Made Eunuchs By the Pope

“For there are eunuchs who have been so by birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:12)

At one point, when questioned about the legitimacy of divorce, Jesus said that for a man to divorce his wife and marry another was adultery. (Mat 19:9) His disciples responded that if there is no chance of getting out of a bad marriage, it may be better not to marry at all. Jesus responded, “all cannot receive this saying, save to whom it is given.” (Mat 19:11) In the words of Matthew Henry, Jesus “disallows it, as utterly mischievous, to forbid (anyone) marriage, because all men cannot receive this saying; indeed few can.”

Jesus then outlined three distinct categories of eunuchs: #1 those who are born incapable of having sex, #2 those who are made eunuchs by others, and #3 those who choose to remain chaste for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.

It has become fashionable to presume the first and/or last category of eunuchs includes homosexuals. But that’s a misreading of scripture.

1.) Regarding those who are ‘born eunuchs’: a) Clearly, gays and lesbians aren’t incapable of having sex. They are persecuted for the kind of sex they are having, and that’s a very different thing; b) moreover, many gays and lesbians have been married to someone of the opposite sex, and they've even had children. We might assume this was even more the rule in Jesus’ culture. So how exactly are these people incapable of having sex, when in fact, they seem to be uniquely capable of having sex with either gender?

2.) Regarding those who have chosen to remain chaste ‘for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven’: a) Jesus never said that homosexuals must choose remain chaste for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven; b) he certainly never implied that they could remain chaste; and c) if the homosexuals in Jesus’ culture had to either remain chaste or be stoned to death, it certainly cannot have been by their choice. The fact is that many Christians today discriminate against homosexuals for not being able to do what they themselves could never do, and for wanting to do what they themselves have already have done by choosing their partner in marriage.

Being chaste himself, Jesus understood how difficult it was, and for that very reason, he never imposed that burden upon anybody. He only said that those who had the calling and capacity to remain chaste could do so, though he never made it a requirement for any group of people - not even his 12 disciples.

The burden that many Christians would impose upon homosexuals is more along the lines of the second category of eunuchs – those who are ‘made eunuchs by others.’ It’s really about the power that some (straight) men have always exercised over other (gay) men, and would like to perpetuate at all costs (to homosexuals). It’s symbolic of the power they feel they need to wield over other people’s lives, by reason of their own deep-seated fears and homophobic anxieties.

In the same way that wealthy and powerful men once had their household slaves surgically castrated and transformed into eunuchs - because they were afraid they might otherwise have intercourse with one of their wives - there are many in the church who would transform gays into virtual eunuchs, because they are afraid they might have sex period. These spiritual castrators are terrified at the prospect of two men having sex. So to protect themselves from their fears and to feel more secure in their manhood, they would make all gay men virtual eunuchs.

Eunuchs who are made eunuchs by others (as opposed to those who were born that way or received the calling from God) must include those who are forced to give up their sexuality through religious and/or legal intimidation. The practice of turning slaves into eunuchs was a very common practice in antiquity, and it was sanctioned by the laws and religious traditions of the past. But in differentiating these eunuchs from those who had freely chosen their path in life, Jesus saw it as another example of how some people use religion to maintain their power over others.

Some might argue that, being celibate himself, the Pope has the authority to demand that Catholic priests remain celibate. Yet even the Pope doesn’t have the moral authority to choose celibacy for others, since Jesus clearly indicated that they can only choose it for themselves.

The real scandal within the Catholic Church today is that many priests only became priests because of the homophobia within the church, and others may have had the calling to be a priest, but never a similar calling (or ability) to remain celibate. Instead, they’ve had celibacy imposed upon them by their church. Many would argue that since these priests knew what they were getting into that they chose celibacy as well; it was part of a package deal. But the reality of the situation is not that simple.

In the case of many gay priests (one sociologist estimated that up to 48.5% of Catholic priests are gay ) they may have only become priests because the Catholic Church never afforded them any reasonable alternative. Practically speaking, there was no other workable option open to gay Catholics, who wanted to remain Catholic, than to join the priesthood and struggle (often unsuccessfully) to remain celibate. That’s not to excuse what a small minority may have done by molesting children, but only to point out that the Church itself needs to acknowledge their own hand in the matter. The manner in which the Catholic Church continues to cover up the crimes of molesting priests is emblematic of a much deeper complicity – in putting such an impossible burden upon gay Catholics in the first place.

Certainly not all molesting priests are gay. Because just as heterosexual men in prison often turn to younger inmates to satisfy their sexual needs, so do many heterosexual priests. Though, unlike gay priests, they had a choice in whether or not to marry, they didn’t have the choice to both marry and become a minister of the gospel – which, not incidentally, was the choice that Jesus gave to his disciples. In that sense, the options of heterosexual priests have also been narrowed - not by God and for the sake of His Kingdom, but by the Pope, for the sake of the power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. The real reason they must remain chaste is because Rome wants to exercise strict control over their priests, and retain all the wealth that would otherwise have gone to their families.

It’s useful to point out that for the first thousand years, the church followed Jesus’ teaching on chastity and allowed married priests, even electing married Popes. But eventually church authorities decided that a sharper distinction needed to be made between clergy and laity in order to better control both. So they forcibly (and unnaturally) separated their priests from the laity by decree, requiring that they remain celibate. At the same time, to better control the laity, they made heterosexual marriage a sacrament of the church and increasingly began to persecute homosexuals.

The fallout of the power-grab, nearly a thousand years ago, is still being felt in the problem of molesting priests. It’s evidence of the danger in following the traditions of men rather than the teachings of the Bible. Jesus understood the difference between giving people a real choice and using religion to narrow their choices. He understood that compelling someone to forfeit their sexuality could be a dangerous proposition with detrimental consequences for everyone.

Though the Catholic Church acknowledges that homosexual orientation is neither a choice nor a sin, nevertheless, they believe that discriminating against homosexuals is “morally justifiable” for the preservation of heterosexual families. And at the same time that they single out homosexuals for persecution, they have covered up the felonies committed by their own priests.

According to CNN, approximately 4,450 (4%) of the 110,000 Roman Catholic clergy who served in the United States between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of molesting minors. Thomas Fox, in the National Catholic Reporter, estimated that “the average pedophile priest abuses 285 victims." 4,450 molesting priests, multiplied by 285 victims per priest, equals 1,268,250 estimated victims of felony child molestation that were covered up a church that believes it “morally justifiable” to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and their families because they represent an existential threat to “genuine (heterosexual) families.” Though over a million of these “genuine families” have had a child molested by a Priest because a homophobic Church was helping them to cover it up. It would be difficult to spell HYPOCRISY any bolder than that.

The problem of molesting priests will continue so long as there are Popes who cherish their power more than they respect the authority of Jesus. If only Popes were conservative enough to return to Jesus’ teaching on celibacy, and to the church as it used to be more than a thousand years ago. Because there is no way of transforming a Catholic priest made a eunuch by the Pope into one who was given the gift of chastity. Until we recognize that these are two separate and distinct categories of eunuchs – as Jesus did - the insidious problem within the Catholic Church will continue.

That’s not to lessen the responsibility of individual priests who molest children and must ultimately answer to God. But until we allow everyone the free and un-coerced choice to either marry or remain chaste - and stop allowing some in the church to decide for others – lives will be ruined. And it really doesn’t matter whether it’s because of our irrational fears about homosexuality or because some in the church seek to enhance their own power – more lives will be devastated by people who have chosen to ignore Jesus’ teaching on celibacy.