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

[otjm]

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.

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm

I rest my case: barefoot and pregnant or hidden away in a convent.

I had classes with a very bright woman in philosophy as an undergraduate; she would have made mincemeat of him. No one accused her of not being feminine, because she was. But according to the good bishop, it would appear her soul was in mortal danger because she could follow an argument and show you where its logic failed.

And I know several women attorneys who no doubt checked their hairdo before walking into court, and every one of them could eat his lunch. Walk into court unprepared against one of them and you will walk out wondering what hit you. Oh, and they all have children.

Pray tell, how is it that a woman who has children is going to "forget in the right kind of way all about ‘graduating’, ‘degrees’ and ‘university’? Oh, I forgot - she has hormones, and that is going to wipe out all intellectual aspects of her being.

As if men had no hormones.

Oh, and arguing with her husband now means she is not submissive to her husband. He’s right and she’s wrong simply because she is the wife and is to be submissive. And when she is right and he is wrong, never mind that it is about a serious matter, being submissive is better than finding the truth.

Ah, yes.

Barefoot and pregnant.

 

[otjm]

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?

Probably - aren’t all men slobs and all (true) women meticulous?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Still it would have been nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity. Ah, well, attacking people is so much more fun…I guess.

CDL

 

[valient_Lucy]

Secondly, any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men. [This is not really a very strong argument.]

Well, we could always do what they used to do in Korea. Women and Men, according to Confucianism, were supposed to be separated from the age of seven, and not supposed to occupy the same space. As a result, many women stayed in their homes, and only left their homes at evening time, when men were not allowed outside the home. They would ring a bell to warn the men that women were going to be outside, and that they should go home, so that they wouldn’t have to be in the same area as women. Even in the palace of the Korean emperor, the emperor and empress had separate living spaces during the day, and they would never eat meals together, since that would have been inappropriate contact between men and women.

 

[mlchance]

Still it would have been nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity.

Why do you keep harping on this? This thread isn’t about whether women “can teach men in Church”. It is about an excommunicated so-called bishop claiming Holy Mother Church is wrong to proclaim women as Doctors of the Church. Quick: In which Church Catherine of Siena teaching anyone?

Here’s a thought: Since you think it would be “nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity,” why don’t you start another thread for that topic and then attempt to be nice yourself?

One more time, folks. This ain’t rocket science. Yes, women can be Doctors of the Church. The fact that three of them are Doctors of the Church demonstrates this quite nicely. Rome speaks; Catholics listen and obey.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[catharina]

Why do you keep harping on this? This thread isn’t about whether women “can teach men in Church”. It is about an excommunicated so-called bishop claiming Holy Mother Church is wrong to proclaim women as Doctors of the Church. Quick: In which Church Catherine of Siena teaching anyone?

Here’s a thought: Since you think it would be “nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity,” why don’t you start another thread for that topic and then attempt to be nice yourself?

One more time, folks. This ain’t rocket science. Yes, women can be Doctors of the Church. The fact that three of them are Doctors of the Church demonstrates this quite nicely. Rome speaks; Catholics listen and obey.

– Mark L. Chance.

I quite agree with you. Anyone expecting to find a glimmer of holy truth in the words of one who has been outside the RC Church for almost 20 years (due to his accpetance and promotion of untruth) must be seriouly deluding him/her/self. Only a good tree bears good fruit. Expecting truth to be honored or “revealed” by a man such as this “bishop” is akin to expecting to enjoy a fine feast on clean linen with pristine dishes and excellent food that’s is placed atop an active and festering garbage dump.

Was that too harsh? (No.)

 

[catharina]

Still it would have been nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity. Ah, well, attacking people is so much more fun…I guess.

CDL

As I said in the other thread re this matter:

Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux were contemplative nuns, two Carmelite - and Catherine a Third Order Dominican (who also engaged in acts of charity). Their teachings, their statements of theological import were in written form and thus could not easily be interpreted as “assault on the pulpit.” It’s human to imagine that issues of today were relevant in the lifetimes of these three holy, sainted women. Odd too.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

As I said in the other thread re this matter:

Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux were contemplative nuns, two Carmelite - and Catherine a Third Order Dominican (who also engaged in acts of charity). Their teachings, their statements of theological import were in written form and thus could not easily be interpreted as “assault on the pulpit.” It’s human to imagine that issues of today were relevant in the lifetimes of these three holy, sainted women. Odd too.

That does get around the problem. Do you know if there is anything in Canon law about this?

CDL

 

[catharina]

That does get around the problem. Do you know if there is anything in Canon law about this?

CDL

1. To me, “the problem” was one of allowing anybody to consider whether an excommunicated priest could be presenting truth as opposed to the given, that he continues to attempt to lead others into error. 2. I am unaware of any canon law that would speak to the need of defending the rights of the RC Church to name its siants and doctors. 3. If we allow ourselves to second-guess any papal decisions, aren’t we considering, bottom line, that we can be more informed, more holy, more graced than the Pope. Only he has the grace of office to be Pope - and the store of Church knowledge to inform his decision. 4. I can’t imagine dying with the fact that I have chosen to stand with a line of two of St. Paul or a theory of a schismatic bishop in place of my devotion and obedience to the Church. We are graced with, by and in the Church. Toying with contradictory inclinations regarding truth is a very dangerous and disruptive habit. We are to defend the faith.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

1. To me, “the problem” was one of allowing anybody to consider whether an excommunicated priest could be presenting truth as opposed to the given, that he continues to attempt to lead others into error. 2. I am unaware of any canon law that would speak to the need of defending the rights of the RC Church to name its siants and doctors. 3. If we allow ourselves to second-guess any papal decisions, aren’t we considering, bottom line, that we can be more informed, more holy, more graced than the Pope. Only he has the grace of office to be Pope - and the store of Church knowledge to inform his decision. 4. I can’t imagine dying with the fact that I have chosen to stand with a line of two of St. Paul or a theory of a schismatic bishop in place of my devotion and obedience to the Church. We are graced with, by and in the Church. Toying with contradictory inclinations regarding truth is a very dangerous and disruptive habit. We are to defend the faith.

St. Thomas taught us that through reason truth can be known. If all we can know about truth is that someone names this or that to be true then we are only following down the Nominalist trail and make ourselves irrelavent. Nor do I find it particularly interesting to make extreme points as in your #4 above. There must be a way to reasonably combine St. Paul’s teachings with the choice of female Doctors. I think you hinted at such a way in a previous post. Since no one seems to have any better answer than that I’ll do my own research.

CDL

 

[catharina]

St. Thomas taught us that through reason truth can be known. If all we can know about truth is that someone names this or that to be true then we are only following down the Nominalist trail and make ourselves irrelavent. Nor do I find it particularly interesting to make extreme points as in your #4 above. There must be a way to reasonably combine St. Paul’s teachings with the choice of female Doctors. I think you hinted at such a way in a previous post. Since no one seems to have any better answer than that I’ll do my own research.

CDL

I gave you your answer.
Without thanks, you presented another question.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote for theologians. I’m guessing he didn’t think the man in the pew would want to consult canon law about a declared and valid pratice of the RC Church.

You say I’ve made an “extreme point.”

I wonder about your “extreme” need for clarification of the practice.

 

[mommyof4]

Bingo! Like I said, barefoot and pregnant, or isolated in a convent.

Yep, I read that too. Sorry, I can’t take anything this guy says too seriously.

 

[catharina]

Yep, I read that too. Sorry, I can’t take anything this guy says too seriously.

Adding this: I’m degreed in Theology and have studied Canon Law as well (post-degree). Really, I can’t imagine why anyone would give serious thought to the agenda of one who is at odds with the faith and the RC Church. Doing so is dangerous. One such as that man can only lead others into error.

 

[mommyof4]

Adding this: I’m degreed in Theology and have studied Canon Law as well (post-degree). Really, I can’t imagine why anyone would give serious thought to the agenda of one who is at odds with the faith and the RC Church. Doing so is dangerous. One such as that man can only lead others into error.

I agree!

 

[bear06]

Still it would have been nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity. Ah, well, attacking people is so much more fun…I guess.

CDL

I guess I missed why there is a question on this. Only the ordained are allowed to give a homily. Women can’t be ordained thus can’t give a homily where the teaching “in Church” (I’m guessing you mean Mass) is done. As far as teaching the Faith to others “in the Church” (not the building), there are a whole lot of women saints who have done this.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I gave you your answer.
Without thanks, you presented another question.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote for theologians. I’m guessing he didn’t think the man in the pew would want to consult canon law about a declared and valid pratice of the RC Church.

You say I’ve made an “extreme point.”

I wonder about your “extreme” need for clarification of the practice.

You gave an answer. I did not ask a new question. Moreover, if you don’t wish to address my questions why get touchy about it? Just ignore them.

CDL

 

[catharina]

In the interest of clarity and truth and charity, let me quote our earlier exchange. (Your “other question” was “Do you know if there is anything in Canon law about this?”) I tend to be far more attentive than “touchy.”

"Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina
As I said in the other thread re this matter:

Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux were contemplative nuns, two Carmelite - and Catherine a Third Order Dominican (who also engaged in acts of charity). Their teachings, their statements of theological import were in written form and thus could not easily be interpreted as “assault on the pulpit.” It’s human to imagine that issues of today were relevant in the lifetimes of these three holy, sainted women. Odd too."

• Your response was -

"That does get around the problem. Do you know if there is anything in Canon law about this?

CDL

---

Tiber Swim Team '00"

 

[Ridgerunner]

St. Therese of Lisieux should not be considered a doctor of the Church? No matter what Bp. Williamson says about anything else, he lost me forever with that one.

 

[BobP123]

It’s just his opinion, folks. Whether or not the Bishop approves or disapproves (or even anyone on this board, for that matter), it doesn’t really matter. The Church has decided, and that’s that.

Having said that, why did Pope Paul VI remove St. Philomena from the feast calendar? Didn’t this undermine her status as a saint? Anyone?

 

[bear06]

It’s just his opinion, folks. Whether or not the Bishop approves or disapproves (or even anyone on this board, for that matter), it doesn’t really matter. The Church has decided, and that’s that.

Having said that, why did Pope Paul VI remove St. Philomena from the feast calendar? Didn’t this undermine her status as a saint? Anyone?

I think that would be a whole new topic.