
Mention castration to a group of six men, and you’ll get a dozen puns back. A history professor of mine described the practice as a “short cut to success” for Tang Dynasty civil servants. A message board I used to haunt carried a news item about a Welshman who de-knackered himself, apparently to settle a bet on the outcome of a soccer match; within seconds, five male respondents posted back variations on, “Wow, that really took some balls!” or “He must have been nuts!” (I suggested he’d been feeling testy that morning.)
If there’s a woman in the crowd, she’ll roll her eyes, remembering how her friend quietly endured a hysterectomy and wondering why we don’t just grow up. Well, this kind of whistling past the graveyard, giggling at our own worst fear, is our version of adulthood — take it or leave it.
I mention this now because there may soon be a new wave of horror to pre-empt. Dutch Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten has sworn to investigate allegations that Church authorities in the Netherlands ordered boys in their care to be castrated in hope of curing their homosexual inclinations. Ten alleged victims have already told their stories to the NRC Handelsblad; one, Henk Heithuis, said the operation also served as his punishment for telling police a priest had abused him sexually. Radio Netherlands, claiming to have the minutes of meetings where “directors of Catholic institutions” discussed the castrations in the presence of government officials, is reporting that nobody saw any reason to notify the victims’ parents.
An unkindly cut indeed, that. Or as the Italians like to say, ma, che palle! (I understand this to mean, very roughly, “This present situation so vexes me that I feel like I’m wearing a millstone around my scrotum.”)
With the Obama administration in a Mexican standoff with the bishops over health care, people are being forced to ask themselves who runs things better — Church or state? We’ve heard the anti-statist case. The idea that provision of contraception and abortion should be considered a plus in an applicant for a government subsidy is being denounced as anti-Catholicism, plain and simple. Last month, referring to the health care mandate, George Weigel warned: “It’s all about Leviathan as the enforcer of the sexual revolution.” Last week, he broadly invited comparison between the Affordable Care Act and the Polish government’s 1953 claim on the right to appoint and depose Catholic bishops. Slopes everywhere are getting a good rhetorical greasing.
Well, I’ll play the game a little more fairly than that. Even in America, the state has interfered with the reproductive organs of plenty of non-consenting citizens. Mainly, it’s done so in the name of eugenics, which the Church deplores. In the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court upheld a Virgina state law requiring the sterilization of the mentally retarded. The statute remained on the books until 1974; the last forced sterilization took place in Oregon, seven years later. Unlike many states, which sterilized men by removing the vas deferens, Oregon preferred full castration — to punish gays, as well as to protect the gene pool.
At this point, I don’t think either side could reasonably stir the mob by crying, “THEY’RE COMING FOR YOUR TESTICLES!” Still, it might suit both to reflect that, in the not-so-distant past, they did come for people’s testicles. The reasons and legal contexts may have differed, but the condition common to them all was a ruthlessness that led these institutions to promote their perceived interests at the expense of the most vulnerable individuals in their care. Let Church and state take these cases as their cue, as they trade insult and accusation, to walk humbly, or perhaps, to hang low.




Follow Patheos
Catholic: