Did early church fathers loathe women?

[Darryl_B]

St. John Chrysostom, On Priesthood, VI, ch. 8
“There are in the world a great many situations that weaken the conscientiousness of the soul. First and foremost of these is dealings with women. In his concern for the male sex, the superior may not forget the females, who need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin. In this situation the evil enemy can find many ways to creep in secretly. For the eye of woman touches and disturbs our soul, and not only the eye of the unbridled woman, but that of the decent one as well.”

I’m not sure the problem with this passage. The Priest needs to keep himself pure, one danger is the lure of a woman, but the priest (superior in the Church) cannot just ignore the females, but they need to approach the subject with greater care to retain the purity and resist the lure to sin.

For they excite him who does not restrain them, to love of glory, and to boastfulness, and to desire for this world’s goods, and draw him downwards, both to luxury and laxity of life, and to laziness, and, little by little, to evils worse than these which result from them. For many are the circumstances in society which have the power to upset the balance of the mind, and to hinder its straightforward course; and first of all is his social intercourse with women. For it is not possible for the Bishop, and one who is concerned with the whole flock, to have a care for the male portion of it, but to pass over the female, which needs more particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins. But the man who is appointed to the administration of a Bishopric must have a care for the moral health of these, if not in a greater, at least in no less a degree than the others. For it is necessary to visit them when they are sick, to comfort them when they are sorrowful, and to reprove them when they are idle, and to help them when they are distressed; and in such cases the evil one would find many opportunities of approach, if a man did not fortify himself with a very strict guard. For the eye, not only of the unchaste, but of the modest woman pierces and disturbs the mind.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not sure the problem with this passage. The Priest needs to keep himself pure, one danger is the lure of a woman, but the priest (superior in the Church) cannot just ignore the females, but they need to approach the subject with greater care to retain the purity and resist the lure to sin.

Well, he’s talking about a bishop here, I think, not just a priest, but that’s beside the point. What would be considered ‘offensive’ here, I think, is the assertion that women are more prone to sin than men are.

At best, we can suggest that he’s projecting here – presuming he’s straight, women are more a near occasion of sin to him than men are. At worst, he’s misogynistic. Yet, the more reasonable conclusion is that he’s a product of the culture in which he was raised. Back then, women were seen in that light; Chrysostom’s words, then, aren’t dogmatic assertions of the Church, or even evidence that the Church hates women! Rather, they’re simply evidence that 4th Century A.D. western society was predisposed against women.

 

[Darryl_B]

Well, he’s talking about a bishop here, I think, not just a priest, but that’s beside the point. What would be considered ‘offensive’ here, I think, is the assertion that women are more prone to sin than men are.

At best, we can suggest that he’s projecting here – presuming he’s straight, women are more a near occasion of sin to him than men are. At worst, he’s misogynistic. Yet, the more reasonable conclusion is that he’s a product of the culture in which he was raised. Back then, women were seen in that light; Chrysostom’s words, then, aren’t dogmatic assertions of the Church, or even evidence that the Church hates women! Rather, they’re simply evidence that 4th Century A.D. western society was predisposed against women.

He isnt saying woman have a greater propensity to sin.

 

[Darryl_B]

St. John Chrysostom
“The whole of her bodily beauty is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum, and the fluid of digested food… If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is merely a whitened sepulcher.”

Can anyone tell me where this citation comes from? Besides containing the obvious 4 physical states sanguine melancholy (forget the other two because I never studied doctoring) that was common in Greek understanding of the composition of man, all I am seeing in this quote is an argument to avoid loose women.

 

[Memaw]

I’m betting that the folks who disseminate this quote (and it’s used often to demonstrate the Church’s alleged antipathy to women) don’t know where it comes from. This is one of Chrysostom’s earliest writings; when young, he and some friends embraced the ascetic life, becoming monks. One of his closest friends, Theodore, left the ascetic life for the allure of worldly pleasures; he chanced upon a pretty girl, Hermione, and was crushing on her in a big way. Chrysostom wrote to Theodore, reminding him that the pleasures of this world were fleeting and true goodness came from seeking eternal life: “corporeal beauty indeed God has confined within the limits of nature, but grace of soul is released from the constraint and bondage arising from that cause inasmuch as it is far superior to any bodily symmetry: and it depends entirely upon ourselves and the grace of God.”

So, what does Chrysostom tell Theodore in this quote? Well, essentially, all he’s saying is “beauty is only skin deep”! Is that mysogenistic? Of course not! In fact, the way the quote is presented above, you’d think that Chrysostom was railing against women per se, but that’s not what the quote truly says; rather, it’s simply asserting that beauty itself is transitory and superficial, and the things that make it up are things that we’d recoil from, if we experienced them outside of the context of a pretty face:

“if beauty, when it occurs in the body, so fascinates and excites the minds of most men, when the soul is refulgent with it what can match beauty and grace of this kind? For the groundwork of this corporeal beauty is nothing else but phlegm, and blood, and humor, and bile, and the fluid of masticated food. For by these things both eyes and cheeks, and all the other features, are supplied with moisture; and if they do not receive that moisture, daily skin becoming unduly withered, and the eyes sunken, the whole grace of the countenance forthwith vanishes; so that if you consider what is stored up inside those beautiful eyes, and that straight nose, and the mouth and the cheeks, you will affirm the well-shaped body to be nothing else than a whited sepulchre; the parts within are full of so much uncleanness. Moreover when you see a rag with any of these things on it, such as phlegm, or spittle you cannot bear to touch it with even the tips of your fingers, nay you cannot even endure looking at it; and yet are you in a flutter of excitement about the storehouses and depositories of these things?”

Call me silly, but I don’t see a single thing in that quote that points an accusatory finger at femininity or women as such! Take a look for yourself: the document can be found at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library site; it is Chrysostom’s first letter (“An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall”).

That’s a classic example of taking something out of context, interpreting it to suit ones self and using it as a slam against the Catholic Church. Have they no shame??? Thank you Gorgias. God Bless, memaw

 

[Gorgias]

Can anyone tell me where this citation comes from? Besides containing the obvious 4 physical states sanguine melancholy (forget the other two because I never studied doctoring) that was common in Greek understanding of the composition of man, all I am seeing in this quote is an argument to avoid loose women.

Darryl,

Take a look at my post again; I referenced the source and included a link to the CCEL translation of the letter there.

 

[Gorgias]

I couldn’t find Petrus Cantor listed as a Church Father or as a Saint. Can someone provide me with the link please? If he is neither, why is he on the list then?

He was a Christian medieval scholar. I haven’t found an English translation of his works, either on the 'net or otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

He isnt saying woman have a greater propensity to sin.

Take your pick of translations:

“females… need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin”

or

“the female [portion of the flock]… needs more particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins”

Umm… you were saying…?

 

[soren]

The early church fathers didn’t loathe women, they just thought women were inferior. Duh. Read what they wrote. They also thought it was okay to have multiple wives, own slaves, kill those who prayed to a different god, and burn witches. They didn’t know the earth was round or that it went around the sun. If we got into a time-machine and talked to them, we’d likely think they were bigoted, ignorant, arrogant, violent, evil jerks.

 

[FormerXCatholic]

The early church fathers didn’t loathe women, they just thought women were inferior. Duh. Read what they wrote. They also thought it was okay to have multiple wives, own slaves, kill those who prayed to a different god, and burn witches. They didn’t know the earth was round or that it went around the sun. If we got into a time-machine and talked to them, we’d likely think they were bigoted, ignorant, arrogant, violent, evil jerks.

So you joined in 2008 and have whopping total if 3 posts and no religious affiliation mentioned.
Way to go troll.

 

[soren]

FormerXCatholic,

Calling people trolls isn’t very christian.

Are you fat?

Soren

 

[dmar198]

FormerXCatholic,

Calling people trolls isn’t very christian.

Are you fat?

Soren

Well that didn’t last long: he’s banned.

FormerXCatholic :: have you found the posts so far helpful? Is there any way to verify if brethrenboy has seen this thread?

 

[ericc]

The early church fathers didn’t loathe women, they just thought women were inferior. Duh. Read what they wrote. They also thought it was okay to have multiple wives, own slaves, kill those who prayed to a different god, and burn witches. They didn’t know the earth was round or that it went around the sun. If we got into a time-machine and talked to them, we’d likely think they were bigoted, ignorant, arrogant, violent, evil jerks.

Show your sources. Don’t waste your time here if you are not ready to support your allegations.

 

[ericc]

He was a Christian medieval scholar. I haven’t found an English translation of his works, either on the 'net or otherwise.

So how do we know whether the quotation is real? Otherwise, it is so easy for ill-meaning folks to make unsubstantiated claims and urban legends started. We need to to stop these nonsense before it takes a life of its own and waste our time trying to counter them. I already see the same materials being quoted all over the web accusing the Catholic Church as anti-women. Pulling out names from ancient days and attributing them to say something negative about the Church is so easy for them accusers but tough for defenders because we can not find the source and because we can not rebut it, others think the statements to be true. If we have ready answers, we can nullify these accusations in the bud. If we don’t , then whatever gets chanted repeatedly default to be true in their minds. Quoting positive things the Church said about women, doesn’t contra the alleged negative statements.

 

[Gorgias]

So how do we know whether the quotation is real?

We ask them to cite their sources?

(But, if their source itself doesn’t cite the original, what can you do? Tell them that they’re improperly citing their materials?)

 

[Darryl_B]

Take your pick of translations:

“females… need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin”

or

“the female [portion of the flock]… needs more particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins”

Umm… you were saying…?

I take the second one and I don’t remove it from the context either nor would I remove the actual subject (which is the man not the female). He was saying the SITUATION is going to provide the (holy) MAN a propensity to sin because of the circumstance, therefore requires more particular forethought.

I believe that would accurately reflect the pschye of man, particular celebate ones. Cause no room for temptation.

 

[Jeanne1184]

It was in being shown how to do ‘inner work’ that led me to acceptance of the ‘grittier’ elements of being of the female gender. Inner work that that made me conscious of my sinful state rather than the boosting of ‘sinself’ esteem. No more ‘positive affirmations’, no more achieving to convince myself that I was ‘as good as’ a man. No more patchwork on the House of Pretend. I was exhausted.

But it didn’t take any great introspection for me to recognize that, as a female, I was valued less in this world than males. It was everywhere, from childhood up. Women have only been allowed to be fully educated, with the same access to subjects for a little over a hundred years. I learned in a class in college that the education I was taking for granted hadn’t been available fully to even my mother - and not at all for my grandmother, born in 1895.

Some think that not allowing women to vote, be on juries, or be ‘priests’ (for instances) was a purely sexist thing. I did, too, until I had cause to look deeper. I’m grateful for the change of heart because if I’d never been allowed to climb the ladder, I’d never have come to realize there is nothing ‘up there’ that would solve my inner dilemma; I could stop being consumed with the ‘injustice of it all’. By allowing me to ‘compete’, I couldn’t blame ‘lack of opportunity’ anymore for my continued feeling of emptiness and lack of meaning in life.

“Woman has been forced to search for her meaning and her lifeforce outside of her body.” (Unknown)

“My words in her mind: cold polished stones sinking through a quagmire.” - James Joyce

The easiest way a man can demean another man is to say some form of, “What a sissy” or “Don’t be such a girrrrl.” Or in movies to a group of men, “Okay, ladies…get back on that ball field and play like MEN!” We are dogs, heifers, pigs, snakes, ostrich, black widows and scorpions, cat, snail, fish (various)…" But the one that rock-bottom humbled me was: parrot.

Many say that the way to spirituality is ‘to humble oneself’. That hasn’t been my experience - I would never have agreed to intentionally cause myself that much pain; I needed to become willing to be humbled…and open to the opportunities for that that Holy Spirit sent my way.

In the movie, “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, such a hefty opportunity arrived:

Her: But that doesn’t excuse any part of it. I am pond scum.
Him: No…actually, lower.
Her: I am the fungus that feeds on pond scum.
Him: Lower.
Her: The layer of mucous that cruds up the fung…
Him: Lower.
Her (agreeing): Lower.
Him: The pus that infects the mucous that cruds up the fungus.
…some more dialogue…
Her: Except it makes me fungus.

Him: Well, that part I knew.

It wasn’t the description that got me (though, admittedly, the dart was rather pointed ) - it was that last line. Some men (many - Bible and otherwise) recognize the fallen state of women that is more than their own. But it was AA who gave my maladay a name (well, sort of) - spiritual bankruptcy.

Trouble was, the more I tip-toed iinto that foreign land, the more aware I became that ‘bankruptcy’ implied that I *once had * ‘money in the bank’ … and writers were inferring that that had never been my case, as a female. But others offered Hope,

"If there is a real woman

• even a trace of one -
  still there inside grumbling,
  it can be brought to life again.

If there’s one wee spark under all those ashes,
we’ll blow it till the whole pile is red and clear."

C.S. Lewis

 

[Jeanne1184]

I have been in forums before where men supplied writings that mirrored those of this thread - and some of them much more graphic. It was of benefit to me to get the ‘nitty-gritty picture’, but I wondered if it was detrimental to males because they tended to feel better about themselves the more horridness they found about women.

I can appreciate the ‘relief’ some men might feel when they finally find explanations (of sorts) for their intense frustration over the fickleness (understatement ) of women. However, both genders need a Savior. Focusing on the dirt on the other side of the street cleaned neither my side nor theirs.

“It is not Goodness to be better than the worst.” - Seneca

“Don’t see others’ faults, see your own. For if you dwell on others’ faults, your own get stronger.” - Dhammapada: Flaws

All that to say that I think priests are likely put ‘in the know’ concerning the female gender in seminary. Priests would have to walk a fine line between ‘coddling’ a woman’s misery and knowing there is nothing they can truly do to help unless she becomes willing to look deeply within herself. Plus look out for the prowling natures.

As a side note:

A long time ago, I confessed sexual sin but only generally (sex outside of marriage and adulterous affairs). But there was no sense of ‘relief’ like I’d been forgiven, which I’d felt before for other specific things.

Then I came across a writing that said because woman is Darkness, she seeks the “Light” of men. Well, in some strange way, this made the ‘propensity to sin sexually’ sound like spiritual desperation, but theft nonetheless.

Well, putting this together with my lack of ‘relief’ from the first confession, I decided to confess names (no one would know them) and ask not only for forgiveness for stealing their Light, but also ask that their Light be restored to them.

It felt ‘right’ to do, but still no ‘relief’. Trudge, trudge.

Synchronicity takes awhile sometimes…while writing this post, I stopped to watch “Sound Rezn” with Alex McFarland. He said that most people don’t think of sin “as an assault on the Character of God”. Uh, say what?

And then his words began ‘plugging in’. Man has the Image/Character of God inside and when I sinned, it wasn’t against a stone slab commandment, but against His Character within Sons as man. Is it even possible to truly comprehend that I have stolen Light from God??

There will likely be ‘fallout’ (further understanding) from this. Even now I’m recalling that I spent a lifetime being envious of man’s physical power and intellectual ability. Subconsciously, part of my ‘conquests’ were not only selfish in terms of Light, but likely to ‘bring man down to my level’, proving man wasn’t any better than me, after all.

When I think of being in the military and crossing the street so I didn’t have to salute - that refusal to submit to authority may be part of this. Will see.

“Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.” - Thomas Carlyle

 

[Darryl_B]

I have been in forums before where men supplied writings that mirrored those of this thread - and some of them much more graphic. It was of benefit to me to get the ‘nitty-gritty picture’, but I wondered if it was detrimental to males because they tended to feel better about themselves the more horridness they found about women.

I can appreciate the ‘relief’ some men might feel when they finally find explanations (of sorts) for their intense frustration over the fickleness (understatement ) of women. However, both genders need a Savior. Focusing on the dirt on the other side of the street cleaned neither my side nor theirs.

“It is not Goodness to be better than the worst.” - Seneca

“Don’t see others’ faults, see your own. For if you dwell on others’ faults, your own get stronger.” - Dhammapada: Flaws

All that to say that I think priests are likely put ‘in the know’ concerning the female gender in seminary. Priests would have to walk a fine line between ‘coddling’ a woman’s misery and knowing there is nothing they can truly do to help unless she becomes willing to look deeply within herself. Plus look out for the prowling natures.

As a side note:

A long time ago, I confessed sexual sin but only generally (sex outside of marriage and adulterous affairs). But there was no sense of ‘relief’ like I’d been forgiven, which I’d felt before for other specific things.

Then I came across a writing that said because woman is Darkness, she seeks the “Light” of men. Well, in some strange way, this made the ‘propensity to sin sexually’ sound like spiritual desperation, but theft nonetheless.

Well, putting this together with my lack of ‘relief’ from the first confession, I decided to confess names (no one would know them) and ask not only for forgiveness for stealing their Light, but also ask that their Light be restored to them.

It felt ‘right’ to do, but still no ‘relief’. Trudge, trudge.

Synchronicity takes awhile sometimes…while writing this post, I stopped to watch “Sound Rezn” with Alex McFarland. He said that most people don’t think of sin “as an assault on the Character of God”. Uh, say what?

And then his words began ‘plugging in’. Man has the Image/Character of God inside and when I sinned, it wasn’t against a stone slab commandment, but against His Character within Sons as man. Is it even possible to truly comprehend that I have stolen Light from God??

There will likely be ‘fallout’ (further understanding) from this. Even now I’m recalling that I spent a lifetime being envious of man’s physical power and intellectual ability. Subconsciously, part of my ‘conquests’ were not only selfish in terms of Light, but likely to ‘bring man down to my level’, proving man wasn’t any better than me, after all.

When I think of being in the military and crossing the street so I didn’t have to salute - that refusal to submit to authority may be part of this. Will see.

“Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.” - Thomas Carlyle

I think I understand what you are saying but it is difficult because of the disjointed nature of the paragraphs. This world has made a hideous problem for women, it is the world not the Church that has done this.

On the one hand I see women who feel that man is responsible for their feelings of inadequacy, on the other hand I see women, young women who are flaunting themselves like sluts, with no modesty, and having hideous role models doing the same, and then there is the self-mutilating plastic surgery. On the other hand I see women flocking to self-help Evangelical seminars, raising the lioness within but never getting past these seminars.

But yet another hand I do not see these problems arising from men. I see it as woman destroying woman-kind from within.

I can think of a really good role model for women that starts with M.

 

[Gorgias]

I take the second one and I don’t remove it from the context either nor would I remove the actual subject (which is the man not the female).

Fine. Here, again, is the whole sentence:

“For it is not possible for the Bishop, and one who is concerned with the whole flock, to have a care for the male portion of it, but to pass over the female, which needs more particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins.”

He was saying the SITUATION is going to provide the (holy) MAN a propensity to sin because of the circumstance, therefore requires more particular forethought.

I disagree.

Perhaps, if it were “because of his propensity to sins,” then your interpretation would make sense. But, the pronoun is “its,” and therefore, we have to find a referent that matches that pronoun. You might make the claim that “its” is “the flock”… but that wouldn’t make sense, because on one hand you’re claiming that the (whole) flock has a propensity to sins, and yet the meaning of the sentence is to distinguish between parts of the flock.

You’re saying that the referent for the “which” is the ‘situation’? No… there’s no mention of a situation here; the referent for “which” is “the female (portion of the flock)”. The care of this portion of the flock requires particular forethought, because of its propensity to sins (literally, δια το προς τας αμαρτίας ευολισθον, “its tendency towards sin”).

Note that Chrysostom isn’t talking about a priest who has a propensity to sin; rather, he’s pointing out that a qualified bishop is a man who has spent time in the world, and has learned how to deal with all manners of temptation. Since he’s not a hermit or monk, he can’t spend time only with men, but must care for the women in his church, even though caring for them is more ‘dangerous’, per se, to him.

I believe that would accurately reflect the pschye of man, particular celebate ones. Cause no room for temptation.

No… he’s saying exactly the opposite: if it were “cause no room for temptation,” then Chrysostom would be telling priest to run away from contact with women! He’s not – he’s saying that, since a bishop must be in contact with women, he needs to be strong and proven in character!