Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own Internet Weblog at www.theipinionsjournal.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective

In fact, I argued that:

“...whatever the religious or cultural taboo, if circumcision is as effective in fighting HIV as these African studies suggest, then not practicing it as a standard medical procedure – especially in areas with high incidence of HIV/AIDS – is irresponsible, if not inhumane.”

Yet I received a flood of emails - primarily from Europeans - ridiculing me as a cultural bigot naively citing spurious research (perhaps, ironically, because the studies were conducted by an African scientist) as a panacea for this global health crisis. But in my broadcast response, I merely challenged them to present scientific data to refute the findings or suggest any measure that might have a more prophylactic effect on the spread of HIV. That effectively dammed the vituperative emails, but many people still dismissed the findings.
 
Nevertheless, I was emboldened in my advocacy of medicinal circumcision earlier this year when World Health Organisation (WHO) researchers confirmed the findings of that African scientist.  They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of contracting the virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

However, of particular relevance to our African brothers, WHO researchers found that:

“In West Africa, male circumcision is common and the prevalence of HIV is low, while in southern [and Eastern] Africa the reverse is true... This analysis shows that male circumcision could avert nearly six million new infections and save three million lives in sub-Saharan Africa over the next twenty years.”

Incredibly, even these findings did little to quell criticisms from prepuced Europeans who seem to care for the foreskin of African penises more than they do for African lives. But after discussing their perverse opposition to circumcision with AIDS workers on the front lines in Africa, I finally understood why.

As it turns out, I focused too much on (African) cultural myths and not enough on (European) religious dogma in my lamentations. Because, where I feared tribal customs would inhibit African men from being circumcised to save their lives; I was informed that Catholic missionaries were warning them that circumcision was a useless and painful Jewish rite that would cost them eternal salvation.  And, for you doubting Thomases, here’s little of what informs their infallible teaching on the subject:

“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.” ["Cantate Domino" (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV]

Though, curiously, the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law.” (N. 2297)

But it is not for me to reconcile this inconsistency.  I simply cannot muster the religious tolerance necessary to accept any Catholic teaching which holds that circumcision, devoutly practiced by God’s chosen people, is immoral.  Especially since this practice could save the lives of many more people in Africa (and in the Caribbean where Catholicism predominates; i.e. Haiti) than AIDS drugs ever could. (No matter how cheap those drugs become through the charitable efforts of former President Bill Clinton and former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.) 

Moreover, it smacks not only of inhumanity but also of rank hypocrisy for Catholics and Europeans who face relatively low risk of HIV infections to preach against circumcision to poor Africans who face such high risk.  After all, one wonders how many of these preachers adhere to the other prophylactic tenets of their faith – like those against contraception, abortion and even aesthetic circumcision (as routinely performed on Catholics in the U.S.).  Indeed, is there any doubt that - if HIV/AIDS were as prevalent in Europe and the United States as it is in Africa and the Caribbean - circumcision would be as widely practiced as birth control is amongst Catholics?

Therefore, I entreat all readers of this article to join me in condemning and dismissing - as either a religious hypocrite or inhumane or both - anyone who opposes circumcision as a necessary and effective medical procedure.  Because our shared humanity and moral rectitude clearly compels us to support any scientific development that would help stem the genocidal ravages of HIV/AIDS amongst poor black and brown people. 

NOTE: To reinforce your conviction in this regard, it might help to know that on Wednesday, the London Independent published a remarkably hopeful report under the banner headline: Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'.

And it is bound to cause constant gardeners from pharmaceutical companies high anxiety next week when old-fashioned circumcision is declared the most promising development ever in the fight against HIV/AIDS at the XVI International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Canada.