com. Please follow the link to sign-up for the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5KC7T33

“The tone-deafness of such a ruling—given that it occurred in Germany—is startling.” May I, please? “The tone-deafness of religious fanatics to the cries of boys and men who’ve been horribly harmed by circumcision, to the numerous deaths caused by that substitute for child sacrifice—is startling.” Is child sacrifice, if designated a sacred rite, also acceptable? Or if somehow given an imprimatur of imagined health benefits by the US Medical Industry?

@Faithful Catholic: “hmmm, Is this the return of the Nazis? Hasnt Germany learned NOT to screw with peoples religious liberties?” Actually, the text of the German Basic Law (constitution) that court was following is boilerplate designed to protect the religious liberties of ALL Germans; it was specifically acknowledged at the time of drafting to be a reaction to the Nazi era’s horrors. In that instance, it seems, the court was able to discern that children (to include boys) have religious liberties too. The court ruling was a response to a case in which a Muslim boy suffered a horribly botched circumcision; one that was done by a physician, and NOT by an Istanbul neighborhood barber.

Great blog , how are you doing it? Lots of great information in this topic. It is very useful and informative. I like very much. http://www.exarotec.com/

A perspective from a health related and less of religious freedom side of the issue: In past medical research on the topic, it was determined that viral and bacterial infections can be carried by uncircumcised males under the forskin. It will be interesting and also confirm or discount those findings, to see just how much the statistics increase in sexually transmitted diseases in German folks.

An after thought on my previous comment: It can be painful to have a circumcision at any age, but when a man of 70+ years of age cannot urinate because of phimosis it can be much more embarassing and painful, not to mention health related ramifications.

Tired Nurse: When a man cannot have an erection because the doctor botched his circumcision, that can also be embarrassing and painful.
.
Let adult men make their own health decisions. There’s no reason anyone should be discussing whether boys get to keep the body parts they were born with.