SSPX Bp. Williamson opposed to female “Doctors of the Church”: are his reasons good? [Fr. Z]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GregoryPalamas said:
If that were the case why did he not criticize men for speaking out of turn?
Click to expand...
The obvious answer would be because men weren’t. One could also quite sensibly note that most of the Apostle Paul’s criticisms are directed at men. Regardless, there is nothing in the Pauline corpus that prohibits the Church from declaring a woman as a Doctor of the Church.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
The obvious answer would be because men weren’t. One could also quite sensibly note that most of the Apostle Paul’s criticisms are directed at men. Regardless, there is nothing in the Pauline corpus that prohibits the Church from declaring a woman as a Doctor of the Church.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
It’s news to me that St. Paul even mentioned the title “Doctor of the Church”. I guess I’ll have to search canon law myself to see if the lawyers dealt with St. Paul’s prohibition.

When you say that men weren’t are you saying that no man ever interrupted a presentation in Church?

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
It’s news to me that St. Paul even mentioned the title “Doctor of the Church”.
Click to expand...
No one has said he ever mentioned the title; therefore, wondering what St. Paul’s written opinion on the matter might be is pure speculation. Since the Church has seen fit to declare three women Doctors of the Church, it is seems pretty evident that there is nothing wrong with doing so.
GregoryPalamas said:
When you say that men weren’t are you saying that no man ever interrupted a presentation in Church?
Click to expand...
Is that what I said?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
No one has said he ever mentioned the title; therefore, wondering what St. Paul’s written opinion on the matter might be is pure speculation. Since the Church has seen fit to declare three women Doctors of the Church, it is seems pretty evident that there is nothing wrong with doing so.

Is that what I said?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Mark,

I don’t know what you said. That’s why I asked.

Could you be a little clearer. I’m trying to assume that you are not just arguing for argument’s sake but I cannot figure out your point.

Does canon law address St. Paul’s comments on this subject or not? I don’t know. If you do then tell us.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I don’t know what you said. That’s why I asked.
Click to expand...
You asked why St. Paul didn’t criticize men for speaking out of turn during Mass. I said: “The obvious answer would be because men weren’t.” How you go from this statement to thinking I might be saying no man has ever interrupted Mass is beyond me.
GregoryPalamas said:
Does canon law address St. Paul’s comments on this subject or not? I don’t know. If you do then tell us.
Click to expand...
I don’t know either, but I’m confident of this: If canon law does address St. Paul’s comments, it certainly won’t be on this subject (namely, can women be named Doctors of the Church) because St. Paul never addresses this subject.

The Church, however, has, and the Church quite obviously says, yes, women can be named Doctors of the Church; therefore, the appropriate response from Catholics is to submit to the Church’s authority.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Keep in mind that the first person to preach the Gospel was a woman.
 
Mark,

I thank you for your non answer.

To everyone else,

Does anyone have an answer to my question?

CDL
 
TraditionalCath said:
nope. iam saying that if he had an attitude that was in communion with rome then he wouldn’t be in a state of schism would he?
Click to expand...
And how exactly do you know of this attitude of his? And isn’t it possible to be against female doctors and still be in full communion with Rome? Seems as if he’s entitled to his own opinions just as we all are here.

Also seems as if your connection is over stretching things a bit here.
 
BobP123 said:
But say Theresa had been made a doctor. How much more would her words/deeds be worth to us than they already are? More importantly, aren’t we just looking for more stones to throw at the SSPX?
Click to expand...
Well she has been made a Doctor of the Church.

As to her words and deeds being worth more because of the proclamation, that is putting the cart before the horse; the proclamation is because her words/deeds are recognized for their importance.

In other words, the title does not make the words deeds worth more; it acknowledges them because they are already worth more - that is, they rank up there with the other Doctors of the Church.
 
otjm said:
Bingo! Like I said, barefoot and pregnant, or isolated in a convent.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: Agree with him or disagree with him this is not what he wrote. I think we would all be better off if we stuck to what people wrote and not how their enemies caricature them.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
:hmmm: Agree with him or disagree with him this is not what he wrote. I think we would all be better off if we stuck to what people wrote and not how their enemies caricature them.

CDL
Click to expand...
Here’s a quote from the good (excommunicated) Archbishop:

“That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.”
 
Kelly said:
Here’s a quote from the good (excommunicated) Archbishop:

“That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.”
Click to expand...
Argh! Don’t get me started with Williamson quotes. It could take me days!!! Either we’re supposed to use the logic “Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while” or we’re supposed to think this is just another crazy Williamson idea. Sorry, but I pick the latter. It’s a much safer pick.🤷
 
Kelly said:
Here’s a quote from the good (excommunicated) Archbishop:

“That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.”
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with him but I do know that I prefer abstract ideas while my wife prefers practical wisdom. We make a good team. Also, where does he say that women are to be kept “barefoot and pregnant?”

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I don’t agree with him but I do know that I prefer abstract ideas while my wife prefers practical wisdom. We make a good team. Also, where does he say that women are to be kept “barefoot and pregnant?”

CDL
Click to expand...
I’m not sure in what context anyone is associating the “barefoot and pregnant” with Williamson but here is the quote containing this. The rest of the letter is worth a gander too. I love the way he gives a pass to the SSPX co-eduational college.:rolleyes:
Now what does a university call for? Whereas in modem “universities” the males all believe in “if it feels good, do it,” which is why they are, as they wish, overrun by feeling females, on the contrary in a true university one thinks about universal reality, which is the prerogative of men. A woman can think in this way, or do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be properly thinking as woman. The dilemma is inescapable: she cannot do what is properly men’s thinking or work without cutting across her deepest nature. Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.
Click to expand...
Moreover, true university thinking tends to produce leaders because true students have pondered on more or less universal reality. Cardinal Newman may argue that the cultivated mind is an end in itself, but if Mother Church has always raised universities, is it not because an elite of all-round minds will in any society powerfully help many souls to get to Heaven, if those minds’ studying has been governed over all by the true Faith? But women are neither meant, nor normally gifted, to be leaders! Therefore girls should not be at university. As for a Queen Isabella the Catholic, Spain was her family and she never went to university! Nor did Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna or Joan of Arc.
Click to expand...
Concretely, if a girl devotes several years of her youth and much money of her parents to acquiring a university education, especially a decent one, how easily will she submit to her husband, especially if he has not had that education? And how may she not argue with him if he has had it? And if she has a “degree”, how will she not think herself above the multiple humiliations of being “barefoot and pregnant”? And if she is a “graduate”, how will she not hold-herself superior to being-a “vegetable at the-kitchen-sink"? And if making a family makes her forget in the right kind of way all about “graduating”, “degrees” and “university”, why go there in the first place? The dilemma is inescapable: in doing manly things like going to a university, either she is merely going through the motions or she is damaging her potential for motherhood - conclusion: she should not go there.
Click to expand...
sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm
 
Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.
Click to expand...
So, if a priest checks his appearance in the vestry mirror before going out to say Holy Mass (as I have often seen them do), is he a “distracted priest?”

Would he be more “manly” if he went out there with his alb on sideways, and his hair sticking out in every direction? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top