Combox for:
Am I a "Protestantizing" Catholic Now Or Was I Formerly a "Catholicizing" Protestant?
[22 July 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...lic-now-
or.html
There is a strong tradition of Catholic saints who placed a heavy emphasis on Scripture to defend Catholic teachings. One of my all time favorites is St Francis de Sales who was probably one of the original "Catholic apologists" to the Protestants. His writings rely heavily upon what we would call today proof-texting and the fruits of his work and prayers led 70,000 Calvinists back to the Catholic Church.
We are in a new age of apologetics ourselves, in the middle of the information age. A huge driving force to Catholic success in this age is Protestants who convert to Catholicism. They know what Protestantism (at least their brand) teaches and why it is wrong and, most especially, why the Bible supports the Catholic side far better.
Catholics should have no fear of the Bible. If all we have in common with a Protestant is the Bible then we will come down to that level and still have the confidence that Providence has provided a way to demonstrate to Protestant that the Catholic Church is the correct choice. I guarantee you that the main stream Catholic apologists are bringing in far more genuine and solid converts than any RadTrad organization is or even thinks about.
Any "objections" by Protestants that Catholics are reading back into the Bible a given doctrine only hurts the Protestant case. If it is about "Sola Scriptura" then the Protestant has no business appealing to history/tradition/church against the passages a Catholic brings up.
And last, but certainly not least, is the fact that Dave rightly mentioned above, that the Church allows Catholics to take a material sufficiency view of Scripture (ie all doctrines are found at least implicitly in Scripture). This is my personal preference, and I'm proud of it.
Well-stated, Nick. I LOVE St. Francis de Sales. That is some powerful apologetics, and we see how effective it was.
I once again have to take issue with the way you label people as "trads" I am one my self and I am a very big fan of your apologetic work specialy the way in which you engage the protestant mind set in terms which are easy to understand and do not overwhelm them.
However these so called trads have a fear of all that is protestant and reject it like the plague. Some of the reminence of the early attitude of some that would recognize the protestant even as Christian. Which of course the Church later condemned.
I am a trad Dave, I love the Latin Mass, I sence God when I smell incense, I am a sucker for polyphony and can not stand guitar or any other hippy dippy music during Mass. The Mass is suppose to be reverent we are in the presence of God.
It's all in the definition. I didn't label anyone; they labelled themselves. These particular people who went after me recently use the label and want to call me a "neo-Catholic."
I reject both. There are simply Catholics. If we must use a modifying or qualifying label, then I think it ought to be "orthodox (Catholic)" or "heterodox (Catholic)." That is the real dividing line.
If all one means by the term is love of Latin Mass, reverence, incense, traditional liturgical gestures, good music, acceptance of all that the Church teaches, piety, etc., then I am one myself, since I've gone to a parish that has all these things, for 17 years and I'm the furthest thing imaginable from a liberal Catholic.
I'm afraid it isn't all that simple to distinguish who is a "traditionalist" (by their internal criteria) and who isn't. This is part of the problem. But I do know one thing for sure: there are plenty within this sub-group whose attitudes stink to high heaven. This is admitted even by those who consider themselves part of the movement.
Giovanni,
I am certainly a traditionalist and agree with the comments you made about your tastes at Mass and such.
I stick to the term "RadTrad" (radical traditionalist) for those who consider their views on the faith "more Catholic than the Pope." Like you said, it is this type that has a "fear for all that is protestant," while not realizing it is a misguided fear (eg wrongly attacking Catholics, esp converts, who place a heavy emphasis on Scripture).
'Radtrad" is a helpful designation under the circumstances, but does not, I think, completely solve the terminological issue. I continue to dislike the title "traditionalist," because it implies that whoever is not in this sub-category is somehow hostile to Tradition, and this is not the case at all. Titles that immediately irrationally exclude or insult others are to be rejected.
So I continue to put the word in quotes when I use it (since others insist on describing themselves this way), just as I do with the word "Reformation" -- for similar reasons. That was not a reform; it was a revolt or revolution.
I wrote on the CHNI board:
Of course, I use both Scripture and Tradition in my apologetics (all the time), but I usually emphasize Scripture with Protestants because that is the common ground that we share (they couldn't care less about papal proclamations and they deny the infallibility of conciliar decrees).
It's simple common sense in methodology (you start with shared premises and then move along the discussion from there) and also an application of St. Paul's urging to "be all things to all people" and the Vatican II stress on sharing the faith in terms that non-Catholics can understand.
But this method is NOT sola Scriptura or anything remotely like it. It's a patristic method of apologetics, not Protestant, which excludes the infallible authority of Church and Tradition.
I have problems with the term "traditionalist," not only for the reason that Dave mentioned, but also because there is a French philosophical movement called Traditionalism that is unrelated to modern Catholic "traditionalism." Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere about a proscribed heresy called Traditionalism, which, if I recall, elevates Tradition above Scripture and Magisterium. Perhaps many "traditionalist" Catholics are Traditionalists in the heretical sense, but I expect that most of them are not -- and yet the term has become the usual designation for them. As a Catholic, I would not want to be known by a designation that is the proper name of a heresy. For myself, I wouldn't object to being known as a "traditional" Catholic, but it's when you add the "-ist" that I have problems.
Great points. I'll have to remember this, too.
I'm trying to figure out the flaw here. Dave, Ben, Randy, Jamie, and many others here use the Bible to support their beliefs. That's bad? 
You do so, because Reformed Christians (like Ken, others, & me) don't accept "The church said so" or "It's tradition" as a valid defense. So if you're trying to show Reformed Christians why the RCC has certain dogma and doctrines, you won't convince us without Biblical support.
I went to Clemson University and every year we'd have Tigerama the night before the home-coming game. The fraternities and sororities would always do skits where they made fun of the other 7 ACC teams (there were only 8 back then). Every year they'd make fun of Duke for (of all things) being smart. My friend and I thought, "Really? We're mocking another University for being SMART?!?! Doesn't that seem dumb?"
My point with that (besides a trip down memory lane) is: why would anyone give RCs grief for defending their doctrines and dogma with the Bible? That's like making fun of a University, because their students are smart. Obviously I don't agree that all the scripture you guys cite means what you say it means, but I can at least see (in some instances) why the RCC supports certain doctrines and dogma.
Everyone (RCs & Reformed Christians alike), keep reading your Bible and ignore people who say you're "Protestantizing."
.
Dave,
I don't quite understand your beef with "traditionalists" (in or out of quotes). You seem to agree with many of their concerns such as:
1. The teaching of higher criticism of the Bible by leading prelates such as the Pope.
2. The unconditional embrace of evolution by most of the church and the attack on creationism and ID by people such as the Vatican astronomer.
3. Liturgical abuses.
4. Catholic schools, universities and seminaries teaching liberalism.
5. The failure of the Vatican to discipline errant theologians.
So is your problem with traditionalists that they put some of the blame for all this on Vatican II?
Hi Jeb,
I agree with the concerns of 3 and 4. 1 and 5 are complex and "trads" have a lot of misguided notions. As for 2, my beef is with materialistic evolution, not evolution per se, which can be believed in a theistic form that is perfectly consistent with the Bible and the Catholic faith.
I have many concerns with "trads"; blaming Vatican II and recent popes for modernism; attacking the Novus Ordo Mass, and generally having a know-it-all reactionary attitude, a willingness to needlessly create discord in the Church by muddle-headed concerns; quasi-Feeneyism, rejection of ecumenism, adoption of the private judgment of Protestants and pick-and-choose mentality of the liberals; lack of faith that God is in control of the Church, lack of a "Roman" mindset, etc., etc., etc.
See my web page on this stuff.
I'm trying to figure out the flaw here. Dave, Ben, Randy, Jamie, and many others here use the Bible to support their beliefs. That's bad? You do so, because Reformed Christians (like Ken, others, & me) don't accept "The church said so" or "It's tradition" as a valid defense. So if you're trying to show Reformed Christians why the RCC has certain dogma and doctrines, you won't convince us without Biblical support.
Precisely. It's just common sense and sensible argumentation.
My point with that (besides a trip down memory lane) is: why would anyone give RCs grief for defending their doctrines and dogma with the Bible?
Probably because of irrational overreaction to Protestant emphasis on the Bible, and the notion that citing the Bible is the equivalent of sola Scriptura, which is rejected by Catholics.
Everyone (RCs & Reformed Christians alike), keep reading your Bible and ignore people who say you're "Protestantizing."
Amen! And you keep reading Church history and Tradition and see how God has led and taught your Christian brothers and sisters for 1500 years before Protestantism began. Like Chesterton said: "Tradition is the democracy of the dead."
If evolution is true when did God infused the soul into Adam then Eve? I always thought that God created Adam and Eve as we are now.
Right before they became conscious, I imagine. Gen 2:7 alludes to it, but it is vague as to details.
Dave,
But even with respect to ecumenicalism, I believe you have some concerns.
I asked you a while ago about the situation here in Connecticut where the state executed a murderer. Near the prison at a United Church of Christ Church church (the congegretionalist group) held an interfaith service which the Catholic bishops attended, notwithstanding the fact that the UCC (not to be confused with the group big in Tenn and Texas) supports abortion and homosexuality and runs those anti-Christian adds about "excluding people." You said the bishops should not have attended such an event.
As another example, I once read about the installation of a Catholic bishop where Hindus were permitted to say prays. I don't imagine you approve of this either.
Do you think that the Vatican has issued guidelines to discourage these incidents?
The difference between you and traditionalist seems to be a matter of degree.
Oftentimes it is indeed a matter of degree, where they are too extreme (or think I am). "Traditionalism" is a disorder of thought. It's a lack of faith. It comes from the same sort of mindset that produces conspiratorialism, paranoia, fear, pessimism, cynicism, a reactionary and naysayer and gossipy spirit.
I've often thought that many "traditionalists" believe as they do mainly because of the temperament they were born with. They get with others of similar temperament and predisposition and then it becomes a movement, consuming much energy and zeal that could be put to far better purposes in the Kingdom of God and the Body of Christ.
Dave,
Say I am a Catholic parent circa 2002. I send my children to Catholic schools. They are taught that all religions lead to God, Adam and Eve weren't historical people, the writers of the New Testament put into Jesus' mouth His statements about His resurrection and sacrificial death on the cross, Genesis 1-11 are allegories written hundreds of years after Moses, etc.
I then write to my bishop who was appointed by John Paul II to complain. My bishop tells me that anyone who believe old-fashioned things such as the historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11 or the infancy narratives isn't in tune with the latest results of biblical criticism.
Is it a disorder of thought to believe that maybe John Paul 2 and Vatican 2 have some responsability for what was taught my children?
Yes. It is first of all the school that is responsible for teaching nonsense. The bishop is responsible on another level. He is in charge of his diocese. We all know very well that bishops aren't perfect human beings.
Thirdly, the parent is primarily responsible for his children's education and discipleship. Once you find out that crap is being taught, then you either pull your child out of the school and send him or her somewhere else, or do some serious supplementary education, and show them how their school is in error on some things, and WHY, and you show them a better way.
So if that was your experience, you bear some of the blame and cannot blame Vatican II and popes for a dumb Catholic school in your neighborhood.
This is why we home school.
Is it a disorder of thought to believe that maybe John Paul 2 and Vatican 2 have some responsibility for what was taught my children?
Vatican 2 did not say we had to start doing really lousy religious education. We decided that on our own. Certainly major mistakes were made. John Paul 2 was the guy that started to turn it around. Sure the return to orthodoxy is coming slowly but it can be traced to his taking the chair of Peter. It is in major contrast to the other mainline denominations. They have all drifted towards liberalism with no turnaround in sight.
So if you want a more orthodox bishop you are likely to get one eventually. The church is going that way. As far as education goes. That is coming much more slowly. I suggest buying the teacher a copy of Pope Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth. He might see not everyone is thrilled with the latest results of biblical criticism.
Dave,
But the pope appoints the bishops. He certainly has some idea of what they are doing (and are permitting). He couldn't have found someone better to run the Chicago church than Cardinal Bernadin (who had the Windy City Gay Men's Choir sing at his funeral, if you believe news reports)?
I don't think you would let the head of WalMart off the hook for systematic problems.
I can't claim to be an expert on JP II, but he didn't seem to get as worked up over pedophile priests, liturgical abuses and higher criticicism of the Bible as he was over the death penalty.
Jerry,
I believe God DID create Adam & Eve as we are now. I used to subscribe to evolution, but it just doesn't make sense. When procreating, genes can only be passed on or lost. Dominant genes (such as brown eyes) will eventually diminish and possibly remove altogether recessive genes (such as green eyes). How can a gene that neither parent has be passed on to a child? So macro evolution hasn't been observed by science, therefore there's no reason to accept it as anything but a hypothesis that seems to conflict with Genesis. Micro evolution (man is getting taller, pinky toes are getting smaller, and things like that) are observable, but they don't require new genes to be introduced as macro evolution does.
I've also read articles that point out why carbon dating and other forms of dating aren't valid beyond a few thousand years. Lastly, there's something called irreducible complexity. An example is the eye. Any eye is useless without a lens, a cornea, rods & cones, the nerve that takes the picture from the eye to the brain, and many other pieces. So when the first part of an eye shows up in evolution, it has no real use or value; therefore natural selection wouldn't favor that new thing. Some things, like an eye, lungs, and a heart must have so many other things in place to make them useful, and all those other things are useless without the eyes, lungs, and heart in place.
You may know all this already. If you do, I apologize. If not, I hope you'll continue to trust Genesis for how and why God created us.
.
Jeb,
You need to understand that we are to be Catholic regardless of the quality of the pope and bishops. I would not grant you that the current pope and bishops are that bad. I would concede that there have been times in history when the pope and bishops have been awful. That does not mean all the faithful should have left the church at that point. We need to trust God that no matter how bad things get He will restore His church.
Randy,
I understand the Catholic position. However, the Catholic position doesn't justify the kind of papalotry displayed by people like Dave.
Is there anything JP 2 did that he disagrees with? If the pope kissed the Book of Mormon or the New World Translation, I wouldn't be surprised if Dave found a way to justify it.
Is there anything JP 2 did that he disagrees with?
Yep: oppose the war in Iraq. Am I still a "papolater" now?
Jeb, you will stand before God one day and have to justify why you left the Church. The "sin" excuse just ain't gonna cut it. He will just say, "did you not know that David, with whom I made an eternal covenant, was a murderer and adulterer, and Moses, to whom I gave my Ten Commandments, a murderer, and disobedient to a direct order of Mine, and my servant Paul, a murderer of Christians, including St. Stephen, and that St. Peter denied even knowing Me three times? Did you not know that there will always be sin and sinners in My Church, from reading about the seven churches in Revelation and from examining your own soul?"
Etc., etc., etc. Now, no one knows who is saved in the end and who isn't. You still might be saved in ignorance, but I wouldn't count on that. You're in a frightening place and need to get this settled, because to reject something that is true is far worse than never having arrived at the same truth.
If you think sin is the leading factor in determining truth, then I'm dying to learn all about this perfect denomination or congregation that you think you're in. Protestants are flat-out condoning sin all over the place: from contraception to divorce to abortion and homosexuality and fornication and masturbation. These sins are accepted and sanctioned.
The Catholic Church will never do that. But we definitely have sinners in our ranks, just as every other human group in history has had. We have problems and difficulties in dealing with them. We stand guilty as charged of those things.
But they don't make one whit of difference as to determining the One True Church and the One True Theology.
Dave,
What about the catholic church teaching evolution and higher criticism, catholic universities handing out contraception, the pope refusing to remove bishops who shuffled pedophiles from parish to parish, the pope inviting the high priest of Voodo to Assisi, etc.?
Why are these comprimises any worse than what you accuse protestants of?
As I'm sure you know Dave, there are many protestant churches that oppose abortion and homosexuality, don't hob-knob with the WCC and the NCC, don't embrace Koran kissers and the like.
How long do you think the head of the SBC, LCMS or WELS would last if they kissed the Koran?
You miss the point, Jeb. I'm not going to go round and round with you. It's always the same thing with you. You're a one-note tune.
Your soul and eternal destiny is between you and God. I warned you out of love, for your own good.
What you have complained about ad nauseum, I have written about again and again. The papers are there for you to read. I'll even send you any of my e-books that you would read, for free.
Thanks for the info. You see if God used evolution as the mechanism for life on earth then He must had waited until Adam was at are stage of development to infused the soul into the body. I doubt Adam and Eve were some type of ape with a infused soul.
Jeb Protestant,
Sola Fide is just has harmful to the soul as belief in the morality of abortion. Error is error. That is if you are logically consistant(which we all know you are not)>
BTW I still think Jeb is Steve Jackson.
Remember him? Ex-Catholic anti-Catholic JP2 hating Lutheran who sports the SAME objections as Jeb.
Bill Cork is of course a Hypocrite. He relies on the Catholic Church's teachings regarding Private Revelation to excust the errors of Ellen Gould White in her allied "revelations".
But historically didn't the SDA sect regard White's teachings as equal to Scripture?
Historically Catholics HAVE ALWAYS quoted the Bible in controverses with Heretics.
Always.
Hi Jeb, I did see on the WELS website that it was ok for Lutherans to use Holy Water and make the sign of the cross now.
To elaborate on my previous comment about the meaning of the word “traditionalism,” here is how the 1965 Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, compiled and edited by Albert Nevins, MM, defines “Traditionalism” ---
“A philosophical system which affirmed that man’s reason alone could not arrive at knowledge of natural religion. The sole source and criterion of truth is a primitive revelation which is handed down to mankind through tradition. It was condemned by the Church. Vatican Council I affirmed that God can be known by the light of reason through the things He made.”
I would be shocked if any modern Catholic “traditionalist” were a Traditionalist in that sense.
More related comments from the CHNI board:
It is a mindset that is thoroughly confused and illogical, . . . I know their thinking up and down (because I used to be among them, and was even a Protestant apologist) and I also understand Catholic thinking very well (having been immersed in it, and having defended it for 17 years, and having written more on the Bible and Tradition issue than anything else, by far).
My critics in this instance, on the other hand, have a flawed understanding of the Catholic mind and approach, which is why they assume that anything in it remotely similar to Protestant emphases, must somehow be essentially compromised with Protestantism. But this is untrue. Protestants get their intense love of the Bible in the first place from the Catholic tradition.
We converts do benefit by that experience, without question (virtually every convert I know will say as much). But why this would be turned against us and found objectionable is a mystery. Every convert has this advantage (i.e., in apologetics) of having been on the other side, and knowing it from the inside. St. Augustine was a Manichaean. St. Paul was a passionate law-abiding Jew. Newman, Chesterton, Knox, Waugh, Muggeridge et al were Anglicans. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was a Lutheran. Scott Hahn was a Calvinist. Marcus Grodi was both Lutheran and Presbyterian. Rosalind Moss was religiously Jewish and evangelical. I was a secularist (with a very secular education in Detroit public schools and in sociology and psychology in college), a Methodist, evangelical, Jesus Freak, "Bapticostal" cult researcher, street witnesser, and acquainted with many different aspects of evangelical Protestantism. I know how these people (my critics) think. I did it myself. I lived it. With "traditionalist" Catholics, it is another story. I never accepted that, but I have a lot of experience debating them.
I've given all Protestant beliefs up which are contrary to Catholicism. But not all are. We hold many many things in common. This is good news! The Catholic never had to at any time cease from using biblical arguments. It is only the false assumption that somehow we have to do that to be good Catholics, or that Protestants own the Bible, that allow these erroneous opinions able to be expressed in the first place.
There are all kinds of rationalizations for why folks become Catholics. They all have one thing in common: they are uniformly untrue (and desperate). We are here because we believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ and the fullness of the truth. Period. God uses many different ways to bring us in, by His grace alone, but that is the bottom line. We accept that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be.
Mostly (since none of them know me personally) my critics are angry because I defend my side and occasionally show how theirs leaves much to be desired. That is always a cause for unpopularity in any age or culture. And they (usually) express the anger through personal attack and false and illogical insinuations rather than through rational theological argument. Remember, some of the critics in this instance are Catholics.
They also think that no matter how hard you try, you will never truly be Catholic.
How they wish that were the case! It is not at all. I suppose this is somewhat of a left-handed compliment. In fact, within a year of my conversion, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., a lifelong Catholic and eminent catechist, whose cause is up for sainthood: the man who received me into the Church and baptized my first two boys (and who is usually revered by "trad" catholics, too), said my writings were "very Catholic". That was about 16 years ago. I consider this the greatest compliment I've ever received for my writing. I've thought like a Catholic in all respects (over against a Protestant worldview) ever since I converted. I had great mentors (along with writers like Chesterton, Knox, Bouyer, Adam, {early} Merton, Cardinal Gibbons and Cardinal Newman. I had read Karl Keating and Pat Madrid (both cradle Catholics and at the forefront of the apologetics movement). Etc., etc., etc.
The funny thing is that the anti-Catholic Grand Poobah, James White, claimed in our first exchange in 1995 that I was never a true Protestant. Now his buddies and "traditionalist" Catholics want to claim I have never truly become a Catholic. So which is it? Falsehoods have a way of contradicting themselves, as we see. I can't "never have been a Protestant" and "never have become a true Catholic" at the same time. The Church, too, is often accused of two contradictory things at the same time, as Chesterton noted, with many examples, in his book Orthodoxy.
The Protestant in me (i.e., the parts that were true then and remain true) will always profoundly be a part of me, as I have stated many times, because they do not contradict Catholicism. I'm extremely grateful for those things. The parts that do contradict Catholicism are no longer part of me. It's a selective process.
Two fallacies are in play here: that a convert is fundamentally lesser than a lifelong Catholic, and that so-called "traditional" Catholics have some secret knowledge and understanding (esoteric gnosis, etc.) that the rest of us mere "orthodox" Catholics lack. I reject both notions, and give the reasons why I do at great length.
[addressing a potential convert who feels that she is in theological "no-man's land]:
Well, we hope to get you to voluntarily resign the chess game and join our side rather than be in a frustrating stalemate position. We need lots of wonderfully thoughtful, committed Christians like you (and lots of our esteemed Protestant inquirers on this forum) to revitalize Catholic life on the "ground" level. C'mon in: the water's warm! What you have had in evangelicalism is mostly good: very good. You can still have most of it and many more wonderful things that Catholicism provides. You won't feel like a "stranger" here at all: you'll feel perfectly home, and feel a richness of Christian faith that you never dreamt of before. That has, very much, been my own experience, for what it's worth. I can give ample testimony to it.
Just keep searching and praying and asking God to guide you. We here, of course, will give you one point of view, and your Protestant friends are welcome to provide others. Your job is to ponder and pray and ask God to lead you into all truth, as He promised. Obviously, I think our "case" prevails in any head-to-head comparison with any Protestant system. I'd be happy to dialogue and debate (on my blog) any Protestant friend of yours who thinks he can overcome the Catholic arguments with superior Protestant ones. There are few things I enjoy more.
I have immense respect and affection for Protestants. I know they love God and want to do what's right, for the most part. I don't have to feel "superior" in any way in having these discussions. It's simply a matter of what is true and what is not, for each particular discussion.
Hey Dave,
Rosalind Moss was religiously Jewish and evangelical.
Was she ever!
But listen, I was just reading your post and at your mention of Rosalind Moss, I just had to make a quick comment (with your kind indulgence).
Years ago (8 or 9, maybe) I had called Catholic Answers about an apologetics question. I got Moss. And then, for reasons I don’t even remember, kept getting put off, despite repeated call back attempts. Finally, we spoke. What a wonderful human being! And what an honor for me to speak with her.
But long story short. She apologized for the several communication failures. And despite the fact that, back then, apologist’s generally allotted perhaps five minutes or so for phone questions, Rosalind, because as she said, “I owe this to you” (and also of course because she is simply a gracious woman), allowed a good thirty minutes to discuss my question.
Now as I said, I don’t even remember my reason for calling, but I do remember her telling me about her conversion. One phrase stuck in my mind all these years: she said, with regard to, I believe, her misunderstanding of what the Church actually believed, “I was sooo… blind!”
Well, anyway, I’m sure she probably wouldn’t even remember any of this, but what a class act!
Indeed. Rosalind is a wonderful Catholic woman. She is now starting up a new order of sisters, I hear. I think it's gonna be in St. Louis.
“starting up a new order of sisters”?!!
I guess she hasn’t heard the “word”.
“You are correct that there are two reasons for which life at the convent and vows may be forsaken:
"The one is where men's laws and life within the order are being forced, where there is no free choice, where it is put upon the conscience as a burden. In such cases it is time to run away, leaving the convent and all it entails behind. If this is your situation, where you are not freely choosing the cloister, where your conscience is being forced, and then call your friends. Let them help you escape and, if the law allows, take care of you or provide for you. If friends and parents are unwilling to help, obtain help from other goodly people, regardless of whether your parents become angry, die or recover.…
"The second reason is the flesh: Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this, nevertheless Scripture and experience show that among many thousands there is not a one to whom God has given to remain in pure chastity. A woman has no control over herself.”
– Martin Luther, To Several Nuns, August 6, 1524.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resour...luther/
nuns.txt
Oh, but not to worry ladies about your unfortunate inability to be chaste; Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer et al have invited you to dine with them at one of their classier haunts as a consolation.
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/
3...55A1E4F32AD3138
Commenting by HaloScan
