Catholic Hospitals and Circumcision - Page 2

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I would have expected to find that today Catholic hospitals at least really discouraged it. I am very surprised!

But I have noticed that national culture plays a much more significant role than many realize in how we interpret our beliefs. Many American Catholics have told me that universal health care funded by government is against Catholic principles, seemingly unaware that Catholics in Canada or Europe overwhelmingly support it. When this is pointed out, they say that those Catholics are being influenced by the secular culture!

It is hard to get a baby circ'd in my city. My step-father is a GP and has a lot of Muslim patients, and they have a hard time making arrangements to get it done.

[VillageMom6]

Originally Posted by jenP

It just boggles my mind.

I see it as very consistent. Using the same type of language that we use for circumcision, I would say that a tubal ligation mutilates healthy organs in the body. It slices, burns or contorts the tubes. It renders the perfectly healthy state of fertility into a dysfunction. There are ways to avoid future pregnancies that do not amputate or mutilate.

Brant31, thank you for sharing about your visit to the bioethics center. That was interesting and informative. I had to chuckle, however, at this part...

"However, they saw no reason at present to excommunicate church members over the matter..."

Hee... how gracious of them! It sounds as if they think they have some authority to make that decision.

At present, the Church has not declared circumcision forbidden. No matter how much we may feel that it is sinful, we do not have the authority to declare it as such. We can make our own decisions... we can lobby and promote our beliefs... but we can not out-church the Church and impute the gravity of sin onto someone who circumcizes.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by VillageMom6

I see it as very consistent. Using the same type of language that we use for circumcision, I would say that a tubal ligation mutilates healthy organs in the body. It slices, burns or contorts the tubes. It renders the perfectly healthy state of fertility into a dysfunction. There are ways to avoid future pregnancies that do not amputate or mutilate.

That's my point exactly! Tubal ligation IS mutilation and they are perfectly right to refuse to perform it on religious grounds. Even done by the patient's choice and for good reason, it is still against doctrine. It was not their refusal to perform the tubal that boggled my mind, it was their concurrent solicitation of mutilating baby boys. Which is not only mutilation and against church doctrine, but also done against the will of the patient -forced mutilation! - and for no therapeutic reason. I just don't see how they can justify that. They say, "because the parents want it," but there are other things the parents may want (tubal ligation, female circumcision) that they (rightly) refuse to do on religious grounds, so how can "because the parents want it" be considered a good enough excuse to mutilate a non-consenting patient?

Jen

[lilyka]

The catch is a lot of people, most people who do it, still believe there is medical benefit to circumcision and therefore can justify it.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by lilyka

The catch is a lot of people, most people who do it, still believe there is medical benefit to circumcision and therefore can justify it.

Still, "possibly prophylactic" is not the same as "therapeutic."

[tlh]

A Catholic hospital was sued for circumcising a man born in 1981 and settled with him.


MEN'S NEWS DAILY, April 29, 2003.

Doctor and Hospital Settle Circumcision Lawsuit



http://www.cirp.org/news/mndnewswire04-29-03/

[NettleTea]

Originally Posted by JMJ

I wouldn't be too quick to judge your MIL for it, though.

Yes, you are probably right.

Originally Posted by tlh

A Catholic hospital was sued for circumcising a man born in 1981 and settled with him.

MEN'S NEWS DAILY, April 29, 2003.

Doctor and Hospital Settle Circumcision Lawsuit

http://www.cirp.org/news/mndnewswire04-29-03/

Fascinating

[NettleTea]

I know that consent forms didn't come into play until 1980. So I wonder whether or not consent was even given. This happened at a hospital out in a rural area so probably not.

[kcstar]

Originally Posted by VillageMom6

At present, the Church has not declared circumcision forbidden. No matter how much we may feel that it is sinful, we do not have the authority to declare it as such. We can make our own decisions... we can lobby and promote our beliefs... but we can not out-church the Church and impute the gravity of sin onto someone who circumcizes.

A little ancient history, largely overcome by other data that has been presented in previous posts.

There is evidence in the New Testament to indicate that there were several different types of Christians in the very early Church. One major group would be the Christians who followed Peter, who were predominantly Jewish converts. As such, they still saw themselves as Jewish and held to many of the Jewish traditions like Bris and eating kosher foods.

Paul, on the other hand, became a leader of Gentile Christians, Christians who did not share the Jewish heritage and saw no need to keep kosher or practice Bris.

In general, the Pauline view "won," and Christians no longer see themselves as bound by many of the Jewish laws.

I am not and would not be at all surprised to find that there are some Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who follow Peter in some matters.

I don't circ, I don't like circ, but I do understand why some Christians might feel their religion requires it.