Roman Catholic Hostility Over Luther's View of Aristotle

I was sent a link to one of Rome's defenders using a less-than-typical angle of attack against Protestantism: Martin Luther's view of the philosopher Aristotle. As explained in this short You Tube video: Martin Luther's Narcissistic War on Philosophy, this Roman Catholic apologist claims Luther's view of this pagan philosopher serves as evidence of his mental instability. Allegedly nefarious proofs from Luther's writings denigrating Saint Aristotle (read: sarcasm) are presented in the video, coupled with the final coup de grâce: Luther's utter narcissism impacted his view of church history... Luther believed everyone before him was wrong on everything, and only he was right. The same revered Reformer that was deluded about Aristotle was also deluded about the church of his day. If you're a Protestant, you're in a tradition that was begun by a delusional narcissist. 

 I've broken the complaints from the video down into four broad groupings:

1. Luther Despised Aristotle, Philosophy, and Logic: "Luther had a long-standing hatred of Aristotle as early as 1517." Luther went as far as saying that a man cannot become a theologian unless he ignores Aristotle. Luther referred to Aristotle as a "damned conceited rascally heathen whose false words have deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians." Luther believed that "[C]ompared with the study of theology, the whole of Aristotle is as darkness is to light, as well as arguing that logic and syllogisms have no place when reasoning about God." Luther wrongly thinks "Christians have nothing to learn from Aristotle."

2.Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books:  Luther said many of Aristotle's best books should be banned from the university by the secular authorities, especially his Physics, Metaphysics, On the Soul, and Ethics. Particularly grievous is Luther's disdain for Aristotle's work on ethics because the recent scholarship of Brad Inwood from Yale has shown its profound significance on the history of the philosophy of ethics.  This is also substantiated by the online declarations of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They also have made statements of the importance of Aristotle to the philosophy of ethics. Contrary to Luther disdain, this defender of Rome claims "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians...".    

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  Luther first said no one can understand Aristotle (which necessarily means Luther admitted even he himself cannot understand Aristotle). Contradictorily, Luther also claimed he understood Aristotle better than anyone else, including Saint Thomas Aquinas. With this assertion, Luther had made an "implausible claim" about how well he knew Aristotle. "[H]e thought of himself as the greatest expert on Aristotle who ever lived." This is disproved by a scholar named Ralph McInerny and also the use of ChatGPT. They both deemed Thomas Aquinas to be "the greatest Aristotelian in the history of at least Western philosophy." Luther, is therefore in error in regard to his abilities, and qualifies as "a delusional narcissist."  This is also proved by a Protestant source: Thomas Cranmer. This contemporary of Luther's thought he was "insane" and "wicked."

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: Beside Luther claiming Aristotle was in error, Luther also thought everyone in Church History before him was in error, "...including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old." Luther also thought "everyone besides him is evil and wrong."  Luther compared himself to Noah against the world; "[Luther] sees the Christian Church for the 1500 years preceding him as if it were the same as the wicked and godless men of Noah’s day." "So if you’re a Protestant and you believe that you’re practicing the original real form of Christianity, this should absolutely give you pause. The first Protestant reformer knows he’s breaking away from the early Christian religion, and he’s fine with that."

These are only a sampling of the charges presented, but I think they capture the gist of this particular video. Sincere kudos to this defender of Rome for putting so much content into a short video and communicating it in a clever and well executed manner! As a point of general criticism though, I think the video suffers from painting with too broad a brush. The issues raised could (and have) filled entire books. Hopefully, this response will likewise paint with a broad brush in a clever and well executed manner.  Let's first take a look at the documentation used and then provide a response to the charges. 

Documentation

Three primary sources of Luther evidence are offered in the video. Based on screen shots of book pages, the first appears to be James Atkinson (ed.), Luther: Early Theological Works (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 269-270 (Disputation against Scholastic Theology, 1517). The second appears to be The Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1943), 146-147 (An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, 1520). The third appears to be John Nicholas Lenker (Trans.) Martin Luther's Commentary on Genesis vol. 2 (Minneapolis: The Luther Press, 1910), 182. Oddly, these writings are also contained in the standard contemporary English source: Luther's Works (Concordia Publishing House) with superior translations, yet this apologist chose to utilize out-of-print sources. For someone seemingly well-versed in Luther's writings, these choices are suspicious to me. I've found in the past that when old primary sources are heavily relied upon, there's a hidden secondary source the quotes were taken from. As my cursory searches though came up empty, I'll assume these out-of-print references are solely from the investigation of this Roman Catholic apologist, and for whatever unknow reason, the most current English editions of Luther's writings were not utilized.

Analysis of the Charges

  

1. Luther hated Aristotle: This defender of Rome says Luther "curses Aristotle as a damned conceited, rascally heathen, whose false words have diluted and made fools of so many of the best Christians. He even goes so far as to say that God has sent him as a plague upon us for our sins." Yes, it's true, Luther did insult Aristotle in this context using these words. Did he curse him? Not necessarily. If it's true Aristotle was a pagan outside of the Christian faith (which I believe he was), then he was indeed damned. It's never been hidden that Luther disapproved of Aristotle, but it wasn't a crude disapproval devoid of reason. Luther's disdain was provoked by the upper educational systems in place during the period in which he lived. In the universities which produced Christian theologians, Aristotle was heavily utilized in theology. The editors of Luther's Works point out Luther was not alone in chastising the heavy use of Aristotle: "Scholars other than Luther were and had been against the Aristotelian domination in the medieval universities, e.g., Roger Bacon and Erasmus" (LW 44:200, fn. 211).  Luther actually provided an example to substantiate his disdain for Aristotle in An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (ironically included in the zooming screen shot in the video at 1:42 but not mentioned):

Why, this wretched man, in his best book, On the Soul, teaches that the soul dies with the body, although many have tried with vain words to save his reputation. As though we had not the Holy Scriptures, in which we are abundantly instructed about all things, and of them Aristotle had not the faintest inkling! And yet this dead heathen has conquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living God, so that when I think of this miserable business I can believe nothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of Aristotle.  (Works of Martin Luther, 146-147).

The editors of Luther's Works also point out that in Aristotle's ethics, a person becomes good by doing good (LW 44:200, fn. 211). Such is fundamentally antithetical to the Gospel... in essence... darkness. It's here where we discover why Luther had such disdain for Aristotle's ethics.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther chastises Aristotle: "Again, his book on Ethics is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books!" (Works of Martin Luther, 47). For Luther, mixing Aristotle in to explain grace was tantamount to pouring poison into Christian theology. 

2. Luther Wanted to Ban Aristotle's Books: Yes, Luther does ask the Christian Nobility to ban Aristotle's books, but that banning is specific to "the universities" (LW 44:199). But, even more egregious, the defender of Rome selectively cited An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility. At 4:23 in the video, page 147 from this treatise is shown, but it neglects to show the text that reads, "I should be glad to see Aristotle's books on Logic, Rhetoric and Poetics retained or used in an abridged form; as textbooks for the profitable training of young people in speaking and preaching." In fact, Melanchthon was tasked with placing Aristotle in the curriculum in the territories of Lutheran reform, and this was done during Luther's lifetime.

3. Luther Was a Narcissist:  In regard to Luther's mental capabilities in understanding Aristotle, the type of argument presented in the video is a version of, "My dad is smarter than your dad." Aquinas is put forth as the Grand Master of Aristotle, Luther is presented as a boisterous narcissistic madman claiming he understood Aristotle better than Thomas Aquinas. I take a different position: Luther probably did speak bombastically in regard to his expertise in Aristotle, but it does not necessarily follow that he was "a delusional narcissist." He actually did show a knowledgeable and meaningful understanding of Aristotle. See for instance, Theodor Dieter, Der junge Luther und Aristoteles. Eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Theologie und Philosophie (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). A helpful English review of this book was put together by a Roman Catholic scholar: Jared Wicks, Luther and "This Damned, Conceited, Rascally Heathen" Aristotle: An Encounter More Complicated Than Many Think. As these authors demonstrate, Luther's understanding of Aristotle is a complicated and layered subject. Using one of the same methods of determining truth as presented in the video, The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually includes an entire section on Luther and Aristotle, and their discussion does not conclude "Luther was a narcissist." Rather, theirs is a meaningful exploration. They state, 

As with Luther’s critique of reason, however, some of his more notoriously negative judgements—such as his claim in the Disputation Against Scholastic Theology that "the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light” (1517, WA 1:226/LW 31:12)—need to be balanced against other more positive judgements, and set in context.

Why is it that they looked at the same subject and did not conclude Luther was delusional? I suspect it's because they actually explored the subject in depth rather than just spouting out their emotional opinion based on their presuppositions. The video never proves Luther was deficient in his understanding of Aristotle.  If it's true Luther was clueless about Aristotle, prove it, don't just say it. 

I will grant this concession: generally speaking, Thomas Aquinas is now considered the leading synthesizer of Aristotle into Christian theology. But I, like Luther, do not consider this a positive thing. It is a tragedy. The video states "the works of Aristotle [on ethics] were and are massively important to Christians..." Maybe they're "massively important" to Roman Catholicism, but they were not at all important to the human authors of the Old and New Testament or the Divine author, the Holy Spirit. Nor were they important to Christians previous to their reintroduction into literary history.  Many Christians lived and died without ever hearing about Aristotle. They experienced a full and robust faith.  Aristotle is therefore... not necessary to the Christian faith! If there were times in which his influence was absent and the Christian faith flourished, he's not "massively important." Roman Catholics often claim the early church proves their pedigree of authenticity. If this is so, then anything Aristotle wrote is not "massively important." He was not utilized in the early church. 

The video also seems to think that unless one embraces and incorporates Aristotelianism into Christianity, one is denying faith and reason working together, hence embracing irrationalism. If this defender of Rome thinks Luther completely denied the use of reason, this shows a deep ignorance of Luther's basic understanding. It is true Luther rejected the Thomistic scholastic dialectical method, but he did not deny the use of reason. He did teach that God had fashioned His human creatures so we could learn a great deal about Him through empirical ways of learning. Luther valued reason as the “handmaid” to theology. It must be the servant. It is not that Luther denigrated or did not understand the use of reason, it is simply that reason must be kept in its place, particularly in theological matters.    

4. Luther Did Not Follow Ancient Christian Doctrine: The fourth charge is a conclusion from the previous three. If one grants that Luther was a madman on his perspective of Aristotle, then he was also a madman in regard to the church history that preceded him. According to the video, Luther claimed only he was right and everyone else was wrong. This may be the most ridiculous aspect of the video. It demonstrates this defender of Rome may not have actually read Luther writings in a meaningful way. This is proved by picking up virtually any volume of Luther's writings. One will find him interacting, positively and negatively with those who came before him. Luther did not believe that everyone on everything before him was necessarily wrong or necessarily right. He did not jettison all the centuries of previous Christianity and create something new like Joseph Smith's Mormonism. There's also a severe irony at this juncture because there have been a countless number of Roman Catholic apologists claiming Luther did not reject Mary's perpetual virginity, Mary's bodily assumption, Mary's status as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and many other distinctly Roman Catholic beliefs. It's pathetic that Rome's defenders will claim on the one hand that Luther jettisoned all of church history and tradition claiming he alone was right, and then on the other hand utilize Luther when he seemingly agrees with anything distinctive of Roman Catholicism.   

Nor did Luther think he was right and everyone else was wrong on everything... even in his own lifetime.  In An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, Luther begins this treatise by asking a friend "to pass judgment on it, and if necessary, improve it" (62). A number of other similar examples could be provided, but one of the most revealing about Luther's opinion of his own writings can be found towards the end of his life. Luther, looked back over his work and spoke negatively of the desire his associates had to collect them and republish them.  He also said to use caution with his earlier writings because they contained error. These are hardly the words of a narcissist, thinking his words were the only correct and right words.

In regard to Luther comparing himself to Noah: The idea from the video is that Noah stood alone against the entire world. The world thought Noah was wrong, but Noah alone was the only one correct, and the world was destroyed. Similarly, Luther saw himself in the same way, standing against Papal authority and all of Christian tradition: "Luther saw himself as the new Noah, the lone righteous man in an evil world, come to save his followers." The video cites Luther's comments on Genesis 6, and from what the video portrays, one would expect opening up this context and finding Luther going on page after page expounding on his importance in God's divine plan for the world, like an apocalyptic cult leader. Rather though, all you'll find is this brief statement from the context: 

The wretched Papists press us today with this one argument: Do you believe that all the fathers have been in error, It seems hard so to believe, especially of the worthier ones, such as Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard and that whole throng of the best men who have governed Churches with the Word and have been adorned with the august name of the Church. The labors of such we both laud and admire.

That's odd... that someone portrayed as having such a deep narcissism would only mention himself in passing and spend the overwhelming majority of the time exegeting the Biblical text about Noah! Maybe it's because.... Luther was not a "delusional narcissist"??? He was not! Luther was a theologian and a biblical expositor, preaching and shepherding a congregation. Notice importantly in this brief snippet of context, Luther specifically uses the plural word "us." He does not say "I" or "me." The video would have its viewers believe the context is entirely Luther talking about himself as the sole correct interpreter of Christian truth. The video states, "Catholics were making those arguments to him asking Luther if he really believes that all the church fathers had been an error, including Augustine and Ambrose and the great Christians of old, and that only Luther himself is wise." Luther may have directly compared himself to Noah, but this context is not clearly saying it or expounding on it as the video explains.  

This defender of Rome though has substantiated his interpretation of this particular context by an appeal to (non-Roman Catholic!) authorities: Michael Parsons and Eric Gritsch. It appears to me this apologist only accessed this article by Parsons which also mentions Gritsch. What I found fascinating is that Parsons appears to be expressing a minority opinion about Luther thinking he was Noah: 

It is interesting that several Luther scholars write on the subject of Luther’s apocalypticism, but only one directly mentions his interest in Noah within that context. Eric Gritsch says that, “Although Luther’s friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world . . . The world began to look to him like the world before the flood.”

So, of the survey of scholars done by Parsons, he came up with exactly one that held the view Luther considered himself a type of Noah! But what of that scholar? I looked the reference up to see what was said (Gritsch, “The Cultural Context of Luther’s Interpretation” 276.). I expected to find an in-depth detailed study exegetically proving Luther thought he was a type of Noah. Here is the extent of what Eric Gritsch says:

Although Luther's friends often thought of him as the reincarnated Elijah, Luther liked to see himself as Noah. Like Noah, he thought he stood alone against an ungrateful, licentious world, even though he was haunted by doubts, "Are you alone wise?" (Bist du allein klug?) (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54). He even figured out that the chronological distance between Adam's death and Noah's birth was the same as between himself and John Hus — one hundred and twenty-six years (WA 53,40). The world began to look to him like the world before the flood. 

This is the extent of Gritsch's research. True he does reference Luther's comments on Genesis 6 (WA 42,300:25. LW 2,54) but offers no meaningful exegesis. The reference to WA 53:40 in regard to a Noah- Hus - Luther parallel is found in a footnote, not the text proper. The text proper is actually a chart, not an exegetical treatise.

Conclusion

The general argument in this video is not new. It has a long history, falling under the "Luther had psychological problems" rubric. As the theory goes, Luther had mental problems, Protestantism was founded by a mentally unstable man, therefore one should abandon fallible Protestantism and embrace the infallible authority of Rome. While the Vatican does not follow this line of attack, this fallible Roman Catholic commentator readily uses social media to share his personal opinion, an opinion which he appears to think is more meaningful than anything the Vatican is now ecumenically saying about Luther. I find it to be one of the greatest of all ironies that Roman Catholic laymen make their own fallible pronouncements on issues the Vatican currently ignores or says the opposite of. Rome rarely mentions Luther now, and when they do, usually in papal addresses, it's a much different Luther than what Roman Catholic laymen with an internet connection are communicating through social media. To borrow a phrase from the video, what "utter hubris"!