Cure of Ars Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Has anyone ever heard of a controversy in the early Church over women not having souls? Someone in the Salt Lake Tribune has made this accusation and I was wondering where this idea came from. Mormons did not let blacks in the priesthood and they changed this doctrine. A guy in the paper made the comment that this was not a big deal because the early church changed its doctrine on women not having souls. This smells funny. Any help would be appreciated. My mom is going to write a response and she asked me about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 news to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I've heard rumors of rumors, but never seen any proof. Christ seemed to teach implicitly that women had souls whenever He told women to "go and sin no more." The Early Church had many female saints and devotion to Mary began quite early. It doesn't seem to me that there is any reason to believe that the early Christians taught this. The only potential thing I could imagine is that someone read some obscure text with a deeper meaning that appeared outright in the words, such as Sirach 25, which seems to condemn all women as inherently evil, but of course doesn't mean what it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 14 2004, 10:44 PM'] ...such as Sirach 25, which seems to condemn all women as inherently evil, but of course doesn't mean what it seems. [/quote] Not having a Catholic bible handy, what is this supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Nov 14 2004, 11:47 PM'] Not having a Catholic bible handy, what is this supposed to mean? [/quote] Sorry, it starts at Sirach 25:12: [quote]Worst of all wounds is that of the heart, worst of all evils is that of a woman. Worst of all sufferings is that from one's foes, worst of all vengeance is that of one's enemies: No poison worse than that of a serpent, no venom greater than that of a woman. With a dragon or a lion I would rather dwell than live with an evil woman. Wickedness changes a woman's looks, and makes her sullen as a female bear. When her husband sits among his neighbors, a bitter sigh escapes him unawares. There is scarce any evil like that in a woman; may she fall to the lot of the sinner! Like a sandy hill to aged feet is a railing wife to a quiet man. Stumble not through woman's beauty, nor be greedy for her wealth; The man is a slave, in disgrace and shame, when a wife supports her husband. Depressed mind, saddened face, broken heart--this from an evil wife. Feeble hands and quaking knees-- from a wife who brings no happiness to her husband. In woman was sin's beginning, and because of her we all die. Allow water no outlet, and be not indulgent to an erring wife. If she walks not by your side, cut her away from you.[/quote] It is a reflection of a Ben Sirach, particularly on the place of woman in the Fall, but it is clear from the following chapter that the verse is not meant to apply to all women, as it goes on to proclaim the virtues of good women. It is merely a section of scripture about evil women and good women, just as there are numerous parts of scripture (particularly in the Psalms, but throughout all the histories and the blaming of the Fall on Adam by St. Paul) with speak of evil men and evil women. It is also important to note that the section does not apply this to women, but to the venom of women, the evils of women, etc. In essence, it says that what all people have, namely evil in this case, has these effects and works its way through a woman in this way. As we know, men and women tend toward different types of evils (men more often toward lust, violence, etc., and women toward greed, envy, etc., stereotypically applied), even though both do evils, and it expounds on the way evil harms women in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 (edited) 1)Rational soul (the specific difference of man) = the ability to reason. 2)Women are not rational. 3)Women must not have souls. Now I must run and hide before my wife reads this and slaps me up side the head. Edited November 15, 2004 by popestpiusx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 15 2004, 12:20 AM']Now I must run and hide before my wife reads this and slaps me up side the head.[/quote] Let me help her :hammer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 15 2004, 02:20 AM'] 1)Rational soul (the specific difference of man) = the ability to reason. 2)Women are not rational. 3)Women must not have souls. Now I must run and hide before my wife reads this and slaps me up side the head. [/quote] You can run but you cannot :leave: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 (edited) You know we just finished reading a work of literature that spoke sort of on this subject. It was by Mary Wollstonecraft called " Vendication on the Rights of Women". Anyway the work stated that women during that period were not seen as rational creatures, who could think clearly for themselves, but rather they were like simple little children innocent and pure and never doing any wrong. Wollstonecraft's point was to show the society of that period that women were in fact rational creatures and could think for themselves and were not all that innocent. She was seen really as one of the first feminists and all she was fighting for was for women to have the right to an education. So anyway it does seem that during this period, Romanticism, around 1770s, it was the general notion in society that women didn't know what they were doing, because they weren't rational, thus they were always seen as innocent. Edited November 15, 2004 by StColette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Yeah, but was there any proof in it that the Early Church taught that? Even the Romans didn't teach that...women were often seen as a little too rational...as in scheming and vicious in their minds...you should read some of the ancient Roman comedies...lots of misogynism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9704/opinion/nolan.html"]Myth of Soulless Women[/url] [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9708/correspondence.html#Woman"]The Soul of Women[/url] [url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/object.html"]Alleged Soulless Women Doctrine[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 The Church never taught the women don't have souls. The question was primarily over whether or not they have the same kind of souls as men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StColette Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Okay so from what I read this whole rumor may have began at a council of bishops in Burgundy, France in a.d. 585 because of some pamphlet or something saying that the Latin word "homo" meaning mankind only meant males. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 from [url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/object.html"][b]this article[/b][/url]:[list] [*]But when one traces the rumor back to its source, one finds that someone, somewhere, made a very big mistake. The actual historical event which became the basis for this rumor did not happen at the Council of Nicea or any other ecumenical council in Church history, but in a local Synod in France in 585 AD. The account can be found in the book The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours (which I have read; you can probably get it from an academic library or through Interloan at a public library). This is what really happened: During a break between sessions at the Synod, one of the bishops there expressed to his fellow bishops his personal belief that the Latin word homo (mankind) does not include women. Immediately every other bishop present objected to his statement, pointing out that the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Scriptures used at that time) uses the word homo to refer to both Adam and Eve in Genesis 5:2. That verse reads: "(God) created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created" (Douay Version, emphasis mine). Adam, besides being the proper name applied to the father of our race, is the Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humanity" (as opposed to iysh, which refers to a male human being). When Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin he rendered Adam here with the Latin equivalent Homo. And the bishops at the French Synod used his Vulgate translation to prove their fellow bishop wrong in stating that women are not included in the word homo. Having sufficiently refuted that notion, the discussion ended. This whole debate - which was not part of the actual Synod itself - still came out in favor of the humanity of women. Not only that, but nowhere in this entire episode does anyone mention the question of whether or not women have souls! This was a later misrepresentation of the proceedings which, unfortunately, has been widely disseminated and believed by many who do not have the time to trace the rumor back to its source. [/list] the entire article is very interesting pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now