³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I think it entirely possible that men and women both sin and confess in different ways.

However, I followed the link and, as happens, link led to link. I loved which comes from HH's tour of America - it really took me back! I haven't seen as fetching a red shoe / white sock combo since the Young Farmers' dances I used to frequent in the 70's. Has anyone else noted Benedict's sartorial interests?

It is fortunate he taken very strong contrary public positions otherwise one might be tempted to wonder if he wasn't a tad what we used to call flamboyant.

I know well Fr. Busa, who, as a man of many books, should know that the phrase "the female is a misbegotten male" is a quotation of Aristotle.
Aquinas's own view on this matter can be learned (for instance) from Pia F. De Solemni, "A Hermeneutic of Aquinas' mens through a Sexually Differentiated Epistemology: Towards an Understanding of Woman as imago Dei" (Rome, 2000).
Incidentally, Fr. Busa is the author of Index Thomisticus, not of Corpus Thomisticus (that includes it as a part.) I am the editor, so I should know...
Fr. Busa's many readings may be induced from his many hundreds of publications, listed, for instance, in:
When talking about serious scholars, as Fr. Busa, some reading should be required, specially if the writer is prone to vacuous criticisms.

Ref. post # 3, given the other threads currently active, I am very tempted to retort:

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhh!!! Get her....

Congratulations to Mr. Crawley for rectifying the first version of his text . My previous comment (#3) is now outdated, since it was referred to the inexactitudes of the original text. The present one is far more respectful of Fr. Busa and of Aquinas.

Aquinas was right in trying to take advantage of the natural science of his time for his philosophy and for his theology. And this is a tradition to be maintained.

As natural science has advanced regarding the biology of men and women, philosophers and theologians have also changed some of their positions. But this change belongs properly to natural science, and not, as Mr. Crawley says, to theology or philosophy as such.

Apart of this, in defence of old Aristotle, it must be said that his thesis that woman is a misbegotten man is a kind of explanation of the difference of the sexes PROVIDED that the original embryo is exactly the same. It is only the conditions of its developing that makes the change. Thus, Aristotle tries to imply the radical equality of men and women, and the merely accidental kind of their differences.

Aquinas, precisely in the text of the Summa quoted by Mr. Crawley, while trying to asume the Aristotelian science of his time, goes beyond: "as regards human nature --he says-- in general, woman is not misbegotten." And the motivation behind this correction is the biblical doctrine of the equality of men and women (cf. the passage of Genesis that he quotes). In this, it is theology that has moved science to an improvement, and not vice versa. And it does so today, when some people aduce allegedly scientific thesis to undermine human dignity.

Corollary: it would have been more fair from Mr. Crawley to underline the merits of Aristotle and Aquinas, and of theology, instead of suggesting their shortcomings.

By the way: Aquinas never wrote "beware of the man of only one book" (but, please, show the complete reference if I am wrong!) Nevrtheless, he did write that, when you are learning the first steps of a science, you should learn from only one master; and, when you are already formed, you should use all that may be useful (Homily "Puer Iesus.")

PS.: Sorry, portwyne, but we should try not to repeat here the infortunate sarcasms and insults of that other thread.

Lest anyone suspect timor proelii:

I have made a post referring to this thread on the topic: Children are dying ... so what?.