For three centuries, why did the Popes approve of or tolerate this?

[Catholic29]

Wikipedia:

A castrato is a male soprano, mezzo-soprano, or alto voice produced either by castration of the singer before puberty or who, because of an endocrinological condition, never reaches sexual maturity. Therefore, their voices never deepen.

This practice began in the 16th century. Due to Catholicism’s traditional ban on females singing in church, castrati were employed as church singers. The first castrati appeared in Western Europe in chapel choirs. In the late 1550s, the Duke of Ferrara had castrati in his chapel choir, the Munich court chapel from 1574 and in 1599 the Papal (Sistine) Chapel choir was formally described as having castrati. Elsewhere in Europe, castrati were in Württemburg from 1610, Vienna from 1637 and about a decade later in Dresden. In an official Bull of 1589, Pope Sixtus V approved the recruitment of castrati for the choir of St. Peter.

continued: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrati

Why is it that in heart of Catholic Europe, in Rome no less, that the sexual mutilation of pre-pubescant boys was approved of or at least tolerated for over three centuries by the Popes and Vatican authorities? Simply to cultivate high notes for the polyphonic hymns because women weren’t allowed to talk or sing in church. It wasn’t until 1902 that Pope Pius X issued a decree banning them from church choirs.

There must be some way to exonerate the magisterium for this terrible cruelty of these poor boys in the Church’s midst, but I haven’t seen how yet. I don’t mean to attack the Catholic Church, but all of this is historicaly verifiable and has gotten me rather confused and unnerved.

 

[LilyM]

Catholic29:

Why is it that in heart of Catholic Europe, in Rome no less, that the sexual mutilation of pre-pubescant boys was approved of or at least tolerated for over three centuries by the Popes and Vatican authorities? Simply to cultivate high notes for the polyphonic hymns because women weren’t allowed to talk or sing in church. It wasn’t until 1902 that Pope Pius X issued a decree banning them from church choirs.

There must be some way to exonerate the magisterium for this terrible cruelty of these poor boys in the Church’s midst, but I haven’t seen how yet. I don’t mean to attack the Catholic Church, but all of this is historicaly verifiable and has gotten me rather confused and unnerved.

sigh this is a very tired old anti-catholic argument - Popes being human do bad things, therefore the Church and its official teachings (as opposed to the private behaviour of individual Church leaders) can’t be true or right. Do you honestly believe that any leader of any church or country has ever been irreproachable? Do they not claim religious or secular authority in spite of this?

Firstly castrati did not come about just because of a Papal ban on women singing in church - I believe that in a lot of places women were also forbidden from appearing on stage, so castrati sang female parts (and plenty of male ones as well) in opera. In any event castrati were considered to have the most desirable singing voices of all, and were ‘superstars’ of the singing world, much like Pavarotti today. Like Pavarotti today, they could make a lot of money out of it - in musical theatre, probably not in church. There is a fantastic Italian movie about one such famous castrato, ‘Farinelli’, which gives most of this sort of background.

A lot of boys were castrated before their voices had broken (which was when it had to be done) in hopes of making their fortunes. A lot of them once they had been through puberty found that they didn’t after all have great voices. It may even have been out of charity, and to give some of them employment, that they were recruited to sing in churches, after all not all Church leaders would have cared about music.

I doubt that any of this has anything to do properly with the Magisterium or official teaching of the Church, or was ever part of it. I am unaware of the status of Papal Bulls but I imagine a decree as to the recruitment of singers wouldn’t be a statement which counts as Church dogma.

Don’t lose any sleep over the misdeeds of Church leaders. The jewels which are our faith and our sacraments retain their value no matter whose hands they may pass through on their way to us.

 

[AndyF]

LilyM:

Ouch! and without anesthetics.

I think if that were me, anyone who asked me to sing would receive a fistfull of knuckles, and I’d be on a manhunt for the surgeon.

Well, lets throw this into the logic mill.

WE, are told the Pope can either be devinely inspired, OR, simply make a personal opinion.

If his action/inaction was Devinely approved there is a problem, if not there isn’t. I suppose in the latter case, the question of the morality of the act would still need to be addressed by the decider, and here it deserves at least an informal protest of some form. Even an off hand remark would be appropriate.

But I leave it as a case unsolved, and we need to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt meanwhile.

Andy

 

[BryPGuy89]

Catholic29:

Why is it that in heart of Catholic Europe, in Rome no less, that the sexual mutilation of pre-pubescant boys was approved of or at least tolerated for over three centuries by the Popes and Vatican authorities? Simply to cultivate high notes for the polyphonic hymns because women weren’t allowed to talk or sing in church. It wasn’t until 1902 that Pope Pius X issued a decree banning them from church choirs.

There must be some way to exonerate the magisterium for this terrible cruelty of these poor boys in the Church’s midst, but I haven’t seen how yet. I don’t mean to attack the Catholic Church, but all of this is historicaly verifiable and has gotten me rather confused and unnerved.

I couldn’t answer your question, but my comment would be that, in the past castration and what not has actually been a common practice and can be a position of honor and what not. I don’t think it is alright or anything, but there is a cultural acceptance of the practice in the past.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Lets face it fallible human beings do dumb things.

 

[bones_IV]

Catholic29:

Why is it that in heart of Catholic Europe, in Rome no less, that the sexual mutilation of pre-pubescant boys was approved of or at least tolerated for over three centuries by the Popes and Vatican authorities? Simply to cultivate high notes for the polyphonic hymns because women weren’t allowed to talk or sing in church. It wasn’t until 1902 that Pope Pius X issued a decree banning them from church choirs.

There must be some way to exonerate the magisterium for this terrible cruelty of these poor boys in the Church’s midst, but I haven’t seen how yet. I don’t mean to attack the Catholic Church, but all of this is historicaly verifiable and has gotten me rather confused and unnerved.

The Popes who did nothing and did not stop it will have a lot to answer for. But then again there is no guarantee that popes will not sin. Once again, people confuse infallibility with impeccability. But popes have to go to confession like the rest of us. The only connections that the Church has to this practice is that women were not allowed by the Church to perform in choirs. Castrato, boys whose voices were castrated, did in fact perform in Vatican choirs. The Church itself did not perform the castrations. It was finally outlawed in the last country to allow it, Italy, in 1870. I also went to papalencyclicals.net and found only one work by Sixtus mentioned on there. Nothing on that site pertained to a bull talking about castration.

 

[Grolsch]

The Castrati probably fround its way to Italy from Constantinople where eunuchs were used in Church choirs. As you probably know eunuchs were used in ancient royal courts and particularly by muslim sultans who had by then surrounded the Eastern Roman Empire. Since eunchs were pretty much useless for Christians, they were employed as choir singers.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Grolsch:

The Castrati probably fround its way to Italy from Constantinople where eunuchs were used in Church choirs. As you probably know eunuchs were used in ancient royal courts and particularly by muslim sultans who had by then surrounded the Eastern Roman Empire. Since eunchs were pretty much useless for Christians, they were employed as choir singers.

A good point. The castrati were not borne out of the Church but of previous cultures. People understood sexuality in a different way than we do now. Perhaps the popes did speak out, not every word of every pope has been written down. Hundreds of years from now people will look at these times and say, “It was legal for a woman to MURDER her unborn baby? And the popes allowed it?”

I think Wikpedia isn’t the greatest source online. Some of their history I’ve found to be a bit dodgy and lack depth. A better source for this subject would be:

cix.co.uk/~velluti/cast-what.htm#Why

 

[bones_IV]

wisdom 3:5:

A good point. The castrati were not borne out of the Church but of previous cultures. People understood sexuality in a different way than we do now. Perhaps the popes did speak out, not every word of every pope has been written down. Hundreds of years from now people will look at these times and say, “It was legal for a woman to MURDER her unborn baby? And the popes allowed it?”

I think Wikpedia isn’t the greatest source online. Some of their history I’ve found to be a bit dodgy and lack depth. A better source for this subject would be:

cix.co.uk/~velluti/cast-what.htm#Why

wikipedia is baised.

 

[Liberalsaved]

The Church is a fallible entity because it is run by people. As a result, people in high places in the Church have made some very bad decisions throughout history. Bad and bloody. There’s no way to exonerate them; they don’t really deserve it, being that they twisted their own sacred beleifs for personal goals and ends. The best you can do is move on and hope and work for a brighter tomorrow.

The Church still does some questionable things now and again, though nothing as bad as some of the mistakes some people within the ranks used to make. The next time something they do is clearly morally objectionable, make a stand. A lot of you, I’m sure, dislike me. But when I see something wrong or something I beleive in, I make a stand. Whatever you beleive is right for the Church to do that they do not do, that’s the time you take a stand. This is not a call to violence, but to speaking your mind and not letting anyone tell you you shouldn’t be saying that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church MEMBERS are fallible people because they are people. The CHURCH (the Bride of Christ) is INFALLIBLE. Nowhere will you find Catholic teaching, dogmatic Catholic teaching, that calls for castration, abortion, slavery, killing, etc.

No Pope has EVER taught dogmatic, doctrinal error. Some popes have expressed wrong opinions on issues which have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. Some popes have actually committed wrong actions AGAINST Catholic doctrine (such as committing fornication, which is expressly forbidden by the Church), but they have never taught that it was okay for them, or anyone else, to commit fornication.

Thus, if even Benedict XVI himself were found to have been personally responsible for some sin–anything from a “white lie” about his mother’s cooking all the way up to a murder (God forbid), that would not make the CHURCH a liar, or a murderer.

The difference between infallibility and impeccability.

 

[Petergee]

Catholic29:

Why is it that in heart of Catholic Europe, in Rome no less, that the sexual mutilation of pre-pubescant boys was approved of or at least tolerated for over three centuries by the Popes and Vatican authorities? Simply to cultivate high notes for the polyphonic hymns because women weren’t allowed to talk or sing in church. It wasn’t until 1902 that Pope Pius X issued a decree banning them from church choirs.

There must be some way to exonerate the magisterium for this terrible cruelty of these poor boys in the Church’s midst, but I haven’t seen how yet. I don’t mean to attack the Catholic Church, but all of this is historicaly verifiable and has gotten me rather confused and unnerved.

There is nothing to “exonerate”. The Church has never “tolerated” castration (except for legitimate medical reasons) much less “approved” it. That is like saying that the Church today “tolerates” or “approves” abortion because it allows women who have had abortions full membership of the Church.

If a poor 18th-century couple told the parish priest that their son had suffered an unfortunate accident, or even if they confessed they had deliberately mutilated him, and the boy wanted to sing in a choir, what was the priest to do? Throw him out? No doubt the priest told the parents they must repent and confess their sin, but he could hardly demand “sew the testicles back on”, any more than the Church today can demand “put the baby back in your womb”.

And the original polyphonic choir music was designed for adult male voices only, not women’s or boys’ voices. (The word “tenor” means “holder”, i.e. the “tenor” part was the central “holding” part with the bass below and the alto above, all sung by adult male monks. There was no “need” for a woman’s or boy’s voice to sing the high parts of traditional church choirs. Nor did or could a castrato replace a woman or a boy. Castrati have tenor or alto voice ranges. The “soprano” or highest part, corresponding to a woman’s voice range, was added much later, although in modern music the soprano has become the “melody” or basic part.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Tantum ergo:

No Pope has EVER taught dogmatic, doctrinal error. Some popes have expressed wrong opinions on issues which have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. Some popes have actually committed wrong actions AGAINST Catholic doctrine (such as committing fornication, which is expressly forbidden by the Church), but they have never taught that it was okay for them, or anyone else, to commit fornication.

Wait, I’m confused. This sounds like you are saying that it is a little okay for them to do it as long as they don’t tell other people to do it…

I’m probably wrong. I sure hope I am. But that is what it sounds like.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Liberalsaved:

Wait, I’m confused. This sounds like you are saying that it is a little okay for them to do it as long as they don’t tell other people to do it…

I’m probably wrong. I sure hope I am. But that is what it sounds like.

Peace be with you!

No, what I think Petergee was trying to say is that popes can make mistakes in their personal lives and that won’t affect papal infallibility because they aren’t teaching it to others. It doesn’t mean it’s ok for them to do, of course.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Liberalsaved]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

No, what I think Petergee was trying to say is that popes can make mistakes in their personal lives and that won’t affect papal infallibility because they aren’t teaching it to others. It doesn’t mean it’s ok for them to do, of course.

In Christ,
Rand

Hmmm. I can see that. It still doesn’t really seem to hold water, though, I’m afraid. I wouldn’t agree to be taught ethics by an assassin, for instance.

 

[LilyM]

Seriously liberalsaved, you make it sound like the Popes or priests castrated the poor boys with their own hands!

They didn’t approve of or encourage or condone it being done, they simply had to pick up the pieces and make the best of the consequences of it afterwards. Much like abortion today really.

 

[Liberalsaved]

LilyM:

Seriously liberalsaved, you make it sound like the Popes or priests castrated the poor boys with their own hands!

They didn’t approve of or encourage or condone it being done, they simply had to pick up the pieces and make the best of the consequences of it afterwards. Much like abortion today really.

Oh, I do not. That was a job for the politicians.

I just find the idea that a Pope is immediately incapable of teaching the wrong things to be a bit…ludicrous.

 

[InnocentIII]

AndyF:

LilyM:

Ouch! and without anesthetics.

I think if that were me, anyone who asked me to sing would receive a fistfull of knuckles, and I’d be on a manhunt for the surgeon.

I actually doubt it. At the time it was considered to be a path to wealth as Lily has said and many parents arranged it to give their boy a head start if his voice was good. The Church certainly employed castrati in church choirs but they did not initiate or propogate the practice. Just as an example, when Josef Haydn’s voice broke he was facing starvation. Only his gift for writing music saved him. I agree it was a unpleasant practice but not one that was unique to Europe or to the times. It is our 20th century obsession with sex as the root of all happiness that finds the practice so abhorrent. After all we approve all sorts of mutilations provided of course it is a personal choice. So what is it about castrati that grates - the cutting or the lack of choice. I suspect it is the idea of castration itself … but vasectomy is just castration that allows you to still have sex. So is it just the denial of a sex life? In which case we are imposing our Freud inspired view that a healthy sex life is necessary for human happiness. Other times and other cultures have had different takes on sexuality. Ours is not necessarily Holy Writ unless someone cannonised Sigmund behind my back.

 

[Petergee]

Liberalsaved:

Oh, I do not. That was a job for the politicians.

I just find the idea that a Pope is immediately incapable of teaching the wrong things to be a bit…ludicrous.

It would be ludicrous if it were merely a man claiming this capability. But in fact it is Jesus Christ, the One True God, who guaranteed us that He would send God the Holy Spirit to ensure that His Church would never be led into error. No matter how evil the leaders of the Church are, the Holy Spirit will ensure, until the end of time, that the Devil will never be able to make them lead Christ’s Church away from the faith He gave the Apostles.

I assume you don’t find it “ludicrous” that God made scores of writers over the centuries incapable of teaching the wrong thing when they sat down to write the books which later became part of the Bible. Why is it so “ludicrous” that God would give the leaders of the Church He founded a similar gift?

 

[bones_IV]

Liberalsaved:

Oh, I do not. That was a job for the politicians.

I just find the idea that a Pope is immediately incapable of teaching the wrong things to be a bit…ludicrous.

You have to admit that the scriptures are infallible. And plus God himself is infallible and without error. Someone has to pronounce to the people what He wants to make known to the people especially when declaring new dogma. That why we have a pope as visible head of the church and he represents God. Without infallibility the Church would have fallen apart centuries ago.