Just prior to Our Lord’s Ascension, the disciples ask Him about the coming of the Messianic Kingdom; “Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?” He responds rather cryptically, saying “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samar′ia and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:7-8). Many people read this answer as a non-answer, a dismissal of sorts because the Apostles were asking the wrong question. It is usually followed up by a comment as to just how clueless the Apostles still were even after spending their 40-day bonus round with Our Lord. But it is not the Apostles that were clueless, but us.
Notice first, that the Apostles were expecting Jesus to restore the kingdom to Israel. Having had “their minds opened to understand the Scriptures,” (Luke 24:45) the Apostles understood that the Christ would restore the kingdom to Israel. Their question is not if, but when. This is no dodge or redirection, but about the most direct answer He can give. The restoration of the kingdom to Israel will occur when they “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” that is, on Pentecost.
The Meaning of Pentecost
For us to grasp this, we need to first understand the meaning of the Jewish feast of Pentecost. Fifty days after the first Passover, the People of Israel “came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Ex 19:1). It was there that Moses ascended Mt Sinai and brought the Torah to the people. This giving of the law that governs Israel marks the birth of Israel as a People. The Feast of Weeks, as it was known, was instituted to mark this event and was one of the three great Jewish feasts, when “all males shall appear in the sight of almighty God” (Ex 34:23). This feast was also known by its Greek name, Pentecost. This is what St. Luke was referring to when he mentions that the disciples were all gathered in one place “When the day of Pentecost had come” this is the feast that he is referring to” (Luke 2:1).
The Feast of Weeks was also the Feast of Reaping (c.f. Deut 16:9-11) to offer to God the first fruits of the Wheat Harvest. This helps to explain the abundant harvest of the 3000 souls that the Apostles reaped on that day, 50 days after the Divine grain of wheat became standing grain (c.f. Deut 16:9). The harvest of 3000 souls also ties back to those who, while God was giving Moses the Law, worshipped the Golden Calf and were punished by death (Exodus 32:28).
Pentecost then is the “time the Father has fixed” for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. This restoration occurs when the Jewish Feast of Weeks finds its fulfillment in the Christian Pentecost. Jesus, the New Moses, ascended to Mount Zion, and God gives the New Law. This New Law is not written on stone, but on our hearts by the Finger of God’s Right Hand (i.e. the Holy Spirit, c.f. Veni Creator Spiritus). Just as in the giving of the Law to Moses, it is accompanied by a mighty wind and flashes of fire (c.f. Ex 19:18 and Acts 2:2-3).
Because the Jews were obligated by Divine precept to travel to Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks, “there were devout Jews from every nation” (Acts 2:5) to show the universality of the restored Kingdom. But it also has unity as reflected by the fact that all present heard Peter in their own tongue. God undoes the disunity that was created at Babel by uniting all mankind under the Tower of Peter, the house built upon the Rock. This restored Kingdom then bears four marks: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.
Therefore, Just as the People of Israel found its birth at Sinai on the 50th day after Passover, the People of the New Israel finds its birth on Pentecost, on the 50th day after the new Passover. Our Lord restored the Kingdom to Israel on that day, the same day that we celebrate the birth of the Church. This link created by Our Lord in his response to the Apostles’ question between the Ascension and Pentecost helps to maintain the inseparable link between Israel and the Church. The new Israel formed from a remnant of the Israel of Old (c.f. Is 10:20-22) will be gathered together by the Messiah. All such promises made to Israel are taken up and fulfilled in the Church. This connection also maintains the necessity that the Church be both universal (catholic) and united from within a visible structure.
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.