“Luther was brutually[sic] beaten as a child and in his own words admits that he entered the monastery to save his life. He was indeed a brilliant Biblical scholar. However, because of his brilliance, he was elevated quickly through the ranks of the Church.When the Wittenburg[sic] plague happened, I believe his old childhood demons returned to torment him. He suffered terribly from scrupulosity[sic]: whipping himself, starving himself, depriving himself of sleep, and rejecting the comfort of his monastic community.His interchanges with Eck bore the hallmarks of PTSD. Self-reliance, suspicion (or even hatred) of authority figures, snarling violent defensiveness. By the time he formulated his Sola-Everything theories, he was a very troubled soul; his thinking replete with cognitive distortions.Let us remember that the tree is known by its fruit. Luther's chief allays were ambitious and very secular-minded knights who used the new ideologies to drive their own political influence. Even Henry Tudor, whom Luther ignored, took advantage of the ideologies to rebel -- not on theological grounds but on the grounds of producing an heir.”
Sorry, but I try not to participate in discussions with those using psychohistory. The psychohistory approach to Luther is the method of applying the science of psychoanalysis to a historical figure. This view holds history is more than simply “facts”- it is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do.
Funny how this guy began with certainty of his psychohistorical approach, and then when confronted as to the worth of this approach, it becomes theoretical. To engage in a discussion like this is to spin one’s wheels indefinitely. It is a conversation of pure speculation, only to be enjoyed by those bent on sophistry. It is usually an example of a double standard as well, because the same approach is not applied to those put forth as Roman Catholic heroes. Luther is assumed to have deep psychosis, while others are let off this his hook, despite whatever the historical record says of them. The reason? Why, they defend Rome, so they’re ok.
In regard to the proper protocol of the Catholic Answers forums, the topic category this posted in was “Sacred Scripture” so, the direction of this thread and this sub-forum would necessitate that it was this guy's speculative comments which don’t belong. Finally, I am not advertising a book. I don’t know where he got that from. It is Catholic apologist Gary Michuta who had been advertising his book, not me.