Thomas Aquinas’s “Misbegotten” Concept of Women

Download a PDF version of this article.

The influence of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) on Catholic theology is beyond dispute. As important examples, his thought was used to strengthen Church teachings concerning transubstantiation, concerning the concept of the Treasury of Merit, and as an authoritative defense against Protestant charges at the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Legend holds that Pope Pius V (1566–1572) revered his teachings so much that he had Aquinas’s great work, the Summa Theologica, placed on the altar alongside the Bible, as he believed it clarified much of Catholic orthodoxy. Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), in his 4 August 1879 encyclical, declared that Aquinas’s theology was the exposition of Catholic theology and should be taught in all Catholic schools of higher education.¹  Aquinas was similarly praised at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). Its Decree on Priestly Training, Optatam Totius, required that a priest’s theological education be based on Aquinas’s teachings.² Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) stated Aquinas was “a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology.”³

In the above instances, Aquinas’s theological expressions, praised by the Church, concern primarily his teachings on moral philosophy, ethics, and the sacraments. He also wrote a great deal about the nature, purpose, and role of women, and his voice still resonates in many circles today.

Before the High Middle Ages (1000–1300), the Church’s beliefs about women had remained unchanged since the patristic era. Following Augustine’s (354–430) teachings, women were not considered to have been created in the full image of God until marriage. The order of creation meant women were expected to be subservient to their fathers, husbands, and possibly, to all men. Like Augustine, most theologians of this era accepted Neoplatonism’s dichotomies of body and soul, and of male and female, with all their implications of superiority and inferiority. However, this traditional interpretation of women underwent a significant shift with the emergence of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in the High Middle Ages, a period marked by profound changes in the church’s understanding of gender roles.⁴

Aquinas’s incorporation of Aristotelian philosophy into Christian theology provided one primary basis of medieval scholasticism. This integration of reason and faith allowed scholars of this period to approach theology and philosophy more rationally. Considered one of the most significant of Western writings, his Summa Theologica expresses his thoughts on almost all aspects of theology. Within his Summa and other writings, Aquinas provides centuries of scholars who follow him with a detailed depiction of the nature, role, and purpose of women. He does this by discussing women’s place and purpose in creation, condition within the image of God, role in the Fall, standing in marriage, and their shortcomings when compared to men. We will treat these topics in the sections following.

Order of Creation

Unlike John Chrysostom (347–407), Augustine, and several other church fathers, Aquinas had no prior sexual or platonic relationships with women.⁵ His female depictions were based only on philosophy and theology. His lack of female relations caused him to approach the issue detached from emotion. Aquinas held that women have a place in the world since God created Eve. She was, however, created second, and from the man. The woman, therefore, is less complete than the man. Here, Aquinas followed Aristotle’s philosophical biology almost to the letter. Based on the order of creation, Aquinas maintained that men had active souls, more muscular bodies, and superior minds. The female, however, was less because she had a passive soul, a weak body, and an inferior mind.⁶ Therefore, men were more intelligent than women and less likely to be attracted to evil. Unlike Aristotle, Aquinas did not believe that the male provided the soul. God provided the soul. The male exerted the force that prepared the female matter to accept the soul.⁷ Following Aristotle’s concept of humanity, the male was perfection, and the female was an accident:⁸

As regards the individual nature, a 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 a woman comes from a 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.⁹

If a female child was created, the male was mainly at fault. He did not have enough masculine attributes and his semen was too weak.

Like Augustine, Aquinas believed women’s primary purpose was bearing and raising children.¹⁰ “As regards human nature in general, the woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”¹¹ If not for the need for procreation, a man would find a more suitable partner in another man.¹² Men, therefore, were more noble, and male leadership was a divine and biological necessity. Because of this, the father should be loved more by the child.¹³

Father and mother are loved as principles of our natural origin. The father is a principal in a more excellent way than the mother because he is the active principal, while the mother is a passive and material principal. Consequently, strictly speaking, the father is to be loved more.¹⁴ Eve passed on her inferior traits and material to her daughters.¹⁵  Aquinas’s teaching was honored at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), and his “misbegotten” biology continued in the Catholic tradition.¹⁶

Image of God

Aquinas held that both men and women were created to know God, have a rational soul, and to be in God’s image, but to different degrees. While Augustine claimed that women were created in God’s image only when married, Aquinas saw women as lesser in soul, reason, and, therefore, in image.¹⁷ Aquinas maintained that the image of God was active, formulative, and perfect; thus, males were more in the image of God. Moreover, men were physically stronger, which promoted rationality and made them more adept at making moral decisions. Men, therefore, possessed a high degree of the image of God. Women had inferior bodies and were passive, corporal, and less perfect. Their inferior bodies limited their intelligence and clouded moral decision-making.¹⁸ Women, therefore, were inferior to men in all aspects of the image of God.

Aquinas did not rely solely on Aristotelianism. He also relied on biblical interpretation. By using Gen 1:26–27 as his primary argument and 1 Cor 11:7–9 as secondary, he noted:

The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Genesis. 1:27). Moreover, it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Genesis ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense, the image of God is found in man and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman, as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he added his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”¹⁹

Women would gain the full image of God and equality with men only in the resurrection. Unlike Augustine, who believed all souls would be asexual in paradise, Aquinas maintained there would be both males and females in the resurrection.²⁰ Genitals, however, would no longer be of use.²¹

The Fall

Aquinas maintained that Eve was more culpable for humanity’s fall, but Adam should never have let the situation occur. Adam had the more significant reasoning ability, a more muscular body, was created first, and was morally superior. She was weak-minded and inferior to Adam.²² She was meant to be subordinate to him. The serpent, therefore, approached Eve because she was easier prey than Adam. As Adam possessed higher reason, he held a higher degree of the image of God and was in charge of the first family. The fall occurred because Adam failed to take charge of the situation. He allowed his inferior wife to lead, and she led him astray.

Adam and Eve sinned for similar and different reasons. Eve gave in to the serpent because she was weak-minded and prideful and wanted to be like God. Aquinas held that Eve was guiltier than Adam because she sinned and convinced Adam to sin.²³ Adam’s motivation to sin was his desire to be more like God and to remain with his wife, from whom he feared God would separate him because of her sin. He did not believe the serpent.²⁴ Adam was guilty because, though he was more intelligent than his wife, he followed her lead. As the head of the family, if Adam had not joined Eve in sin, Aquinas believed the couple would not have been separated or expelled from paradise.

Submission

Aquinas believed that the first couple’s punishments corresponded with their designated roles as depicted in creation. Adam must now acquire food by the sweat of his brow. What was once an untaxing task is now laborious. Childbirth was now an excruciating ordeal.²⁵  She was now subordinate to the man in a manner that reflected Aristotelian household ethics.²⁶

Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.²⁷

Aquinas believed there were two reasons for marriage. First, it allowed for the procreation of legitimate children. Second, it provided a wife to raise the children. The husband could then be free from many family duties and use his time for intellectual pursuits.²⁸  Each parent, however, had a role in the child’s development. The mother worked in the home, and the husband worked in the public sphere. The man, however, was the head of the family, and the wife’s deficiencies required his oversight. Aquinas also believed fathers should take charge of their children’s education.²⁹ The woman did not have the authority or mental capabilities to ensure success.³⁰ Marriage was also a monogamous relationship. Polygamy was forbidden because it led to strife within the home. The man could not sexually service several women,³¹ and to Aquinas’s credit, he recognized that polygamy made the wife only a little more than a slave.³²

Aquinas maintained that the sacrament of monogamous marriage stabilized the home.³³ It provided the man with confidence in his paternity. The sacramentality of marriage symbolized the union of Christ and conferred grace, and so it neutralized the sinful elements of sex.³⁴ If performed for procreative purposes only, sex within marriage was not a sin.³⁵ Aquinas was also willing to make concessions to protect married women. For example, prostitution was permitted as it kept single men from committing adultery with married women.³⁶

Sex

Aquinas believed that the virginal life far surpassed that of marriage. Virginity mirrored the life of Christ and Paul. It was “directed to the good of the soul” and “directed to the good of the body.” Moreover, “venereal pleasures above all debauch a man’s mind.” Quoting Augustine, he stated: “Nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of a woman.”³⁷ Aquinas, however, believed that sex and procreation were a part of God’s original plan for humanity.³⁸ This pre-fall sex would be innocent and dominated by reason. Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that sex in paradise would be passionless; both parties would remain in control of their faculties, so both partners would remain virginal. A woman lost her virginity only after the fall.³⁹

God planned marriage before it was a sacrament, as it was necessary for procreation.⁴⁰ Even though Aquinas viewed it with suspicion, he agreed that sex within marriage was not evil. However, passionate sex with no attempt at impregnation was a venial sin.⁴¹ After having marital sex, neither the man nor the woman should take the Eucharist. Aquinas separated love from sex. All love must be directed at God. Continence allowed one to stay more in control of the rational faculties and thus keep their love directed on God. Because of their inherent material weaknesses, women were more likely to disregard the church’s sexual restrictions. This made women potential temptresses and a danger to men.⁴²

The Virgin Mary

In the Middle Ages, the Virgin Mary was the most significant role model for women.⁴³ Aquinas noted she was “The mother of the Lord being both espoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are honored in the person, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the other.”⁴⁴ A significant step in Mary’s growing prominence occurred at the Ephesus council in 431, where she was given the title Theotokos (“God Bearer” or “Mother of God”). Mary, therefore, did not give birth only to Christ’s physical body but also to his divinity. This finding undergirds the developing belief, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in the Immaculate Conception. This taught that since Mary had borne divinity, she had to have been born without original sin.⁴⁵ Aquinas did not believe in her Immaculate Conception. Rather, he argued that if she had not been born in original sin, she would not have needed Christ as her savior.

And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and, therefore, she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): “He shall save His people from their sins.” But this is unfitting, implying that Christ is not the “Saviour of all men,” as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.⁴⁶

Aquinas believed Mary was necessary to ensure the universality of redemption. Christ represented men; Mary represented women and their proper role. As she was an auxiliary to Christ, women were to serve as auxiliaries to men.⁴⁷ She was a sexually undefiled woman whom virgins should emulate.

Aquinas was not a misogynist, but his regard for women was relatively low. Because of his stature and other contributions to the Catholic faith, several scholars have attempted to find ways to lessen the impact of Aquinas’s writings concerning women.⁴⁸ This difficult task requires attention to passages where women were included and not denigrated. However, in such passages, women were not central to the issue he discussed. Aquinas should be celebrated for his contributions to moral philosophy, ethics, and the sacraments. His beliefs in these areas are explicit, as are his thoughts on women. Aquinas’s views on the nature, purpose, and role of women were typical of his age, and this should be considered. One could argue that if Aquinas had the benefit of living in the modern era with its scientific understanding of biology, he would not hold some of the positions he held in the Middle Ages.

However, this does not change the fact that he was a medieval theologian who believed that women were lesser than men, should remain in the home, were weak-minded, and that God’s image was dimmer in women than in men. By employing Aristotelean biological concepts, Aquinas believed women were nothing more than defective males whose sole purpose was little more than that of incubators and babysitters. In the modern era, it is evident that many of Aquinas’s teachings concerning women have no scientific merit. However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the negative impact of the teachings of such an influential scholar. Aquinas was brilliant in many theological and philosophical areas, and his contributions to the church are innumerable, but his concept of women was “misbegotten.”

Notes

1. Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (Aug 4, 1879).
2. Pope Paul VI, Optatam totius (Oct 28, 1965).
3. Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (Sept 14, 1998).
4. Marie Anne Mayeski, “Excluded by Logic of Control: Women in Medieval Society and Scholastic Theology,” in Equal at the Creation: Sexism, Society, and Christian Thought, ed. Joseph Martos and Pierre Hégy (University of Toronto Press, 1998) 79.
5. Elizabeth Clark and Herbert Richardson, eds., Women and Religion: The Original Sourcebook of Women in Christian Thought (HarperCollins, 1996) 79.
6. Aquinas, “Of Incontinence,” ST, II–II, I56.1, ad 1, Summae Theologiae, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/38901.htm.
7. Aquinas, “The Order of Charity,” ST, II–II, 26, 10. ob. 1, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, in New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, https://newadvent.org/summa/3026.htm#article10.
8. Collen McCluskey, “An Unequal Relationship between Equals: Thomas Aquinas on Marriage,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 24/1 (Jan 2007) 2.
9. Aquinas, “The Production of the Woman,” ST, I, 92, ob. 1, Summa Theologiae, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/09201.htm. Aquinas’s reference to “the Philosopher” concerns Aristotle’s De Generatione Animalium iv, 2.
10. Thomas Petri, Aquinas and the Theology of the Body: The Thomist Foundations of John Paul II’s Anthropology (Catholic University of American Press, 2016) 106.
11. Aquinas, “The Production of the Woman,” ST, I, 92, ob. 1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/09201.htm.
12. McCluskey, “An Unequal Relationship,” 5.
13. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Women and Redemption: A Theological History (Fortress, 1998) 95.
14. Aquinas, “Of the Order of Charity,” ST, II–II, 26, 10, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/25910.htm.
15. Beverly Clack, ed., Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition: A Reader (MacMillan, 1999) 75.
16. Cynthia Russett, “All About Eve: What Men Have Thought About Women Thinking,” The American Scholar 74/2 (Spring 2005) 43.
17. Margaret A. Farley, “Sources of Sexual Inequality in the History of Christian Thought,” JR 56/2 (1976) 168.
18. Kari Elisabeth Børresen, Subordination et Equivalence. Nature et rôle de la femme d’aprés Augustin et Thomas d’Aquinas (Paris: Maison Mame, 1963), 143.
19. Aquinas, “The End of Term of the Production of Man,” ST, I, q. 93, art. 4, ad 1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/09304.htm.
20. Aquinas, “Of the Quality of Those Who Rise Again,” ST, Supp., q. 81, a. 3, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/59303.htm.
21. Aquinas, “Of the Integrity of the Bodies in the Resurrection,” ST, Supp., q. 80, a.1,, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/59201.htm.
22. Aquinas, “Of Our Parents’ First Temptation,” ST, II–II, 165.2, a.1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/39802.htm; Aquinas, “Of the First Man’s Sin,” ST, II–II, 163, a.4, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/39604.htm.
23. Aquinas, “Of the First Man’s Sin,” ST, II–II, 163.4.c, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/39604.htm.
24. Aquinas, “Of Our Parents’ First Temptation,” ST, II–II, 165.2, a.1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/39802.htm.
25. Aquinas, “Of the First Man’s Sin,” ST, II–II, 163, a. 4, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/39604.htm.
26. Daniel Mark Cere, “Marriage, Subordination, and the Development of Christian Doctrine,” in Does Christianity Teach Male Headship: The Equal-Regard Marriage and Its Critics, ed. David Blankenhorn, Don Browning, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen (Eerdmans, 2004) 103.
27. Aquinas, “The Production of the Woman,” ST, I, q. 92, a.1, Reply to Objection 2, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/09201.htm.
28. Katharine M. Rogers, The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature (University of Washington Press: 1966) 66.
29. McCluskey, “An Unequal Relationship,” 5.
30. Aquinas, “Natural Law and Conscience,” Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 122, https://natural-law-and-conscience.org/aquinas-summa-contra-gentiles-book111-chapter-122/. Hereafter cited as SCG.
31. Aquinas, “Of Plurality of Wives,” ST, Supp., q. 65, ob. 9, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/57701.htm.
32. McCluskey, “An Unequal Relationship,” 6.
33. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council made marriage a sacrament.
34. Aquinas, ST, Supp., 42, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/57701.htm.
35.  Since marriage was now a sacrament, Aquinas eschewed the emergence of courtly love. Ruether, Religion and Sexism, 258.
36. Aquinas, “Unbelief in General,” ST, II–II, q. 10, art. II, ob. 3, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, in New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, last modified 2017, https://newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm.
37. Aquinas, “Lust,” ST, II–II, q. 153, art. 1, 2, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, in New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, last modified 2017, https://newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm.
38. Aquinas, ST, I, q. 99, art. 2; Petri, Aquinas and the Theology of the Body, 221.
39. Børresen, 153.
40. Petri, Aquinas and the Theology of the Body, 281.
41. John Giles Milhaven, “Thomas Aquinas on Sexual Pleasure,” JRE 5/2 (Fall 1977) 159.
42. Aquinas notes that some effeminate men may not be in control of their sexual urges and some particularly strong women may be blessed with more fortitude. See “Of the Vices Opposed to Perseverance,” ST, II–II, q. 138, a. 1, 24, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/37101.htm; “Of Sobriety,”ST, II–II, q. 149, a. 4, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/38204.htm.
43. For an in-depth examination of the development of Mariology see Michael Jordan, The Historical Mary: Revealing the Pagan Identity of the Virgin Mother (Seastone, 2004).
44. Aquinas, “Of the Espousals of the Mother of God,” ST, III, q. 29, a. 1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/45101.htm.
45. The Immaculate Conception did not become dogma until 1854.
46. Aquinas, “The Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin,” ST, III, q. 27, a. 2, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, in New Advent, ed. Kevin Knight, last modified 2017, https://newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm.
47. Rosemary Radford Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Wipf and Stock, 1998) 249.
48. Marie I George, “What Aquinas Really Said About Women,” First Things (1999); Matthew Fox, “Honoring Thomas Aquinas’ Non-Dualism and Proto-Feminism,” Daily Meditations with Matthew Fox, https://dailymeditationswithmatthewfox.org/2024/03/18/honoring-thomas-aquinass-non-dualism-proto-feminism/