Skip to main content

Luther and the Pope

Yesterday I finished reading Charles L. Mee's White Robe, Black Robe, a duel biography of Pope Leo X and Martin Luther from birth up until Leo's death in December 1521. It was a fascinating study, and well worth reading for anyone interested in either man, or understanding the causes of the Reformation. The beginnings of the Reformation are not only about Luther, who struggled for years and years with feelings of guilt over his perceived sins (though it is hard to think just what a man in a monastery could do that was so terrible), but it is also about Leo, the man who lead the Church at the time.

Leo ultimately failed in dealing with Luther, but he never knew it, and when he died in late 1521 Luther was far from his mind. The Diet of Worms was over, Luther was in hiding and in the pope's mind he had been effectively dealt with. Mee does an excellent job in playing up aspects of both men's cultures that prevented them from being able to understand each other. How could Luther ever discern the pope's motivations for his actions when Luther was politically naive, and every one of the pope's actions were political? How could Leo ever understand Luther when the pope himself didn't take theology seriously or think it important, preferring instead the joys of religious art and music, and Luther thought specific questions of faith to be of deadly importance? Why, for instance, would Leo be terribly concerned about an obscure German monk posting his writings in 1517 when earlier that year he had uncovered a plot against his life, led by none other than several prominent members of the College of Cardinals?

After reading this book, I feel that I have a better grasp on the causes of the Reformation, for Mee's work is excellent in dealing with the motivations of the two men, and in his treatment of Pope Leo he shows himself far more sympathetic than most historians have been, pointing out his strengths without ignoring his flaws.

Comments

  1. That sounds fascinating. I'm going to have to look that book up.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...