Welcome to Thomistic Womanhood. In today’s video, we are going to tackle a subject I’ve been wanting to tackle since the beginning of this channel. And we’re going to talk about the claim that St. Thomas was a misogynist. There have been certain feminist scholars who have accused the Catholic Church in general, and St. Thomas in particular, being a raging misogynist. There are some quotes in the Summa that get pointed to as proof of this. So we’re going to talk about that. And we are also going to talk about some other quotes that I think prove that he was not a misogynist, I don’t think he was necessarily like a champion of women in quite the same way some of the other saints of the church were. For example, I think, you know, St. Bernard of Clairvaux. He’s got really wonderful things to say about our lady and I think St. John Chrysostom. He talks a lot about the beauty of marriage. So, there are other saints that dive into that subject a little bit more. However, St. Thomas is pretty good for his time. So we’re going to talk a little bit more about that.

Welcome to Thomistic Womanhood, Happy Thomistic Tuesday or whenever you’re watching this. So in today’s video, as I said before, we’re going to discuss the topic of St. Thomas, a raging misogynist, one of the first things that is given as proof of this. I have the Summa here, this is in Volume One, question 92. In the first article, now, we are going to read the quotes that are often presented as proof that he’s a misogynist. I’m going to give what I think of the quotes and then I’m going to bring up a couple other quotes he’s had that often don’t get brought up in this debate that I think prove that he was actually pretty good for his time.

In this first article. So the question is whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things. Here’s what we have whether we proceed, this is the first article objection one. And for those who don’t know, the Summa is written in a very particular format. It’s not like a book where everything is like one big thing. St. Thomas collected all the questions of religion and then under each question, he would have certain facets of that question, he would call it an article. And then each article, he would have all the objections to that idea, that facet of the question. And so right now we’re on question 92, the production of the woman, this is where he talks about womanhood, basically, he talks about it in a couple other places. But this is where he talks about the chapter in Genesis where God creates the woman. And this is where we hear a lot of things, now, St. Thomas didn’t talk directly about feminism, but this is where you can kind of glean some ideas about his thoughts on the role of women. And so in the first article, the first aspect of this question, there’s an objection somebody is saying, it would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things for the philosopher says, For those of you who are not Thomistic Scholars, whenever he says the philosopher he means Aristotle, he says, For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that ‘the female is a misbegotten male but nothing misbegotten or defective, should have been made in the first production of things therefore, woman should not have been made at that first production.

Now, Aristotle is often quoted as being a misogynist, as well, for that quote, he has a different article, or a different work, you know, writings, this is an abbreviation I don’t remember the full name of it. But there is a section where Aristotle talks about women, he claims that she’s a misbegotten male. So we’re going to hear what St. Thomas says about this. St. Thomas says, On the contrary, it’s written Genesis 2:18. You know, he’s answering this objection. It’s not good for man to be alone. Let us make him a helper like to himself, I answer that it was necessary for women to be made yada, yada. And then we get to his reply. So first, He will list all the objections, put them out as accurately as possible. Then he’ll answer what the truth of the matter is, and then one by one, he’ll answer each objection. So for the reply to objection one, as regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active force in the male seat tends to the production perfect likeness in the masculine sex, while the production of woman comes from defect in the act of force or from Some material indisposition or even from some external influence, such as that of a South Wind. On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Okay, so this statement sounds a little harsh, he’s sitting here and saying as regards the individual nature, women are defective and misbegotten. And then he describes what was the medieval times understanding of the biology of conception.

And what I would argue is that while this does sound misogynistic, you have to understand that St. Thomas was a theologian and a philosopher. He was not a biologist, and this is a biological question. If you describe, if you look at this, where it says for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex, you have to understand that in ancient times before we had the advanced technology to observe conception, and how the sperm and the egg unite, back then, they thought that when sperm and egg comes together, they thought it automatically was a man. And they just assumed that the male sperm would create a man, unless something happened, unless there were some defect. This is why they say, a woman is defective and misbegotten. They thought that if the sperm and the egg came together, that if biologically if there was a south wind, or you know, maybe the woman was stressed out, if something bad happened, there would be an issue with the conception, and then boom, you get a woman.

Now, with our modern technology, we know that it’s actually the opposite. By default, the egg and the sperm, when they first conceive, and you have that human being, like just first conceived, it is actually female. And it is later that it then morphs into a man, if it’s going to become a boy, that egg and that sperm is originally female, originally, has all that stuff, but then, you know, you get an influx of hormones that Y chromosome kicks in, and then it starts developing as a boy. Thanks to our modern technology, we have debunked this ancient understanding of biology. And we have shown that rather than it being by default male, and it was only a female, if something was misbegotten, or there was a defect, we know that it’s the opposite. And it’s not really because of a defect. It just depends on how the sperm is, and the, you know, like, Whatever happens to be, you know, we don’t fully understand what controls the gender of a conceived embryo. However, it is not that it’s automatically male, and then it’s female, because of an accident, we know that it’s automatically female, and then in some cases later becomes male. And when I say later, it’s it’s pretty quick, but the biological understanding back then is very different from what we know it to be now, I’m making the point here that he is speaking strictly in a biological sense, I don’t think we should really take it, I don’t think we should read too much into it. But, I’ll grant you it does kind of stink to read that, because there are other places in the Summa, where he’ll say things like reason doesn’t dominate and women or whatever.

So we’re going to talk about the fourth article, the fourth aspect of this question. Now that we’ve really talked about the statements that are kind of the most damning that he’s made. And, we’ve shown that this is just merely a biological understanding, I don’t think St. Thomas really believed women themselves to be defective and misbegotten. And, somehow inferior to men. And as proof of that, we’re going to get into the third article, again, we’re on the same question, question 92. It was the first article where it talked about women being defective. And then in the third article, the third aspect of this, we’re going to talk whether the woman was fittingly made from the rib of man. So we read in Genesis that when He wanted to create a woman, God put Adam to sleep, he took a rib out of Adam’s side, fashion that rib into a woman and then was like, boom, here you go, Adam, here’s Eve. And so this third article is talking about whether the woman was fittingly made from the rib of Adam, you know, whether it was appropriate that she was made from a rib. So, after we get through the objections, we get to the section where St. Thomas defines the truth of the matter, before he gets to the reply of the objections and he says, I answered that it was right For the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman for the woman should neither use authority over man. And so she was not made from his head. Nor was it right for her to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave. And so she was not made from his feet. And so in my opinion, what he’s condemning here are two errors, the error of feminism and the error of chauvinism. And so right here he says, first to signify there’s a social union and he says, For the woman should neither use authority over men, in other words, like dominate men manipulate them, and so she was not made from his head. So that’s kind of condemning the feminist attitude that at least the third wave feminist attitude, okay, feminism back in the day when it was about giving women the vote, things like that. I’m okay with that kind of feminism, but it’s the modern day woke feminism, the very radical feminism that we see nowadays, that, it’s almost like they’re fighting for the supremacy of women over men. And that is what he’s condemning here. Women are not made from a man’s head, so we’re not better than men.

However, on the other hand, we’re not made from his feet. So we’re not worse than a man we’re not something to be trampled underfoot by him. And this is what chauvinism is, chauvinism is like an old timey word for, just basically men being disrespectful to women and treating them like they’re inferior. And so basically, in that second statement, he’s condemning chauvinism. He’s saying, look, women aren’t better than men, but neither are men better than women. She’s from his side. She’s meant to be his sidekick. I like Batman and Robin, is Robin less than Batman? Is he inferior? Not exactly. Men can be a little bit lower. Yeah, he’s not as good. It’s like, I think that’s kind of dumb. Maybe that’s a bad example. But we see that, when with Batman or Robin, Robin has something to bring to the table, if Robin was truly inferior, and was just getting in the way of Batman wouldn’t bring him along on the adventures. Robin has something to contribute. And it’s a little bit like that. It’s not a perfect analogy. But you know, a woman is the sidekick of the man, she’s there to help. But she helps in a very useful way. I read in a book, a book called captivity. And I think it was by Jason and Stacy Eldridge. I didn’t agree with everything in the book. But there was one thing where they talked about the translation of the word helpmate in Genesis. And so we know in Genesis that God says, God gave Eve to Adam, as his helpmate. And back then the actual, apparently, the actual translation of the word is ezer konegdo. I think it’s like the original Hebrew. And what that meant was, she was like, his lifesaver, like his life giving counterpart. That was like the strict translation of it.

Now, people kind of just translated it as helper. You know, maybe there was a little male ego there, I don’t know, she was the strict definition of the term was, she was this lifesaver. And so I think saying that the woman was the sidekick of the man, I think, kind of expresses that really well, she’s there to help. But she’s got her own abilities too. She’s bringing something to the table too. Every superhero story, like we see this in Marvel, every superhero, they have their own powers and abilities. With women, our power is often the power of the heart, we understand people and their motivations. We care about love and harmony, we care about the relationships and the human side of things. And that’s our superpower. And so when we team up with a man, we’re able to help him in a way that is unique to us, in a way that another man couldn’t help him and that’s why men seek out women.

So that is the first thing if St. Thomas really did think women were inferior, I don’t think he would be arguing that she should not be subject to man’s content as his slave, I don’t think he would have said that. And another thing. So we’re going to get into another statement, if that’s not convincing enough, so in the supplement, you have the assumption of the five volumes, and then there’s what’s called the supplement. additional questions at the end. So in the supplement, there is question 60, where he tackles wife murder. And that is a hot topic, and it’s as dark as it sounds. So basically, you have to understand in medieval times from the wording in this article, it sounds like there might have been laws back then that allow a man to kill his wife if she’s caught in the act of adultery.

And so they’re asking St. Thomas about wife murder. Is it lawful to kill your wife? And so this is a very interesting one. And this guy says, you know, the first article whether it is lawful for a man to kill his wife if she is discovered in the act of adultery. So if a guy discovers his wife sleeping with some other guy, is he allowed to kill her? That’s an interesting point. And that’s going to really highlight his attitude about women because adultery to men, they feel betrayed by it almost in a way I feel like most women don’t. Women definitely feel deeply betrayed when their partner cheats, no question about it. But man, there’s some men, it really kind of strikes at the heart. I don’t know, dude, it just, it hurts men in a way that is not that we don’t see in women. When a woman finds out her man cheated, she doesn’t really feel like she wants to kill the woman. However, with men, it’s often very common that they will at least feel the temptation. And there have been many cases where men will kill the lover of their wife or the man that this woman slept with. And so you know, this question to a lot of men, this is a very pertinent question. If I find out if I catch my wife being in some other dude, can I kill her? So let’s see.

So they’re saying, it would seem lawful for a man to do this, if she’d be discovered in the act of adultery for the Divine Law commanded adulterers wives to be stone. Now, it’s not a sin to fulfill the Divine Law, neither therefore is it a sin to kill one’s own wife, if she’d be an adulterous and so when they refer the Divine Law, back in the Old Testament, if a woman was caught in adultery, you could stone her we actually see that in the New Testament, there’s a story where we all know the story of the woman caught in adultery, they dragged her out of the tent, or wherever she was found, she was caught in the act, and they were going to stone her because that was the law back then. you could stone a woman, you could kill her if she was caught in adultery, and our Lord didn’t allow that to happen. He was like, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and he also he wrote on the ground, something we don’t know what he wrote on the ground, it is piously believed, the interpretation of the churches that he was writing the sins of the men who were trying to stone her, like their secret sins, he was writing them in the dirt. And that’s why they looked at him like backed off and we’re like, okay, like some All right, you know, but you know, so that’s when they say the Divine Law commanded adulterous wives to be. So that’s what they’re talking about, then objection for, I think, is very pertinent to this. Further, the husband is bound to correct his wife, but correction is given by inflicting unjust punishment.

Since then, the just punishment of adultery is death. Because it’s a capital sin, it would seem lawful for a husband to kill his adulterous wife. And St. Thomas says, On the contrary, it’s stated in the text that the Church of God is never bound by the laws of this world, for she has none but a spiritual sword. Therefore, it would seem that he who wishes to belong to the church cannot rightly take advantage of the law, which permits a man to kill his wife further, husband and wife are judged on a par equally, but it’s not lawful for a wife to kill her husband, if he be discovered in adultery. Neither for me a husband kills his wife. And I think that was very clear and progressive of him. So he’s basically saying, like, Look, if you cheat on your wife, you don’t get to kill her, or she doesn’t get to kill you. So why should you get to kill her? It’s a good point. And so where else has he talked about this? Okay. And this is why I think back then there might have been a civil law that allowed killing your wife if she was adultery, because he says the civil law, however, considers it as though it were lawful, that he should kill her in the very act. So back then there might have been a law about that. And he says, but the church is not bound in this matter by human laws, neither does she acquit him of the debt of eternal punishment, nor of such punishment, as may be awarded him by an ecclesial tribunal. The reason that he’s quit any punishment to be inflicted by a secular court.

Therefore, in no case, Is it lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own authority. So what he’s saying here is, look, I don’t care if the secular laws say you can do it, the laws of the church don’t say you can do it, you are not free from the dead of eternal punishment. If you kill your wife, you know, you’re still gonna go to hell, if you killed your wife, it doesn’t matter if you caught her in the act of adultery, and you were really mad. It’s not okay. And he says, In no case, in no cases it is lawful for a husband to kill his wife on his own authority, you know, he can’t just pop off and you know, he can’t just pop off and killer because he’s in a rage because she slept with some other guy. So I think that’s a very interesting kind of ruling St. Thomas gave, you know if he thought women were in farrier, if he really was, you know, this misogynistic jerk that everybody makes them out to be, I think he would have, I think he would have spoken very differently there. Because we do see in a lot of other cases, you know, when men are chauvinistic and misogynistic and everything, you know, they do, they often will say, like, oh, who cares? Like, yeah, she all bets are off, you know, she’s sleeping with other guys. Like, who cares? Yeah, that’s fair. Like you’re really mad. You know, there are men who defend that, and he didn’t defend that. I think that’s another case, especially when he says right here, look, he goes, look, further husband and wife are judged apart but it’s not lawful for a wife to kill her husband, neither man husband kill his wife. So he’s putting them on the same. He says they’re, they’re judged on a par, they’re judged the same, you know, and so he’s not saying there’s some inferiority and women, he’s saying, nope, they’re the same. You can’t kill her. She can’t kill you. It’s the same. That is, I think, important. And let’s see if there’s anything else here. So Oh, there’s a second article whether wife murder is an impediment to marriage.

He also pointed out here by the church’s decree, wife murder is an impediment to marriage. So he was saying, Yeah, murder and adultery, in certain cases forbid to contracting a marriage and void the contract, as we say, in regard to wife murder, and further on by the churches, degree wife murder is an impediment to marriage. Yeah, I don’t know. And he says, when the husband kills his wife on account of adultery, or even through hatred, so even if even if it’s not adultery, let’s just say like, she’s annoying the crap out of them. And he’s lost all love for her. And now he hates his wife, the church has said, that’s an impediment to marriage. If you killed your former wife, you got to make a really good case why you should be allowed to be a married, married again. And in most cases, St. Thomas is saying like, it’s not okay. It’s an impediment to marriage. So again, if St. Thomas thought that a woman was just, you know, there for men’s uses, and women were inferior to men, and you know, it’s really up to men what they want to do with women, and who cares? I don’t think he would have been upholding that rule, either. You know, he would have said, Oh, no, it’s not an impediment. Because you know, women are there for men, they are the helpmeet. And if a man decides he’d like to marry again, he should take away from that’s all, you know, he doesn’t say that. He’s like, well, if you killed your wife, like the Church says, that’s an impediment. Like, you can’t get married again, unless you get, you know, a dispensation, which basically means you have to get special permission from the church to do something, and you have to make a case for why you should get that exception. He’s upholding These are three cases, three situations in the Summa, where he gives rulings, so to speak, you know, in his opinion, the stuff he writes out, shows that I think he had a pretty fair idea towards women, as we see in these in the way he’s like, judging these men, you know, who want to kill their wives and things like that. He’s showing like, Look, you know, women deserve respect. You can’t just go kill him because you didn’t like something they did. And if you killed your wife, you can’t just go take another wife. Yeah, I know, you want another wife, but you can’t do that. So you know, while it’d be nice. If maybe he said more things about womanhood, you know, and I’m sure studying the soom, I could probably come up with more examples of things he said that, you know, show respect for women. But again, I think these three examples are sufficient to show that he was not a raging misogynist, you know, it would have been nice if maybe he had called out chauvinistic men a little more clearly, you know, if maybe he had said, you know, in marriage, you should love your wife. And don’t be disrespectful to her and appreciate her.

I believe St. John Chrysostom talks a little bit more about that. He talks a lot about marriage. He’s a father of the church. And he talks more about marriage. So St. John Chrysostom, I think gets a little more into that St. Thomas kind of stays on the intellectual, letter of the law kind of stuff. But you can see here that what he says is actually pretty respectful to women in, in so far again, maybe he could have been a little more, you know, clear about it. But again, especially for the time i think he’s actually pretty good. So I don’t think he’s in misogynist. So if you still disagree, leave me a comment. I am happy to discuss this. And yeah, I hope that was helpful. I hope that wasn’t too intellectual and dense. The Summa can be a very intellectually intimidating book. I hope I made it a little more accessible. But again, it just goes to show like when people say he’s a misogynist, they don’t pull up these other three areas of the Summa. these other three things that we talked about. So thought anyways, I hope that was helpful and have a good day.