Category Archives: Judaism

On Circumcision

Bible, Bioethics, Judaism, Theology, , , , , ,

In a previous post, it was discussed how Catholics could not participate in Seder Meals.  The reasoning was that for one to participate in a distinctly religious act like a Seder Meal is a form of external worship.  When external worship does not conform to internal belief, then objectively speaking one has sinned against the Seventh Commandment.  In other words, it is a form of lying.  This applies not just to the Passover meal, according to St. Thomas, but to all of the legal ceremonies of the Old Law.  Each of the ceremonies of the Old Law expressed the expectation of the coming Messiah, those of the New Law reflect His having already come.  Regardless of what one actually believes, to participate in one of these ceremonies is to profess that Christ is yet to come.  Once articulated this way, it seems rather straightforward.  But there is another action associated with the Old Law that is performed with far more frequency today than Seder Meals—Circumcision.  Have all those who have been circumcised, or more accurately their parents who chose to have them circumcised, then sinned gravely?

St. Paul is rather straightforward in his condemnation of those who would choose to be circumcised.  In Galatians 5:2-4, the Apostle to the Gentiles says, “if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.  Once again, I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law.  You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”  St. Paul is reiterating and expounding upon what the Council of Jerusalem declared regarding the practice of Circumcision (c.f. Acts 15).  Baptism became the new circumcision, the means by which both the circumcised and uncircumcised entered the New Covenant (Col 2:11-12).  It was not necessary to first enter the Old in order to enter the New.  So, it seems that, just like the Seder Meal, one should not ever be circumcised.

A Possible Exception?

The problem with this view however is that St. Paul, on the heels of the Church’s declaration, tells the Gentile Timothy to be circumcised in order to be more effective in his ministry to the Jews (c.f. Acts 16:4).  What this “exception” opens up is the possibility that the act of circumcision can be performed for non-religious reasons.  But the fact that St. Paul refuses that Titus be circumcised means that circumcision is OK as long as it is not done for religious reasons (Gal 2:3-5).  And in this way, it is vastly different from the Seder meal in which the religious element cannot be removed.  Whether the only exception is when ministering to the Jews or if there might be others then does not necessarily matter.  What matters is that Circumcision can be viewed as a non-religious action and thus it is not intrinsically wrong for a Catholic to be circumcised.

 During the Middle Ages, the Church spoke authoritatively regarding the practice of circumcision and disallowed it in all cases.  Most prominent among the decrees is that of Pope Eugene IV who, in the Papal Bull Cantate Domino declared that “all who glory in the name of Christian 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.”  It is clear from his language that again, it is not the physical act of circumcision per se that is the problem but that it is impossible to separate it from its religious meaning given the current climate.  Only Jews were circumcised during the Middle Ages clearing the way for either irreligion (for those who professed it did something) or scandal.  What this does not say however is that somehow Jews, because they are circumcised before Baptism are somehow lost.  That would obviously go against the testimony of Scripture (c.f. Romans 11:25-29).  Pope Eugene IV makes it crystal clear when he says “Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock.”  Jews, despite being circumcised can still be saved through Baptism and remaining within the “bosom and unity of the Church.”

Therapeutic Circumcision

If we advance four hundred years, arguments are being put forward for therapeutic reasons why circumcision may be advisable.  In other words, there may be non-religious reasons for being circumcised, reasons that once it became more commonplace such that its practice would not link a person intrinsically to the Jewish faith.  It was from within this climate that the Church began to change her tone and now begin to look at the morality of circumcision from within the context .  Pope Pius XII, in a discourse from 1952 even explicitly taught that circumcision was morally permissible “if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.”  Nontherapeutic reasons have yet to receive an endorsement from the Church and so it should be assumed that, although there may be morally licit nontherapeutic reasons (like Timothy), there needs to be further development and understanding what those reasons might be.

It is instructive to delve deeper into the particularities of the therapeutic viewpoint so as to understand more deeply when it is wrong.  Therapeutic modalities are governed by the principle of totality which is meant to protect bodily integrity.  The principle of totality and integrity says that we may not modify the body of a person except in the case of medical necessity or to restore proper functioning.   Summarizing, the Catechism says about bodily integrity, “[E]xcept when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law” (CCC 2297).  

Strictly speaking, circumcision as it is commonly performed within Western medicine is not a mutilation or a sterilization.  Both of these are related to bodily function.  Circumcision does not alter the functioning of the penis.  It is however an amputation and is medically defined as such (posthectomy).  Thus we cannot perform a circumcision for nontherapeutic reasons.

Did God then command something that was wrong in commanding the Jews to be circumcised?   The medical circumcision that we perform today is different from that of the Old Covenant Jews in the time of Jesus.  They did not amputate the entire foreskin but instead made a ceremonial (although probably no less painful) cut of a flap of the foreskin called a Brit Milah.  Obviously, this would not be a full amputation like we currently perform today, called a Brit Peri’ah.  This may also mitigate the “Timothy exception” since his circumcision was not an amputation.  This is mentioned as well because we are likely not dealing with the same thing, even though we call them both “circumcision”.   But even if they are then the permissibility then hinges on whether or not there are therapeutic reasons for doing so.    

This is a question for medical science and not for theology and so the Church as remained relatively silent in recent times about the issue (unfortunately).  Most circumcisions today are performed, at least by parents, under the assumption that there are good therapeutic reasons for doing so.  Medical science is starting to come to a different conclusion, although coming to a consensus has been rather slow.

Given all that has been said and if we are to assume that there are not good therapeutic reasons for being circumcised in most cases, it is natural to ask whether one is culpable for being circumcised.  The obvious answer is no for, even though the parents may consent for the children, the sins of the father do not fall upon the children.  Circumcision is done to you, not something you choose to have done and thus you bear no moral responsibility.  But we did speak about the “sins of the father “suggesting there may be some culpability on the part of the parents.  Most parents have no reason to question convention, especially when medical professionals assume the procedure is to be done.  Thus, they are operating under invincible ignorance and any culpability they do bear is for not considering the question more thoughtfully.  But it is also assumed that the parent-to-be reading this essay will take the time to form themselves now that they know it is a debated issue and overcome their ignorance.

In conclusion we can say that as far as we can discern without further instruction from the Church, all non-therapeutic circumcisions are wrong.  There certainly are therapeutic reasons for performing one, although they may be less serious than the culture at large would have us think.  Although this is a medical question, each person should do their homework and exercise cautious prudence when deciding to have their sons circumcised.

What About the Jews?

Church, End Times, Judaism, , , , , ,

Pope Francis has been particularly vocal, especially as of late, in condemning anti-Semitism.  This comes on the heels of a concerted effort by the Church since the Second Vatican Council to improve relations with the Jewish people.  Motivated not only by humanitarian reasons, this renewed interest stems from theological convictions.  In particular, the Church’s condemnation of anti-Semitism is undergirded by her understanding of the Jews as the “Chosen People” so that Pope Francis can truthfully say that “engaging in any form of anti-Semitism is a direct contradiction with the Christian faith.”  But because this nuanced understanding of the Jews is commonly mistaken, it is helpful for us to articulate it clearly.

The Chosen People

Since the Church’s understanding of the Jews as the Chosen People forms the foundation of Jewish-Catholic relations, what exactly were they chosen for?  God chose them to be a people “peculiarly His own”  (c.f. Dt 26:18) for no other reason than that the Messiah was to come into the world through them.  So that the world was never without hope of redemption, God told Adam and Eve about His plan of redemption (c.f. Gn 3:15) and then set out to form a people through which the Redeemer would come.  We might be tempted to assume that once the Redeemer comes, the mission of the Chosen People would come to an end.  They would then need to move with the economy of salvation or be left behind with the pagans.  They might even be viewed as somehow worse than the Gentiles because they openly rejected God’s Anointed One , killing Him on the Cross.  It was this line of reasoning, founded upon its roots in the Marcionist heresy of the 2nd Century, that has fueled fire of Christian anti-Semitism throughout history.

In response to any heresy, the tendency is to overcorrect.  Rather than subscribing to a theory of total repudiation, there are those who propose that the Jews are operating under a parallel covenant.   Christianity is for the Gentiles and Judaism for the Jew.  Those who subscribe to this view reason that God is faith and His “chosen-ness”  cannot be undone.  The Jews remain a (as opposed to the) Chosen People and therefore any effort at evangelization is unnecessary and, quite frankly, rude and uncharitable.  In an age of religious relativism, especially in the face of widespread anti-Semitism, we should expect to see, and, in fact do see, a rise in the popularity of this view.  But this viewpoint is just as erroneous as the first.

Still Chosen?

In order to understand the proper Christian stance towards the Jewish people, it is necessary to ask an important, although often overlooked question.  If the Jewish people are no longer God’s Chosen People, then how can we explain the fact that they remain a people.  Given their history of suffering and persecution throughout recent history it is nothing short of miraculous that they are still a recognizable people.  This is because, in a very real sense they remain a People favored by God.  This is for three reasons, summarized by St. Paul in Romans 9 and 11, and can be summarized as past, present and future.

First, the Jewish people remain beloved to God because of the great dignity attached to their spiritual patrimony (c.f. Rom 11:28).  Their beloved patriarchs, from Abraham, to Jacob to Moses to David and from “whom according to the flesh is the Christ” (Rom 9:4) came, were faithful to God and His covenant.  Likewise, God is also faithful to His promise for the “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).  So that while the Old Covenant may have passed away, it remains for God to be faithful to those with whom He made the covenant .

Secondly, the Jews remain as a “motive of credibility” to the truth of the Old Testament.  The people that was founded upon the miraculous redemption of the Exodus remains a people even to this day.  This miraculous endurance lends credibility to the miraculous revelation contained in the Old Testament.  The Jews will always remain distinct from the Gentiles because the revelation upon which their faith is built is true.  It may be incomplete, but that makes it no less true.  Their continued presence in the world today testifies to this very important truth.

Finally, there is the future.  The Jews as a people still have a pivotal role to play in salvation history.  They not only testify to the truth of the Second Coming, but also play a role in signaling that coming.  Although “a hardening has come upon Israel in part,“(Rom 11:25) this hardening will not be forever.  One of the signal events of the End Times is the mass conversion of the Jews.  When the anti-Christ is revealed to be the fraud that he is by the two witnesses (c.f. Rev 11:1-14), the Jews will join the ranks of the true Israel.  This eschatological reality will not only affect the Jews, but will, according to St. Thomas, be a sign to the Gentiles that have fallen away from the Faith.  For them we can properly say that “salvation is from the Jews.”

Cardinal Charles Journet, drawing on Romans 9, makes a very helpful distinction that will help us to adopt the proper stance towards the Jews.  This distinction is between “Israel in the flesh” and Israel in the spirit”.  The goal must always be for all men to be incorporated into “Israel in the spirit” because it is only in belonging to this body that a man can be saved.  In St. Paul’s time, as in our own, the goal was conversion of “Israel in the flesh” to “Israel of the spirit.”  But knowing their eschatological purpose when this doesn’t occur through the plans of Divine Providence, Christians must consider “Israel of the flesh” to be a special people worthy of both our respect and our protection.