The Masculinity and Femininity of Celibates
Dr. Janet E. Smith, Chair of Life Ethics, Professor of Moral Theology
MOSAIC, Winter 2006

One of the chief features of Christ’s self identity was that of a celibate bridegroom, clearly a kind of oxymoron and a concept not easy to grasp. John Paul II speaks of Christ’s commendation of celibacy as a “turning point” in Christianity. It was radically new.

Not only does Christ speak of celibacy in a way that would be scandalous to Jews—who understood marriage as an obligation of the Jewish people to expand their tribe—St. Paul also gives lessons on celibacy. He addresses questions likely arising because Christ and his disciples were celibates and that more and more Christians were embracing a life of celibacy.

Moreover, Christ and St. Paul spoke of celibacy inchallenging terms. Christ referred to celibates as eunuchs and angels, designations difficult to grasp in their own right, but even more perplexing when used to describe an already perplexing phenomenon.

The passage most cited to support the vocation to celibacy is when Christ states, “There are eunuchs born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Mt 19:12). I suspect not too many people are happy to be likened to eunuchs. We must, of course, understand what Christ meant by “eunuch,” for there is good reason to believe that he did not mean what the word means in its most technical sense. (The term “eunuch” generally means one who has been castrated, a physically defective individual who is a neuter or sexless in a sense.) Many people tend to think of celibacy as such a state; one suspects that some think that when a man puts on a priestly collar or a woman “takes the veil,” all sexual desires disappear or become easily suppressed.

For celibates to struggle with sexual desires is sometimes understood as sign of some kind of moral turpitude or perversity—even by the celibate himself or herself—rather than something that is as natural to human beings as feeling hunger or fatigue. Desire is a product of being an embodied creature; these feelings will arise quite spontaneously. As with all feelings, it is important to deal with them morally. We must not forget that our sexuality is a positive feature of being a human creature. To deny one’s sexuality is to deny something inherent in humanity.

Even psychologists have recognized the value of the sublimation of desires—that is, the moving of desires to a different level. The energy that comes from masculinity and femininity is profound; it makes us “other-directed.” At the risk of oversimplification, we might see that male celibates might well be powerfully engaged in activities that protect many goods and provide for the needy, and that female celibates might well be tenderly engaged in activities that nurture the talents of others.

That celibates retain their masculinity and femininity should be abundantly obvious. There are countless examples of manly male celibates, from Joseph and Christ to our own John Paul II, and there are countless examples of the most feminine of females celibates, from Mary through Theresa of the Little Flower to Theresa Benedicta of the Cross.

It is impossible to think of any of these as sexless. Rather, they are particularly clear manifestations of masculinity and femininity.

Dr. Janet E. Smith is the Fr. Michael McGivney Chair of Life Ethics. She is an internationally recognized writer and lecturer on bioethics.