Church fathers quotes

[a83192]

I got this from a website that says these are part of the 20 vilest things about women said by prominent ancient Christian men. Could someome explain to me the proper way to understand these quotes in a true Catholic way?

awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/mysogynistquoteschurchfathers/

Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together
with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But
when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her
alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he
is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and
the woman are joined together into one. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)
What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354 – 430)
Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. … Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good. –Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century
As regards the individual nature, 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 woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. –Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century, Summa Theologica

 

[ShynSup]

Let me clarify these quotes, and also, post an example of a misinterpretation of the bible many do on the matter.

+BloodHarzard

King James Version:

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

There are a few key words that are mistranslated in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
Hesuchios/Hesuchia: Traditionalists normally translate this word as “silence” (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as “peacefulness” “Peaceable” or “quietness.” The word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines hesuchios/hesuchias as “properly, keeping one’s seat,” “stillness” “undisturbed,” “undisturbing,” and “peaceable.”
When Paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term “sigao.” The same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as “peaceable,” 1 Timothy 2:1-2. Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in 1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:12, 1 Peter 3:4. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment. This fits the context much better than a literal silence, since Paul just rebuked the men in the congregation for praying while angry and quarreling. Obviously, this would NOT be the optimum environment for anyone to learn in.

“…nor to have authority over [authentein] a man…”
Exousia is the normal word used for “authority,” a carrying out of one’s official duties. But this is not the word Paul uses here. He instead picks the word authentein and it is the only time this word appears in the New Testament. Exousia, however, appears over 100 times.

It is not until after World War II that authentein really gets the botched-translated: “to exercise/assume authority over."
So, the notion that women may never exercise godly authority within the body based on this verse is completely unbiblical, both logically and historically.

This come down to the Genesis as you can see.

The creation of man and woman.

This passage of the bible that everyone considers just a Fairytale or a metaphor actually is full of wisdom.
From the creation Eve was created for Adam. To be his companion.
The bible uses the word “banah” translated into “fashioned”.
This is incredible interesting as genesis portrays woman as a much complex being, not as man, who was made from mud.
Also the same word “banah” is used when referring to establish a family, or built a house, a palace, a temple. In the same way, woman is made as the auxiliary of Adam, a warm, cozy and friendly being.

John Paul II tells us in his letter about the dignity of woman: the dignity of woman is in that God has entrust man to her care.
And also says that, when she turns on herself, she becomes unhappy, that she is happy precisely when she lives inclined towards the care of the other. This is happening in todays culture, woman is revealing against what God has entrusted her, and so we can see a parallelism with satans revelion “i will not serve”. Woman becomes selfish, arrogant, she founds herself when she gives to the other, she Is for the other, but when she stops giving herself, she looses herself.

While the task of Adam was to take care of the garden, take care of the animals, an exterior task, the woman has a more interior task, of love, friendship, conversation, amorous communication.

All this qualities and attributes of woman are organized in order for her to fulfill her main mission: be the mother of the living, give sons to her husband. According to the bible, the the sons of eve are so that Adam may not be alone. In other words, the son of eve are FOR Adam. This is her way of manifesting her love, giving the husband sons. This truth are forgotten in todays society. The figures of the mother and the father have almost banished.

As the original sin has consequences for Eve, so it does for man, for instance, start rejecting this help woman provides, disregard it.

The woman is a more spiritual being and so more complex. Always the stronger, smarter, pure is out to the service of the weaker. As God gave himself for us, as the angels are put to our service, so woman is put to the service of man.

As she is more spiritual, satan often first attacks her. And she is not weaker than man, she did not fall into temptation for being weaker. Satan recognizes woman as the stronger, and so she is his primary target. His plan is to destroy Gods creation. " God put her as your friend, let me put her as your worst enemy"

Edit: this is what feminists fails to understand, drive by anger and hate, drive by satan and his demons to destroy God’s creation.

PD: Try to read the Apostolic letter of John Paul II, the dignity of woman.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[RPRPsych]

Hoo boy.

First:
I’d take that page with a pinch of salt, because it’s obviously written with a political agenda in mind, and it’s violently pro-abortion.

Second:
Tertullian fell away from the Faith and became a Montanist, and later Fathers (St. Jerome, inter alia), wrote of him that “he is not a Christian”. Similarly, Origen - though a great Bible scholar - borrowed too much from pagan philosophy, and his followers were later condemned for heresy.

Third:
St. Thomas Aquinas is merely quoting Aristotle there, and it’d be too much to expect for a pro-abort blogger to look at the sources. The Church Fathers aren’t to be held responsible for limitations in biological sciences at the time they wrote, or for the ideas they borrowed from ancient philosophers.

Fourth:
Martin Luther was a heretic, who wrote vile things about plenty of people - the Pope, women, Jews, Catholics, and even other Reformers who disagreed with him. In today’s parlance, he had “anger management issues.” None of us is required to take him seriously, unless you happen to be a Lutheran (if so, my condolences.)

Fifth:
Wesley had a notoriously unhappy marriage. Quoting from a letter between a husband and wife who were on bad terms does not equal Church teaching.

Sixth:
The Mormons have plenty of wacky ideas. Once you accept that Jesus and Satan are “brothers”, anything goes.

Seventh:
Pat Robertson has a history of foot-in-mouth comments; witness his (never fully retracted) support for Joseph Kony. He does not speak for all American Evangelicals, and he certainly does not speak for the Catholic Church. As for the Southern Baptists, spiritual fathers of slavery and Fred Phelps, I don’t think we need to regard their statements as authentic Christian doctrine.

Anyone can assemble out-of-context quotes to make an opponent look bad. It’s always easy to tear down; harder to build up. And even if every quote on that page was authentic, it still does not represent the Church’s magisterium - and it pales in comparison to the evil of c. 27,000,000 aborted women who never saw the light of day thanks to people like this blogger.

 

[ShynSup]

Hoo boy.

First:
I’d take that page with a pinch of salt, because it’s obviously written with a political agenda in mind, and it’s violently pro-abortion.

Second:
Tertullian fell away from the Faith and became a Montanist, and later Fathers (St. Jerome, inter alia), wrote of him that “he is not a Christian”. Similarly, Origen - though a great Bible scholar - borrowed too much from pagan philosophy, and his followers were later condemned for heresy.

Third:
St. Thomas Aquinas is merely quoting Aristotle there, and it’d be too much to expect for a pro-abort blogger to look at the sources. The Church Fathers aren’t to be held responsible for limitations in biological sciences at the time they wrote, or for the ideas they borrowed from ancient philosophers.

Fourth:
Martin Luther was a heretic, who wrote vile things about plenty of people - the Pope, women, Jews, Catholics, and even other Reformers who disagreed with him. In today’s parlance, he had “anger management issues.” None of us is required to take him seriously, unless you happen to be a Lutheran (if so, my condolences.)

Fifth:
Wesley had a notoriously unhappy marriage. Quoting from a letter between a husband and wife who were on bad terms does not equal Church teaching.

Sixth:
The Mormons have plenty of wacky ideas. Once you accept that Jesus and Satan are “brothers”, anything goes.

Seventh:
Pat Robertson has a history of foot-in-mouth comments; witness his (never fully retracted) support for Joseph Kony. He does not speak for all American Evangelicals, and he certainly does not speak for the Catholic Church. As for the Southern Baptists, spiritual fathers of slavery and Fred Phelps, I don’t think we need to regard their statements as authentic Christian doctrine.

Anyone can assemble out-of-context quotes to make an opponent look bad. It’s always easy to tear down; harder to build up. And even if every quote on that page was authentic, it still does not represent the Church’s magisterium - and it pales in comparison to the evil of c. 27,000,000 aborted women who never saw the light of day thanks to people like this blogger.

Agreed, tho regarding Saint Augustine I will do further research that quote does seem made up, or at least misinterpreted and twisted.

 

[tonyrey]

Hoo boy.

First:
I’d take that page with a pinch of salt, because it’s obviously written with a political agenda in mind, and it’s violently pro-abortion.

Second:
Tertullian fell away from the Faith and became a Montanist, and later Fathers (St. Jerome, inter alia), wrote of him that “he is not a Christian”. Similarly, Origen - though a great Bible scholar - borrowed too much from pagan philosophy, and his followers were later condemned for heresy.

Third:
St. Thomas Aquinas is merely quoting Aristotle there, and it’d be too much to expect for a pro-abort blogger to look at the sources. The Church Fathers aren’t to be held responsible for limitations in biological sciences at the time they wrote, or for the ideas they borrowed from ancient philosophers.

Fourth:
Martin Luther was a heretic, who wrote vile things about plenty of people - the Pope, women, Jews, Catholics, and even other Reformers who disagreed with him. In today’s parlance, he had “anger management issues.” None of us is required to take him seriously, unless you happen to be a Lutheran (if so, my condolences.)

Fifth:
Wesley had a notoriously unhappy marriage. Quoting from a letter between a husband and wife who were on bad terms does not equal Church teaching.

Sixth:
The Mormons have plenty of wacky ideas. Once you accept that Jesus and Satan are “brothers”, anything goes.

Seventh:
Pat Robertson has a history of foot-in-mouth comments; witness his (never fully retracted) support for Joseph Kony. He does not speak for all American Evangelicals, and he certainly does not speak for the Catholic Church. As for the Southern Baptists, spiritual fathers of slavery and Fred Phelps, I don’t think we need to regard their statements as authentic Christian doctrine.

Anyone can assemble out-of-context quotes to make an opponent look bad. It’s always easy to tear down; harder to build up. And even if every quote on that page was authentic, it still does not represent the Church’s magisterium - and it pales in comparison to the evil of c. 27,000,000 aborted women who never saw the light of day thanks to people like this blogger.

:clapping: A superb post!

 

[RPRPsych]

Thanks.

Though, on reflection, there are a few things I’d add to it:

1. Some of Luther’s comments that seem grossly unjust are taken from his “Table Talk”, which, according to modern historians (such as Diarmaid McCulloch) are meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Thus, the comment about women being “wives or…” could have been an in-joke between him and his wife, who was an ex-nun. (Not trying to excuse Luther’s many other sins here, but I thought I should say this for clarification.)
2. I don’t know much about St. Albert the Great (except that he was Aquinas’ teacher), but the quote from him sounds like a fictitious one. A similar quote by a fictitious Abbot (actually taken from an Umberto Eco novel) also makes the rounds in canards like this.

 

[a83192]

Thanks for the replies. I figured those quotes were bunk. Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[empther]

Third:
St. Thomas Aquinas is merely quoting Aristotle there, and it’d be too much to expect for a pro-abort blogger to look at the sources. The Church Fathers aren’t to be held responsible for limitations in biological sciences at the time they wrote, or for the ideas they borrowed from ancient philosophers.

Q 92 Art 1
newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm#article1

Objection 1. It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher Aristotle ] says (De Gener. ii, 3), that** “the female is a misbegotten male.”** But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production.

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, 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 woman comes from 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 (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.

Aquinas did not understand the functions of “the seed”. In his time it was not known that both mother and father contributed equal amounts of genes, or that there were genes at all. It was understandable that he would misunderstand things. But while this was a scientific error it did not lead him into theological error since he says it was God’s purpose to have both males and females in nature.

 

[RPRPsych]

Q 92 Art 1
newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm#article1

Aquinas did not understand the functions of “the seed”. In his time it was not known that both mother and father contributed equal amounts of genes, or that there were genes at all. It was understandable that he would misunderstand things. But while this was a scientific error it did not lead him into theological error since he says it was God’s purpose to have both males and females in nature.

Quite right. In fact, the passage is about the necessity for the creation of women, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[oldcelt]

I make much of my living now as a historian/writer and I believe that any quote attributed to a famous person of any avocation needs to be looked at very carefully before using it as evidence for anything. Where was it supposedly said? Who witnessed the person saying it? What was the context i.e. casual public conversation, supposedly private conversation, campaign speech, church sermon and so on.

Is the quote really the speaker speaking for himself, or quoting someone else to show their opposition to that person’s belief? I have seen this mistake made on several occasions. I tend to give the person using the quote the benefit of the doubt, but there are cases where people have done this quite intentionally to defame someone or some cause. They seem to get caught a lot…the ones who didn’t get caught, well…we don’t know about them.

I always try to get multiple sources and compare them for discrepancies. My experience tells me that most people really try, but you cannot assume that and the internet has only made it worse. You can put up just about anything, and large groups of people will believe it. If discrepancies have no impact on the meaning…fine. If they do I often still use the quote with the proper warning.

Surprisingly, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is perhaps the best reported speech I have run on to. Of the several reports on Lincoln’s speech, the differences are few and do not alter the meaning in any way. Pretty good for a time before amplification, outside among a large crowd.

The moral of the story: Treat quotes with great care before using them. I know debates here can get a bit warm and it is human nature ti want to make a strong point. But using an inaccurate quote hurts everyone.

Man I really rambled there. Unfortunately, I had to use my maximum dosage of pain-killers, something I rarely do, but don’t quote me on that.

John

 

[dmar198]

Find the context of the remarks. Often, they are not disparaging women, but are only saying that women can’t be priests, or that women are physically weaker than men, or something like that.

Here’s a list of positive quotes re: women from the Church Fathers and the Scholastics:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=817448

Some examples:

In Stromateis, Book 4, Chapter 8, Clement of Alexandria taught that women were equal to men spiritually, but unequal physically, and thus explained their different social status. The chapter is called “On [the] Equality and Inequality of the Sexes.”

Ambrose of Milan promoted imitation of female leadership by citing the example of women leaders in the Old Testament: “[Deborah] showed that [women] have no need of the help of a man. … A widow, she governs the people. A widow, she chooses generals. A widow, she determines wars and orders triumphs. … It is not sex, but valor which makes strong.”

St. Jerome - “I know that I am often much criticized because I sometimes write to women and seem to prefer the more fragile sex to the stronger.” “[But] Aquila and Priscilla educate[d] Apollo, an apostolic man learned in the law, in the way of the lord. If to be taught by a woman was not shameful to an apostle, why should it be [shameful] to me afterwards to teach men and women?” “This and its like I have touched on briefly, to ensure that you [women] should not be penalized because of your sex.” (Jerome, Letter to Principia, 397 A.D., quoted in Abelard, Letter 9, 1137 A.D.)

St. John Chrysostom taught that the woman is fully equal to the man: “[She is] of his kind, with the same properties as himself, of equal esteem, in no way inferior to him.” (Homily 15.1-3 on Genesis 2:20ff, as quoted in Hill, Robert C. The Fathers of the Church, Volume 74. 1992. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press.) However, he says that this condition was somewhat changed by the fall, because, he says, woman became more frail as a result of Eve’s sin and was put under the dominion of her husband for protection. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t be interpreted as a destruction of her original moral equality with man.

565 A.D. - Women’s equality in law - Emperor Justinian dies in this year. His reforms of the laws of the Byzantine empire revolutionized the status of women in Christendom, explicitly acknowledging their equality and giving them equal property rights with men. (Justian, Novel 21) “It shall no longer be true [among the Armenians], as is the custom of barbarians, that men only can inherit the property of their parents, brothers and sisters and other relatives, but women also shall be able to do so. … [O]ther nations, too, have contempt for nature, and a low regard for women, as if the latter were not made by God, and had no part in the procreation of children, but were creatures to be despised and not worthy of any honor. … We accordingly ordain by this imperial law that…no difference shall be made between male and female. … For as [the Armenians] belong to our empire and owe obedience to us, and along with other nations enjoy all that we have, women shall not be deprived by them of the equality which they enjoy among us, but our laws shall apply equally to all.”

643 A.D. - In Spain, the Catholic king Chindasuinth passes the Visigothic Code into law and includes equal-rights provisions such as: “A woman shall inherit, equally with her brothers, the property of their father or mother, of their grandparents, on the paternal and the maternal side, as well as of their brothers and sisters.” (Book IV, Title II, Law IX) “Husband and wife shall inherit from each other, respectively, when they leave no relatives nearer than the seventh degree.” (ibid., Law XI) “A [woman] shall have full power to dispose of her entire dowry, in any way she pleases, when she leaves no legitimate children or grandchildren. [And when she does leave legitimate children or grandchildren:] Three fourths of it shall be left, without question, to [them].” (ibid., Title V, Law II)

650 A.D. - St. Sigebert III, one of the kings in France at this time, reforms the French laws so that they treat women more equally. He does this out of an explicit religious conviction that daughters and sons should be equal. He said, “An ancient but unjust custom is observed among us [which] directs that sisters [should] have no part of the paternal estates with their brothers. But I, considering this an injustice and knowing well, my dear children, that the Lord gave you to me [so] that I should love you with equal love, I institute you, my dearest daughter, my legitimate heir with your brothers [in order] that you should have a part no less than theirs in my land and goods.”

704 A.D. - Women’s equality in law - St. Adamnan dies in this year. An early champion of women’s equality, he prayed and fasted for eight years for an end to the subjugation of women in Ireland and Britain, and eventually saw passage of the Law of the Innocents, which raised women’s status considerably in those lands. The Cain Adamnain, an ancient Irish treatise in praise of St. Adamnan’s view of women, says of him, “Adamnan suffered much hardship for your sake, O women, so that ever since Adamnan’s time one half of your house is yours; and there is a place for your chair in the other half, so that your contract and your safeguard are free.” (The Cain Adamnain 5, as quoted in “An Irish Champion of Women,” by Padraic Colum. In Catholic World, Volume 100, Paulist Fathers, 1915. p. 500.)

866 A.D. - “[When Scripture] sanctions [something] for a woman [it] is also to be understood for a man… [Just as, when] Scripture…speaks of [something for] a man…it is no less to be understood [for] a woman.” (Pope St. Nicholas I, Response to the Consultations of the Bulgars, in Kirshner & Wemple, Women in the Medieval World. Chapter 3. 1985. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, Inc. p. 78)

See the link above for more details and sources.

 

[dmar198]

Find the context of the remarks. Often, they are not disparaging women, but are only saying that women can’t be priests, or that women are physically weaker than men, or something like that.

Here’s a list of positive quotes re: women from the Church Fathers and the Scholastics:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=817448

[Examples cut because Catholic Answers only wants me to post 6000 characters]]

See the link above for more details and sources.

Regarding Scholastics, the first thing I would point out, as a poster above me did, is that St. Thomas was taken out of context. When the rest of his paragraph is considered, it is clear that he did not think women’s biological formation makes them unequal to men. In addition to that, consider these examples:

1274 A.D. - St. Bonaventure: “In the first [chapter] of Genesis [it is written]: God created man to His own image and likeness, male and female did He create them. If, therefore, the woman was created to the image of God and to equality with the man—just as her formation from [his] side hints at— …[then it follows that] in man and woman there is equally found the reckoning of [God’s] image.” (Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, Book II, Commentary on Distinction XVI, Question 2, “Whether the image [of God] is more principally in the male than in the female.”)

1142 A.D. - Peter Abelard dies this year. He is regarded by some as something of a protofeminist for his defense and admiration for women. This appears most strongly in a famous treatise he wrote titled, “On the Authority and Dignity of the Order of Nuns,” which is unparalleled in its praise of women’s dignity. In one of his sermons, emphasizing equality, he wrote, “In [Christ], the Apostle says, there is neither male nor female. In the body of Christ, which is the Church, difference of sex, therefore, confers no dignity. For Christ looks not to the condition of sex, but to the quality of merits.” (Peter Abelard, Sermon XIII. M. McLaughlin, Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women: Twelfth Century “Feminism” in Theory and Practice, in Pierre Abelard, p. 291. Slightly modified.)

I’m sure there are more, but most of the Scholastics haven’t been translated, and I haven’t taken a look at all of them.

 

[lmelahn]

Reply to Objection 1. As regards the individual nature, 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;
…]
Aquinas did not understand the functions of “the seed”. In his time it was not known that both mother and father contributed equal amounts of genes, or that there were genes at all. It was understandable that he would misunderstand things. But while this was a scientific error it did not lead him into theological error since he says it was God’s purpose to have both males and females in nature.

As other users have pointed out, Aquinas makes use of Aristotle’s biology, which was of course in its infancy and very defective. Aquinas’ metaphysical principles, however, remain quite sound: because both men and women are members of the same species, he would say, they both possess human nature, and hence they are, of course, equal in dignity.

Another thing to keep in mind, however, is that most English speakers are limited to the frankly rather faulty translation by the English Dominican Province (the one that is on the New Advent website). Here is what Thomas actually says in the response to the first objection of this question:

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per respectum ad naturam particularem, femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum (First Part, Article 92, Question 1, ad 1um).

I would translate this as follows: "In response to the first objection, with respect to individual nature, woman is missing something and is affected by some outside occurance. (“Occasionatum” is not easily translated by a single word.) Thomas did not know what it was that differentiated the sexes; he knew nothing about genetics, nor had he ever heard of X or Y chromosomes, obviously. Since–according to Aristotle’s primitive biology–only the male has the “active power of generation” (virtus activa generationis), it must follow that females are missing (deficiens) this power; and this occurs, not because of the action of the male, but because of some other occurance (occasio). That is all that St. Thomas means, no more, and no less.

In other words, the translation by the Dominican Fathers as “defective and misbegotten” is much too strong: perhaps they were influenced by some of the neo-Scholasticism of the time.

(Ironically, in humans it is actually the male that is deficiens aliquid–missing something–not the female: the Y chromosome has considerably less DNA than the corresponding X chromosome.)

God bless!
Fr. Louis Melahn, L.C.