The later Christian hostile pessimistic view of the body and its pleasures is 
rooted in pagan Antiquity.  Although these early Greeks were quite misogynistic 
in their view, much of their sexual pessimism was derived "from medical 
considerations" (9), or more accurately, from medical errors concerning sex.  The 
Gnostics then took these Greek and Stoic suspicions of pleasure further.  For the 
Gnostics believed that there was basically a "denomination of all corporeality 
and all matter" (15).  Thus, these were the standards that early Christianity chose 
to adopt in order to be deemed a "moral" religion.  Uta Ranke-Heinemann argues 
that these adopted pagan and Gnostic philosophies which developed into the 
ascetic ideal in Christianity are antithetical to the meaning of Christianity.
	The facts presented in Eunuchs For The Kingdom of Heaven are based on 
Tank-Heinemann's presupposition that there is an intimate connection between 
celibacy and misogyny; and that both are not principles inherent in original 
Christianity.  Using the anamnestic approach of historical scholarship she 
uncovers the ugly past of Catholicism.  Assuming that the events she mentions 
did actually happen, and that she quotes the Church Fathers in context, then 
Ranke-Heinemann has not gone "too far" as many have claimed.  She has been 
more respectful to Christianity in her writing than the male authors of 
Christianity have been to women in their documents and legal legislation.  It's 
incredibly ironic and hilarious that Cardinal O'Connor of all people stated that "it 
is time we stopped buying the line of purveyors of hatred and scandal and 
malice and libel and calumny".  Perhaps if he engaged in the material of Eunuchs 
For The Kingdom of Heaven he might recognize how much his statement about the 
book is  really a projection about his own church's behavior, not the author's.  
	If the said author wanted to be disrespectful, she could have said:  Of 
course celibates would be fearful of what they strive to abstain from (women) 
and consequently assigned "evil" attributes to that thing (women).  Then she 
could have disrespectfully said: what do a bunch of celibates know about sex 
anyway?  If they are virgins let them govern virginity; how dare they speak with 
authority about marriage, sexual positions, masturbation, homosexuality and 
contraception.  This especially holds true since they have no experience with sex, 
intimate relationships with  corporeal beings, or knowledge of supporting 
financially and emotionally many children.  Disrespect would be mentioning that 
Jesus didn't say sexual repression and frustration, or other severe social controls, 
were the key to the kingdom of Heaven.  But, Ranke-Heinemann did not say 
these "disrespectful" observations; she may be a bit cynical but certainly her 
remarks were within the grounds of academia.
	Since there is an intimate connection between celibacy and misogyny, I 
doubt that the celibate life is possible without this hatred.  Women will always be 
seen as a dangerous threat by a heterosexual male celibate who believes that a 
superiority comes from his sexual abstinence.
	Another set of provocative ideas that Ranke-Heinemann sees a connection 
between are war and contraception.  She claims that "it is no accident that the 
rejection of contraception swelled to a crescendo in this century of world wars 
and the arms race" (291).  The author justly concludes that therefore "war and 
contraception don't mix" (291).  I find this statement to be true and I agree that 
the two issues are interconnected.  It is absurd that the Church values a fetus 
more than a developed child that  can be killed "justly" (though not intentionally) 
in a war.
	work cited
Ranke-Heinemann, Uta. Eunuchs For The Kingdom of Heaven.  Doublyday, New 
York; 1990.
	COMMENTS: BY DR. MCBRIDE
"Although there may be a link between celibacy and misogyny, is it a necessary 
relationship?  For example, can women be celibate or remain virgins without 
implicitly accepting misogyny?  Must people be sexually active to be liberated 
from patriarchy?  In other words, is feminism synonymous with "sexual 
liberation?"  Or are there feminist (woman centered) grounds by which a man or 
woman could remain celibate?
	Why do male celibates in the Church tradition simultaneously ritually 
assume the role of female (eunuch-castrated male-female) yet at the same time 
insist that priests must be male.  If the Church believes that priests must be male 
literally (anatomically correct), then why don't they interpret Mat. 19 literally, i.e. 
that male priests must be castrated?  Or why not ordain genuine castrati, i.e. 
women?
	How does this religion construct the male psychic economy?" (Dr. 
McBride)   
FURTHER COMMENTS WELCOME   SEND TO:   Sexytomboy@aol.com