Call for Higher Circumcision Rate

Call for higher circumcision rate
Circumcision should be routinely considered as a way to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections, argue US experts.

They spoke out after research found circumcision significantly cut the risk of infection with herpes and the cancer-causing human papillomavirus.

Circumcision is known to sharly reduce the risk of HIV infection.

But the study, featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, failed to convince UK experts.

The research, carried out by scientists in Uganda, involved nearly 3,500 men and monitored their sexual activity over a period of up to two years.

The researchers, from Johns Hopkins University, found circumcision reduced the risk of herpes by 25%, and human papillomavirus (HPV) by a third.

HPV causes cervical cancer in women, and genital warts in both sexes.

Circumcision rates have been declining in the US and are lowest among black and Hispanic patients - the groups with the highest rates of HIV, herpes and cervical cancer.

Writing in the journal, Dr Matthew Golden and Dr Judith Wasserheit, from the University of Washington, said: “These new data should prompt a major reassessment of the role of male circumcision not only in HIV prevention but also in the prevention of other sexually transmitted infections.”

Dr Wasserheit went on to say: "All providers who care for pregnant women and infants have a responsibility to assure that mothers and fathers know that circumcision could help protect their sons from the three most common and most serious viral sexually transmitted infections, all of which cannot currently be cured.

UK scepticism

The reason why a foreskin might increase the risk of infection with various viruses is unclear.

URL: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

I think that’s a pathetic excuse to cut off healthy tissue. STDs are already preventable. I also believe that Scandinavian countries(where circumcision is very rare) have lower STD rates than the US. I think we need to look at our own behaviors before advocating elective surgery on infants.

Why mutilate children because adults can’t stop acting like whores?

God thought it was a Good idea for the Jews. Who am I to question God? Christianity comes from the Jews.

And as Christians we no longer have to circumcise. It was the sign of the old covenant, it has nothing to do with God thinking it was a good idea for them. God created boys with a foreskin. As far as Catholicism coming from the Jews that’s true, so do you follow all the other Jewish regulations too? Or is that just a lame justification for why you think it’s okay now, after new covenant? We have baptism and the Eucharist now. We have a new covenant with God. Circumcision no longer holds any true spiritual meaning unless it is a circumcision of the heart.

Also, the circumcision practiced in the Bible removed a lot less skin.

And we know this how?

We know it because of documentation from after the time of Jesus, where Jews were trying to hide their scars, because there was enough skin left to do this, and so Rabbis then decreed that circumcisions would no longer be valid unless they removed all traces of the foreskin. Which would suggest that it was fully removed up to that time.

"Originally only the tip of the foreskin was cut, called milah. This practice lasted about 2000 years. During the Hellenistic period, many young Jews concealed their circumcision by drawing their foreskins forward. The rabbis of the time decided to change the requirements of the procedure so that a circumcised male could not possibly be altered to appear uncircumcised. This was the start of periah, removing the entire foreskin"
jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm

Thank you. This is interesting, even if reading it makes causes the involuntary reflex to draw my knees together and hunch over protectively.

**CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW

   By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.**        **Milah: Symbolic       Circumcision of Covenant
  ** The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's       time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in       which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond       the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It       is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant       circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its       name.
    Following "Milah", a penis so       circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the       foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its       natural development since most of the foreskin would have       remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have       occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the       glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually       as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been       circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been       disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue       to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans,       especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as       uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or       intended protection.
    This type circumcision continued       throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The       circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision       as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to       circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It       continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that       Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised.       Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he       should have appeared following an infant "Milah"       circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the       tip of the glans showing.
    **Changes to the Ritual       Circumcision Procedure:**
   No other feature was added to the religious ritual until       about 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision       procedure was introduced.
    **Periah: The laying bare of       the glans**
   After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the       infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed.       Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining       inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then,       by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of       the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal       of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The       objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile       skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of       the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the       underside of the glans, the child was to be       re-circumcised.
    This is a much more radical form of       circumcision. *It was dictated by man, and is not the       biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine]* Its       introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to       put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear       uncircumcised by stretching the remainding foreskin for       social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By       introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would       obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper       circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the       covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's       glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and       the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with       considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. *Again,       it is important to note that this is not the Covenant       circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible. [Italics       mine]*
    ****

continues…

Metzitzeh: (Mezzizza/Mizizah) The sucking of blood from the wound
During the Talmudic period (500-625 A.D.), a third step was added to the Orthodox circumcision ritual. It was not universally adopted by all Jewish groups, but became a practice of the more Orthodox groups. This third step was called “Metzitzah”. During “Metzitzah”, the mohel takes the now badly bleeding penis into his mouth and sucks the blood from the wounded pant. This was most probably adopted to collapse the major blood vessels to stem bleeding and to extract any induced bacteria from the wound and blood system. In effect, it often introduced infection, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, with very serious and tragic consequence, as reported throughout history. More modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant’s penis for suction of the blood when performing metzitzah. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated.
The introduction of Routine Infant Circumcision:
Routine Infant Circumcision was introduced during the late 1800’s and throughout the 1900’s on the pretext that it offered health and hygiene benefits, would stop the habit of masturbation, and proffered an endless list of presumed cures for a variety of ailments and diseases. As mother’s opted to use physicians to give birth in hospitals or clinics, rather than using a midwife for home birth, the practice of routine circumcision of male infants blossomed and became nearly universal.
As one would expect, many of those experienced in the procedure were Jewish physicians and mohels. They taught new physicians to perform the surgical procedure as was practiced by Jewish ritual circumcision procedures. This meant that most infants underwent a fairly radical complete form of circumcision. What was performed was the Jewish “Milah” followed by “Periah”, with most if not all of the foreskin being removed and the frenulum either severely damaged or completely removed. This remains the routine infant circumcision procedure to this day. Many males throughout these past decades have suffered the lasting physical, psychological, and sexual dysfunctional consequences of routine circumcision, which they did not choose.
*Mr. Peron is a medical research writer, educator lecturer, and founder of the Childbirth Education Foundation. He has devoted over thirty years researching the subject of routine infant circumcision. He is regarded internationally as an authority on this subject. He has written extensively for major childbirth, childcare, and parenting publications on this and other newborn care and parenting issues.

Peron JE. Circumcision: then and now. Many Blessings (Spring) 2000;III:41-42.

If I read any more of this thread, I am going to throw out my back by hunching into a protective fetal position!

I thought Jesus said that He did not come to change the law not even a title but to add to it. Does that not also mean he did not change that covenant. It could also mean that Gentiles are being added to that covenant. Rose

The Church has said it is not necessary for us to be circumcised. Bishops and Popes have also issued statements against it.

From the Eccumenical Council of Florence
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5

“[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning…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.”

I also believe that the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem as described in the Book of Acts, chapter 15, says that circumcision is not required. That, to me, seem rather authoritative.

Yes it does.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Your killing me!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.