Rather than consider those discussions further here, I want to continue this new theme of exploring what hard-nosed Catholics of fundamentalist Protestants think of women. Below I quoted a little excerpt from St. Aquinas. Now, let's take a look at Tertullian:
(1)Man, not woman, is the ‘image of God’.
De Cultu Feminarum, book 1, chap. 1. “You (woman) destroyed so easily God's image, man.”
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 10. “How, then, would God have failed to make any such concession to men more (than to women), whether on the ground of nearer intimacy, as being "His own image," or on the ground of harder toil? But if nothing (has been thus conceded) to the male, much less to the female.”
(2) Every woman carries the curse of Eve
De Cultu Feminarum, book 1, chap 1. (“Every woman should be ....) walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,-the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition.
"In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords it over thee."
And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too.”
- “You are the devil's gateway:
- you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree:
- you are the first deserter of the divine law:
- you are she who persuaded him (Adam) whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack.
- You destroyed so easily God's image, man.
- On account of your desert-that is, death-even the Son of God had to die.”
(3) A woman's head needs to be covered, but not with a crown
Concerning a Crown, chap. 14. “Much less may the Christian put the service of idolatry on his own head-nay, I might have said, upon Christ, since Christ is the Head of the Christian man-(for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a band. But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman's, as already taken possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a crown. She has the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of the angels, much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above. For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness,-a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire?”
(4)It is better for a man not to marry, because it is tainted with concupiscence
An Exhortation to Chastity, chap. 9. “The Lord Himself said,‘Whoever has seen a woman with a view to concupiscence has already violated her in his heart.’ But has he who has seen her with a view to marriage done so less or more? What if he have even married her?-which he would not do had he not desired her with a view to marriage, and seen her with a view to concupiscence; unless it is possible for a wife to be married whom you have not seen or desired. I grant it makes a wide difference whether a married man or an unmarried desire another woman. Every woman, (however), even to an unmarried man, is "another," so long as she belongs to some one else; nor yet is the means through which she becomes a married woman any other than that through which withal (she becomes) an adulteress. It is laws which seem to make the difference between marriage and fornication; through diversity of illicitness, not through the nature of the thing itself. Besides, what is the thing which takes place in all men and women to produce marriage and fornication? Commixture of the flesh, of course; the concupiscence whereof the Lord put on the same footing with fornication. "Then," says (some one), "are you by this time destroying first-that is, single-marriage too? "And (if so), yes not without reason; inasmuch as it, too, consists of that which is the essence of fornication. Accordingly, the best thing for a man is not to touch a woman; and accordingly the virgin's is the principal sanctity, because it is free from affinity with fornication.”
***
Let's see some Originalists on these treatises of the Catholic Church. If you want to stand behind "original intent" as a method of interpreting law, then Canon law should force women to wear head covers and to stay far away from men, for fear of tempting them into impure fornication.
Anti-abortionists want to pretend they are concerned for the well-being of the mother. However, many of them come from a tradition which absolutely demonizes women and sees them as agents of the devil. These zealots are who feminists need to stand up to and expose their misogyny. I don't see what is complicated about that!
Diomed--
ReplyDeletePerhaps in your own haste, you haven't read carefully my post. For example, you wrote:
"anti-Catholicism . . .is one of the few remaining acceptable prejudices left."
Nowhere in my post or the one before it do I claim to be anti-Catholic. I am simply reporting on what early "church fathers" wrote, treatises that you want to suggest are no longer influential with the Catholic church. There is a difference between writing about original texts, such as the Summa Theologica (which, btw, I had to study extensively for my comprehensive examinations at Boston College), AND bashing all Catholics or Chatholicism.
"So it seems that in some sort of haste you failed to properly research a topic and inappropriately labeled an entire group of people misogynists."
Nor do I call, Diomed, "an entire group of people misogynists." What I do say is:
"Anti-abortionists want to pretend they are concerned for the well-being of the mother. However, many of them come from a tradition which absolutely demonizes women and sees them as agents of the devil. These zealots are who feminists need to stand up to and expose their misogyny. I don't see what is complicated about that!"
I am not sure how you get from this paragraph that I am inappropriately labelling an entire group of people misogynists. Aquinas and Tertullian absolutely were misogynists (and they are just two examples). I am arguing that these original texts are part of and shaped the Catholic tradition. I
"Yes, Tertullian, Aquinas, etc… made those postulates based on what they had available to them."
What does this mean? They had hatred of women available to them?
"The changes that were made do not alter the fundamental teachings of the Church."
Ok, so (a) precisely what changes are you talking about and (b) what is the inalterable fundamental teaching of the Churches. I warn you, I am no ignoramus on these matters. And, I am certain you will find that many positions have been altered in the course of a thousand years.
Finally, I find it rather disengenous to take my posts as "anti-Catholic" or to even insinuate that this is a form of bigotry. But, this seems to be a rather well-trodded strategy from the right, to push the "victim" status whenever someone shines a light on aspects of your belief.
"
While the Church may have changed its teachings, the Constitution has not been altered much. Which makes asking what the original authors of the document intended to be a perfectly reasonable endeavor. The closest comparison I can come up with is this: Consulting the writings of Aquinas or Tertullian about current Church issues would be like consulting the writings of William Bradford (one of the authors of the Mayflower Compact for those unfamiliar with American history) on current political matters. While both can offer valuable insights into issues, they are hardly the final authority."
I take it that you have a particular date in mind (the Council of Trent, perhaps?) when the Roman Catholic church officially introduced its own "constitution."
"And then you mention that Canon Law should mandate that women should have to wear coverings etc…This comment shows a huge misunderstanding about Canon Law."
Not entirely a misunderstanding of canon law, if you consider what its original function was. This comment, of course, was intended to be sarcasm, which, in fact, what motivates the entire post. I am trying to point out a double standard among "constitutionalists" or "originalists" who are Roman Catholic or any other religion for that matter. You have taken me seriously, which I appreciate actually. Because, what I take you to be saying is that a Roman Catholic can be: (1) an originalist, (2) assuming you don't take early church fathers to be infallible, or (3) make the mistake of interpreting Canon law from thinkers, such as Aquinas, who bear the same relationship to the Catholic church as William Bradford does to the Constitution.
Is that a fair rendering of your argument?
Aspazia writes, "Nowhere in my post or the one before it do I claim to be anti-Catholic."
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to "claim to be anti-Catholic" to be anti-catholic. As the old saying goes, "If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Attempting to mask your bigotry as a teaching point is very sad and disingenuous.
para-kleeze:
ReplyDelete"Attempting to mask your bigotry as a teaching point is very sad and disingenuous."
This is all you've got?
Dear Diomed,
ReplyDeleteThis is the second time attempting to respond and I am dog tired! I hope it goes through this time.
First of all, thank you--honestly--thank you for keeping up the dialogue with me. I know we aren't going to agree alot and perhaps we are both getting exercised on this issue, but its to your credit that you respond. I find it so disappointing when I get other "anonymous" or one-time comments and they don't follow up.
So, I don't think we are going to ever agree on our perceptions of how the Catholic church and its traditions have impacted women. I do believe that you do not ascribe to the misoygnistic beliefs of Tertullian or Aquinas.
Before I say more, let me also make a few qualifiers. I have attended three Catholic schools. The most influential mentors to me during my academic career have been Jesuit Priests. Jesuits have also nurtured in me a profound commitment to fighting social justice, which is what informs all of my political views. I want to struggle for the poor, the people without voice, the people who are working hard to make their lives better. And, if you look around the globe, you will see that women disproportionately fall into the categories of the poor, the disenfranchised, the brutalized, and the voiceless. So, my feminism is a result of Catholic education. I also discovered philosophy at my Jesuit college.
The Catholic church is an enormous institution, and there are hence a variety of political and moral views/commitments.
Having said all of that, I do think that treatises, especially those such as Aquinas have and continue to make their impact on Western images, ideas, discourse and moral views of women. I simply cannot agree with you that texts like Aquinas and Tertullian no longer influence, in any way, the Catholic church. But, I don't limit their influence to Catholics. In fact, these texts are not at all unlike other texts that comprimse the canons of philosophy and theology. The unconscious or conscious view that women are: inferior, irrational, overly emotional, best suited for childrearing, sexually unrestrained or immoral (especially if unmarried is still very much with us.
To point out one obvious example of the way the Catholic church continues to view women as inferior, just look to its prohibtion on women entering the priesthood.
Again, thank you for your continued dialogue and I am grateful that you reject the misogynist views of Tertullian and Aquinas.
Sincerely, Aspazia
You make some interesting observations, but I think you have misinterpreted these words.
ReplyDeleteFirst I would say, as a Catholic, Mary was the only person to ever stay loyal to God and not sin at all. So I am not sure how it degrades/hurts/is unfair to women to have the belief that the only human ever to be completely loyal to God and pure was a woman.
Also, Eve appears to be the first to sin, true enough, but man's sin was worse than eve's. I remember listening to a whole list of why at an RCIA class, but can only remember one was that he was told by God himself the law and Eve heard it from Adam and Eve was the only one to speak to the serpent that they shouldn't do it, but was tricked while Adam, probably cowering, said nothing.
As for your quotes...
1. True, but not how you think. Earthly realities were made to reflect heavenly ones. God is often shown as the bride groom giving himself completely in love to His bride the church (who in turn does the same). In reality, man can symbolize God and woman the church, but all humans have a feminine role to God and should remember that.
2. I suppose that is true to, though it could just as easily be said every man carries the curse of Adam.
3. It seems that this is talking more about the revering/worship of a woman then the leadership of one. The words crown and idolotry keep sticking out in my mind. Many Jews are quick to point out that God created eve correctly from Adam'srib Not from his foot to be trampled upon nor from his head to be put on a peddestle as this passage seems to warn against, but at his side,his partner and love forever.
4. Paul says this is true (and it is for woman as well) except when one cannot find the control necessary for celibacy. This is because without a family both a man and woman can give themselves completely to God. This seems reasonable in that I could vow poverty and devote my life to serving the poor and downtrodden much easier single than if I had a wife and children. Its harder to give yourself in service with a family to worry about because they become (and rightly so) your first concern.
Oh and also, Paul says no such tradition exists (can't remember where) that says women must cover their head in veils. Apostles trump disciples.