Thomism

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1268073162' post='2068916']
Why? Do you believe that women are "less perfect" in their souls and reasoning? That they should be subject to men in "domestic, civil, and ecclesiastical societies"? Clearly Aquinas believed that the roles of husband and wife should be extended to include the roles of man and woman in general in society.
[/quote]
What is sad is that you apparently reject Thomism based on a cursory reading of a dubious article. Sadness. I would suggest actually studying Thomism before sweeping it aside. And if you reject an entire tradition of thought because the founder was not PC by modern standards you will have to discard a lot more than Thomism.
Yes, Saint Thomas Aquinas was a product of his time (and thus accepted much of Aristotelian biology) but he was not a misogynist and I think it is illogical to reject his theology so flippantly.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1268073205' post='2068918']
"Females are generated accidentally" what does THAT mean???
[/quote]
A paraphrase of the old [i]femina est mas occasionatus[/i]. That means that woman is a "defective" or "occasioned" male (lol, the Latin verb used by Thomas is [i]occasionare[/i]). A feature of the Aristotelian theory of gestation that Aquinas rejects but that "feminist" controversialists like to throw around in order to turn people off to Aquinas I assume.

But seriously, that old blog post above discusses that in particular and here is more...

[url="http://talesuntold.com/working/ArFt1FinlTahoma.htm"]The Aristotelian Background to Aquinas' Denial that "Woman is a Defective Male"[/url]
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/women-souls-1.htm

Some primary source material..

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp4034.html
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1090.html
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/scg3064.html#26468

In 2 Sent., 20, 2, 1, ad 1;
In 4 Sent., 44, 1, 3c, ad 3;
Summa Theologiae, 1, 92, 1, ad 1;
Summa Theologiae, 1, 99, 2, ad 1;
De Veritate, 5, 9, ad 9;
Summa Contra Gentiles, 3, 94, n.10.

[HisChildForever]

So since I do not consider myself a Thomist, I am automatically rejecting [u]all[/u] of his theology? Then I suppose you should also be sad for the people who voted "no."

[quote]And if you reject an entire tradition of thought because the founder was not PC by modern standards you will have to discard a lot more than Thomism. [/quote]

You know better than to equate me with political correctness.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 March 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1268077192' post='2068975']
Yes, Saint Thomas Aquinas was a product of his time (and thus accepted much of Aristotelian biology) but he was not a misogynist and I think it is illogical to reject his theology so flippantly.
[/quote]

I agree with this comment. There are a lot of saints who's ideas about the role of women (and minorities, and a lot of other things) are not what we would consider acceptable nowadays, but that doesn't mean that they didn't respect women. In fact, I'm pretty sure that even with a flawed understanding of biology and anatomy, St. Thomas had greater respect for women than most men that are gung-ho about women's rights.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1268077769' post='2068984']
You know better than to equate me with political correctness.
[/quote]
I actually used that just to be an ass because I know you hate PC-ness. I'm an asinine guy.

[HisChildForever]

[quote]So given that the male is the active principle in generation, that females do not participate actively in generation but merely supply the matter, and hence that femininity is a lesser perfection than masculinity, that females are generated accidentally, and that female bodies are less perfect than masculine bodies, Thomas concludes that women are less perfected than men in their souls, in higher reasoning, and in those virtues which require reason's direction of actions. As will be shown in the second part of this study, this inferiority is the reason why the woman is subject to the man in domestic, civil, and ecclesiastical societies.[/quote]

Does Aquinas not teach that women have less perfect souls and less perfect reasoning than males? Does he not teach that women are to be subject to men in all things, i.e. domestic, civil, and ecclesiastical societies?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='08 March 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1268077773' post='2068985']
I agree with this comment. There are a lot of saints who's ideas about the role of women (and minorities, and a lot of other things) are not what we would consider acceptable nowadays, but that doesn't mean that they didn't respect women. In fact, I'm pretty sure that even with a flawed understanding of biology and anatomy, St. Thomas had greater respect for women than most men that are gung-ho about women's rights.
[/quote]

Yes, and rejecting much of what he said about women is not rejecting his theology as a whole.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1268077936' post='2068991']
Yes, and rejecting much of what he said about women is not rejecting his theology as a whole.
[/quote]
The issue is that you changed your vote based on a rather dubious article. Even the most staunch, traditional Thomist would disagree with Thomas on many things (including the antiquated science I would hope).

And no, women are not ontologically inferior to men (according to Thomas). Men do have domestic headship but this is not domination. Thomas makes this explicit when he comments on Genesis saying that Eve was not made from the head of Adam because she was not meant to dominate him; nor we she made from the feet of Adam as she was not meant to be subject to him as a slave; rather, she was made from his side (rib) which signified the social union of man and woman.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='08 March 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1268078618' post='2069001']
The issue is that you changed your vote based on a rather dubious article. Even the most staunch, traditional Thomist would disagree with Thomas on many things (including the antiquated science I would hope).[/quote]
She didn't actually delete and change her vote. At least not to this point.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 March 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1268078908' post='2069005']
She didn't actually delete and change her vote. At least not to this point.
[/quote]


I haven't even voted yet because I'm not sure if I can rightfully call myself a Thomist in any meaningful sense.

[Apotheoun]

You appear to be an L_D'ist.

[HisChildForever]

Besides, I was being dramatic about changing my vote.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='08 March 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1268080033' post='2069018']
Besides, I was being dramatic about changing my vote.
[/quote]

You dramatic? No way!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

In all the ongoing debates between the Dominicans and Franciscans, I tend to side with the Franciscans. However, I appreciate the good doctor's classification system and his contributions.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='08 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1268082306' post='2069040']
In all the ongoing debates between the Dominicans and Franciscans, I tend to side with the Franciscans. However, I appreciate the good doctor's classification system and his contributions.
[/quote]
Same here.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='08 March 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1268082306' post='2069040']
In all the ongoing debates between the Dominicans and Franciscans, I tend to side with the Franciscans. However, I appreciate the good doctor's classification system and his contributions.
[/quote]

Where as I went to Franciscan University and came out with a Dominican heart