Changes

}}</ref> This remains the general view of Christians to this day with the exception of the Copts, a denomination in Egypt, which requires [[circumcision]].

The Roman Catholic Church has issued the following relevant documents. They prohibit [[circumcision]].

|Text=It [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 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.

|Text=Examining neonatal male [[circumcision ]] in light of these moral directives, one can conclude that the amputation of normal, healthy foreskin for nontherapeutic purposes not only violates the child's bodily integrity but also is a medical procedure whose benefits do not clearly outweigh the risks. The ERDs state clearly that such procedures can be justified if there is a proportionate benefit to the patient. But neonatal male circumcision fails the test of proportionality because the questionable therapeutic benefit is overbalanced by the certainty of permanent injury to the penis; the loss of protective, immunological, mechanical, sensory, erogenous, and sexual functions; as well as the risk to health and life inherent in every circumcision.60 Neonatal male circumcision may be appropriate for religious reasons, but after one makes a thorough examination of the medical literature and a comprehensive ethical analysis, one sees quite clearly that it should not be a routine medical procedure.

The Catholic Church teaches that God created us in God;s image and likeness (Gn 1:27-28). It follows then that God created males with normal, healthy foreskins for the purpose of protecting the glans, providing natural lubrication to prevent dryness, and contributing significantly to the sexual response of the [[intact ]] male. To surgically remove the [[foreskin ]] for hygienic reasons, and/or to obtain other questionable benefits that absorb medical resources costing over $200 million a year is not only ethically unjustifiable but morally irresponsible, especially when such procedures can lead to serious injury and even death. Besides the possible harm the procedure can inflict on a child — which violates the basic tenet of Catholic health care of treating every person with dignity and respect — it also violates Catholic health care;s mandate to be responsible stewards of medical resources. When millions of people in the [[United States ]] and around the world lack basic health care, the provision of a nontherapeutic procedure — especially one that is unnecessary, costly, and in some cases fatal — is irresponsible and a violation of the moral law. Therefore, it is unethical and immoral for Catholic health care institutions to continue to allow neonatal male [[circumcisions]], except out of respect for religious practices of other faith traditions. Respecting the religious beliefs and practices of other faiths is confirmed in the ERDs.

Barring religious obligation, there is little to recommend routine neonatal male [[circumcision]]. If promoting the dignity and respect of every human person is a priority for the [[United States ]] and for Catholic health care, then it is time to better educate the public about this issue and protect those who are the most vulnerable in our society. Doing so is not only a social responsibility; it is a moral imperative as well.

There is much fine, elegant language that tells us why it is immoral and a violation of the moral law to inflict a non-therapeutic [[circumcision]]. How does it work out in practice?

* The Federal Republic of Germany has been the site of a controversy over the non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] of boys. The [[Cologne circumcision court judgment]] was a ruling in 2012 that non-therapeutic circumcision of a boy violated the [[human rights]] of the boy guaranteed by Germany's Basic Law. Thereafter a heated [[Circumcision Debate]] commenced. The Catholic Church (''Katholische Kirche'') in Germany took a position in favor of Jewish and Muslims having a right to circumcise as an exercise of a religious right.