Alice Von Hildebrand

[katy]

Does anyone know about this person? SHe is described as a philosopher, but some quotes of what she has written seem odd for an intellectual woman, or man, for that matter.

 

[msproule]

I do not know a lot about her, other than she is the widow of philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

I know her husband was very well regarded. I once heard that Pope Pius XII called him “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church”, or something like that.

 

[setter]

Alice von Hildebrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alice von Hildebrand (born 1923 in Brussels, Belgium) is a Catholic philosopher and theologian.

She was married to the famous philosopher and theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), meeting him at Fordham University in New York where she was a student and he was a professor. She remained married to him until his death.

Alice von Hildebrand lives in the United States and is a lecturer and an author, whose works include: The Privilege of Being a Woman (2002) and The Soul of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich von Hildebrand (2000), a biography of her late husband.

Bibliography

Greek Culture, the Adventure of the Human Spirit, editor (G. Braziller, 1966)
Introduction to a Philosophy of Religion (Franciscan Herald Press, 1970)
By Love Refined: Letters to a Young Bride (Sophie Institute Press, 1989)
Women and the Priesthood (Franciscan University Press, 1994) ISBN 0940535726
By Grief Refined: Letters to a Widow (Franciscan University Press, 1994)
Memoiren und Aufsätze gegen den Nationalsozialismus, 1933–1938, with Dietrich von Hildebrand and Rudolf Ebneth, (Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1994)ISBN 3786717370
Soul of a Lion: Dietrich Von Hildebrand: a Biography (Ignatius Press, 2000) ISBN 089870801X
The Privilege of Being a Woman (Veritas Press, 2002)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_von_Hildebrand

A Twentieth-Century Doctor of the Church

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s forward to Alice von Hildebrand’s biography of her late husband draws together the several threads of a most extraordinary life:

“Dietrich von Hildebrand was exceptional in many ways. His extensive writings on Christian philosophy, spiritual theology, and in defense of the Church’s teaching, place him among the great thinkers of the twentieth century. His steadfast and determined opposition to totalitarianism, whether in the form of National Socialism or Marxist Leninism, a conviction that would cost him greatly during his life, illustrates the profound clarity of his moral vision and his willingness to suffer for what he knew was true” (9).

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202revw.asp

 

[fix]

katy:

Does anyone know about this person? SHe is described as a philosopher, but some quotes of what she has written seem odd for an intellectual woman, or man, for that matter.

Can you cite some? Everything I have had the opportunity to read was very good.

 

[Dorothy]

katy:

Does anyone know about this person? SHe is described as a philosopher, but some quotes of what she has written seem odd for an intellectual woman, or man, for that matter.

I remember several years ago seeing her on EWTN. I was very impressed with her.

 

[Lucania]

Mother Angelica had Alice Von Hildebrand as a guest on her show a few times that I recall. I remember thinking what a brilliant, totally Catholic woman she is.

 

[katy]

fix:

Can you cite some? Everything I have had the opportunity to read was very good.

These two caught my eye. I’ve never read a book of hers.

"Women have the key because they are the guardians of purity. This is already clearly indicated by the structure of their bodies, which chastely hides their intimate organs. "

“…men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive …”

[http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=530](javascriptl(‘http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID%3D530’)

 

[fix]

katy:

These two caught my eye. I’ve never read a book of hers.

"Women have the key because they are the guardians of purity. This is already clearly indicated by the structure of their bodies, which chastely hides their intimate organs. "

The rest says:

Because their organs are “veiled,” indicating their mystery and sacredness, women have the immense privilege of sharing the sex of the blessed one: Mary, the most holy of all creatures.

Feminism began in Protestant countries, for the plain reason that they had turned their backs on Christ’s mother, as if the Savior of the world would feel deprived of the honor given to his beloved Mother…

“…men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive …”

Ok, I found this…

…Each sex has its strengths; each sex has its weaknesses. According to God’s admirable plan, the husband is to help his wife overcome these weaknesses so that all the treasures of her femininity will come to full bloom, and vice versa.

How many men truly become “themselves” thanks to the love of their wives. How may wives are transformed by their husband’s strength and courage…

** Q: How can women’s purported weakness be seen as a source strength? **

Von Hildebrand: Granted that from a naturalistic point of view, men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive – most great works in theology, philosophy and fine arts have been made by men. They are the great engineers, the great architects.

But the Christian message is that, valuable as all these inventions are, they are dust and ashes compared to every act of virtue. Because a woman by her very nature is maternal – for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother – she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them – for maternity implies suffering – is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon…

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=530

If you read the entire piece it makes great sense and I think is very insightful and edifying.

 

[DVina]

I heard her on a Mother Angelica live show saying these same things. I thought it ws the most beautiful case for modesty I have ever heard.

 

[jimmy]

katy:

Does anyone know about this person? SHe is described as a philosopher, but some quotes of what she has written seem odd for an intellectual woman, or man, for that matter.

She is the wife of Deitrich Vod Hildebrand(He is now dead). She is professor at some university, can’t recall which.

 

[Jeanette_L]

She was also recently on EWTN with Father Pacwa (within the last couple of months), and she was a woman with a brilliant mind. And her faith seemed as steady and sure as you almost only find in a person of her age.

I’ve been meaning to look into some of her books. She used to teach philosophy at a university in New York City, which was rare to have a woman teaching in that field in her day, let alone Catholic! She was quite an anomily and still is. I’m not sure if she is still there, but she is still very active.

 

[udral]

katy:

These two caught my eye. I’ve never read a book of hers.

"Women have the key because they are the guardians of purity. This is already clearly indicated by the structure of their bodies, which chastely hides their intimate organs. "

“…men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive …”

[http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=530](javascriptl(‘http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID%3D530’)

Here is more:

The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands,** convinced them that they, too, had to adopt a secularist mentality:They, too, should enter the work force; they, too, should prove to themselves that they were someone by getting diplomas, competing with men in the work market, showing that they were their equals and – when given opportunities – could outsmart them.**

Because a woman by her very nature is maternal – for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological or spiritual mother – she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them – for maternity implies suffering – is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.

Here is a brief biography of this lady:

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand was born in Brussels, Belgium. She earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Fordham University. She was the wife of the famous philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand.** She is the author of Introduction to Philosophy and collaborated with her husband in the writing of Situation Ethics, Graven Images, and The Art of Living. In 1989 Sophia Institute Press published her book, By Love Refined. She has lectured extensively and is Professor Emeritus ** at Hunter College of the City of New York.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-04/vonhildebrand.html

Personally this just seems so hypocritical to me. As PROFESSOR EMERITUS she is the epitome of the career woman. She probably spent around 8 years just getting her Ph.D., she must have done much more career related material to get a Professor Emeritus type of position in a philosophy-related field. Philosophy is not exactly a booming field, and I am betting the competition is pretty fierce.

So here is this woman, the fruits of whose entire life depend on the efforts of feminists, putting down the very movement that allowed her to become who she is and write articles that would actually be read.

She sure got her diplomas, and surely had to compete with men to get her Professor Emeritus position!

It seems like if she fully embraced what she said in the article she would have been a stay at home mom and dutiful homemaker, would never have gotten a Ph.D. and would never have written that article and would have contributed to the system in which men are the primary achievers of deeds that don’t relate to homemaking and raising kids.

It kind of reminds me of Dr. Laura who suggests that women should say at home raising the kids (if I remember right). All I am thinking is “Yeah, you’re a DOCTOR, and also a fairly succesful media persona.” These people are the modern Pharisees if you ask me, advocating systems they themselves do not follow, and in fact putting down the very things that they do follow.

Such a person simply cannot be taken seriously and does not deserve anyone’s respect.

 

[Dorothy]

jimmy:

She is the wife of Deitrich Vod Hildebrand(He is now dead). She is professor at some university, can’t recall which.

I believe it is Hofstra University, in New York.

 

[setter]

udral:

Here is more:

Here is a brief biography of this lady:

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-04/vonhildebrand.html

Personally this just seems so hypocritical to me.
So here is this woman, the fruits of whose entire life depend on the efforts of feminists, putting down the very movement that allowed her to become who she is and write articles that would actually be read.

It seems like if she fully embraced what she said in the article she would have been a stay at home mom and dutiful homemaker, would never have gotten a Ph.D. and would never have written that article and would have contributed to the system in which men are the primary achievers of deeds that don’t relate to homemaking and raising kids.

Such a person simply cannot be taken seriously and does not deserve anyone’s respect.

Because of the pervasive influence that secular feminism has had on this generation to hijack and propagate a false, non-Christ based form of humanism, I can see how one could incorrectly attribute contradiction to this intellectually astute and humble woman of God. It all comes down to Christian virtue, not suppressing or denying one’s complementary gender identity, and embracing God’s vocational will for one’s life.

 

[udral]

setter:

Because of the pervasive influence that secular feminism has had on this generation to hijack and propagate a false, non-Christ based form of humanism, I can see how one could incorrectly attribute contradiction to this intellectually astute and humble woman of God. It all comes down to Christian virtue, not suppressing or denying one’s complementary gender identity, and embracing God’s vocational will for one’s life.

Yeah, but read what she said…

The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands, convinced them that they, too, had to adopt a secularist mentality:They, too, should enter the work force; they, too, should prove to themselves that they were someone by getting diplomas, competing with men in the work market, showing that they were their equals and – when given opportunities – could outsmart them.

“…men are stronger: not only because they are physically stronger, but also because they are more creative, more inventive and more productive …”

What did she do? She focused on getting a Ph.D. and becoming a professor. I’ve been talking to some of my professors and finding out what it takes to get a job such as that. After you get your Ph.D. you spend some 5 years publishing in an effort to prove yourself to get tenure. So let’s see… Say she gets her Ph.D. by 26 years old, then she spends 5 years focusing on publishing to get into a tenured position, that makes her 31, then she writes books, teaches classes etc.

Sounds like a career woman to me. If she was a wife and a mother, she did not dedicate most of her time to it, if she had she would not have made it so far academically.

So what she ended up doing is getting diplomas, competing with men in the market, and in fact to such a great extent that she became professor emeritus. Very few people achieve such heights in the academia.

And now she is writing about how women should focus on their roles as wives and mothers, not careers? Puuuuhlease.

Where are her 10 children, adopted if she couldn’t have her own? Where are her years of homeschooling and homemaking and cooking dinner for her intellectually superior husband, or in her own words “stronger, more creative, and productive”?

It seems like she’s an exception to her own rule. It seems like she’s a self-sufficient, intellectual woman, right up there with the men. It seems like an awful lot of her time was spent on intellectual work rather than mothering.

She’s one of them career-focused feminists, that’s what the facts of her life show.

Feminist is really not such a bad thing, it is just the belief that women are not inferior to men and should have the same opportunities in life. Careers for women aren’t bad either, despite what some say. Just look at this lady, chances are her career is far more stellar than that of any man on this forum.

If only she didn’t see herself as “special” and unlike the other women who should focus instead on being wives and mothers.

 

[setter]

udral:

Yeah, but read what she said…

What did she do? She focused on getting a Ph.D. and becoming a professor. I’ve been talking to some of my professors and finding out what it takes to get a job such as that. After you get your Ph.D. you spend some 5 years publishing in an effort to prove yourself to get tenure. So let’s see… Say she gets her Ph.D. by 26 years old, then she spends 5 years focusing on publishing to get into a tenured position, that makes her 31, then she writes books, teaches classes etc.

Sounds like a career woman to me. If she was a wife and a mother, she did not dedicate most of her time to it, if she had she would not have made it so far academically.

So what she ended up doing is getting diplomas, competing with men in the market, and in fact to such a great extent that she became professor emeritus. Very few people achieve such heights in the academia.

And now she is writing about how women should focus on their roles as wives and mothers, not careers? Puuuuhlease.

Where are her 10 children, adopted if she couldn’t have her own? Where are her years of homeschooling and homemaking and cooking dinner for her intellectually superior husband, or in her own words “stronger, more creative, and productive”?

It seems like she’s an exception to her own rule. It seems like she’s a self-sufficient, intellectual woman, right up there with the men. It seems like an awful lot of her time was spent on intellectual work rather than mothering.

She’s one of them career-focused feminists, that’s what the facts of her life show.

Feminist is really not such a bad thing, it is just the belief that women are not inferior to men and should have the same opportunities in life. Careers for women aren’t bad either, despite what some say. Just look at this lady, chances are her career is far more stellar than that of any man on this forum.

If only she didn’t see herself as “special” and unlike the other women who should focus instead on being wives and mothers.

If all this conjecture and presumption on your part is correct, then yes, she is a two faced, double talking, sophisticated phony who is only plagiarizing the wisdom and depth of insight of others into what true Christian feminism and the mystery of womanhood is all about. My point: She is the real thing and consider that you are missing something in your projected construct onto her.

 

[gardenswithkids]

udral:

So here is this woman, the fruits of whose entire life depend on the efforts of feminists, putting down the very movement that allowed her to become who she is and write articles that would actually be read…

…She’s one of them career-focused feminists, that’s what the facts of her life show.

Feminist is really not such a bad thing, it is just the belief that women are not inferior to men and should have the same opportunities in life.

I would hardly attribute the fruits of her life to feminism. Feminism originally sought to correct the sins of men who dismiss the intelligence women can have and the contributions that women can make. What if men were moved to recognize the intelligence, contribution and dignity of women for some other reason? What if something besides feminism motivated the belief that women are not inferior to men?

Alice Von Hildebrand is an old woman, (born in 1923 according to an earlier post.) Her beloved husband died in 1977, when modern feminism was still young. I believe her success, academic and otherwise, is better attributed to holiness, both her own and the holiness of people that surrounded her, like her husband.

Don’t falsely attribute her success to feminism because that is not the only way to overcome sexism. Holiness overcomes sins such as sexism too. But feminism seeks to overcome sexism by frequently asking women to imitate men and deny our maternal instincts. Holiness invite us all to become the men and women that God created us to be.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t see where she’s a hypocrite. I don’t see any mention of her having had physical children and then neglecting them, nor neglecting her husband. What obligation is she under to adopt children if she could not have them for whatever reason? I also don’t see how taking von Hildebrand’s writings out of context is going to prove anything. Also, it is important to fact-check quotes attributed to individuals, as they may not be correct at all, or again, taken out of context.

She isn’t saying that women MUST be barefoot and pregnant, always at home, always homeschooling 10 children (and those that can- more power to you- good job). She isn’t saying they must all be mothers. She is saying that to be modest is a good thing. She is saying it is OK to be a woman, to be different from a man; that a woman does not have to behave as a man to get ahead in the world, that by her nature it is simply sufficient that she is a woman.

Her definition of what constitutes modest is based on that of a woman in her 80s, and her place in time- gee, just like that of poor St. Paul, who is often blamed for forcing headgear on the tops of women’s heads inappros to the century.

Philosophy is not Theology (as pointed out to me more than once by my live-in philosopher). It is supposed to have points of intent (apriori) backed by logic. It is then discussed and refuted from other viewpoints of other philosophers.

A particular philosophy doesn’t have to be liked. I don’t like Derrida, Foucalt, and that little runt Sartre. The fallacies in their logic are long, and their entire structure, to me, is shallow. For that matter, I am not always in agreement with Alice von Hilldebrand’s attributed opinions on modest dress.

But, if I say such a thing, philosophically, I have to be able to back up what I say by proving them wrong using other philosophers. And I have to have the whole text of the philosopher in question, then present my argument by offering evidence thorugh my own sources, not merely my opnion.:twocents:

 

[udral]

setter:

If all this conjecture and presumption on your part is correct, then yes, she is a two faced, double talking, sophisticated phony who is only plagiarizing the wisdom and depth of insight of others into what true Christian feminism and the mystery of womanhood is all about. My point: She is the real thing and consider that you are missing something in your projected construct onto her.

What did I project onto her? I provided a biography of her, a woman with a Ph.D. in philosophy, a woman who has written books, a woman who is professor emeritus at a university, a woman who lectures, writes etc.

She is a career woman. She is not a stay at home mom, not a housewife. She’s a part of the academic elite, and it took her great effort and time to get there.

That she then goes on and puts down the idea of women going out into the career world to compete with men, and says how women are by nature motherly … well. She certainly is not such a woman.

 

[udral]

gardenswithkids:

I would hardly attribute the fruits of her life to feminism.

If it hadn’t been for feminism she would never have had the opporutnity to be allowed to go to school, to get a Ph.D. in philosophy, to then earn a position as professor emeritus, to write and publish books, to lecture.

Before feminism women were confined to the home, wives or mothers was all the could be. (Or nuns.)

What was life like for women a few hundred years ago before the beginnings of feminism? Even after feminism began to some extent schools for women were “finishing schools” teaching women how to be homemakes. Only relatively recently have women been full participants in the highest echelons of academia. All thanks to the efforst of feminists. Voting, opportunities in academics, the workplace etc. are all things feminists fought for and suceeded in winning.

As far as holiness goes? I don’t know. The Church has been around for 2000 years, in Medieval Europe it had tremendous power. They had plenty of opportunities to raise women on an equal footing with men, but they didn’t.