Should female saints be doctors of the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraditionalCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, the answer is so easy–if the pope is the pope and I believe he is, then if he decides to name certain women saints to be doctors of the church, then who is Bp Williamson to say no? BW is shismatic. He confirmed my youngest daughter. AFTER the sacramental ceremonies were over, all those present had to sit and listen to him for another couple of hours while he gave another long sermon. He repeated the same subjects over and over. IMHO, It seemed he really liked the sound of his own voice.
 
Does this excommunicated priest have an opinion on other kinds of female doctors? MDs, dentists, PhDs?
 
Hellisreal said:
What do you wonder about?

By the way, I am not being snarky here. You are in my eyes, a person I hold in deep regard. I am merely asking you to not be so vauge, as you are a teacher. Teach us.
Click to expand...
I’m not that familiar with canon law and tend to not think theologically from a legalistic perspective. As a consequence I do not know what justification there is for declaring female teachers of men to be Doctors of the Church. Therefore, when St. Paul specially writes to the Church at Corinth I Corinthians 14

"33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

To me this would cause one pause before declaring a woman a Doctor of the Church. A Doctor of the Church is not one who pulls teeth or prescribes medicine (though a Doctor of the Church could do those things). A Doctor of the Church is one who teaches the Church by speech and writing what God wishes us to know.

I simply am not aware of the more recent justifications which I assume takes this passage into account. How has the Church interpreted this passage in such a way as to justify declaring women to be master teachers of the Church. I’m very willing to submit to the Church. As a teacher myself I wish to read the justification.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I’m not that familiar with canon law and tend to not think theologically from a legalistic perspective. As a consequence I do not know what justification there is for declaring female teachers of men to be Doctors of the Church. Therefore, when St. Paul specially writes to the Church at Corinth I Corinthians 14

"33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

To me this would cause one pause before declaring a woman a Doctor of the Church. A Doctor of the Church is not one who pulls teeth or prescribes medicine (though a Doctor of the Church could do those things). A Doctor of the Church is one who teaches the Church by speech and writing what God wishes us to know.

I simply am not aware of the more recent justifications which I assume takes this passage into account. How has the Church interpreted this passage in such a way as to justify declaring women to be master teachers of the Church. I’m very willing to submit to the Church. As a teacher myself I wish to read the justification.

CDL
Click to expand...
and i would like it pointed out to me in the Code of Canon Law where it specifically states that female saints cannot be doctors of the church.
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this as the requirements:

The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church).

It also notes that they receive this title because:

the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.

I see no reason why women cannot meet these conditions. And the three there are do meet it in a very great way (some greater than other Doctors). Likewise, especially in the case of St. Teresa and St. Therese, they were commanded by ecclesiastical authorities to write their doctrine.

If the Church has taken the interpretation GP is taking above of that Scripture, writings by women would never be allowed to be published and distributed, and yet quite the opposite has been done with the works of great women saints throughout history.

I have been privileged to read at least one work by each of the 33 Doctors of the Church (and more than one thing for many of them) and the three women deserve to be there as much as any of the others. The doctrines taught by them are especially necessary in our times which is why they have been proclaimed doctors now, in my opinion.

Sts. Catherine and Teresa show the proper response to immorality, discord and faithlessness in the Church. Sts. Teresa and Therese show the path to sanctity in all aspects of one’s life, something lost on modern man who has reduced religion to a matter of theory or private opinion and has banished from everyday life. St. Teresa’s teaching on prayer is probably the best of any Doctor. Likewise, these three women show forth the Church’s doctrine on true femininity, something modern women need to learn from.
 
Of course, female saints can be declared Doctors of the Church. Hence we have Therese of Lisieux, Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena. Anyone who states otherwise does so under the authority of heresy. All three of these women were contemplative nuns; two were Carmelite, Catherine was a third-order Dominican. None of them ever “took to the pulpit.” All three became renowned for their theology through their writings.

Give me a break. Please?
Who would agree with a heretic?
 
Genesis315 said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this as the requirements:

The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church).

It also notes that they receive this title because:

the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.

I see no reason why women cannot meet these conditions. And the three there are do meet it in a very great way (some greater than other Doctors). Likewise, especially in the case of St. Teresa and St. Therese, they were commanded by ecclesiastical authorities to write their doctrine.

If the Church has taken the interpretation GP is taking above of that Scripture, writings by women would never be allowed to be published and distributed, and yet quite the opposite has been done with the works of great women saints throughout history.

I have been privileged to read at least one work by each of the 33 Doctors of the Church (and more than one thing for many of them) and the three women deserve to be there as much as any of the others. The doctrines taught by them are especially necessary in our times which is why they have been proclaimed doctors now, in my opinion.

Sts. Catherine and Teresa show the proper response to immorality, discord and faithlessness in the Church. Sts. Teresa and Therese show the path to sanctity in all aspects of one’s life, something lost on modern man who has reduced religion to a matter of theory or private opinion and has banished from everyday life. St. Teresa’s teaching on prayer is probably the best of any Doctor. Likewise, these three women show forth the Church’s doctrine on true femininity, something modern women need to learn from.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Perhaps I should add the obvious: heretics must distort the truth in order to “justify” their own heresies. It’s a given.
 
In my history classes I teach from Father Rengers’ book, The 33 Doctors of the Church. I don’t skip any of them though I emphasise some more than others based upon the way the class develops. I never deemphasise the three women.

It is a little disingenuous to call my position “anti-women” or “anti-women Doctor” when I ask for information.

Does canon law deal with St. Paul’s passage or does it not?

CDL
 
I voted no. For the same reason they should not be priests. More specifically it seems to violate what St. Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:12 about women teaching men (theology). It seems tough to get around since he appeals to creation to show this is not cultural but structural and in good order. Women are also not the heads of households if the husband is living either. And men can’t give birth. We have different roles.

On the other hand I think there is a reasonable argument that women doctors of the church are approved by the Bishops and therefore they are only teaching in the context of their writings being approved and under the paternal hierarchy. So I guess I am not cemented to my position. But I don’t think a woman should directly teach adult men as EWTN seems to be promoting with new shows these days. Not that a woman can’t be more knowledgable than a man, but why would Saint Paul forbid it if we can now allow it? If a women can’t give a homily why can she have a call in show where she answers men’s theological questions or be a church authority?

Dave
 
It’s clear from both context and Church tradition that St. Paul’s words were meant for the teaching role of Mass. No woman should preach at Mass, that’s a given.

The Church has certainly had women instructing others in the Faith through out her entire existance, from Mothers teaching their children, to countless nuns teaching Catechism classes.

I’m sure Bishop Williamson himself is the product of women teachers (doctors).

Now the question comes into play, does St. Paul’s instruction apply to a Wisdom that can instruct the entire Church, that brings benefit to all those who read it, which is exactly the level of wisdom that is required of a Doctor of the Church.

If fail to see how St. Paul’s words apply to that case. It is not a liturgical role. It is not a hierarchial role. It is an impartation of the Gift of Wisdom, a fruit of the Spirit.
 
Brendan said:
It’s clear from both context and Church tradition that St. Paul’s words were meant for the teaching role of Mass. No woman should preach at Mass, that’s a given.

The Church has certainly had women instructing others in the Faith through out her entire existance, from Mothers teaching their children, to countless nuns teaching Catechism classes.

I’m sure Bishop Williamson himself is the product of women teachers (doctors).

Now the question comes into play, does St. Paul’s instruction apply to a Wisdom that can instruct the entire Church, that brings benefit to all those who read it, which is exactly the level of wisdom that is required of a Doctor of the Church.

If fail to see how St. Paul’s words apply to that case. It is not a liturgical role. It is not a hierarchial role. It is an impartation of the Gift of Wisdom, a fruit of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
It seems reasonable. But I see how the “teach” part might be strioctly liturgical, but the “have authority” part seems extra liturgical. Also, women teaching children is different than women teaching adult men. No?

Dave
 
Unquestionably it lies in the closeness of their union with God. These women, SAINTS, were dead to themselves, living solely for Him.
 
There already are female doctors of the Church: Teresa de Avila and Therese, the Little Flower. Why not have female doctors of the Chrch if what they teach have a great impact for the good of the Church.👍
:bounce:
 
cavanlass said:
To me, the answer is so easy–if the pope is the pope and I believe he is, then if he decides to name certain women saints to be doctors of the church, then who is Bp Williamson to say no? BW is shismatic. He confirmed my youngest daughter. AFTER the sacramental ceremonies were over, all those present had to sit and listen to him for another couple of hours while he gave another long sermon. He repeated the same subjects over and over. IMHO, It seemed he really liked the sound of his own voice.
Click to expand...
I hope you have looked into his authority to do that and have rectified whatever might have been lacking in her confirmation! Hopefully without another 3 hour sermon!
 
Yes, of course.

His argument is based on Thomas Aquinas. TA is writing from the 13c. We should have moved on since then.
 
Of course they should! And there are already 3 female Doctors of the Church!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top