The Hunger Artists, Maud Ellmann
Ive read eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven
But it's still difficult to figure how the Vatican insists the consumable Host is God's flesh, inherently sexual of course, meanwhile historically holding extremely pessimistic views about human sexuality - anything other than just the sinful labor specifically required for procreation
With respect, Ellmann’s argument is highly speculative, depends on psychoanalytic assumptions that are not generally accepted as sound empirical psychology today, and is quoted here without the context necessary to evaluate what she is actually claiming. Treating the passage as proof that eating is “inherently sexual” simply assumes the conclusion and overextends her actual claim in the book. It also imposes an external psychoanalytic framework on Catholic theology while ignoring the distinctions Catholicism itself makes among embodiment, sexuality, marriage, celibacy, and sacramental communion.
A rereading of Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Matthew 19, Theology of the Body, and the relevant sections of the Catechism would considerably complicate this interpretation.


















