General Audience 80 of April 28, 1982
1. “THERE ARE OTHERS WHO MADE themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” This is how Christ expresses himself according to Matthew 19:12.
It is a characteristic feature of the human heart to accept even difficult demands in the name of love, for an ideal, above all in the name of love for a person( love is, in fact, oriented by its very nature toward the person). And so, in this call to continence “for the kingdom of heaven”, first the disciples and then the whole living Tradition of the Church quickly discovered the love for Christ himself as the Bridegroom of the Church, Bridegroom of souls, to whom he has given himself to the end (cf. Jn 13:1; 19:30) in the mystery of his Passover and of the Eucharist. In this way, continence “for the kingdom of heaven,” the choice of virginity or celibacy for one’s whole life, has become in the experience of the disciples and followers of Christ the act of a particular response to the love of the Divine Bridegroom, and therefore acquired the meaning of an act of spousal love, that is, the spousal gift of self with the end of answering in a particular way the Redeemer’s spousal love; a gift of self understood as a renunciation, but realized above all out of love.
The Spousal Meaning of the Body as the Foundation of Christ’s Call to Continence
2. Exactly the analysis of that biblical “beginning” to which Christ appealed in his conversation with the Pharisees on the subject of marriage, on its unity and indissolubility (cf. Mt 19:3-9) – shortly before addressing the words about continence for the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 19:11-12) to his disciples – allows us to recall the profound truth about the spousal meaning of the human body in its masculinity and femininity, which we deduced then from the analysis of the first chapters of Genesis (especially from 2:23-25).
3. Contemporary mentality has becalmed accustomed to think and speak above all about sexual drives, thereby transferring to the terrain of human reality to what is proper to the world of living beings, to the animalia. Now, a deepened reflection on the concise text of Genesis 1-2 allows us to show with certainty and conviction that “from the beginning” a clear and unambiguous boundary is drawn between the world of animals (animalia) and man created in the image and likeness of God. In that text, though it is relatively short, there is nevertheless enough room to show that man has a clear consciousness of what distinguishes him essentially from all living beings (animalia) [see esp. TOB 5-7].
4. Thus, the application of man to this category, a substantially naturalistic one, which is contained in this concept and expression of “sexual drive,” is not entirely appropriate and adequate. One can apply this term on the basis of a certain analogy, he(Man) cannot be qualified in a fundamental way as an animal, but as an animal rationale (rational animal). For this reason, despite this analogy, the application of the concept of “sexual drive” to man – given the dual nature in which he exists as male and female – nevertheless greatly limits and in some sense “diminishes” what the same masculinity-femininity is in the personal dimension of human subjectivity. It limits and “diminishes” also that for which is both, the man and the woman, unite so as to be one flesh (see Gen 2:24). To express appropriately and adequately, one must also use an analysis different from the naturalistic one. Precisely the study of the biblical “beginning” puts us under the obligation to do this in a convincing way. The truth about the spousal meaning of the human body in its masculinity and femininity, deduced in the first chapters of Genesis (see especially Gen 2:23-24), or the simultaneous discovery of the spousal meaning of the body in the personal structure of the subjectivity of man and woman, seems to be a key concept in this area and at the same time the only appropriate and adequate concept.
5. Now, it is precisely in relation to this concept, to this truth about the spousal meaning of the human body, that one must reread and understand the words of Christ about continence “for the kingdom of heaven,” which he spoke in the immediate context of that appeal to the “beginning,” on which he based his teaching about the unity and indissolubility of marriage. At the basis of Christ’s call to continence there stands not only “sexual drive” as a category of, I would say, naturalistic necessity, but also the awareness of the freedom of the gift which is organically connected with the deep and mature consciousness of the spousal meaning of the body in the structure of man’s and woman’s personal subjectivity as a whole.
6. As we recall from the earlier analyses carried out on the basis of Genesis 2:23-25, that reciprocal relation of masculinity and femininity, that reciprocal “for” for man and woman, can be understood appropriately and adequately only within the dynamic whole of the personal subject. Christ’s words in Matthew 19:11-12 show accordingly that this “for”, which has been present “form the beginning” at the basis of marriage, can also stand at the basis of continence “for” the kingdom of heaven! Relying on the same disposition of the personal subject, thanks to which man fully finds himself through a sincere gift of self (see Gaudium et Spes, 24:3), man (male and female) is able to choose the personal gift of self to another person in the conjugal covenant, in which they become “one flesh,” and he is also able to renounce freely such a gift of self to another person, in order that by choosing continence “for the kingdom of heaven” he may give himself totally to Christ. On the basis of the same disposition of the personal subject and on the basis of the same spousal meaning of being, as a body, male and female, there can be formed a love that commits man to marriage for the whole duration of life (see Mt 19:3-9), but there can be formed also the love that commits man to continence “for the kingdom of heaven” (see Mt 12:11-12).
7. It is evident that the choice of marriage as it was instituted by the Creator “from the beginning” presupposes the consciousness and inner acceptance of the spousal meaning of the body, which is connected with masculinity and femininity of the human person. Exactly this, in fact, is what is expressed in lapidary fashion in the verses of Genesis. As we listen to Christ’s words, we cannot think of this second kind of choice(continence “for the kingdom of heaven”) can be made in a free and conscious manner without a reference to one’s own masculinity and femininity of his being a personal subject. Even more, in the light of the words of Christ, we must admit that this second kind of choice, namely, continence for the kingdom of God, is made also in relation to the masculinity and femininity proper to the person who makes this choice; it is made on the basis of the full conscious of the spousal meaning, which masculinity and femininity contain in themselves. If this choice were made by artificially “prescinding”(detaching for the purposes of thought) from this real richness of every human subject, it would not correspond to Christ’s words in Matthew 19:11-12.
Theology of the Body 