Aquinas goes on to say some other things about women that are less objectionable, and he does better when he makes his appeal to scripture rather than Aristotle. Nevertheless, the presence of so many problematic ideas in such an influential work of theology could go a long way to explaining how they have seeped down to the present day. Yet, I should not be too hard on Aquinas. He is but one of many men in history who have trumpeted similar ideas.

Thomas Aquinas was undoubtedly one of the greatest thinkers in Christian history. His Summa Theologica is quite possibly the most influential theological tome of all time. Christians of all stripes certainly have much to gain from reading the works of Aquinas.

However, my opinion of Aquinas if decidedly mixed. He introduced some great ideas into Christianity, but also some unfortunate errors that have resounded down to the present day. One such concept is the notion of “redemptive suffering”, which I have recently been studying. Aquinas was not the first person to teach this idea, but he certainly helped to lay the groundwork for a theology in which human suffering could itself hold salvific power.

Another place where Aquinas introduced erroneous thinking into Christianity is naturally rather important to me: his beliefs regarding women. The problematic section comes in Part One, Question 92 of the Summa. The first article he considers is, “Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?”

As is typical in works of scholastic theology, Aquinas begins by listing three objections that he will attempt to counter. He then says the following.

It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.

Yes, according to Aquinas, a woman’s role as “helper” only has to do with her reproductive function, since pretty much anything else can be done better by a man. It is unclear whether he would add to this certain “nurturing” activities commonly associated with motherhood. This limiting of the woman’s role does not even make sense in the context of Aquinas’ own logic, for he goes on to note that certain species are capable of reproducing on their own. Therefore, God could have presumably made man in that way and chose not to do so because there is some other reason that the woman is necessary.

However, it is not all that odd that Aquinas should make such an argument regarding women, as the majority opinion in his day (and an unfortunate minority opinion in our own) is that women are indeed placed on this earth for the purpose of propagating the species and little else. If that offends you, just wait.

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from the defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). 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. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

This is a classic example of medieval academic hair splitting. Aquinas attempts to differentiate between the “individual nature” and “human nature in general”. In regard to the first, he endorses the view of Aristotle that women are essentially misbegotten men. The idea is really that, during pregnancy, some influence – “such as that of a south wind” – causes the child’s anatomy to change and effectively turn inward. Yes, that means what you think it means. This idea actually came from Galen, who said, “Turn outward the woman’s, turn inward, so to speak, and fold double the man’s, and you will find the same in both in every respect.”

Read More