Catholic Hospitals and Circumcision

[NettleTea]

Are Catholic hospitals big on circing? Would they have been in the year 1980?

[VillageMom6]

I'm not sure what you mean by being "big" on circumcision? I doubt they encourage or promote it... not any more than a secular hospital does. Do they do them? Yes, just like secular hospitals do.

I'm sure that in 1980 all hospitals were circing the majority of boy babies because that was the norm.

[buckeyedoc]

My husband is Catholic, and the fact that circumcision is not part of Catholicism was discussed in a sermon a few years ago. That said, I would guess that any US hospital in 1980 circumcised most boys. I do know that my older brother was circumcised "automatically" at a military hospital in 1972, while my younger brother was circumcised only after parental consent at a private hospital in 1981.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by buckeyedoc

My husband is Catholic, and the fact that circumcision is not part of Catholicism was discussed in a sermon a few years ago. That said, I would guess that any US hospital in 1980 circumcised most boys. I do know that my older brother was circumcised "automatically" at a military hospital in 1972, while my younger brother was circumcised only after parental consent at a private hospital in 1981.

(This may be a question for the RS forum, but)

What does that mean, exactly? Technically, circumcision is not part of Christianity in general; however, I would bet that most American Christian males born during the past fifty or so years of the last century were circumcised. Circumcision became the cultural "norm" because the medical profession insisted it was "cleaner" and prevented disease and such.

[buckeyedoc]

I wasn't at the mass with him, but my husband said the gist of it was that circumcision is not a religious requirement in Catholicism (would be true for other Christian religions as well), so Catholics should not use that reason for having their children circumcised. The priest stopped short of saying not to do it at all, but said that people should be aware that it was not being done for any reason related to Catholicism. It was around Easter in 2007, I think.

[buckeyedoc]

I found my really old post about it. It appears to be "closed":

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=673492

[To-Fu]

Hi! I'm moving this over to Religious Studies since religion-related posts are no longer a good fit in TCAC, as per the forum guidelines:

The discussion of or reference to religion is outside of the scope of this forum. Any posts which bring any aspect of religion into the discussion are not appropriate and will be removed. Respectful discussion of a religious nature regarding circumcision, alternatives, etc. may be hosted in the Spirituality forum. The Spirituality forum is a debate-free zone. Members maintain a list of helpful websites in a Web Resources thread for further information about religious issues.

[Bluegoat]

In 1980 most boys would have been circumsized. It has never been a requirement for Catholics for religious reasons. It was common through the seventies too - in the early 50's when my dad was born it was less common than later.

[lilyka]

It has never been a requirement for any Christian but hospitals, even Catholic hospitals are in it for the money and since circ was the cultural norm as well as being promoted as a healthy choice I am sure Catholic hospitals did it routinely. Not just in the 80s but I am sure the Catholic hospital my dds were born at routinely circumcised babies (with parental consent but most parents consent) even now. Of course they are big on it. Elective unnecessary cosmetic surgery that almost everyone consents to? You know thats a cash cow.

[NettleTea]

A few years ago when my husband talked to his mother about being circed and how he was not happy with it her reply was something like, "I had to do it, it was a Catholic hospital". And I knew that was BS at the time because she didn't HAVE to allow that. But just recently it occurred to me that it being a Catholic hospital probably had nothing to do with it. MIL has a history of passing the blame so I think this was just another of those instances. Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Edited to add: My husband and his family are not Catholic. Which made her scapegoat answer even more full of BS in my eyes.

[Bluegoat]

Well, in general it was the case that hospitals at that time would have done it as a matter of routine, unless you told them not to. As for the Catholic part - although most hospitals were "follow the rules" kind of places (most still are), it is possible that it might have been particularly the culture in some Catholic hospitals. Perhaps especially if one was being given financial help by the hospital.

[KempsMama]

There is no Catholic teaching that supports circ.

In fact, there are teachings that forbid it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law"

[JMJ]

I would guess that it being a Catholic hospital would have had little or nothing to do with it. I wouldn't be too quick to judge your MIL for it, though. Many women at Catholic and secular hospitals were not given the choice. It's just what was done. They may not have given your MIL a choice, and she may very well believe that it was because the hospital was Catholic.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by KempsMama

There is no Catholic teaching that supports circ.

In fact, there are teachings that forbid it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law"

I kind of doubt that the Church considers circumcision "amputation" or "mutilation", though. Like I said, it's been the cultural norm in the States for decades. I'm sure there are many Catholic doctors who still consider it a "preventive" procedure.

Technically speaking, Christian Scripture says it doesn't matter either way.

[VillageMom6]

Originally Posted by KempsMama

There is no Catholic teaching that supports circ.

In fact, there are teachings that forbid it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law"

There is no official teaching that expressly forbids circumcision. Individuals may interpret that part of the catechism as including circumcision but they also may not. One does not incur sin by circumcising.

[Night_Nurse]

If anyone is interested...and not that this is indicative of all Catholic hospitals...but last week I called a few hospitals at random. I called a maternity ward at a Catholic hospital in the supposedly low circ rate state of Oregon (Portland). The nurse said the "vast majority" of baby boys in her hospital were circed. While she couldn't give the exact number, she did say they do "many, many circumcisions".
That was the only Catholic hospital I called.
My best guess as a nurse and intactivist is that the majority of all boys born in or around 1980 were indeed circumcised, regardless of the type of hospital in which they were delivered.

[brant31]

The Catholic church has gone a step further than other Christian religions in addressing circumcision, such as a papal bull of Pope Eugenius IV that states in part, "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian[ity], not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." The point was that any Catholic circumcising a child for faith reasons (it's in the Bible, etc.) is making a grievous error, circumcision overall was not in keeping with Catholic doctrine of the sanctity of the human body and its perfect design. There is no "out" here for parents who believe that circumcision may or may not have some unspecified health benefit somewhere in the future for their child. It's therapeutic -- addressing an immediate condition for which more conservative treatments don't exist -- or it's not.

I visited the Linacre Centre for Catholic Bioethics a few years ago in London to discuss this issue with them. By and large, the people I spoke to (including the acting Executive Director) were personally very opposed to infant and childhood circumcision, as are most Britons. They acknowledged the rather convincing arguments that non-therapeutic infant circumcision is incompatible with Catholic teaching. They even felt that Catholics worldwide should be frequently reminded of that fact. However, they saw no reason at present to excommunicate church members over the matter and recognized the powerful, yet inappropriate, pressures to circumcise in cultures like the US and the Philippines. A couple of them likened it to secular pressure to legalize abortion and artificial birth control; while the surrounding culture may embrace those practices, it was sincerely hoped that observant Catholics would firmly eschew them, as they do in with circumcision in most of the world.

One matter they stressed was that any Catholic parent should be concerned about whether their child's foreskin would be used in any bioethically objectionable way, such as cloning research. At a bare minimum it is incumbent upon parents to research this question and forbid such use.

If elective circumcision involves risks that are not present by not circumcising (damage to the penis, hemorrhage, UTI, meatal stenosis, etc.) then Catholic teaching deems that the act of cosmetic/cultural circumcision is more or less sinful depending on the collective gravity of the risks. That is, if a parent is conflicted about the procedure but perceives substantial risks to be inherent -- and infant circumcision carries a relatively high complication rate compared to other procedures of similar length and cost; about 8% severe complications and about 25% mild to moderate complications, often requiring follow-up surgery -- then Catholic teaching requires that circumcision be avoided. It is a neutral decision only where the surgical risks are equally matched in frequency and severity to doing nothing at all. The question of intentional infliction of pain is also a consideration. Europe has already answered these questions pretty definitively.

If elective surgery resulted in mutilation or death that would have not occurred had it not been done, then it is sinful. Circumcision does carry some risk of mutilation and death above and beyond what our natural bodies do, and in that sense can be considered a discouraged procedure. More emphatically for Catholic institutions, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD) states that "Unnecessary procedures, whether diagnostic or therapeutic, are morally objectionable." Regarding patients, or their proxy, the ERD says, "All persons served by Catholic health have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity." Circumcision unquestionably breaches integrity -- it cuts through and discards substantial normal vascularization and thousands of nerve endings -- and always results in a penis that functions differently, without moving parts. The dispensation for this is therapeutic urgency.

My personal feeling is that if the United States were not a circumcising culture, the Vatican would have little problem condemning circumcision of infants outright. However, it is clearly a touchy political situation. What is unacceptable, however, is any Catholic claiming that circumcision is "a Christian thing" or that a Roman Catholic may endorse circumcision for personal reasons of faith.

If any Catholic has strong feelings about the issue of infant circumcision, they can certainly write to the Catholic Medical Association or the Linacre Centre, as this individual did shortly after my visit to Linacre.

[Arduinna]

I'd like to Catholic hospitals refuse to perform circ the same way they refuse other medical procedures that go against Church teachings.

[Fay]

I am a Catholic, and both of my sons were born in Catholic hospitals (in 2001 & 2007). Circumcision is offered as an option to all male newborns at the hospitals where I delivered. I declined, of course! But most parents say yes. I would love to see Catholic hospitals in the USA show some moral backbone on this issue.

[jenP]

If it goes against their teachings and doctrine, then I don't understand how Catholic hospitals can continue to offer it. I had a friend who delivered her first in a Catholic hospital. She was set to deliver her second there, but she had had such a difficult pregnancy both times that her doctor strongly recommended she have a tubal ligation while she had her c-section, because another pregnancy would likely kill her. Of course, she had to find another hospital because they would not perform a tubal ligation at a Catholic hospital.

They would not do a procedure on a grown woman, by her choice to her body and affecting no one else; a procedure which was intended to keep her alive and around to parent her two children. But they would be more than happy to perform a painful, invasive, amputative procedure, considered by many church higher-ups as against the religion, on a patient incapable of giving consent, for non-therapeutic reasons.
It just boggles my mind.

Jen