Circumcision and the Church
The beauty of the Internet is that when people aren’t denigrating you as Hitler (or simply deluded) because they disagree with you about something, they are often quite helpful and informative. Indeed, one of the more addictive aspects of blogging, I think, is the way it often becomes self-correcting. Publish something erroneous at 7:36 PM…and by 2:12 AM someone has written in to say “actually, it might interest you to know…”
Case in point: the comments on this recent article which touched on the issue of circumcision, but which was principally about AIDS and distortions in how that crisis is discussed and understood around the world.
From somewhere in the UK, Mark Lyndon writes:
The New Testament seems opposed rather than ambivalent to male circumcision, and for Catholics the practice has actually been forbidden for centuries (though plenty of Catholics in the USA and the Philippines do it anyway).
Circumcision is mentioned in the New Testament more than a dozen times (in the Douay-Reims Bible):
-
John 7:22-23: Therefore, Moses gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers): and on the sabbath day you circumcise a man. If a man receive circumcision on the Sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken: are you angry at me, because I have healed the whole man on the sabbath day?
Acts 7:8: And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so he begot Isaac and circumcised him the eighth day: and Isaac begot Jacob: and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs.
Acts 10:44-46: While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.
Acts 11:2-5, 15-18: And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them? But Peter began and declared to them the matter in order, saying: I was in the city of Joppe praying: and I saw in an ecstasy of mind a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners. And it came even unto me…And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. If then God gave them the same grace as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: who was I, that could withstand God? Having heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance, unto life.
Romans 2:25-3:1,30: Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. If then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly: nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh. But he is a Jew that is one inwardly and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.
What advantage then hath the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision?…For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? yes, of the Gentiles also. For it is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 4:8-13: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised: that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: And he might be the father of circumcision; not to them only that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faith that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world: but through the justice of faith.
Romans 15:8-9: For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: but that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee, O Lord, among the Gentiles and will sing to thy name.
1 Corinthians 7:17-20: But as the Lord hath distributed to every one, as God hath called every one: so let him walk. And so in all churches I teach. Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called.
Galatians 2:7-13 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do. But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.
Galatians 5:5-11: For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by Charity.
You did run well. What hath hindered you, that you should not obey the truth? This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind: but he that troubleth you shall bear the judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the cross made void.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but a new creature.
Philippians 3:3: For we are the circumcision, who in spirit serve God and glory in Christ Jesus, not having confidence in the flesh.
Colossians 2:9-11: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally. And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ.
Colossians 3:11:…there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. But Christ is all and in all.
Colossians 4:11: And Jesus that is called Justus: who are of the circumcision. These only are my helpers, in the kingdom of God: who have been a comfort to me.
Titus 1:9-11: Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers. For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers and seducers: especially they who are of the circumcision. Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
And there’s also this famous scene, from the Acts of the Apostles. It’s an interesting twist in this discussion to note that the first Church council was convened to address the issue of circumcision and its place in the economy of salvation:
-
Acts 15:1-12: And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question. They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles. And they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. But there arose of the sect of the Pharisees some that believed, saying: They must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
In general, the tone here is one I think can indeed be safely described as “ambivalence.” There are moments at which Scripture seems to praise circumcision as an outward sign of faith, but only by noting in turn that absent faith, the external sign has no value, nor does its absence. Yet in the presence of faith, either the presence or the absence of the outward sign has value. Circumcision is not, then, necessary for salvation, nor necessary at all…but if it is done out of faith and fidelity to a covenent with God, it has value insofar as there is faith which motivates it. If on the other hand it is not done out of faith that God has removed, in Christ, the need for external signs of that sort, then the lack of circumcusion has value insofar as there is faith which motivates it.
The two verses that cast the most negative light on circumcision are Titus 1:10 (which speaks of how “especially those who are of the circumcision” — i.e. Jews — are vain talkers and seducers), and Colossians 2:11 (which calls circumcusion a “despoiling of the body”). Yet it should be noted in turn that Titus 1:10 is not a blanket condemnation of the circumcised, for in other verses cited above Paul notes that there are those among the circumcised who are righteous (c.f. Colossians 4:11). Likewise, despite calling it a despoiling at one point, Paul elsewhere speaks of circumcision as being an integral component of the covenant with God, and praises the faith of Abraham as realized in part through the practice of circumcision.
The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the New Testament position on circumcision thusly: “The Jews were proud of their descent from Abraham, but did not always “do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39). They attached so much importance to the external act, that while attending to the letter they neglected the spirit of the law. Jeremias (iv, 4; ix, 25, 26) calls their attention to the necessity of circumcision of the heart, as all important. Even in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, this spiritual circumcision is set forth in no uncertain language. As uncircumcision means profane, unclean, imperfect, “I am of uncircumcised lips” (Exodus 6:12), “their ears are uncircumcised” (Jeremiah 6:10), and was applied to inanimate things also, as in Lev., xix, 23, “the fruit that cometh forth shall be unclean [Hebrew uncircumcised] to you”, so to circumcise the heart (Romans 2:29) means to reform the inner man, by cutting off the vices and correcting the disorders that make him displeasing in the sight of God. To leave the synagogue was to give up that which more than anything else characterized it (see Galatians 2:7-8). Yet St. Paul, while showing his freedom from the legalities of the Old Dispensation by not circumcising Titus (Galatians 2:3), wished to bury the synagogue with honour by subjecting Timothy to the law of circumcision (Acts 16:3). Even though Christ Himself, as a true son of Abraham, submitted to the law, His followers were to be children of Abraham by faith, and were to “adore the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). The Council of Jerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make the Church of Christ only a continuation of the synagogue: “Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mere ceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy. It was wrong, however, for the Galatians, having been baptized, and having taken upon themselves the obligations of the law of Christ with all its privileges, to be circumcised as a necessary means of salvation, since, by going for salvation from the Church to the Synagogue, they virtually denied the sufficiency of the merits of Christ (cf. Piconio, “Trip. Exp. in Gal., ” v, 2). The Apostle gives the essence of Christianity when he says: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity” (Galatians 5:6). In his Epistle to the Romans, iv, he shows that Abraham was justified by faith, before circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant; so that the uncircumcision of the New Law is the continuation of the first ages of faith upon the earth. The gentile church of uncircumcision, according to St. Gregory the Great, is composed of men from the time of Abel the Just to the end of ages (Hom. xix in Evan.). St. Justin also says that as Henoch and the just of old received the spiritual circumcision, so do we receive it in the Sacrament of Baptism (Dialogue with Trypho 43).”
Strangely, there is little in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Code of Canon Law to do with circumcision. The most that circumcision is discussed in the Catechism, apart from mention of Christ’s being circumcised, is in paragraph 1150: “Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God’s mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.”
In like manner, the closes that Canon Law comes to discussing circumcision seems to be in Canon 1041, paragraph 5, which is part of a list of irregular impediments to the reception of the Sacrament of Orders: “a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide” cannot receive the Sacrament. The question left open, however, is what self-mutilation means in this context. Origen was famously denied ordination for taking the exhortation to become as a eunuch a tad too…er…literally, but I’d be surprised to learn that no circumcised man ever became a priest in the Church.
What this all comes to, though, is that there really isn’t anything that I can find — in the Bible, the Catechism, or Canon Law — which supports Mark’s statement that circumcision is forbidden to Catholics. Conversely, there’s a lot to support the statement that circumcision is not necessary, and especially that it is not necessary for salvation. We know for a fact that in some places, the practice persists (yes, even in Catholic communities), whereas in other places it does not, or is at least not frequently performed. To this, the best observation might simply be to note that the Church, being large, contains multitudes.
But I mentioned correction, so let’s get on to where I am actually corrected in something I said. Following off of his opening remark, Mark continues:
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS though. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.
I’d be curious to see that study, and indeed to see studies supporting the facts presented about the other nations. Not that I doubt the veracity of the claims, mind you; the above makes sense to me.
Mark’s second and third points here address his first, and communicate in a roundabout way the same logic that underpins the opposition of the Church to the use of condoms to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The nature of human concupiscence — especially in cultures which impose no proper limitations on the sexual conduct of men whilst simultaneously affording women little or no dignity — is such that it will motivate men and women alike to sieze hold of every new “workaround” or “miracle cure” and employ said workaround/cure in service of the appetites, especially the sexual appetite. More woefully, the primacy of the appetite in the person’s thought will distort the message concerning that which they sieze hold of.
The example above illustrates this well, and it’s something I didn’t hint at strongly enough in my initial article. Circumcision correlates with a slightly reduced risk of HIV infection when employed in conjunction with other hygenic and moral standards and practices. But people don’t hear that message in its entirety; they hear the first part, and assume that circumcision is like an “invisible condom.” It’s not.
Let’s take a more general example. There’s good evidence to suggest that eating oatmeal for breakfast is beneficial to one’s health, and in particular to the health of one’s heart. Given the high fiber content of oatmeal, one’s bowels and colon will also likely see some benefit from its regular consumption. Eating oatmeal as a part of a balanced diet (as the old cereal commercials used to tell us) can thus help prevent one from suffering heart problems later in life.
But did the good reader notice the caveat there? Eating oatmeal itself is not sufficient: if one eats oatmeal for breakfast and KFC for lunch, supper, and a midnight snack, any benefit to one’s heart that the oatmeal might confer will be effectively erased by the torrent of entirely too tasty fried chicken, with its artery-clogging grease and cholesterol.
So too circumcision. Yes, it can confer some benefit…but only if one’s sexual lifestyle is already more or less properly ordered. What we’re seeing in the above countries is the opposite result, the result of the oatmeal-and-chicken enthusiast discovering that in certain parts of the United States, KFC operates buffets. Ignorance combined with improperly ordered social status makes for a deadly cocktail.
Mark ends with this observation, with which I mostly agree:
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
This was the strategy that proved so effective in places like Uganda, where the number of cases of new HIV infection declined precipitiously even within the first year that the ABC program was put in place. And it’s not hard to see why. This gets us back to the discussion that ended the previous article, concerning identifying the principal transmission vectors for HIV. In Africa, Sex is the overwhelming transmission vector, especially in the context of male promiscuity. The ABC program approaches this transmission vector head-on.
Abstinence is encouraged first, because obviously one can neither sexually acquire or sexually transmit HIV if one is not sexually active. Fidelity is encouraged next, because even if one is sexually active, one need not fear to acquire or transmit HIV to one’s partner if one’s partner is one’s only and exclusive partner (provided that one’s partner reciprocates that exclusivity). A faithful couple in which neither partner has an STD can have as much sex as they want (with each other) and remain STD-free, basically.
Condoms, in the ABC program, are the last option advocated for, and it’s worth noting that the Catholic Church in Uganda actually substitutes “character” for “condoms” in its own advocacy for the program. There’s a reason for this: condoms in the ABC program are intended for use as a last-ditch kind of thing, for those who are “unable” (though one doubts that there is genuine inability at work in such cases) or unwilling to be abstinent, or to be faithful to one partner only. To this, the Church in Uganda responds by exhorting people to be persons of character…in essence asking them to put aside selfishness, especially sexual selfishness.
And there’s a good reason for that: nobody should be unable to practice either abstinence or sexual fidelity, which really only leaves those unwilling to do so. And if that’s what the problem ultimately reduces to, that’s where the problem of AIDS will continue to exist, no matter how many condoms we throw at the situation. If people — especially, in this specific context, African men — choose to act with reckless sexual abandon, AIDS will continue to spread, condoms or no.
In a sense, circumcision falls into the same category, and in noting as much I see that we’ve come back to a point raised previously. Those most likely to grasp on to circumcision as a stopgap against acquiring AIDS are those whose sexual lifestyles leave them more at risk of contracting the virus; that’s concupiscence in a nutshell. There is evidence which strongly suggests that circumcision can bring health benefits, including some increased resistance to various STDs…but it must be understood by all parties to the discussion that circumcision alone confers no tangible benefit that cannot and will not be swept away by other indulgence.
All the oatmeal in the world won’t stop the Colonel from killing you dead. And I’m not just speaking of fried chicken.
Also: Reader Petrina sends along a link to Catholics Against Circumcision. The site establishes the essential point that circumcision is non-essential for Catholics well enough, though some of its citations are rather more dubious — quoting various papal statements about the “wholeness” of the person being willed by God amounts to little more than proof-texting, since God similarly willed the practice of circumcision for a time (and since there does not appear to be sufficient grounding in the Catechism or in Canon Law to equate male circumcision with other actions which would render a man “non-whole.”).
Though I will grant the point, which I touched on to begin with, that there is no room in either Scripture or Sacred Tradition for female circumcision/FGM.
Powered by the iPod Touch.
