St. Teresa of Avila's Comment on Women

[hannajomar]

I’m in the process of reading The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila By Herself.
Pg 41 she writes of a priest she knows who is involved in a sexual affair with a woman. As I read it, she seems to feel pity for the priest, and blames the woman for seducing him. Here’s what I’m questioning, emphasis added:

But I will tell what I saw as a warning to men to be on their guard against women who attempt tricks of this sort. Let them be sure that once** a woman - who is even more bound than a man to lead a chaste life**- has lost her shame before God, she cannot be rusted in any way at all.

Is she saying what it appears? That women are more bound to be chaste than men? I have always thought that both men and women are bound to live chaste lives. She seems to have an opinion that in THIS case the affair was the woman’s fault. But in this line I’ve put in bold, she seems to be going toward the opinion that blames women for illicit affairs and claims men have less self-control than women. I’ve always felt that this line of reasoning was invented by men who were attempting to lessen their responsibility for falls in chastity. I’m not a feminist. But I do believe that all of us need to guard our chastity with vigor, not leave it up to others to keep from tempting us.

Am I interpreting her comments accurately?

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

She’s not saying that women are supposed to be more chaste then men, she is saying that they are expected to be more chaste. Men have a harder time putting up with lust and temptation. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I’ve always thought. As for what she meant, I could also be wrong on this too, but that’s the way I took it.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m in the process of reading The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila By Herself.
Pg 41 she writes of a priest she knows who is involved in a sexual affair with a woman. As I read it, she seems to feel pity for the priest, and blames the woman for seducing him. Here’s what I’m questioning, emphasis added:

Is she saying what it appears? That women are more bound to be chaste than men? I have always thought that both men and women are bound to live chaste lives. She seems to have an opinion that in THIS case the affair was the woman’s fault. But in this line I’ve put in bold, she seems to be going toward the opinion that blames women for illicit affairs and claims men have less self-control than women. I’ve always felt that this line of reasoning was invented by men who were attempting to lessen their responsibility for falls in chastity. I’m not a feminist. But I do believe that all of us need to guard our chastity with vigor, not leave it up to others to keep from tempting us.

Am I interpreting her comments accurately?

1. Of course women are bound to be more chaste: they are not as weak as we men are.
2. The reason why women must be more careful is that they can get pregnant, and so can involve yet another human being.

 

[mab23]

1. Of course women are bound to be more chaste: they are not as weak as we men are.
2. The reason why women must be more careful is that they can get pregnant, and so can involve yet another human being.

makes sense

 

[OurBeloved]

I’m in the process of reading The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila By Herself.
Pg 41 she writes of a priest she knows who is involved in a sexual affair with a woman. As I read it, she seems to feel pity for the priest, and blames the woman for seducing him. Here’s what I’m questioning, emphasis added:

Is she saying what it appears? That women are more bound to be chaste than men? I have always thought that both men and women are bound to live chaste lives. She seems to have an opinion that in THIS case the affair was the woman’s fault. But in this line I’ve put in bold, she seems to be going toward the opinion that blames women for illicit affairs and claims men have less self-control than women. I’ve always felt that this line of reasoning was invented by men who were attempting to lessen their responsibility for falls in chastity. I’m not a feminist. But I do believe that all of us need to guard our chastity with vigor, not leave it up to others to keep from tempting us.

Am I interpreting her comments accurately?

What she is referring to is the truth that women can easily lead men to act on their passions if tempted.

You are indeed correct that all of us need to be on guard not to tempt each other. I don’t think St. Therese is denying that either. But what you have to realize is that once someone is tempted, they have already lost the choice of being on guard against temptation.

If a woman comes to church wearing a short-shorts and a top that reveals most of her breasts for an example, the priest cannot avoid seeing it and as a result having to deal with the temptation. What St. Therese is rightly pointing out is that the woman could have chosen to avoid leading the priest to temptation in the first place. It is after-all highly unlikely that the priest can lead the woman to temptation while wearing his cassock.

The same sort of applied to men and women in general in the past.

However, though it was uncommon in the past, in today’s society (at least where we live), many men themselves would try to sexually attract woman as well by tempting them. So in this sense, St. Therese’s advise would apply equally to men today as well. But in many other cultures in different societies, this form of an attempt is rarely made and usually men try to win women over in other ways. But with our metro-sexual attitudes in this part of the world, men too have become… like women of the past for a lack of a better phrase

 

[heart4home]

1. Of course women are bound to be more chaste: they are not as weak as we men are.
2. The reason why women must be more careful is that they can get pregnant,** and so can involve yet another human being**.

So because the man can leave his product and run, it somehow doesn’t involve another human being for him? When is this double standard going to stop??? Seriously that man will be every much as responsible for that OTHER human being as the woman.

 

[paperwight66]

1. Of course women are bound to be more chaste: they are not as weak as we men are.

QUOTE

Ummmm… I think you may have misunderstood a little. I don’t think it means ‘bound to’ in the way we use it now i.e. ‘more likely’.

I think it means ‘obligated to be’.

 

[Helen121]

She’s not saying that women are supposed to be more chaste then men, she is saying that they are expected to be more chaste.http://www.keyforex.info/iPad.gif

 

[RobbyS]

So because the man can leave his product and run, it somehow doesn’t involve another human being for him? When is this double standard going to stop??? Seriously that man will be every much as responsible for that OTHER human being as the woman.

Why are you railing about the facts of biology? Used to be that “good" families took great care to protect their girls, precisely because men tended to be less responsible and found it easier to escape the consequences of their action. St. Teresa was a realist. The reason she first went into the convent was to avoid marriage, because it was a kind of trap for a bright woman, and a single woman had few options if she tried to live on her own. A woman without a male protector usually ended up as a prostitute. Furthermore, there was the fact that young married women, especially those married to older men, were prone to romance, and attracted to a handsome/lonely priest as well as to some gay blade. Here they were in a strong position and had less risk than the man she was interested in. So this is the context in which to understand what Teresa said.

 

[RobbyS]

1) Of course women are bound to be more chaste: they are not as weak as we men are.

QUOTE

Ummmm… I think you may have misunderstood a little. I don’t think it means ‘bound to’ in the way we use it now i.e. ‘more likely’.

I think it means ‘obligated to be’.

Bondage used to have a different meaning.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I wonder if “more bound” in the particular vernacular of the time (of that english translation ) could have been meant as *more inclined *or more likely [as paperwight66 put it].

An example still in use today : He was bound to find out sooner or later.

This particular dictionary reference still gives as one of the definitions of bound : *destined ; sure; certain *.

Holy War 11 's interpretation of expected seems to fit too.

St. Theresa only appears to be apportioning the blame in this one, single case ; a case in which she would have an advantage of understanding some of the temptations which can beset those called by God and set apart for a particular dedication to Himself. And the OP says she writes of a “priest she knows” . . .

However she meant it, at least we can say she was walking the walk * because she was bound *by her vows to observe chastity .



Regarding this part:

. . . Let them be sure that once a woman - who is even more bound than a man to lead a chaste life- has lost her shame before God, she cannot be rusted in any way at all .

When we consider that the priest has been set apart by God for a particular dedication to Himself , in a certain way , what St. Theresa is saying is most logical, if it is meant in the sense that :

If a woman has decided to scheme against God’s own design to get what she wants, why would you ever think she wouldn’t also scheme against fellow humans to get what she wants ?

And of course, the same could be said for a man.

 

[hannajomar]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. But I’m still not satisfied. The larger point I’m getting at here is that people hide behind this idea that men have less control over their sexual behavior than women. I’ve seen it in my personal life as well as with celebrities. I feel like some men and women use this line of thinking to rationalize sins against purity. (btw, I’m not a man-hater or a feminist)

I’ve heard people drag Monika Lewinski’s name through the mud calling her a home wrecker, while giving a pass to President Clinton, because, well, he’s a guy and that’s what guy’s do. I’ve seen wives whose husbands cheated blame the mistress, and not hold the guy who took vows to them responsible. When there are two people doing something sinful, how are they both not responsible for their actions, especially when one of those people have taken specific vows regarding their sexual life? May be men are truly weaker than women when it comes to purity, but right now I just don’t believe it. If men are that weak, how can violations against purity even be considered sins?

And now I’m feeling uncomfortable because I feel like I’m disagreeing with a doctor of the Church.

 

[Zooey]

First of all, St Teresa is my favorite saint…but she wasn’t infallible, you know. I don’t think that anyone would claim that she was. (Certainly, she wouldn’t!!)

Second, she was writing about a specific case, & it was a case where she had personal knowledge of the persons involved. So she was writing about a particular scandal with which she was acquainted, & commenting on that…not on every sex scandal in her age, & certainly not any in ours!!

Third, her book was written to an audience of nuns, the sisters in her convent, & therefore was speaking to women, & pointing out that they should be very aware of the fact that women can act in a way that causes temptations for men, & that it was important to be especially modest & chaste…and even more so for an audience of cloistered nuns, who are after all, called to a life apart.

So while she may have been right in this particular case, we should not assume that she was speaking about a universal fact.
And then,of course, to return to my first point: Maybe she was speaking as a woman of her time. And maybe she was just, well… wrong.
I for one, make so many :blush:missteps in speech & writing, that I have no business judging anybody.

A Methodist clergyman, speaking during WW2, once remarked that "every serious Christian should have a mental file entitled ‘Awaiting Further Light’. " I suspect that this is just one of those things I will have filed away there, & I recommend it. It has saved me any amount of distress over all manner of things.

God bless all here.