A few notes on the contradictions between sanctity and reason, theology and double standards.
Thomas Aquinas —Doctor of the Church, canonical figure of scholastic philosophy, architect of the grand synthesis between faith and reason— has been celebrated for centuries as an intellectual beacon of Christian thought. I’m not here to question whether he was brilliant or not. He knew Aristotle, logic, metaphysics, theology. The man knew many things. Just not much about women, love, or sex. But he wrote about them anyway.
The interesting part is that you don’t even need to deconstruct his arguments with a modern lens or point out the contradictions as if this were some undergrad debate. It’s enough to simply read what he said —and take it seriously. Which, ironically, is what the Church least does when celebrating his legacy. How exactly does one reconcile his title of “Angelic Doctor” with statements like woman is a defective male? Or the notion that brothels are necessary to keep society from… becoming even more corrupt?
Yes, dear Thomas believed —and wrote without flinching— that woman was not created as an end in herself, but rather as a reproductive helper, since man was already complete for everything else. In his famous Summa Theologiae, he gifts us gems like this one:
“Woman is a misbegotten male, an error of nature, produced by defective active force or by some weakness in the father's seed.”
This statement, which today could easily pass for something posted by a teen lost in misogynist forums, has for centuries been read in cloisters and lecture halls with furrowed brows and solemn reverence. Really? Not one Pope has thought to reconsider his pedestal? Not one flicker of doubt under that crown of sanctity?
And it’s not just about medieval biology disguised as eternal dogma. Let’s go back to brothels. Aquinas defended the idea that it was better for men to release their sexual urges in organized prostitution than to risk social disorder. In his view, brothels were the sewers of society. I quote:
“Remove the brothels, and lust will sweep through society like a flood.”
A theology of repression, neatly channeled. Prostitution as a tool for social stability. Lovely. What a guy. How many times —and still today— have authorities turned a blind eye to prostitution precisely because of this perverse logic?
What’s both fascinating and disturbing is that these weren’t fringe opinions of their time that we can now file away with a shrug and a “those were different days.” These were, and still are, foundational elements of theological vision —used to justify centuries of female subordination. These weren’t just opinions: they became doctrine. And not just any doctrine, but that of one of the Church’s most influential thinkers, whose work remains required reading in seminaries and universities around the world.
So when today’s champions of “natural order” quote Aquinas to defend eternal truths about sex and gender, you can’t help but wonder: have they actually read their master? Or do they just enjoy wielding his name like a sword of authority when it suits them? Don’t they have sisters? Daughters? Mothers? Let’s assume they do —because we all do.
Because if we’re going to apply Thomistic logic consistently, we’d also have to accept that women are biologically inferior, that their role is secondary in the history of salvation, and that it’s reasonable to maintain institutionalized avenues of sin just to protect male virtue. Is this the moral foundation we’re still clinging to? Doesn’t it sound suspiciously similar to covering women from head to toe so they don’t tempt the poor fragile holy men?
Thomas Aquinas should absolutely be studied with the rigor he deserves. But also with a bit more critical thinking —the bare minimum required of any serious contemporary reading. He’s not an untouchable totem. He was what he was: a thinker of his time, with notable contributions in some areas, and monumental errors in others. Especially when it came to women.
It would be interesting to ask him —if Heaven has a complaints department— whether he ever imagined that his words would someday be used to defend prostitution as just another job, or to legitimize commercial surrogacy, while completely ignoring his ideas about wombs being malfunctioning ovens.
Was Thomas a genius? I doubt it. True genius, in my view, lives closer to the Good —yes, that capital-G good that lifts us without moralizing, that brings joy and dignity without sanctimony. Was he a textbook misogynist? Absolutely. Like so many “great men” of history. Maybe even a closeted gay man, as many bitter misogynists have turned out to be. We’ll never know. What’s clear is that if we continue quoting him without context, without critique, and without conscience, then we’re not doing theology or philosophy. We’re just reinforcing centuries-old double standards with new packaging.
Perhaps it’s time to seriously and urgently review the global saint rankings, because some of those placements make no sense. And Aquinas is surely not the only one. In his case, as in others, it seems there’s far more lobbying than merit.
So the next time someone quotes the patron saint of brothels as a moral authority… feel free to question the credibility of anyone defending the indefensible —whether they know it or not.
Isabel Salasj
