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

WDTPRS ^ | October 14, 2007 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[NYer]

The SSPX’s rather odd Bp. Richard Williamsom, excommunicated in 1988 for having received episcopal consecration from the late Archbp. Lefebvre without pontifical mandate, has something to say about naming a woman as Doctor of the Church.

You might know that the Church has called three women "Doctor".  To be named a Doctor of the Church, you must be a saint and your life and writings or preaching must reflect something of the Church in her God-given teaching mandate.

 

Let’s read what Williamson has to say. 

My emphases and comments.

A few days ago I met in Rome a gracious Roman lady who asked me why in
a sermon several years ago I had been opposed to the papal declaration
of St. Catherine of Sienna as a Doctor of the Church. The problem, I
replied, lies in the confusion of roles.

Recent Popes have
declared three women Saints to be Doctors of the Church: Catherine of
Sienna, Theresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux. Now no Catholic in his
right mind would call in question either the orthodoxy or the great
usefulness of each of their writings. We have only to thank God for
their inspired and intuitive wisdom. Nevertheless for the Pope to
declare them Doctors, i.e. teachers, is to encourage Catholic women to
set up in public as teachers. St. Thomas Aquinas (IIa IIae, 177, art 2)
has three reasons against this.  [He seems to be basing his ideas on the writings of the Angelic Doctor]

Firstly he quotes St. Paul (II
Tim II, 12): “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over
the man: but to be in silence.” St. Thomas distinguishes here public
from private teaching: in the home a mother must teach her children, in
a quasi-domestic setting a woman may well teach, especially girls and
little boys.  [A pretty strong argument, since it comes from St. Paul.]

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

Thirdly, “women in general are not so perfect in wisdom as to be entrusted with public teaching.” [This also is not a very strong argument.]

What
is in question here is the whole design of God for man and woman as
complementary head and heart of the family. Teaching of a public kind
is a function primarily of the reason, or head, just as teaching in the
home is as much a function of the heart. [Ehem.] True, modern times are
destroying home and family, leaving woman frustrated, with little
alternative but to go out in public, where she does not belong and
where she often – bless her!—does not want to be. But by giving to
women, even Saints, the title of “Doctor”, the modern Popes are giving
way to such modern times, instead of resisting them.

St. Thomas
Aquinas’ three reasons may look old-fashioned, but the question is
whether our new-fashioned world can survive, with women in authority,
making themselves constantly as attractive as possible, and still,
generally, “not perfect in wisdom”. O Lord, grant us some men! Kyrie
Eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson
La Reja, Argentina

[Andrew Byler]

The admonitions of St. Paul and St. Thomas are against women publicly teaching in Church - i.e. preaching. They certainly did not oppose women teaching in general, i.e. nuns running a school, mothers teaching their children.

The last thing on the minds of Sts. Catherine, Teresa, and Therese when creating their works were to teach in the Church. Their great wisdom was composed for private purposes, and is all the stronger because of this humility.

[mockingbyrd]

my personal favorites....Girls at University and the Problem with the Sound of Music (hint, it’s virtually pornographic...his words, not mine)

[murphE]

His letters are a reasonable source of insight into the man, are they not?

They might be, if you actually read and understood them, all of them, and not just carefully chosen quotes from them taken out of context. How many of them have you read in full? How many talks of his have you listened to? How many times have you met him and spoken to him? Discussed any of these issues in conversation? I'm guessing the answer to these questions is close to zero and yet you presume to know his personality, and present your ill informed opinion of his personality as a "statement of fact".

I have probably read more things that you have written than you have ever read by Bishop Williamson. Does this qualify me as someone who can make factual assessments of your personality?

[marshmallow]

They might be, if you actually read and understood them, all of them, and not just carefully chosen quotes from them taken out of context.

Uh....I've read them. All of them.

Is there some deeper meaning to them that a person of average intelligence might miss?

I have probably read more things that you have written than you have ever read by Bishop Williamson. Does this qualify me as someone who can make factual assessments of your personality?

Yeah, I think it does.

What comes out of our mouth or off the end of our pen says something about who we are doesn't it?