RyDawgMoney quoted the following from Galatians 2:6-10:
“6 But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man): for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. 7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. 8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: 10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.”
My response is:
I know more than one person will be left scratching his head over the ultimate meaning of all that, for US NOW.
The foregoing notwithstanding, however, I think we agree that all Christians follow the New Testament, not as an addition to but as a replacement of the Old. As such, no Christian should feel religious need or pressure, whether to circumcise, or not.
Yet it’s true that Catholics apparently have a higher incidence of circumcision. Many Catholics even say their religion is the reason they are circumcised.
I always ask why they suppose, then, that the vast majorities of males in many predominantly Catholic countries throughout Latin America and Europe (including Italy, seat of the church) are NOT circumcized. Haven’t received any responses to that. Some of these people happen to be in or from countries like Phillipines or Korea, where circumcision is a social or cultural practice or tradition, and I suspect they have misinterpreted the reason as being religious (Catholic).