Eunuchs for the Kingdom

Extending the Positive Case for Monasticism

Von and I are engaged in a letter exchange discussing the Biblical roots of celibacy and monasticism. This is my second post on the subject. If you would like to read Von and my initial cases, the links are below:

Incogito
Letter 1: Celibacy and Monasticism are Biblical

Von
Letter 2: True Celibacy

For this letter, I have decided to address some of the topics Von introduces without making a deep dive into his argument. This will usually involve introducing a quote, and then expounding my thoughts on the subject. As such, I think this letter can be read by itself, though I of course recommend reading the whole exchange if you are so inclined.

The Catholic Vision of Sexuality

I want to open by stressing the common ground that Von and I share. His first article, as well as many others on his Substack, are replete with Biblical quotes extolling marriage. They are beautiful and poetic (Von uses the KJV, which doesn’t hurt in this regard) and I want to add my voice to his in extolling the beauty and profundity of the marriage covenant.

I also want to amplify his thesis that “Celibacy, properly understood, is the foundation for marriage. Celibacy, falsely understood, is its contradiction and enemy.”¹

I have an inkling that our discussion will center on the idea of resisting the urge to make celibacy marriage’s contradiction and what such a thing entails. From the Catholic perspective, it is we who must insist that celibacy is not the enemy of marriage, neither in people who are not yet married, and those who will never be. We can glorify the goods of celibacy without denigrating the marriage covenant, and likewise have a high and even sacramental view of marriage without detracting from celibacy, properly understood. Both are gifts to the Church, and each member has their own gifts and calling, as Paul affirms (1 Cor. 7:7).

True Celibacy, Indeed

Before we go further, we should clarify what we mean by celibacy. As Von rightly notes, it cannot mean merely remaining unmarried.

If we are going to use the word ‘celibacy’ in the context of the Christian faith, we must realise that it cannot mean merely not being married, nor can it mean merely not having intimate relations… The man who is walking around with his imagination in hyperdrive, with issues of reading or watching, is not ‘celibate’.²

Amen, brother.

However, Von’s positive characterization is a little unclear. He says celibacy “must mean not struggling with lust.” This definition seems to suggest that experiencing sexual temptation itself constitutes a failure of celibacy. I am not sure if this is what Von means or not, but if it is, it strikes me as incorrect. The temptation to sin is not the sin itself; one may be tempted to, e.g., be greedy without actually indulging that temptation, else we could never rightly ascribe a virtue to anyone.³

I therefore have a slightly amended definition that keeps the central idea of Von’s position but expounds it with a little more clarity.

Celibacy is the abstinence from all sexual activity.

I take “sexual activity” to be a rather broad term and include things like pornography and sexual fantasy. This allows us to affirm that “The man who is walking around with his imagination in hyperdrive, with issues of reading or watching, is not ‘celibate’” without slipping into the condemnation of the individual who undergoes temptation but valiantly resists. I will work from this definition and trust that there is little difference between Von and myself on the subject.

That out of the way, let’s get to the meat of the question for today: Who are the “Eunuchs for the Kingdom”?

Eunuchs for the Kingdom: Two Options

The passage we are interested in is Matthew 19:11–12, though the surrounding context will also be important.

But he said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.’⁴

There are two ways one can interpret this passage: we can understand it as referring to celibacy, or we can understand it as referring to something else. My project is to briefly show that there aren’t really any good alternatives to reading the passage as referring to celibacy, and this problem is compounded by the theological richness which we may derive by reading it in this way.

Why Not Celibacy?

The most immediate reason to reject the celibacy reading of “eunuchs for the Kingdom” is that the first two uses of “eunuch” refer to individuals who cannot reproduce: those with congenital conditions and those who have been castrated. Both groups lack the physical capacity for sexual relations.

Von therefore argues that identifying the third group as people who vow celibacy commits a category error. A voluntary vow, he says, does not place someone in the same class as those incapable of sexual desire or activity.

But this raises an immediate difficulty. If the third category must also refer to literal incapacity, then Jesus’ words would imply that some have made themselves physically incapable of sexual activity for the Kingdom of Heaven. The most straightforward way to accomplish this is castration!⁵

Now, Von and I both explicitly reject such behavior as immoral, so this interpretation is not open to us.

The alternative would be to read Jesus as referring to people who, while physically capable, are not desiring or engaging in sexual activity. Yet this is simply the state of celibacy as we have defined it.⁶

Von might reply that this celibacy is temporary. However, this weakens his original objection. If the problem is that vowed celibates are insufficiently similar to the first two types of eunuchs, temporary celibates are even less similar. Those who commit themselves permanently to celibacy resemble the first two categories more closely than anyone who is abstinent only for a season.

There is a further problem. Von’s understanding of eunuchs as referring to those lacking even desire to engage in sexual activity actually excludes the class of celibates he is willing to accept. I don’t know about him, but before I got married, I very much desired to engage in sexual activity. That’s one of the reasons I got married.⁷ If to be a eunuch is to not even desire sex, a monk who has vowed never to engage in it, is not seeking it, and is disciplining himself to not be overcome by the desire for it comes much closer to the definition Von provides.

With these objections addressed, we can now turn to the positive case for the Catholic reading.

Celibacy Opens the Scriptures

The main reason to read Matthew 19:12 as referring to celibacy is that it allows us to read the passage in thematic and contextual continuity with the rest of the Gospel.

Thematic continuity

A significant theme in Matthew is the inversion of the world and its values within the Kingdom of Heaven. This is perhaps most evident in the preaching of the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3–12), but it is also central to the parable of the workers (Matthew 20:1–16) where “the last will be first, and the first will be last,” as well as the parable of the banquet (Matt 22:1–14). This theme also saturates Christ’s moral teaching.⁸ Indeed, the Kingdom of Heaven is the predominant context of this inversion.

Thus, when Christ refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” we should already be looking for an inversion in the order of the world. Celibacy is just such an inversion.

As Scripture tells us, people with congenital disabilities were marginalized in ancient communities. Further, birth defects were seen as evidence of sin within a family (John 9:2). Likewise, eunuchs were slaves, objects of use for their masters. These figures were the subjects of great pathos, especially in an ancient world so centered on passing on one’s lineage. The eunuch’s line ends with him.

Given this, it seems inconceivable that one would choose to adopt the fate of the eunuch. To live on the margins of the community, to be subject to others, and to leave no physical children behind you. But Christ inverts our expectations. We are to identify with the meek. We are to honor the least among us. We are called to be last. And some of us, Christ tells us, will be eunuchs in His Kingdom.

However, this entails giving up what a eunuch gives up. Of course, foremost among those things is sex. Furthermore, it stretches our understanding to say you could be sometimes a eunuch for the Kingdom; someone who is meek when they feel like it isn’t meek. Thus, it seems that Christ is telling us that there will be people who willingly give up the genuine good of marriage, sex, and children for the sake of the Kingdom of God. What was undesirable and shameful is now made glorious. Celibacy fits perfectly into the picture of the Kingdom of Heaven as Matthew describes it.

Contextual continuity

Not only does a Catholic reading of this passage coincide with major thematic aspects of Matthew’s Gospel, it also naturally makes sense of the context of Matthew 19.

Matthew 19 famously opens with Jesus’ discourse on marriage and divorce. It is a beautiful, yet challenging section, and His disciples seem to have felt the challenge acutely, responding, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (verse 10). It is here that Jesus responds with the “eunuch” passage we have been discussing.

For this reason, the idea that it is a category mistake to regard eunuchs for the Kingdom as those who vow not to marry beggars belief. Jesus is responding to the assertion that it would be better not to marry.

So, what have eunuchs for the Kingdom to do with whether one should marry? The natural reading is that it offers an alternative path.

And that alternative is challenging. Christ seems to be saying, “Oh, you don’t want to get married because it’s too hard? Then you must become like a eunuch.” He sees the disciples’ desire to find an easy way to live the faith, but he doesn’t let them. Love God through your wife and be faithful to her, or give up your sexuality to God. Those are the options. Both involve a cross.

Notably, however, Christ doesn’t demand one option at the expense of the other. He merely says, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (verse 12). We are reminded of Paul’s reflection in 1 Cor. 7: “I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” Both Jesus and Paul allow for diversity and judgement in how each believer glorifies God through their sexuality.

Conclusion

Jesus’ juxtaposition of marriage and celibacy offers us a lens through which to view the goal towards which Von and I are both striving. How can celibacy, properly understood, be the foundation for marriage? The answer, I would like to suggest, is that celibacy demands that we encounter sex as gift. Our sexuality belongs to God, and we offer it to Him first in our abstinence. We then receive it back from Him through the gift of marriage, in which we give our sexuality again, this time to our spouse. Thus our sexuality is the image of man as self-gift, first to God, then to each other.⁹

Naturally, Von might have no quarrel with this understanding of sexuality, but object that it doesn’t require monasticism. I disagree. A gift is only a gift if it is given without expecting it back. To truly give our sexuality to God, we need to be open to the possibility that God will keep it. Monasticism, when it lives its call to celibacy faithfully, manifests the unconditionality of this gift.

This unconditionality is paramount. When we offer conditionally, we open ourselves to the corruption of using the other. We cannot offer ourselves to God on the condition He give us what we want. Just so, we cannot offer ourselves sexually to our spouse on the condition that they “satisfy” us.

The monk and the nun are images to the Church of the unconditionality of the love we must have for God and for each other. It is this aspect of sexuality that is truly non-negotiable.

1. All quotes from Von are drawn from his first letter in this exchange unless otherwise noted.

2. I left out a sentence in the above quote that immediately followed the ellipsis. The ellipsis is original to Von’s work, so we have an awkward construction where it is hard to make clear that I have removed something. I want to emphasize that I mean no deception by this, and I quote the excised sentence below. I made the editorial choice only to better frame where we agree and where we may differ.

3. One might appeal to the idea that “no one is righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10) to affirm that indeed, no one is truly celibate. I don’t want to contest the point. If someone desires to insist on it, then I would merely ask to move the discussion to our pursuit of the virtues inasmuch as we humans can inhabit them, which promises to be much more productive.

4. This quote uses the RSV translation. The NIV takes too many liberties with the passage.

5. This, famously, is how Origen read the text, and he subsequently castrated himself. He faced censure for this from the Church and had to receive a dispensation to be admitted to the priesthood afterwards.

6. This depends on one’s definition of “desiring” but I will have more to say on that later.

7. Among others, of course.

8. This understanding of Matthew is common enough that I will take these few examples and observations to sufficiently establish it for the purposes of this essay.

9. I can’t claim any originality in these observations, derived as they are from Catholic teaching on sexuality. Most directly, I draw influence from John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility and Eric Warden’s Chastity.