 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
Thomas Aquinas’ major contribution was the setting out of a
consistent theological description of Christianity, which integrated the
philosophy of Aristotle and of the leading Arabic scholars of the time.
Aquinas has long been considered, not only the most prominent theologian
of the Middle Ages, but a model for theologians of all times. He was canonised
a saint in 1323, declared a doctor of the Church in 1567 and proclaimed the
protagonist of orthodoxy by Pope Leo XIII.
Thomas Aquinas himself gives three reasons
why women cannot be ordained priests.
- ‘The female sex cannot signify eminence of
degree’.
- ‘Women are forbidden to teach in Church or to
have authority over men’.
- ‘Deaconesses’ of the past had no part in
the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Argument 1. ‘The female sex cannot signify
eminence of degree’.
Reply. This theological argument is based on a presumed,
threefold inferiority of women.
- Women are biologically inferior. Following
Aristotle's view of procreation, Aquinas
believed that a woman is born by some defect in the generative process.
A woman is a ‘defective male’. The
biologically secondary status is also clear from the belief that the male seed
contains the generative power. The mother only provides
a womb that gives nourishment to the seed/foetus. This view was common
among the Fathers. See also the
article by Kim Power, “Of godly men and
medicine: ancient biology and the Christian Fathers on the nature of
woman”.
- Women are socially inferior. A woman is subject to man by
nature, because human reason, though common to both men and women to some
extent, predominates in the male.
- Women are created as dependent on men.
Man was created first. Though both men and
women are the image of God as to our intellectual nature,
man is the image of God in a special sense.
Aquinas argues that, on account of these inherent defects, woman
cannnot signify eminence of degree and can, therefore, not represent Christ as
an ordained minister.
Conclusion: Since women are absolutely equal to men, both
biologically, socially and in the order of creation, the argument is invalid.
In fact, the argument rests on the social and cultural prejudices of the time.
Argument 2. ‘Women are forbidden to teach in Church
or to have authority over men’.
Reply. 1 Timothy 2,11-15
and 1 Corinthians 14,34-35 only mean a
temporary exclusion of women from speaking in the assembly, or having another
function. Extending Paul's sayings to a fixing of the status of women goes
beyond the inspired sense.
Aquinas will also have been influenced by the fact that this text had
been quoted by the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Apostolic
Constitutions, both of which were wrongly attributed to the Apostles
themselves.
Conclusion: this scriptural argument is not a valid reason to
exclude women from the priesthood. If it were, why does
present Church Law allow women to
teach in and preside over liturgical functions?
Argument 3. ‘Deaconesses’ of the past had no
part in the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Because of historical ignorance, Aquinas dismisses the deaconess as
‘a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies
in the Church’.
We know, however, that deaconesses were validly ordained as
ministers of the sacramental diaconate.
Conclusion: If Aquinas had known what we know, he would have
admitted the capacity of women for sacramental ordination.
It is clear that Thomas Aquinas's reasons for rejecting the
ordination of women rested on ignorance and on the social and cultural
prejudices of the time. Surely his reasonings do not reflect
valid Tradition. In this matter he is no
valid witness to Christ's revealed will.
Objection?
Rome says: ‘The same conviction [that women cannot be
ordained] animates mediaeval theology, even if the Scholastic doctors, in their
desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present arguments on this
point that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting or would even
rightly reject.’ Inter Insigniores,
§ 7.
Reply: It is obvious from Aquinas’s arguments that none
of his scriptural or theological reasons are valid. This undermines their
authority and even their ‘witness’ to a socalled
‘tradition’. The truth of the matter is that the real reasons for
excluding women, as reflected in the ‘arguments’ themselves, were the
enduring social and cultural prejudices against women.
- Read also: The exclusion of women
from the priesthood according to Thomas Aquinas, by Umberto Eco;
- Aquinas on Women. If only he knew
what we know . . .
Documents on St. Thomas Aquinas
Women and
procreation
Inferiority of
women
Arguments
Overview
The priest as
sign
Women and holy
orders
If Thomas had
known
Follow @JohnWijngaards
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!