Oy! That the Catholic Church needed to do a few things to properly conform itself to the realities of the modern world (even while not caving in to it) is clearly demonstrated by the scratchings of this man clinging so tenaciously to antediluvian sensibilities.
His opinions regarding the relative abilities of male and female cognition are just opinions, even if they derive somewhat from Aquinas, yet he nearly enshrines them as Scriptural in their authority. Aquinas was not inspired. He was spot-on in essentially all matters doctrinal, but his views on psychology were limited by the times he lived in. To say that women are incapable of the higher thought necessary to teach with wisdom, as he does, in fact, assert, is utter nonsense. I doubt that Aquinas would baldly assert such a thing, either. The bishop comes across as total fool when it comes to this topic, at least. He would rather excise all the writings of the great female saints from public availability for the people’s Godly edification, simply because of a tradition - that no one has ever claimed could be infallible - on the matter of female wisdom? Oy, again!
And I say all these things as a Traditionalist, myself.
I love St. Thomas and God most definitely blessed him with a tremendous intellect. That being said, there is something to be said about trying to read this 13th century philosopher with 21st century eyes. It’s not necessarily a shortcoming on St. Thomas’ part, but a misunderstanding or misapplication of what he was talking about. He didn’t know, biologically speaking and physiologically speaking, everything we know now and he was affected by the misunderstandings of the day.
I have had many a conversation those who take St. Thomas’ words super literally and end up in some weird places, especially when it comes to marriage. But the development of doctrine when it comes to sex and marriage can truly help you best understand what St. Thomas was most likely getting at.