Religion and circumcision
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Freedom of religion |
---|
Religion portal |
Religious circumcision is generally performed shortly after birth, during childhood, or around puberty as part of a rite of passage. Circumcision for religious reasons is most frequently practiced in Judaism and Islam.
Abrahamic religions
Judaism
According to the
In the Hebrew Bible
This section possibly contains original research. (November 2018) |
There are numerous references to circumcision in the Hebrew Bible. Circumcision was enjoined upon the biblical patriarch Abraham, his descendants and their slaves as "a token of the Covenant" concluded by God with him for all generations, an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13). It is commonly observed by two (Judaism and Islam) of the Abrahamic religions.
The penalty of non-observance was kareth (Hebrew: "cutting off") from the people (Genesis 17:10–14, 21:4; Leviticus 12:3). Non-Israelites had to undergo circumcision before they could be allowed to take part in the feast of Passover (Exodus 12:48). (See also Mosaic Law directed at non-Jews and Conversion to Judaism).
It was a "reproach" for an
"Uncircumcised" is used in conjunction with tame ("impure") for heathen (Isaiah 52:1). The word arel ("uncircumcised") is also employed for "impermeable" (Leviticus 26:41, "their uncircumcised hearts"; compare Jeremiah 9:25; Ezekiel 44:7–9); it is also applied to the first three years' fruit of a tree, which is forbidden (Leviticus 19:23). "The Philistines, more than any other nation, are regularly[5] called uncircumised"[6] in the Hebrew Bible.
However, the Israelites born in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt apparently did not carry out the practice of circumcision. According to Joshua 5:2–9, "all the people that came out" of Egypt were circumcised, but those "born in the wilderness" were not. In any case, we are told that Joshua, before the celebration of the Passover, had them circumcised at Gilgal.
The Hebrew Bible contains several narratives in which circumcision is mentioned. There is the circumcision and massacre of the Shechemites (Genesis 34:1–35:5), the hundred foreskin dowry (1 Samuel 18:25–27) and the story of the Lord threatening to kill Moses, and being placated by Zipporah's circumcision of their son (Exodus 4:24–26), and the circumcision at Gilgal of Joshua 5.
There is another sense in which the term "circumcise" is used in the Hebrew Bible. In the Book of Deuteronomy (10:16) it is written: "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart," (also quoted in Jeremiah 4:4, New JPS Tanakh translates as: "Cut away, therefore, the thickening about your hearts") along with Jeremiah 6:10: To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: ... (the New JPS Tanakh translates: "Their ears are blocked"). Jeremiah 9:25–26 says that circumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by the Lord; for "all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart." The New JPS Tanakh translation adds the note: "uncircumcised of heart: I.e., their minds are blocked to God's Commandments." Non-Jewish tribes that practiced circumcision were described as being "circumcised in uncircumcision."(Jeremiah 9:24)
Intertestamental period
The
Although many Hellenized Jews were prepared to conform to Greek culture,[10][8] observant Jews saw circumcision as a mark of Jewish loyalty and many who kept to the Mosaic Law defied the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (1 Macc 1:48, 1:60, and 2:46). Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons. "For example, two women were brought in for having circumcised their children. They publicly paraded them around the city, with their babies hanging at their breasts, and then hurled them down headlong from the wall (2 Macc 6:10)." At the same time, the Zealots forcibly circumcised the uncircumcised boys within the borders of Israel (1 Macc 2:46).
The
According to the Gospel of Thomas saying 53, Jesus says:
His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." SV [2]
Parallels to Thomas 53 are found in Paul's Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 6:15, and Col 2:11–12.
Paul's many references in his letters are to make this argument to Jewish and Gentile followers alike: Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 6:15, and Col 2:11–12. Paul's point was to overturn many Jewish laws, not just circumcision, because what you ate, who you ate with and other technical observations of the law were no longer required in Christ's new kingdom on earth.
The
R. Emden, in his appendix to 'Seder 'Olam' (pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.[14]
In rabbinic literature
Some
Contact with
Around 140 CE Rabbinic Judaism made its circumcision requirements stricter.[18][19] Jewish circumcision includes the removal of the inner preputial epithelium, in a procedure that is called priah(Hebrew: פריעה), which means: 'uncovering'. This epithelium is also removed on modern medical circumcisions,[20] to prevent post operative penile adhesion and its complications.[citation needed] According to rabbinic interpretation of the traditional Jewish sources, the periah has been performed, as part of Jewish circumcision, since the Israelites first inhabited the Land of Israel,[21] and without it the mitzvah is not performed at all.[22] However, the editors of the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, note that periah was probably added by the rabbis, in order to "prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision".[23] Jewish law states that circumcision is a mitzva aseh ("positive commandment" to perform an act) and is obligatory for Jewish-born males and for non-circumcised Jewish male converts. It is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child.[1] It is usually performed by a mohel on the eighth day of life in a ceremony called a brit milah (or bris milah, colloquially simply bris), which means "Covenant of circumcision" in Hebrew. According to Jewish law, the foreskin should be buried after a brit milah.[24] The rite is considered of such importance that in Orthodox communities, the body of an uncircumcised Jewish male will sometimes be circumcised before burial.[25] Although 19th century Reform leaders described it as "barbaric", the practice of circumcision "remained a central rite"[26] and the Union for Reform Judaism has, since 1984, trained and certified over 300 practicing mohalim under its "Berit Mila Program".[27] Humanistic Judaism argues that "circumcision is not required for Jewish identity."[28] The Jewish circumcision consists of three procedures, the first being the amputation of the foreskin. The second is the priah, or peeling back of the epithelium after the foreskin has been amputated. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, in Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism, pg 25, the Torah only commands circumcision (milah).[29] David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of periah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, periah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's Covenant" and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."[30] In addition to milah (the actual circumcision) and priah, mentioned above, the Talmud mentions a third step, metzitzah, or squeezing some blood from the wound and oral suction by mouths of mohalim.
The book Abot De-Rabbi Natan (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan) contains a list of persons from the Israelite Scriptures that were born circumcised:
Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the wicked Balaam, Samuel, David, Jeremiah and Zerubbabel.
Rabbinic literature holds that one who removes his circumcision has no portion in the world to come (Mishnah Ab. iii. 17; Midrash Sifre, Num. xv. 31; Talmud Sanhedrin 99).
According to the Midrash Pirke R. El. xxix., it was
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many
Converts to Judaism
According to the Hebrew Bible, conversion to Judaism for non-Israelites necessitated circumcision (Exodus 12:48). In the 1st century CE, there was a controversy between the Shammaites and the Hillelites regarding a convert born without a foreskin: the former demanding the spilling of a drop of blood of the covenant; the latter declaring it to be unnecessary.
On the other hand, the emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE) forbade circumcision. His successor Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE) upheld the decree, but around 140 included an exemption for Jews who circumcised their sons, although not their servants, slaves, or converts.[9][13] Even before that, in 95 CE, Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the emperors Titus and Domitian, suffered the penalty of death for undergoing circumcision, and embracing the Jewish faith with his wife Domitilla (see Grätz, "Gesch." iv. 403 et seq., 702).
It can be thus understood why during
The uncompromising Jewish stance that the seal of circumcision might not find its substitute in "the seal of baptism" — led the Apostle Paul to urge the latter in opposition to the former (Romans 2:25–29, 4:11–12, and elsewhere), just as he was led to adopt the antinomistic or antinational view, which had its exponents in Alexandria.
Currently, the issue of circumcising converts remains controversial in Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism[37][38] and it is not mandatory in either movement.[39]
Normative position
Subject to overriding medical considerations, the circumcision must take place eight days after the birth of the child, even when this falls on
It is the duty of the father to have his child circumcised; and if he fails in this, the beth din of the city must see that the rite is performed.[42] According to traditional Jewish law, in the absence of a grown free Jewish male expert, a woman, a slave, or a child, that has the required skills, is also authorized to perform the circumcision, provided that she or he is Jewish.[43] However, most streams of non-Orthodox Judaism allow women to be mohalot (Hebrew: מוֹהֲלוֹת, plural of מוֹהֶלֶת mohelet, feminine of mohel), without restriction. In 1984, Deborah Cohen became the first certified Reform mohelet; she was certified by the Berit Mila program of Reform Judaism.[44]
However important it may be in Judaism, circumcision is not a sacrament, unlike a Christian baptism.[45] Circumcision does not affect a Jew's Jewish status; a Jew by birth is a full Jew, even if not circumcised.[45][46] Even so, the punishment for not being circumcised in rabbinic Judaism is believed to be kareth, "being cut off"; meaning premature death at the hand of God (Mo'ed Katan 28a) and a severe spiritual punishment, the "soul's being cut off," and not being granted a share in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1,5).
Christianity
While the circumcision of Jesus was recorded as having been performed in accordance with Torah requirements in Luke 2:21, circumcision was controversial during the period of early Christianity (before 325). The first Council of Jerusalem (c. 50) declared that circumcision was not necessary for new Gentile converts[47][48] (a record of the council is found in Acts 15); covenant theology largely views the Christian sacrament of baptism as fulfilling the Israelite practice of circumcision, both being signs and seals of the covenant of grace.[49][50]
In Western Christianity, the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence condemned the practice of circumcision for Christians, with Catholic Christian moralists preaching against the practice;[51] the Lutheran churches have historically taught that Christians should not be circumcised. For American Christians, circumcision is a matter of personal preference, not of faith, and is neither condoned nor condemned. [52] The Catholic Church currently maintains a neutral position on the practice of cultural circumcision, as the church has a policy of inculturation.[53]
Circumcision is considered a customary practice among Oriental Christian denominations such as the
While circumcision is not observed by the majority of Christians in most parts of the
Circumcision is also widely practiced among Christian communities in the Anglosphere countries, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines, the Middle East, and Africa.[63] Circumcision is rare for Christians in the countries of Europe, East Asia, parts of Africa, as well as in India and until recently in Southern Africa. Christians in the East and West Indies (excluding the Philippines) do not practice it either. Circumcision is near universal among Christian countries of Oceania,[64] and in North, East and West Africa. It is also common among Christians in countries such as Cameroon,[55] Democratic Republic of the Congo,[55] Ethiopia,[55] Eritrea,[55] Ghana,[55] Liberia,[55] Nigeria[55] and Kenya,[55] and is also widely practiced among Christians from Philippines, South Korea, Egypt,[65]
According to the
Paul argued that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice).
Later he more explicitly denounced the practice,
The
Roman Catholic Church
Historically, the
Origen stated in his work Contra Celsum that circumcision "was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not practise it."[86]
Pope Pius XII taught that circumcision is only §"[morally] permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way."[87]
On another instance, he stated:
Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their own bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends: and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.[88]
The Church has been viewed as maintaining a neutral position on the practice of cultural circumcision, due to its policy of inculturation,[53][89] though Catholic scholars, including John J. Dietzen, David Lang, and Edwin F. Healy, argue that the church condemns it as "elective male infant circumcision not only violates the proper application of the time-honored principle of totality, but even fits the ethical definition of mutilation, which is gravely sinful."[51]
Catholic moralists such as Fr. John J. Dietzen, a priest and columnist, have argued that paragraph number 2297 from the Catholic Catechism (Respect for bodily integrity) makes the practice of elective and neonatal circumcision immoral.
The Church of Antioch sent Barnabas on a mission with Paul, which became known as the Apostle's first missionary journey . . . Together with Paul, he then went to the so-called Council of Jerusalem where after a profound examination of the question, the Apostles with the Elders decided to discontinue the practice of circumcision so that it was no longer a feature of the Christian identity (cf. Acts 15: 1-35). It was only in this way that, in the end, they officially made possible the Church of the Gentiles, a Church without circumcision; we are children of Abraham simply through faith in Christ.[93]
With the exception of the commemoration of the circumcision of Jesus in accordance with Jewish practice, circumcision has not been part of Catholic practice. According to an epistle of
The Latter Day Saint movement
Passages from scriptures connected with the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormons) explain that the "law of circumcision is done away" by Christ and thus unnecessary from a religious standpoint.[95][96]
Druze faith
Circumcision is widely practiced by the
Islam
The origin of circumcision in
The
Whereas Jewish circumcision is closely bound by ritual timing and tradition, in Islam there is no fixed age for circumcision.[102][105][108] Therefore, there is a wide variation in practice among Muslim communities, with children often being circumcised in late childhood or early adolescence.[108] It depends on family, region, and country.[108] The age when boys get circumcised, and the procedures used, tend to change across cultures, families, and time.[108] In some Muslim-majority countries, circumcision is performed on Muslim boys after they have learned to recite the whole Quran from start to finish.[109] In Malaysia and other regions, the boy usually undergoes the operation between the ages of ten and twelve, and is thus a puberty rite, serving to introduce him into the new status of an adult.[citation needed] The procedure is sometimes semi-public, accompanied with music, special foods, and much festivity.[citation needed]
There is no equivalent of a Jewish mohel in Islam. Circumcisions are usually carried out in health facilities or hospitals, and performed by trained medical practitioners.[108] The circumciser can be either male or female,[108] and is not required to be a Muslim,[109] and is not required of, converts to Islam.[110]
Indian religions
There is no reference to circumcision in the Hindu canons,
Because of the love of woman, circumcision is done; I don't believe in it, O Siblings of Destiny. If God wished me to be a Muslim, it would be cut off by itself. If circumcision makes one a Muslim, then what about a woman? She is the other half of a man's body, and she does not leave him, so he remains a Hindu. Give up your holy Books, and remember the Lord, you fool, and stop oppressing others so badly. Kabeer has grasped hold of the Lord's Support, and the Muslims have utterly failed.
— Bhagat Kabir, Guru Granth Sahib 477[118]
Africa
In West Africa, infant circumcision had religious significance as a rite of passage or otherwise in the past; today in some non-Muslim Nigerian societies it is medicalised and is simply a cultural norm.[119] In many West African traditional societies circumcision has become medicalised and is simply performed in infancy without ado or any particular conscious cultural significance.[citation needed] Among the Urhobo of southern Nigeria it is symbolic of a boy entering into manhood. The ritual expression, Omo te Oshare ("the boy is now man"), constitutes a rite of passage from one age set to another.[120]
In East Africa, specifically in
Authority derives from the age-group and the age-set. Prior to circumcision a natural leader or Olaiguenani is selected; he leads his age-group through a series of rituals until old age, sharing responsibility with a select few, of whom the ritual expert (Oloiboni) is the ultimate authority. Masai youths are not circumcised until they are mature, and a new age-set is initiated together at regular intervals of twelve to fifteen years. The young warriors (Il-Murran) remain initiates for some time, using blunt arrows to hunt small birds which are stuffed and tied to a frame to form a head-dress. Traditionally, among the Luhya, boys of certain age-sets, typically between 8 and 18 years of age would, under the leadership of specific men engage in various rites leading up to the day of circumcision. After circumcision, they would live apart from the rest of society for a certain number of days. Not even their mothers nor sisters would be allowed to see them.
The Xhosa Tribe from the Eastern Cape in South Africa has a circumcision ritual. The ceremony is part of a transition to manhood. It is called the Abakwetha - "A Group Learning". A group of normally five aged between 16 and 20 go off for three months and live in a special hut (sutu). The circumcision is the climax of the ritual. Nelson Mandela describes his experiences undergoing this ritual in his biography, Long Walk to Freedom.[122][123] Traditional circumcisions are often performed in unsterile conditions where no anesthetic is administered; improper treatment of the wound can lead to sepsis and dehydration, which has in the past lead to initiate deaths.[124][125]
Among some West African
Ancient Egypt
Circumcision in ancient Egypt was thought to be a mark of passage from childhood to adulthood. The alteration of the body and ritual of circumcision was supposed to give access to ancient mysteries reserved solely for the initiated.
Asia
In early 2007 it was announced that rural aidpost orderlies in the East Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea are to undergo training in the circumcision of men and boys of all ages with a view to introducing the procedure as a means of prophylaxis against HIV/AIDS, which is becoming a significant problem in the country.[citation needed]
Neither the
Circumcision is forbidden in Mandaeism,[131] and the sign of the Jews given to Abraham by God, circumcision, is considered abhorrent by the Mandaeans.[132] According to the Mandaean doctrine a circumcised man cannot serve as a Mandaean priest.[133]
Circumcision in South Korea is largely the result of
The origin of circumcision (
Circumcision is not a religious practice of the
Oceania
Circumcision is part of
In the Pacific, ritual circumcision is nearly universal in the Melanesian islands of Fiji and Vanuatu;[140] participation in the traditional land diving on Pentecost Island is reserved for those who have been circumcised.[citation needed] Circumcision is also commonly practised in the Polynesian islands of Samoa, Tonga, Niue, and Tikopia. In Samoa, it is accompanied by a celebration.
See also
References
- ^ S2CID 2888024.
- S2CID 29022100.
- ^ a b Moses Maimonides (2012). "Hilkhot M'lakhim (Laws of Kings and Wars)". Mishneh Torah. Translated by Brauner, Reuven. Sefaria. p. 10:7–9. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
- frequently speaks of "the seven laws of the sons of Noah," which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.).
- ^ Judges 14:3, 15:8, Samuel I 14:6, 17:26,36, 31:14, Samuel II 1:20
- ISBN 1-57819-333-8, p. 83
- ^ Antiochus Epiphanesprohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-300-19051-9.
- ^ S2CID 29580193. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ PMID 6994325. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ epispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
- ^ PMID 9623850. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- ^ ISBN 1-134-40316-X.
- ^ "GENTILE - JewishEncyclopedia.com". jewishencyclopedia.com.
- Kopelman Foundation. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
- PMID 23193511.
- ^ a b This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Morbidity". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
- ]
- ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4.
- ^ Circumcision Policy Statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that "There are three methods of circumcision that are commonly used in the newborn male", and that all three include "bluntly freeing the inner preputial epithelium from the epithelium of the glans", to be later amputated with the foreskin.
- Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yebamoth, 71b: Rabbah b. Isaac stated in the name of Rab: The commandment of uncovering the corona at circumcision was not given to Abraham; for it is said, At that time the Lord said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint etc.' But is it not possible [that this applied to] those who were not previously circumcised; for it is written, For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born etc.? — If so, why the expression. 'Again!' Consequently it must apply to the uncovering of the corona.
- ^ Mishnah, Tractate Shabbos, 19:6, and The Jerusalem Talmud there.
- ^ Werblowsky, R.J. Zwi & Wigoder, Geoffrey (1997) The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Yoreh Deah, 265:10.
- LCCN 99088942.
The custom is to circumcise male infants who have not undergone circumcision until then, usually during taharah.
- ^ adapted from Shamash (2007). "The Origins of Reform Judaism". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 2007-11-03.
- ^ Berit Mila Program of Reform Judaism Archived 2012-05-20 at the Wayback Machine, Union for Reform Judaism website. Retrieved January 23, 2010.
- ^ Hilary Leila Kreiger (21 November 2002). "A cut above the rest". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 23 September 2010. Retrieved 5 September 2012.
- ISBN 978-0-520-92049-1.
- ^ Circumcision | title=A History Of The World’s Most Controversial Surgery | author= David Gollaher | publisher =Basic Books 2000 | pg =pg 17
- ^ The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, Translated from the Hebrew by Judah Goldin, Yale Judaica Series 10, Chapter 2, p 23.
- ^ a b c d e f
In the first half of the nineteenth century, various European governments considered regulating, if not banning, berit milah on the grounds that it posed potential medical dangers. In the 1840s, radical Jewish reformers in Frankfurt asserted that circumcision should no longer be compulsory. This controversy reached Russia in the 1880s. Russian Jewish physicians expressed concern over two central issues: the competence of those carrying out the procedure and the method used for metsitsah. Many Jewish physicians supported the idea of procedural and hygienic reforms in the practice, and they debated the question of physician supervision during the ceremony. Most significantly, many advocated carrying out metsitsah by pipette, not by mouth. In 1889, a committee on circumcision convened by the Russian Society for the Protection of Health, which included leading Jewish figures, recommended educating the Jewish public about the concerns connected with circumcision, in particular, the possible transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis and syphilis through the custom of metsitsah by mouth. Veniamin Portugalov, who—alone among Russian Jewish physicians—called for the abolition of circumcision, set off these discussions. Portugalov not only denied all medical claims regarding the sanitary advantages of circumcision but disparaged the practice as barbaric, likening it to pagan ritual mutilation. Ritual circumcision, he claimed, stood as a self-imposed obstacle to the Jews’ attainment of true equality with the other peoples of Europe.
— Epstein, Lisa, "Circumcision", The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, Yale University Press. - ^ ]
- ISBN 0-8028-3783-2.
- "The Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians—two of the oldest surviving forms of Christianity—retain many of the features of early Christianity, including circumcision. Circumcision is not prescribed in other forms of Christianity... Some Christian churches in South Africa oppose the practice, viewing it as a pagan ritual, while others, including the Nomiya church in Kenya, require circumcision for membership and participants in focus group discussions in Zambia and Malawi mentioned similar beliefs that Christians should practice circumcision since Jesus was circumcised and the Bible teaches the practice."
- "The decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15; there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is still practiced by Coptic Christians." "circumcision" Archived 2007-08-08 at the Wayback Machine, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001-05.
For most part, Christianity does not require circumcision of its followers. Yet, some Orthodox and African Christian groups do require circumcision. These circumcisions take place at any point between birth and puberty.
In his cultural accounts of circumcision, Boyarin clearly presupposes an alienated attitude to circumcision in Western countries. They show that the Christian memory of Jesus' circumcision is significantly weaker than the growing awareness of his Jewishness. In contemporary political debates – as in Canada or in North-European countries and especially in Germany – circumcision is typically described as an "archaic" rite, with those practicing it presented as forced to do so by some "ancient" law or custom.
Christian theology generally interprets male circumcision to be an Old Testament rule that is no longer an obligation ... though in many countries (especially the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa, but not so much in Europe) it is widely practiced among Christians
Neonatal circumcision is the general practice among Jews, Christians, and many, but not all Muslims.
Although it is mostly common and required in male newborns with Moslem or Jewish backgrounds, certain Christian-dominant countries such as the United States also practice it commonly.
male circumcision is still observed among Ethiopian and Coptic Christians, and circumcision rates are also high today in the Philippines and the US.
However, the practice is still common among Christians in the United States, Oceania, South Korea, the Philippines, the Middle East and Africa. Some Middle Eastern Christians actually view the procedure as a rite of passage.
[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. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. 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.
Directive 29 All persons served by Catholic health care have the right and duty to protect and preserve their bodily and functional integrity. The functional integrity of the person may be sacrificed to maintain the health or life of the person when no other morally permissible means is available. Directive 33 The well-being of the whole person must be taken into account in deciding about any therapeutic intervention or use of technology. Therapeutic procedures that are likely to cause harm or undesirable side-effects can be justified only by a proportionate benefit to the patient.
Male circumcision is standard practice, by tradition, among the Druze
Circumcision is not compulsory and has no religious significance.
There are many references to the Druze refusal to observe this common Muslim practice, one of the earliest being the rediscoverer of the ruins of Petra, John Burckhardt. "The Druses do not circumcise their children
These Borneans are Mahometans, and were already introducing their religion among the natives of Luzon, and were giving them instructions, ceremonies, and the form of observing their religion.…and those the chiefest men, were commencing, although by piecemeal, to become Moros, and were being circumcised and taking the names of Moros.
In exchange for turtles and trepang the Makassans introduced tobacco, the practice of circumcision and knowledge to build sea-going canoes.
Works cited:
Clarence-Smith, William G. (2008). "Islam and Female Genital Cutting in Southeast Asia: The Weight of the Past" (PDF). Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration. 3 (2). Archived from the original on 2009-03-06.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
- Glick, Leonard B. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. (ISBN 0-19-517674-X)
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. {{cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)
The rabbinic literature and Converts to Judaism are sections are an evolution of the corresponding article which gives the following
Bibliography:
- Pocock, Specimen Historiœ Arabum, pp. 319 et seq.;
- Millo, Histoire du Mahométisme, p. 350;
- Hoffmann, Beschneidung, in Ersch and Gruber, Encyc.;
- Steinschneider, Die Beschneidung der Araber und Muhammedaner, in Glassberg, Die Beschneidung;
- Jolly, Etude Critique du Manuel Opératoire des Musulmans et des Israélites, Paris, 1899.