AH....IF ONLY OTHERS COULD LEARN TO BE TRUE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST LIKE THESE GUYS! A Schism Averted? By HARVEY COX Once again, the Episcopal Church has diffused a major crisis in -- there's only one way to put it -- a very Episcopalian way.

By confirming Bishop Gene Robinson, a gay man, the Episcopal Church has done the other denominations a great favor. It has boldly stood up to a difficult issue, and the signs are good that it will avoid a major schism -- and not for the first time.

The Episcopalian record is encouraging. When Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians split into northern and southern contingents over slavery in the 19th century, the Episcopalian church did not. When some Episcopalians quoted "Let women keep silent in your churches," and threatened secession to oppose the ordination of women priests, a handful of parishes left, but the church stayed together. When the Rev. Barbara Harris was consecrated as the first woman bishop, more rumblings about schism were heard, but nothing serious came of it, and now the petite Bishop Harris sips tea with her fellow Anglican prelates at Lambeth Palace. When other churches might have fragmented into bitter subsects,

Episcopalians agreed to disagree, and they have preserved the decentralized unity of the 70 million-member, worldwide Anglican communion.

Episcopalians handle deep disagreement better than most.

How do they do it? As they never tire of reminding the rest of us, theirs is a "bridge church." It combines the Reformation's reliance on the Bible with a strong Catholic emphasis on tradition. It also recognizes reason and experience as sources of authority. Historically, looking to all of these elements together has enabled Anglicans to maintain a strong but supple authority, and to handle conflicting interpretations without excommunicating anyone.

When one of these pillars is asserted without being balanced by the others, however, there is always trouble. The opponents of Bishop Robinson's confirmation who quoted Bible verses during the discussion in Minneapolis must have known they had a weak case. The same word, usually translated as "abomination," which in the Hebrew Scriptures is frequently applied to certain homosexual acts, is also used to condemn eating any pork product or even touching the skin of a pig. Those who enjoy crisp bacon with their fried eggs or a game of touch football on the beach should take notice. The trouble with flinging out texts is that everyone is selective about what to quote and what not to. Not only did St. Paul tell women to be silent in the churches, he also told slaves to obey their masters. Opponents of emancipation and of women's ordination often cited these verses, but this only illustrates clearly that we need to rely not just on the biblical text itself but also, as we do in constitutional law, on the history of its interpretation.

What about tradition? The opponents of Bishop Robinson also cited "the tradition of the church" to oppose him. But tradition means "handing over"; it refers not just what has happened in the past, but also to what is going on now. Christians believe that God continues to be active in the church and leads his people into new truth. At the Minneapolis meeting Bishop Robinson said God did not stop revealing his will when the scriptural canon was closed. This is an insight drawn from the "Catholic" side of the Episcopal heritage. It was brilliantly articulated in the 19th century by John Henry Newman, an Anglican who became a Roman Catholic, in his celebrated work "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine." Newman believed that the truths imbedded in biblical doctrines only gradually come to light over the centuries as the church faced new challenges. The farewell message of an earlier Pastor Robinson, as he sent the Pilgrim fathers (who were of course Anglicans), off for the new world were, "Remember, God has yet new light and truth to break forth from his holy word." It is a sound insight.

Episcopalians, like most Christians, are Trinitarians. They believe the Divine Spirit, which guides the church today, is just as divine as the Father and the Son. Consequently, the living tradition of the church, when taken in tandem with the Bible and with past tradition, must also be recognized as a valid expression of authority.

Reason also has a role to play, although never on its own. It must always be guided and corrected by Scripture and tradition. It is clear to any reasonable person today, for example, that when the biblical prohibitions against non-reproductive sex were first enunciated, the population problem was the reverse of what it is today. Most children died in infancy, plagues and natural disasters struck frequently, and there was always the possibility that the tribe itself could perish. Every drop of semen had to be directed toward replenishing the race. This is hardly our issue today.

As for experience, another pillar of authority, all we have to do is look around us. In the last decades many gay and lesbian people, including the Christians among them, no longer feel they have to pretend or dissimulate. They are now part of our lives. They fix our TV's, sit in the halls of Congress, teach in our schools and colleges and write the books we read. The vast majority of them shun the gay demimonde. They are too busy doing cancer research and practicing their cellos. In most of these fields they can rise to whatever level their ability and dedication permit. Most of us would prefer to be in the hands of a skilled gay brain surgeon or airline pilot rather than be left to the mercy of a straight one who is just learning the ropes. Luckily we are spared that choice today. Should the church remain the only exception to what we experience and appreciate every day in the other areas of or lives?

For years now many local churches of different denominations have identified themselves as "open and welcoming" congregations. What they all report is that after an initial flurry, soon gay and lesbian members simply attend communion, sing in the choir, present their adopted children for baptism, sign up for spiritual retreats, staff the food pantry and attend Bible study and prayer groups. They do not like to be singled out as different, nor do they want to belong to a "gay church." They want to be treated with dignity and respect, as we all do, while they try to meet their own spiritual needs and follow the teachings of Jesus (who never uttered a syllable about homosexuality) to care for the wounded, feed the hungry and show compassion to the broken-hearted.

Several other denominations have been stalling for years on the status of gay Christians in the church. Should they be welcomed at all, or barred at the door? Should they be content with second-class citizenship and excluded from leadership? Should we go back to pretending they are not there at all when everyone knows they are? We as Christians need to get past this enervating debate so that we can move on to other pressing issues that require the churches' attention, such as the growing gap between the rich and the poor -- about which Jesus did have something very clear to say. I am not an Episcopalian, but I commend that church for the deliberate way it proceeded to come to a decision about the nagging questions that have paralyzed so many other churches. The rest of us have been set a good example.

Mr. Cox, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard, is the author of "Common Prayers: Faith, Family and a Christian's Journey Through the Jewish Year" (Mariner, 2002). This article appears in The Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2003.

-- Stanley (Stan@theMan.com), August 13, 2003

Answers

-rubbish...

Should be titled "A SCHISM ONCE AGAIN CONFIRMED A SCHISM: PAGANS BREAKING NEW GROUND USING OLD SIN?"

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 13, 2003.

"By confirming Bishop Gene Robinson, a gay man, the Episcopal Church has done the other denominations a great favor."

A: Right you are! The membership of other denominations, as well as that of the Holy Catholic Church, will undoubtedly experience substantial growth as a result of a decision so blatantly ungodly and unscriptural that a mass exodus from the Episcopal Church is inevitable. The hundred or so Episcopal clergy who have been converting to Catholicism every year for the past several years can be expected to multiply several times over, now that their home church has rejected basic moral teaching that has been an indispensible component of Christianity from the beginning. The Episcopal Church will indeed avoid a schism - but not by its clergy and congregations blithely submitting to such an outrage. The split surely will come - indeed it has already begun - however it will not be a split within the Episcopal Church, but rather a split from it, as those who still believe in Christian morality as an essential component of Church teaching abandon the church which has betrayed them, and seek shelter in a church which still provides moral truth.

"these elements together has enabled Anglicans to maintain a strong but supple authority, and to handle conflicting interpretations without excommunicating anyone."

A: This approach is commonly known as "moral relativism". In a morally relativistic church, no-one has to be excommunicated because "your truth is not necessarily my truth". Of course, such a bizarre philosophy is completely incompatible with genuine objective truth - a redundant phrase, since all genuine truth is objective and absolute.

"The opponents of Bishop Robinson's confirmation who quoted Bible verses during the discussion in Minneapolis must have known they had a weak case."

A: Indeed so. What influence could the Holy Word of God possibly wield in a body so relentlessly determined to abandon the basic tenets of Christian morality contained within its pages, as well as in the constant inspired teaching of the true Christian Church throughout its entire 2,000 year history?

"The same word, usually translated as "abomination," which in the Hebrew Scriptures is frequently applied to certain homosexual acts, is also used to condemn eating any pork product or even touching the skin of a pig"

A: You do not have to consult the Hebrew scriptures to find powerful condemnations of homosexual acts. The New Testament is the Word of God in the New Covenent, and its forceful condemnation of homosexuality is no less absolute than that of the Old Testament. God does not contradict Himself.

"At the Minneapolis meeting Bishop Robinson said God did not stop revealing his will when the scriptural canon was closed."

A: Of course He didn't. But neither did He begin to contradict what He had previously revealed. "Truths imbedded in biblical doctrines only gradually come to light over the centuries as the church faced new challenges" - but they never contradict previously revealed truth.

"Episcopalians, like most Christians, are Trinitarians. They believe the Divine Spirit, which guides the church today, is just as divine as the Father and the Son. Consequently, the living tradition of the church, when taken in tandem with the Bible and with past tradition, must also be recognized as a valid expression of authority."

A: Yes, but only when it does not conflict with past Apostolic Tradition, or the plain meaning of Scripture. When it does, it is no longer the Tradition of the Church, but only new traditions of men, which the Bible clearly tells us to avoid.

"It is clear to any reasonable person today, for example, that when the biblical prohibitions against non-reproductive sex were first enunciated, the population problem was the reverse of what it is today. Most children died in infancy, plagues and natural disasters struck frequently, and there was always the possibility that the tribe itself could perish. Every drop of semen had to be directed toward replenishing the race."

A: It is clear to any reasonable person today that the above self- serving paragraph is plainly stupid. Homosexuals didn't reproduce then, and they don't reproduce now, so nothing that happens to their semen has any effect on population dynamics one way or the other. The fundamental issue is not a deviation from optimal fecundity, but a violation of natural law. Such an act cannot be justified by any circumstances, for truth is absolute, not relative.

"In the last decades many gay and lesbian people, including the Christians among them, no longer feel they have to pretend or dissimulate."

A: So what? Morality is not a matter of feelings, but of objective truth. What people "feel" is irrelevant. The facts about the morality of a given act is what is relevant. If one's "feelings" are not in accord with objective truth, one's feelings are simply WRONG.

"Most of us would prefer to be in the hands of a skilled gay brain surgeon or airline pilot rather than be left to the mercy of a straight one who is just learning the ropes. Luckily we are spared that choice today. Should the church remain the only exception to what we experience and appreciate every day in the other areas of or lives?"

A: YES! Because personal immorality does not necessarily interfere with doing surgery or flying an airplane. It does interfere with the ability to provide sound moral guidance to others, and that is the mission of the Church.

"For years now many local churches of different denominations have identified themselves as "open and welcoming" congregations."

A: The Church Jesus founded was always open and welcoming, and it still is. But it welcomes only sinners, not their sin. Once a church loses sight of that essential distinction, it is no longer a reliable guide toward salvation, but rather is a spiritual trap leading souls down the road to eternal damnation.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 13, 2003.

Stanley, What's YOUR point?

Do you believe the Catholic Church should go the route of the episcopals?

There are times when I said that I wished the Church was more progressive. As I've learn more and more, many of the things that I questioned were issues that the Church has already debated, addressed, and moved on. So I continue to learn and evaluate.

I am proud to be Catholic. While the world is going bonkers, the Church remains solid in it's teachings.

You never have to guess where the Catholic Church stands on an issue.

The Anglican communion will fracture. The conservatives will move closer to the Catholic Church.

And, we will welcome them.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 14, 2003.

It may not really be averted. It was done with great pain on all sides, and some may split as the pain is very great.

On this point I do have a question, WDJD: when Jesus met someone who was sinning, what did he do? mostly IMHO he tried to be compasionate. But he also tried to get them to leave that sin behind?

There is much against homosexuals in the bible. Assuming that weasling out cosmically does not work, should we abandon this population to the pagans?

Also there is the weasling out route: It was their culture, it really did not mean that, you have to take it in context, It was really a rebelion against a mark of a non-christian religion and not relevent today, etc.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 14, 2003.

You have to look at the totality of the Christian teachings.

The sanctity of marriage, the procreation issue, and the morality. Homosexuality is contrary to all three.

Adultery is a sin. We should not turn any sinner away. But, we shouldn't condone it.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), August 15, 2003.

Stanley's essay was very well written, his ideas and points stated succinctly, and--to the easily impressionable--might seem to be politically correct and modern. Stanley is obviously an intelligent thinker and a good writer. That being said....

CONSIDER THIS....

Whenever society has ebbed and flowed between new ideas and modern moralities, The Church has always stood firm against these flights of fancy.

What about pedophiles? In Roman times, it was completely acceptible...not only that...it was expected. If a rich man didn't have a few boys around, he was thought to be weird. There are many cultures that accept this behavior as normal and perfectly fine. There are cultures that accept female genital mutilation and think that's perfectly fine too...after all...Jesus never "mentioned" it so it must be OK, right? Why just two nights ago, I saw a National Geographic special on the Shwoa peoples of Ecuador, who used to be headhunters but still consider murder as acceptable, in their culture.

What if in one hundred years people decide (notice I said "people") that being a pedophile is OK, and then try to mine Scriptures for the stamp of approval, touting it as "new light" coming to the surface?

PLLLLEEEEEEEEEEZZZ!!!

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), August 15, 2003.

Hi Victoria

Stan "the man" didnt write this insipid drivel, Mr. Cox, Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard wrote it. Its a terrible piece of writing IMHO, any half decent lay Catholic, yet alone a theologian could make a meal of most of his assertions. How someone who claims to be a Professor can actually get such junk published says more about society today than anything else. Not that Im not hopeful for the future :-).

Moderator God gave you the deletion keys for a reason, this stuff makes our impersonator look like a genius.

ps I think this is relevant on circumcision for those wondering about male cirumcision.

The new (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church at paragraph 2297 states in part:

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."2

The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association now defines neonatal circumcision as a "non-therapeutic" surgical procedure.4 Circumcisions (as commonly performed on newborn boys) are non-therapeutic, because no disease is present and no therapeutic treatment is required. Furthermore, circumcision removes healthy and functional tissue from the body and renders the part less functional.5 Thus, a circumcision is a non-therapeutic amputation and mutilation. Therefore, for Catholics, non-therapeutic circumcision at any age is immoral according to the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism

ps Victoria While your concern for the morality of the Shwoa peoples of Ecuador is admirable I think it might be a little better to turn your concern a little closer to home. I presume youre AMerican so I presume you understand what is happening in your own country? Its not wise IMO to find fault with other nations cultures or morality that you have no real experience to draw on. There is no need to delve into history or watch national geographic, just look out your window or turn the channel over. Look at the abortion rate in your own home town. No nation in the history of mankind has spread more immoral and un-Christ like behaviour (sometimes disguised as individual freedom) than the people of AMerica and thats the sobering truth.

Not that Im anti American, honestly... though Ive given up trying to convince others of that!

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 15, 2003.

"ps I think this is relevant on circumcision for those wondering about male cirumcision."

-where did this come from?

Regarding: "Therefore, for Catholics, non-therapeutic circumcision at any age is immoral according to the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism".

"The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association now defines neonatal circumcision as a "non-therapeutic" surgical procedure."

--- hmmm... -whatever the "Council" defines medically or otherwise is irrelevant regarding the Church...

I do not see how you jump to this 'immoral' conclusion AND I see nothing published or taught by the Church confirming it. Please point me to some information/fact.

P.S. "The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association have all concluded, after reviewing the real data, that abortion is safe, medical procedure."

Maybe this "Council" is not far off target regarding matters of the flesh; however, matters of the soul -I beg to differ...

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 16, 2003.

Good for you Daniel.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, Volume 3, Number 2: Pages 1f-3f. Spring 2003.

Respect for Bodily Integrity: A Catholic Perspective on Circumcision in Catholic Hospitals Petrina Fadel, New York State Right to Life Committee, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Slosar and O'Brien (2003) seek guidance on the ethics of elective infant circumcisions at Catholic hospitals from Michael Benatar and David Benatar, two non-Catholics, instead of from the Catholic Catechism teaching on "Respect for bodily integrity" and the New Testament. They would do well to read the writings of two Jesuit priests, Fr. Paquin, S.J. (1957), and Fr. Healey, S.J. (1956), who independently found that because routine circumcisions are not medically defensible, they are morally objectionable.

Slosar and O'Brien claim that No. 2297 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) applies only "within the context of kidnapping, hostage-taking, and torture," even though the concluding sentence speaks of respect for bodily integrity within a medical context. They mistakenly equate the terms therapeutic and prophylactic (preventative). Finally, they rely on an outmoded position statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (1989), one that has been replaced by a newer statement (American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision 1999).

No. 2297 of the Catechism, "Respect for bodily integrity," states in part: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." The American Heritage Dictionary defines amputate as "To cut off (a part of the body), esp. by surgery," and it defines therapeutic as "Having healing or curative powers." 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). Elective circumcisions are directly intended, nontherapeutic amputations of healthy foreskins. As such, they do violate the moral law.

There are no medical indications for circumcision in the newborn period (Committee on Fetus and Newborn 1971; 1977; Fetus and Newborn Committee 1975). In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics, after studying nearly 40 years of research, concluded "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." No national medical group in the world today recommends infant circumcision. Although Slosar and O'Brien claim a health benefit, Medicaid programs in 11 states (five within the past year, including Missouri, home of Ascension Health) have dropped funding of nontherapeutic circumcisions. The Birthing and Care Program of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., likewise does not cover circumcisions.

Slosar and O'Brien defend circumcision by citing Directive 33 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD; Conference of Catholic Bishops 2001), which discusses only "therapeutic procedures," not "non-therapeutic procedures" such as elective infant circumcision. Directive 29 supports respect for bodily integrity, stating 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.

A procedure is unnecessary when no proportionate reason justifies it." The chair of Applied Health Care Ethics in Oregon, who is also a Catholic priest, wrote that he doubted any proportionate reason justified the circumcision of male infants, but he was sure he had heard many attempts. Slosar and O'Brien's commentary is one such attempt. Male neonatal circumcision has no proven medical utility and cannot support the use of "proportionate reason" to override the child's right to bodily integrity and the hospital's duty to protect that right.

The primary reason American parents choose circumcision is to make the baby "look like" the circumcised father (Brown 1987). This egocentric reason clearly does not take into account "the best interests of the child" or the numerous risks of the surgery. Catholic hospitals don't accept the parental-choice line for abortions. Neither should they promote this line for nontherapeutic circumcisions. Hospitals and physicians profit from circumcisions (Mansfield 1995). 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) Profit should never dictate morality, but in the case of nontherapeutic circumcision it does. 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.

A Catholic mother from Indiana told me of her experience giving birth in a Catholic hospital. Three times doctors and nurses at the hospital solicited her to circumcise her son, even though she told them the first time that her decision was no. Solicitation and coercion for this unnecessary surgery is unethical, sexist, and must stop.

A man born and circumcised at a Catholic hospital described to me his feelings this way:

I am a man who has lived all of his life with the results of a circumcision done at birth. There does not a day go by that I don't feel a deep sense of loss and disfigurement as a result of this loss of the most sensitive tissue on my body. How can anyone deny the feelings of millions of men like me who were denied the right to a natural and normal sexuality for their entire life? I will never have any idea what has been taken from me, but I do know that I was damaged for life physically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually by the horrible "nonsense" committed by a medical doctor who needed some quick and easy money for his Cadillac payment and didn't care about the damage done to me. I was born in a Catholic hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, in December of 1940, and I learned about sexual abuse by Catholic institutions as soon as I was born. Sex and violence met for the first time in my life in the few hours after birth in a Catholic hospital. Slosar and O'Brien claim they "are unaware of the Catholic Church explicitly addressing the practice of circumcising male infants in any of its official teachings." In Acts 15:10, St. Peter, the first pope, told the Jewish Christians who were advocating circumcision of the Gentiles, "And now are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles with a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" (The Way 1979). Circumcision during Peter's century typically involved removing only the tip of the foreskin, not the complete foreskin as is done today (Ritter 2002).

The Church spoke forcefully about circumcision at the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Pope Eugene IV (1442) issued a Papal Bull which states in part,

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. The letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 12:18) reiterates God's genius as man's Creator. "But that isn't the way God has made us. He has made many parts for our bodies and has put each part just where he wants it" (The Way 1979).

In Matthew 11:25 Jesus prayed, "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise, and for revealing it to little children" (The Way 1979). Slosar, O'Brien, and the Benatars might consider themselves wise about circumcision, but little children strapped to a Circumstraint™ and undergoing the procedure know otherwise.

Nothing in Catholic doctrine requires Catholic hospitals to provide nontherapeutic infant circumcisions. To the contrary, the Catechism teaches that nontherapeutic amputations violate the moral law. An infant's foreskin belongs first and foremost to the infant-not to his parents, not to the hospital, not to the physician, and not to companies that want amputated foreskins to develop other products. Companies that do this are reminiscent of the Nazis who used the skins of murdered Jews to make lampshades. The American Heritage Dictionary (1982) 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. All that is lost with circumcision. In addition, circumcision has been shown to cause erectile dysfunction (Coursey 1991; Fink 2002).

Pope John Paul II, in "The Gospel of Life" (1995), no. 3, wrote about "New threats to human life." He included mutilation among the threats by repeating the words of the Second Vatican Council:

Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator. Hospitals and physicians who perform nontherapeutic circumcisions on nonconsenting infants must stop violating the integrity of those infants, stop tormenting their bodies, stop insulting their human dignity, and stop using them as instruments of financial gain. The time is long overdue for all hospitals to take the only morally acceptable action and stop this practice.

References American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. 1989. Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 84(4): 388-91. ---. 1999. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics 103(3): 686-93. American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed. 1982. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Benatar, M., and D. Benatar, 2003. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: The ethics of neonatal male circumcision. The American Journal of Bioethics 3(2):35-48. Brown, M. S., and C. A. Brown. 1987. Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 80:215-19. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1994. Mahwah: Paulist Press. Committee on Fetus and Newborn. 1971. Standards and recommendations for hospital care of newborn infants, 5th ed. Evanston: American Academy of Pediatrics, 110. ---. 1977. Standards and recommendations for hospital care of newborn infants. 6th ed. Evanston: American Academy of Pediatrics. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2001. Ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services, 4th ed. Washington: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Council on Scientific Affairs. 1999. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html. Coursey, J. W., A. F. Morey, J. W. McAninch et al. 2001. Erectile function after anterior urethroplasty. Journal of Urology 166(6): 2273-76. Eugene IV. 1442. Bull of union with the Copts, trans. N. P. Tanner. Florence: Session 11, Ecumenical Council of Florence. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. 1975. Circumcision in the newborn period. CPS News Bulletin Supplement 8 (2):1-2. Fink, K. S., C. C. Carson, and R. F. DeVellis. 2002. Adult circumcision outcomes study: Effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. Journal of Urology 167 (5):2113- 16. Healey, E. F. 1956. Medical ethics. Chicago: Loyola University Press. John Paul II. 1995. Introduction to Evangelium vitae. Lehman, B. A. 1987. The age-old question of circumcision. Boston Globe, 22 June, 43. Mansfield, C. J., W. J. Hueston, and M. Rudy. 1995. Neonatal circumcision: Associated factors and length of hospital stay. Journal of Family Practice 41(4):370-76. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1977. Ethical and religious directives for Catholic health facilities. Washington: United States Catholic Conference. Paquin, J. 1957. Morale et medecine. Montreal: Comite des Hopitaux du Quebec. Ritter, T. J., and G. C. Denniston. 2002. Doctors re-examine circumcision. Seattle: Third Millennium Publishing Co. Slosar, J. P., and D. O'Brien. 2003. The ethics of neonatal male circumcision: A Catholic perspective. The American Journal of Bioethics 3(2):62-64. The Way, Complete Catholic Ed. 1979. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Citation: Fadel P. Respect for bodily integrity: a catholic perspective on circumcision in catholic hospitals. Am J Bioeth 2003;3(2):1f-3f.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- (File created 22 July 2003) Return to CIRP Library

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/fadel2/

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 16, 2003.

Kiwi,

You are against circumcision -I understand...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 16, 2003.

I consider the above article to be a heap of stinking nonsense.

When men write things like this, they are airing their inferiority, or "differentness," complexes. They have seen men who are circumcised (while they are not), and they feel compelled to go to all kinds of ridiculous lengths to justify their difference and to condemn the innocent and perfectly decent thing that has been done for the other men. Here, it appears to be a woman writing the article -- using some of these troubled men as sources -- and she is just utterly without a clue.

It is incorrect to say that the Catechism condemns male circumcision. The subject is not even mentioned. Circumcision is neither an amputation, sterilization, nor mutilation, because it removes unnecessary tissue. In fact, it is tissue that has the potential to cause problems -- more or less on the order of an appendix. The only reason that the latter is not removed at birth is because of the dangers linked to such an invasive operation (as compared to the safeness of nearly every circumcision).

From the article =====> The primary reason American parents choose circumcision is to make the baby "look like" the circumcised father.

I don't believe this for a minute. In fact, I was circumcised even though my father was NOT. And I thank God that I WAS, for I am certain that it is more conducive to good hygiene -- and that, I would contend, is the "primary reason American parents choose circumcision". And, pardon my frankness, but I definitely don't need anything additional in the way of "sensitive tissue."

In short, I'm convinced that half the stuff in the article is pure fiction. I feel sorry for the authoress and anyone who fell for what she wrote.

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 16, 2003.

Hi ARt

I consider the above article to be a heap of stinking nonsense.

>It made perfect sense to me, what specifically makes no sense to you?

When men write things like this, they are airing their inferiority, or "differentness," complexes.

>Do we have a qualified psychologist on the board now or is this just homespun analysis from someone completely lacking in the ability and knowledge to do so? In saying that I thought it was a bit over the top as well.

. They have seen men who are circumcised (while they are not), and they feel compelled to go to all kinds of ridiculous lengths to justify their difference

>Yes… the first stage of acceptance is denial. Take your time Sir and while you’re coming to grips with your own demons brush up on those reading skills, the gentleman WAS circumcised!

and to condemn the innocent and perfectly decent thing that has been done for the other men.

>Nothing “innocent” or “decent” in mutilating another persons body without their consent and without any medical reason to do so.

Here, it appears to be a woman writing the article -- using some of these troubled men as sources -- and she is just utterly without a clue.

>Possibly, although I found her thoughts significantly more compelling and well researched than your own efforts.

It is incorrect to say that the Catechism condemns male circumcision.

>Sorry I don’t recall saying that in those words

The subject is not even mentioned. Circumcision is neither an amputation, sterilization, nor mutilation, because it removes unnecessary tissue.

>Oh my !Gods beautiful creation “ unnecessary tissue”! Right everyone chop off your earlobes, while youre at it chop off your butt cheeks and your little toes, why stop there.. women off with your labia and clitoris!

In fact, it is tissue that has the potential to cause problems -- more or less on the order of an appendix.

>ALL TISSUE has the ability to cause POTENTIAL problems.

The only reason that the latter is not removed at birth is because of the dangers linked to such an invasive operation (as compared to the safeness of nearly every circumcision).

>“Latter what” sorry, I don’t follow

From the article =====> The primary reason American parents choose circumcision is to make the baby "look like" the circumcised father. I don't believe this for a minute. In fact, I was circumcised even though my father was NOT.

>Therein lies your problem .Thanks for sharing this Art, it explains a lot to me. BTW an exception to a rule doesn’t disprove the rule.

And I thank God that I WAS, for I am certain that it is more conducive to good hygiene -- and that, I would contend, is the "primary reason American parents choose circumcision".

>Wrong, there are no medical indications for routine male circumcision

And, pardon my frankness, but I definitely don't need anything additional in the way of "sensitive tissue."

>This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest 

In short, I'm convinced that half the stuff in the article is pure fiction. I feel sorry for the authoress and anyone who fell for what she wrote. A.

>Thanks Dr Art.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.

"The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.