Pope creates two new doctors of the Church [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic_Press said:
Oct 8, '12 6:00 am
Pope Benedict XVI has named two new Doctors of the Church: the 16th century Spanish priest St John of Avila and the 12th century German nun St Hildegard of Bingen (pictured), reports the Catholic News Agency.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/cathnews/RSS/~4/hzTNwYUtxAg

More…
Click to expand...
It was interesting to me that Hildegard of Bingen was declared a saint after such a long period of time. I’m wondering whether this delay was due to her controversial writings? Just curious if anyone knows about this or how this was dealt with.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
It was interesting to me that Hildegard of Bingen was declared a saint after such a long period of time. I’m wondering whether this delay was due to her controversial writings? Just curious if anyone knows about this or how this was dealt with.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about her. What is controversial?
 
MarcoPolo said:
I don’t know much about her. What is controversial?
Click to expand...
Some of her writings are pretty racy for a woman who entered the monastery at a young age (some say at eight years old), e.g.,

“When a woman is making love with a man, a sense of heat in her brain, which brings with it sensual delight, communicates the taste of that delight during the act and summons forth the emission of the man’s seed. And when the seed has fallen into its place, that vehement heat descending from her brain draws the seed to itself and holds it, and soon the woman’s sexual organs contract, and all the parts that are ready to open up during the time of menstruation now close, in the same way as a strong man can old something enclosed in his fist.”

fordham.edu/halsall/med/hildegarde.asp

I have always assumed that the reason she was never canonized as a saint until now was because some of her writings are a bit “out there” but I don’t really know.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I have always assumed that the reason she was never canonized as a saint until now was because some of her writings are a bit “out there” but I don’t really know.
Click to expand...
Well, for Catholics, we believe the Spirit will move the Church to announce a person’s sainthood or “doctorage” when the Spirit chooses. But I did a quick search and found this page that has some of Pope Benedict’s talks about her and there is not a focus on her graphic sexual posits. It is more ordered toward her wisdom regarding monastic life and even her role as a 12th century woman who was revered.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Well, for Catholics, we believe the Spirit will move the Church to announce a person’s sainthood or “doctorage” when the Spirit chooses. But I did a quick search and found this page that has some of Pope Benedict’s talks about her and there is not a focus on her graphic sexual posits. It is more ordered toward her wisdom regarding monastic life and even her role as a 12th century woman who was revered.
Click to expand...
Right–and of course I wouldn’t expect the pope to focus on her racier work at a general audience.

Some have attributed her canonization to the pope’s strong desire to have a German declared a doctor of the church, but this seems a little unfair. I know she is a favorite of feminist theologians, so maybe it is more about having more women declared to be doctors of the church? Or sort of an olive branch to feminists?
 
First off, that’s not a “racy sexual” statement. It’s boring, dry-as-dust medieval medical textbook stuff. (About sex, granted.) It’s also scientifically out of date now, but was right in the mainstream back then. The stuff about “heat” is about Greco-Roman humors theory, which survives today only in various flavors of Eastern folk medicine (like ayurvedic, etc.) but which was high tech in medieval times.

Second, if the Catholic theologian or saint never can write about sex, there are obviously several thousand famous commentaries on the Song of Songs which are purely figments of my imagination. Writing about sex as a metaphor for Christ’s love for the Church, and about delight and pleasure as an important part of God’s plan, is fairly common throughout Church history. (Although people under forty were sometimes discouraged from reading Songs, because they might get a little too into the imagery and thus ignore the metaphorical meanings.)

Third, the real beauty and strength of St. Hildegarde’s theology is underappreciated in the US, but the Pope is extremely well read in medieval theology and is in a position to understand the importance of St. Hildegarde’s teachings. Since he is himself one of the greatest theologians living, and indeed one of the twentieth century’s greats, and probably the greatest theologian pope in centuries, you should trust his judgement or come right out and call him a theological liar and an academic fraud.

He’s putting his reputation on the line for posterity by declaring these two to be Doctors of the Church, and he wouldn’t do that just to score brownie points with feminists who will hate the Church anyway. St. Hildegarde’s mystical theology is so important that he willingly risks misunderstandings and craziness from the New Age crowd, in order to make it clear that people should read what she really said.

A few medical comments about sex, or about how licorice and fennel are good for practically everything that ails you – that’s not the kind of doctor of the Church that she’s being named. 🙂
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Some have attributed her canonization to the pope’s strong desire to have a German declared a doctor of the church, but this seems a little unfair. I know she is a favorite of feminist theologians, so maybe it is more about having more women declared to be doctors of the church? Or sort of an olive branch to feminists?
Click to expand...
I’m going to have to agree with Mintaka - to belittle her contributions is to ignore that even in her own time the men revered her and preserved a woman’s writings even from the 12th century, plus that Pope Benedict’s character does not seem prone to submitting to feminists. It rather seems that St. Hildegard is deserving.
 
MarcoPolo said:
I’m going to have to agree with Mintaka - to belittle her contributions is to ignore that even in her own time the men revered her and preserved a woman’s writings even from the 12th century, plus that Pope Benedict’s character does not seem prone to submitting to feminists. It rather seems that St. Hildegard is deserving.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but she’s also an absolutely AWEsome mystic and has been a real inspiration to me personally. 👍
 
Re: Pope creates two new doctors of the Church [CNAU]
40.png
Thistle:
She said stones have healing powers which, of course, is not true.
Click to expand...
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4733467041925374&pid=15.1

In another thread you posted the same content.

What are your true feelings about this new Doctor of the Church?
 
I will have to learn more to have an opinion. I guess that is the whole point of a Doctor of the Church, isn’t it. “You teach, I learn.” I trust the Holy Father completely in this decision.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Right–and of course I wouldn’t expect the pope to focus on her racier work at a general audience.

Some have attributed her canonization to the pope’s strong desire to have a German declared a doctor of the church, but this seems a little unfair. I know she is a favorite of feminist theologians, so maybe it is more about having more women declared to be doctors of the church? Or sort of an olive branch to feminists?
Click to expand...
She has been highly regarded since before she died.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Some of her writings are pretty racy for a woman who entered the monastery at a young age (some say at eight years old), e.g.,

“When a woman is making love with a man, a sense of heat in her brain, which brings with it sensual delight, communicates the taste of that delight during the act and summons forth the emission of the man’s seed. And when the seed has fallen into its place, that vehement heat descending from her brain draws the seed to itself and holds it, and soon the woman’s sexual organs contract, and all the parts that are ready to open up during the time of menstruation now close, in the same way as a strong man can old something enclosed in his fist.”

fordham.edu/halsall/med/hildegarde.asp

I have always assumed that the reason she was never canonized as a saint until now was because some of her writings are a bit “out there” but I don’t really know.
Click to expand...
Other than not fully understanding the modern science of reproduction (which no one of her time would have had the technology to be able to do) what’s so racy about that? Seems perfectly orthodox to me.
 
brianwalden said:
Other than not fully understanding the modern science of reproduction (which no one of her time would have had the technology to be able to do) what’s so racy about that? Seems perfectly orthodox to me.
Click to expand...
The controversy as I understand it stems from what she was doing writing about female orgasms while she was living in a monastery. This, again as I understand it, is commonly understood as reason that she was never canonized–but of course that now has changed.

But you’re right, there’s certainly nothing unorthodox about the statements themselves. Now as for the healing rocks, I have no idea.
 
Everybody back then thought that rocks could heal. St. Albert the Great’s book on rocks talks about rocks’ healing properties, also.

And of course, there are rocks that cool the hands. (Which is why they’re still used as handcoolers – they have interesting properties of heat conduction.) Amber does have effects on static electricity and makes your hair stand up, if you rub it. Etc., etc. Medieval physical science at that point was equal parts observation/experiment and hearsay, especially hearsay from classical times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top