Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Heaven Populated by Blastulae? (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sure I read... (none)
    somewhere, it was an extremely long time ago so please do correct me if I'm woring, that the Catholic Church did not recognize the existence of the souls of women until some time in the last 500 years or so.
       The soul atomism, as Nietzsche called is,  is a fairly malleable concept,indeed. Blame it on the Greeks. Particularly, Plato and his followers who searched for and found imaginary ehereal forms behind our superficial cave of apperances wherever they could.

       

    So I be written in the Book of Love. I care not about that book above. Erase my name or write it as you will. So I be written in the Book of Love. -Khayyam

    by gilgamesh on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:27:54 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm (none)
      I haven't heard that.  I can't imagine that the Catholics thought Mary didn't have a soul, or, for that matter, any of the host of early Xian women martys (Margaret of Antioch, Katherine, and so forth).

      But I could be wrong!

      13th-century medical science certainly thought women's bodies were physiologically inferior to those of men, but I don't think it weighed in on souls.  Oops.  Wrong.  Seems women have a inferior soul . . . I just checked Aquinas, quickly, and in the Summa Theologica, Supplement Q. 81, Art. 3, he says that, contrary to the belief of some, everyone will not be made male during the resurrection.  Differences in heaven will be differences of merit, not nature: "Woman is subject to man on account of the frailty of nature, as regards both vigor of soul and strength of body. After the resurrection, however, the difference in those points will be not on account of the difference of sex, but by reason of the difference of merits."

      Another medievalist hijacking.  I'll shut up now.

      we gonna smash their brains in / cause they ain´t got nofink in ´em -- Linton Kwesi Johnson

      by Karl the Idiot on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:03:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  An inferior... (none)
        soul in this life alone. Flexible enough concept, as I wrote. That's more than sufficient for justifying the subordination of women. And from Thomas Aquinas, no less. Makes you wonder what the pleb thought on the subject.

        So I be written in the Book of Love. I care not about that book above. Erase my name or write it as you will. So I be written in the Book of Love. -Khayyam

        by gilgamesh on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:32:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Women's souls (none)
      The Catholic church has never denied that women have "fully-functioning" souls -- you can tell, because the Church has recognized female saints from the get-go. This is one of the ways in which the Church diverged from Gnosticism, which was much more doubtful about women's souls.

      There have been times when some Protestant groups have been doubtful, too. Here's a reference (from David Hackett Fisher, Albion's Seed, p. 297):


      At a rich [Virginia] planter's table as late as 1773, the northern tutor Philip Fithian was startled to hear an argument on the question of whether women had souls. That ancient conundrum had long since been laid to rest abong the Puritans. But it still remained a topic of debate in Virginia.

      (As an aside, Fisher's book is IMHO indispensable for understanding American regional cultures and politics -- I can't recommend it too highly.)

      If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.

      by DoctorScience on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:34:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site