St.Thomas Aquinas on Women

[handel]

What exactly does this part of the Summa mean?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109201.htm

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

[VoxClamantis]

Not sure what he meant, but it's scientifically inaccurate. In fact, it'd be more accurate to say that "the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness" in the female sex, "while the production of" a man "comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence." He has it exactly backwards, though I wouldn't call the production of either sex a result of a "defect."

[Sophia]

First let's look at the Objection:

 

Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?

Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.

 

 

The "Philosopher" is Aristotle, and the work in question is On the Generation of Animals.  Aristotle's philosophy is unparalleled, but his natural sciences have of course been proven wrong by modern science long ago.  There is much in his biology that is interesting and common-sensical, but it is still for the majority, wrong.

 

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten

 

This first part of the reply refers to a material cause, which is scientifically erroneous.  St. Thomas Aquinas would be the first to admit this if shown modern science.

 

On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

 

This second part is what we would be concerned with today, and the part that would refute some misogynist's idea of womanhood as somehow less human than manhood.

[LiberalJew]

What is the weird obsession that some Christians have with the status of women? Do some disturbed men want justification for ill treatment of their wives? My mother as a teenager was in an abusive relationship and I see no justification for such behavior towards women ever. It enrages me to see men treat women poorly. I do not mean to sound harsh but it is one of my pet peaves.

 

Andy

[orangemetal]

 What the?

 

I don't believe in "modern" science at all but St. Thomas is not making much sense either.

 

I'm so confused

[creimann]

Orange, judging by your avatar you must be very pleased with Lent!

Dear LJ: I like to think of men and women as being equal but not radically interchangeable. The reason why this subject is of especial interest in Christianity is because our faith, which we hold to be from God, elevated woman such that she ceased to be a servant or tool or a plaything, as she was under pagan civilization. Woman is like, not inferior, to man. One particular way to observe how Our Lord elevated woman is to see that He declared marriage to be indissoluble, or indeed reminded people that it truly is indissoluble. There is unity of command, but woman is man's companion, not his servant. Sadly, as women seek to become men in today's neo-pagan world, they in fact are devolving into playthings again. I have heard that the most trafficked data on the Internet is pornography. This is evidence for the spiritual poverty and lack of real understanding of how women and men are intended to interrelate. A decent book about this and other subjects is How Christ Changed the World: The Social Principles of the Catholic Church by Msgr. Luigi Civardi, available through TAN Books. Anyway, the 'fascination' or whatever you called it stems from the importance of the subject matter, and the difference between what God has taught us about women and men and what the world tends to believe.

[LiberalJew]

Dear Creiman,

 

Thank you for the well written post. One of the things that is attractive about Catholicism to me is it's understanding of women. They are not just dogs or property. That is one of the things that I find repellent about Islam. I agree with you that modern capitalistic culture turns women into objects whose purpose is to fulfill lust and lowers them.

 

Andy

[creimann]

Just a brief word about scholasticism: "It is imperative for all students of rational psychology whose claims we defend, that they should keep in constant touch with the current of thought prevalent in this country and abroad. Thus St. Thomas did in his day; thus we should do to-day." Psychology Without a Soul by Hubert Gruender, S.J., 1912, p. x.

You can see there the basic principle of openness to facts. Modern pagan scholars consider scholasticism to be blinkered medieval thinking, but it is actually open to unfolding facts and is quite fruitful. It was set aside by the institutional Church because it tends to prevent the 'spiritual fornication' so eagerly sought by modernists.

[creimann]

Hi Andy, yes it's funny about Islam--contrasting it with modern pagan life is intriguing. Consider: Islam wants women to wear potato sacks, and modern pagans want women to wear, well, nothing. What does Christianity teach? Why, modesty! Christianity recognizes the power of the physical form, but also the dignity of the person: covering people entirely offends the latter, and exposing them out of season the former.

[Sophia]

I don't believe in "modern" science at all but St. Thomas is not making much sense either.

 

Sure you do.  You know that when two zygotes meet they make a baby.  If that baby has an X and a Y chromosome, it will be a male. If it has two X chromosomes, it will be female.  The parents each contribute half of the DNA for their offspring.

 

In my translation of Aristotle's Generation(Arthur Platt,) it says "the female is, as it were, a mutilated male."  This chapter is discussing semen and what it does to the "embryo" that is forming in the female.  The main thrust of this chapter is to determine that the semen (of the male) and the embryo (of the female, but what we would call the egg) do not have soul in actuality but in potential.  I think Aristotle is saying that the male contributes the soul and the female contributes the matter only, and since the "soul" of the male is a perfect replica of the male parent, therefore if the offspring is female it is due to some defect in the material.  It seems to me that Aristotle is presupposing that the female is physically inferior to the male.

 

All of this really doesn't matter however in regard to the nature of women.  Even if it were true that physically women are somehow "misbegotten" or "mutilated," St. Thomas dispels the idea that it is in regard to their nature.  God created "man" as male and female.