Upvote:1
It seems as though castration was forbidden under canon law, meaning that the official rule of the church was that castrati were not to be created on purpose (surgeons were even occasionally excommunicated for castration). As a sort of loophole, the boys presenting themselves to sing castrato in churches claimed to have been maimed through accident (even though most of them likely were not). But, Pope Clement VIII liked the way castrati sounded and semi-endorsed the practice by refusing to lift the ban on female singers in churches. In my opinion, a ridiculous- and highly imprudent tactic: it almost certainly would lead to and did lead to more castrations. But, Popes can make bad prudential judgements without the Church officially endorsing the evil that comes out of it. We see this in things like Amoris Laetitia, where Francis seems to make bad prudential judgements relating to how "re"married couples are to be received pastorally, which almost certainly leads to an abuse of the Eucharist. But there is no official endors*m*nt of Eucharistic abuse.
Pope Leo XIII, bless that man, banned the hiring of castrato singers to churches, finally doing the thing required to put a stop to this disgusting practice. I am struck by the parallels with the modern world, which pushes parents to chemically castrate their little boys for the same "upward mobility" that came with parenting a successful castrato.