The Protestant Reformation and Women

The Daily Catholic ^ | Marian Therese Horvat, Ph.D.

[narses]

Ping.

[polemikos]

"The spirit of lawlessness came in with the Reformation, and Liberalism is its offspring."
- John Henry Cardinal Newman

[AMDG&BVMH]

"fertile ground for growth, and particularly in the Protestant countries. It was in part a reaction to a distorted view of women, quite different from the view of the Middle Ages, in a Catholic society where there were many outlets for a woman to exercise her influence and capacities."

This is what I have been teaching my daughter, tho I reached that conclusion based upon my own knowledge of history. Her current heroine is Eleanor of Aquitane.

There is an excellent book about Women in the Middle Ages, which supports this view.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Interesting article. As I was reading the contrast between Catholic and Protestant ideas on obedience, a parallel situation came to mind: our battle on this forum between the post VII concept of absolute obedience and the pre VII concept of obedience to the Faith and those who keep it.

[narses]

Good catch, I agree.

[Wrigley]

ping

[independentmind]

In my opinion, the greatest loss to the high status women had gained by the end of the Middle Ages was doing away with the cult and devotion to Our Lady.

There's much to be said for this view.

[Tax-chick]

Later

[Tax-chick]

Are you talking about "Women in the Age of the Cathedrals" or something like that? Or some other book?

I'm struggling with whether I should send this article to a Protestant friend. It can be hard to discern what will be persuasive and what will be offensive. I tend toward the latter view in this case, because the author makes a point of NOT saying "Reformation."

[Tax-chick]

It really ticks me off that the author has to say "Protestant Revolution," and include other extraneous Protestant-baiting language. The quotes from Luther, Calvin, and Knox are so outrageous that a reasonable Protestant with some intellectual background would be, well, outraged. But they're not going to get that far into the article, because the author introduces cheap slurs.

I'm disappointed. This could have been really useful.

[ahadams2]

I'm sorry but I have to admit I giggled my way through most of this article. Dr. Horvat, for all of her education seems to grasp little more than a cliche'd view of Protestant theology generally; and her understanding of such concepts as sola Scriptura and sola Fides in particular are insufficient for her to pass even a 10th grade Religion exam in a conservative Protestant Lutheran or Anglican parochial school.

Please tell me this isn't an honest representation of how little Roman Catholic scholars understand of Protestant theology...please?

[drstevej]

This is a vapid hit piece.

[narses]

Our protestant brethern say:

This is a vapid hit piece.

If so, in what way? If the quotes are out of context or in error, please point that out. Dialogue, rather than polemics, would be useful here.

[drstevej]

***So the convents were closed and the women were "liberated." A woman, who as the Bible said, should be governed by a man, no longer had any right to any vocation but marriage. The Church as the Bride of Christ was eliminated. From this came a new tragedy for a woman: that is, the tragedy of not being married. You can see how deeply entrenched this Protestant notion is in our own society with the negative connotations of the "old maid." ***

Vapid. As vapid as saying that the cloistered life of Romanism is the cause of rampant homosexuality today.

***The Church as the Bride of Christ was eliminated.***

Really silly.

Cheap Shots and Logical leaps.

[Maximilian]

Our protestant brethern say: This is a vapid hit piece.

I agree. I haven't recently read anything quite this wrong-headed. And it seems particularly ironic that a traditional Catholic would be attacking traditional protestants over an issue where they both agree. As far as the traditional Catholic view of marriage and family, I find support for it almost entirely among protestants. Many of them would find nothing objectionable in "Casti Connubii." Meanwhile JPII is promoting his absurd "Theology of the Body" which is bringing disrepute upon Catholic theology by making it appear that the Catholic position is at variance with Biblical and traditional mandates. Let's be glad that there are some faithful protestant brethren who are doing yeomen's work to preserve the integrity of Christian marriage at a time when Catholics have almost uniformly abandoned it.

[drstevej]

Well said.

I have performed about 100 weddings many of these couples have been married 10 -20 years. To my knowledge 95+% are still married.

I require 6 hours of premarital counseling including the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (I am a licensed instructor). I have often refused to do a marriage where biblical principles are violated or the couple doesn't evidence the maturity that marriage commitment requires.

[Cicero]

I won't get into the theology.

I will say, independently, that my historical studies suggest that women had it better in the Middle Ages than they did after the Reformation.

For one thing, the religious orders made it possible for women to be educated and to hold influential positions as nuns. After the monasteries were abolished, there was no similar role for women in Protestant religious life.

For another, women seem to have been treated better in matters such as owning their own property. Widows could continue to run their husbands' businesses. Women could hold castles when their husbands were off fighting somewhere else. And so forth.

So, I won't get into the reasons, but it's generally true that womens' rights decreased in the Renaissance and Reformation.

[ahadams2]

You asked for specific criticisms:

1. I would first request full specific citations (including translator and edition) on the various quotes alleged to be from various Reformation 'names'. The specific reason for this request centers on the fact that Luther wrote both serious theology and popular propaganda (as did his Roman Catholic counterparts). Failure of the author to differentiate between the two would allow an equally sleazy response quoting some of the anti-Lutheran propaganda of that era. Of course neither would be an accurate portrayal of the other side's views, but that doesn't seem to have been Dr. Horvat's goal.

2. Notice how the author fails to differentiate even between Lutheran and Calvinist theology while completely ignoring every other portion (including *ahem* Anglican *ahem*) of the Protestant Reformation. To attempt to put this in Roman Catholic terms, it is the equivalent of saying that SSPX, conservative mainstream Roman Catholics, post-Vatican II activists, and w-a-y left 'liberation theology types' are all really the same and thus we can take any portions of any of their writings as a genuine reflection of what all true Roman Catholics believe. Really. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here - that's really the way the article comes across, and that's really the level of diversity the Dr. Horvat appears to be intentionally ignoring.

3. For a better Protestant understanding of the basics of some aspects of some portions of Protestant theology (including such concepts as sola Scriptura and sola Fides I would suggest you might want to look at the Anglican "39 Articles of Religion" (with the proviso that the 3 articles mentioning English sovereignty are considered null outside of the UK) they can be found at

http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/39articles/39art.htm

another good basic explanation, from a Lutheran, rather than Anglican, perspective is Luther's Small Catechism which can be found at

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html

you will notice conflicts between the two. When you do please refer to point 2. above. You will also notice that since I lack intimate familiarity with either Calvinist or Baptist theologies I haven't been able to provide pointers to either. None the less, they vary from both of the above in significant and diverse ways - perhaps Dr. Steve J. can be of assistance in these areas.

As you can see from the above shortcomings, the entire article is fatally flawed and contributes nothing toward either Roman Catholic understanding of various portions of Protestantism, or vice versa. To the informed Protestant reader it comes across with all the validity and substance of the average New York Times "john kerry would make a great president" editorial. I just hope this doesn't do anymore damage than some of the uneducated 'fundamentalist' anti-catholic threads we see around here from time to time.

[Tax-chick]

Dr. Steve, this author, whatever her other lapses, does accurately describe the content of "Me? Obey Him?", which is a very popular tract among well-meaning Christian women. This book teaches that a woman has no moral duty other than to obey her husband (or her father, if she is unmarried).

Do you consider this a "Biblical principle?" Is it consistent with what you teach in your premarital counseling?

Thanks for your time,
Cy