Catholic theologians commonly say that, in virtue of the dignity conferred upon Christ's human nature by the Hypostatic Union, even the smallest injury suffered by him was sufficient for the redemption of the world. St. Thomas writes: "The very least one of Christ's sufferings was sufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above" (Summa Theologiae, III q. 46 a. 5 ad 3). As Pope Clement VI put it back in 1343:
The only begotten Son of God . . . "made unto us from God, wisdom, justice, sanctification and redemption" [I Cor. 3], "neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by His own blood entered once into the holies having obtained eternal redemption" [Heb. 9:12]. "For not with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of His very (Son) as of a lamb unspotted and unstained He has redeemed us" [cf. I Pet. 1:18-9], who innocent, immolated on the altar of the Cross is known to have poured out not a little drop of blood, which however on account of union with the Word would have been sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race, but copiously as a kind of flowing stream ... (Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius)
What I was referring was the comment about his foreskin, a vulgar and preposterous claim.
As for whether the smallest injury would have sufficed, I think the point of that is that infinity times a small number is the same as infinity times a huge number; and division of infinity would still be sufficient to accomplish God's plan. But Jesus went beyond "the barest minimum" to an unimaginable extent so that the love between Him and His church could be all that much more experienced by His church (and probably a zajillion other theological reasons that don't come to me at 2 AM)