Infant male circumcision: A Catholic theological and bioethical analysis

Abstract

Infant male circumcision (IMC) has become controversial among Catholics, and many have criticized the practice of routine IMC, still widely performed in the United States. Others have gone further, claiming that circumcision has been condemned explicitly by the Church and criticizing IMC as “mutilation” and, hence, prohibited implicitly by Catholic moral principles. However, closer examination of the Catholic tradition shows that the Church regards IMC as having been a means of grace under the Old Covenant and, more importantly, in the flesh of Jesus. This positive theological account of IMC cannot be evaded by invoking a supposed historical distinction between milah (a token cut) and periah (the complete removal of the foreskin). The Church has never condemned IMC as mutilation, and while IMC carries some risk, there is no evidence that it inflicts per se disabling mutilation. A reasonable body of medical opinion regards IMC as conferring net health benefits.

Summary: This paper concerns the ethics of infant male circumcision especially, though not only, as this is practiced within contemporary Judaism. This topic is examined from a Catholic ethical and theological perspective. It is found that the Church has never sought to restrict Jews from practicing circumcision and has never condemned circumcision as “mutilation.” Current evidence suggests that infant male circumcision confers net health benefits. Catholic theology since the Second Vatican Council has increasingly emphasized that God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains valid. It has never been revoked. This covenant includes infant male circumcision.

Keywords:

• Ethics
• Circumcision
• Catholic
• Jewish
• Mutilation

Notes

1. Augustine, De Nup. et Concup. I, quoted by Aquinas in ST III, q. 70, a. 4, s.c.). From a Thomist perspective, there is thus a positive Christian reason to permit Jewish observances such as circumcision. For further treatment of Thomas’s attitude to Jewish practice, see, among others, Hood (1995); Levering (2002); Boguslawski (2008); Marshall (2009); and Tapie (2012).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Albert Jones

David Albert Jones, D.Phil., is director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, Oxford; research fellow at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University; and research fellow at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. He is vice-chair of the Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee and is recipient of the Paul Ramsey Award for Excellence in Bioethics for 2017. He may be contacted at [email protected].