New Volume of Luther's Works: Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545)

Each year Concordia Publishing releases a new volume of Luther's writings in English. The next volume will be Volume 60 (Prefaces II / 1532 - 1545). It's due out December 1. Information on ordering can be found here.

On Concordia's main page, there isn't any advertisement yet on this upcoming book (at least none that I could find!). Nor is this new volume featured prominently on their Luther page (yet). As a subscriber, I'm set up for automatic delivery which saves 30% off the price.

However, they do offer a lengthy pdf sample from this new volume that I came across quite by accident.

About this Volume:
This volume contains Luther’s prefaces to the works of others from 1532 to 1545. Amid the outpouring of print in the wake of the Reformation, Luther—especially in the prefaces to his own works—sometimes expressed the wish that his own books might disappear and give place to the Bible alone. In his prefaces to the works of others, however, Luther developed the opposite rhetorical strategy, hailing their books as faithful guides to the Scriptures or as edifices that, because of their confession of Christ, would “surely stand secure on the Rock upon which they are built.” Although he complained of the many “useless, harmful books” with which the Gospel’s opponents flooded the world, the multiplication of “good books” in print—of which there could never be too many—was a sign of God’s present blessing on the church in restoring the light of the Gospel, and Luther was pleased to encourage the works of faithful colleagues and friends. Many of the works for which he wrote prefaces he declared superior to his own for their insights, style, and more refined approach. Luther was grateful for help in the shared work of Evangelical literary production in all its genres, in constructive work as well as in polemics, and his prefaces give a broad survey of the Reformation’s literature.

Luther for Dummies

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/14/07

Whenever I go to the local bookstore, there seems to be a new volume in the "For Dummies" series. I have yet to see a "Luther For Dummies" volume, but there is The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Reformation and Protestantism. The question of good Luther books has been asked of me often, and it is not answered simply.There isn't one simple book like "Luther For Dummies" or "The Idiot's Guide To Martin Luther."

I consider myself a student of the Reformation rather than an expert. Recently, one of the guys from Triablogue asked me for my Luther recommendations, so in the spirit of friendly blog etiquette, and considering who was asking me, I figured I'd finally oblige the question. As a student, I can only point to those resources that have helped me (that is, until I get down to business and write my own book on Luther!).

Recently I was reading a book from 1959 that stated there were over 3000 biographies and studies on Luther. Now in 2007, I would probably be in error if I said the number is double. It is probably much more than that. I have lost count of how many Luther and Reformation books are in my own collection. I point this out because it is no easy task to navigate through the multitudes of books written on Luther. Why are there so many books on Luther? Besides the fact of his impact on church history and western civilization, Luther's actual written corpus is immense. It can sometimes seem as if everything he actually said was written down. This keeps biographers and theologians very busy.

With these considerations in mind, I'd like to offer my recommendations. Note, I have laymen in mind (If you're a scholar, you don't need my recommendations!). This is only a partial list, and a simple list. It is intended to give people a few reliable texts to begin learning about Luther and the Reformation.

Of course, the best thing to do is actually read Luther. This is much easier than it used to be. You can actually purchase Luther's Works on CD-ROM. The CD contains the 55-volume American edition. The price for the CD has been going down over the years as well. For those of you who want just a taste of Luther's writings, there is a good anthology edited by Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Lull does an excellent job of collecting key texts, and presenting key snippets from Luther's Works. There is also an older anthology edited by John Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings.

One of the most fascinating and helpful resources is What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. The book contains 1700 pages of quotes by Martin Luther arranged topically. This book is a masterful topical arrangement of Luther's opinion on a myriad of subjects: everything from practical matters to in-depth theological issues. There are 5,100 quotations on more than 200 subjects. A thorough index links to hundreds of other subjects. This book isn't cheap, but it is well worth it. Also this book makes a great gift for your pastor. There is a smaller volume similar in nature called A Compend Of Luther's Theology by Hugh Kerr. It is out-of-print, but easy to track down, and inexpensive.
Though these anthologies are great introductions, I always recommend people begin by reading some of Luther's Sermons. Recently, Baker books republished seven volumes of these entitled The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. The set is inexpensive. I recommend this as a starting point because it gives one a feel for the pastoral heart and care of Luther. His sermons are much easier to read than his theological treatises, and will challenge and inspire you.

As to basic historical biographies of Luther, I recommend two books that compliment each other. The first is Roland Bainton's Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. The book is straightforward, and though criticized for being too lenient on Luther, it is a highly reliable historical work. The second is Heiko Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. This biography is more daring. It presents more of a "Luther, warts and all". As with Bainton's book, the historical and biographical information is set forth accurately.

Here are some interesting historical treatments. Robert Kolb's Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero traces Luther's impact on Lutheranism, and explores the way Lutherans have understood who Luther was. Some early Lutherans went as far as calling him a Prophet. Martin- God's Court Jester by Eric Gritsch tackles some of the controversial subjects surrounding Luther, like the folly of using psycho-history to interpret Luther's life. Richard Stauffer has an interesting little book called Luther As Seen By Catholics, tracing the way Catholics have understood Luther for the past few hundred years. Similarly, if you can track it down, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Reevaluation by W.H.T. Dau gets into debunking the slanderous accusations Catholics have leveled against Luther.
But most people never move beyond the biographical with Luther. Luther was a theologian, and had distinctive theological paradigms. For the simplest overview of his theology, Steve Paulson has written Luther For Armchair Theologians, with the layman in mind. The book is by far the easiest text available on Luther's theology. For an advanced detailed treatment, The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus is, in my opinion, the definitive overview of Luther's theology. It is an in-depth analysis of Luther's thought, fully indexed, and documented with citations from primary sources. But the book that really takes Luther's theology and makes it practical is Gerhard O. Forde's, On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections On Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. This book endeared me to Luther, and really challenged the way I do "theology." Forde clearly puts forth what Luther meant by the theology of the cross. Out of all the books listed above, this would be my favorite, and the one I would promote as required reading.
Again, these are only a few texts I have found helpful. I should really do a follow-up entry on books you shouldn't read on Luther. I can mention one immediately: The Facts About Luther by Father Patrick O'Hare. This book is quite popular with Catholic laymen. It is poorly researched, and filled with distortion. I have spent a lot of time with this book, and can prove my case.

Addendum 09/30/11

Here's a few more.

For the most in-depth treatment of Luther, Martin Brecht's massive volumes are really the standard in terms of bibliography. They are now available for purchase by Google E-books for a meager price (here's an example).

For one of the best overviews I've ever come across on the different interpretations of Luther throughout history, Roman Catholic scholar John P. Dolan's History of the Reformation, A Conciliatory Assessment of Opposite Views (New York: Desclee Company, 1964) is extremely useful. Dolan is the author of the Luther entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an entry far different than that in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

If you've followed my blog entries, you've noticed how smitten I was by another Roman Catholic scholar's book: Franz Posset, The Real Luther. This was probably the most interesting Luther book I've read in years.

One my picks above, The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, appears to have gotten a bit more expensive.

These are only a few books among many. Keep in mind as well, Concordia has been releasing one new volume of Luther's Works each year. They've put out two so far, both were volumes of sermons. Both books are well worth the investment. The newest volume should be out soon.

J.M. Reu: Luther's German Bible... now online

In my opinion, the best book in English on the background of Luther's Bible is J.M. Reu's Luther's German Bible: an historical presentation, together with a collection of sources (The Lutheran book concern, 1934). I've been looking for an affordable copy of this book for a long time.  Used copies typically only go as low as $75.  The price though can go much higher. I've used library copies of this book for years.

I search for it every once in a while, and this time I actually found a copy online here. This book will answer just about every question you can think of in regard to Luther's view of the canon and the construction of his translation of the Bible. Also, the first part includes an extensive overview of German Bibles previous to Luther.

Book Review: The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part Two)

Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset. This is the second instalment of my review (the first can be found here).

Posset is a Roman Catholic scholar. Yes, that's right, the Lutherans published a book by a Roman Catholic. I'm not sure if there is anything reciprocal going on (I assume it's within the realm of possibility for a Roman Catholic publisher to release a book written by a Lutheran scholar).

As I mentioned previously, there's a lot to be thankful for with this book. As I've worked through over half of it now, it's very easy to forget the book was written by a Catholic scholar. That is, it isn't pro-Roman polemical.  It really is a work of scholarship rather than a work of polemic. I would have no problem recommending this book for anyone seeking to go deeper into Luther studies.  I can understand why Concordia published it.

Part Two: Philip Melanchthon's Memoirs as Guide
In order to get to the "real Luther" Posset uses Melanchthon's short biography of Luther. Who better to know Luther than his closest friend? Posset considers this "the best available source for biographical data" (p. 44). Keep in mind, what's focused on here is Luther pre (and including) 1517. What this means is that Posset considers Melanchthon an honest biographer.

One interesting fact in this section is in regard to Luther's entering the monastery. True to his use of sources, Posset considers Luther's thunderstorm vow to St. Anne an unreliable Table Talk entry "thirty-four years removed from Luther's decision to join the friars at Erfurt" (p.53).

Sola Scriptura?
The most interesting section of this book so far has been Posset's treatment of Luther and the Scriptures. He mentions in passing, "As an aside, on the eve of the 'Reformation' there was a canonistic tradition supporting the assertion of the supreme authority of Scripture over councils or ecclesiastical authorities"(p. 63). He then argues that  the reformed friary Luther joined had Constitutions, and this document is still extant. In Chapter 17 of the Augutinian's Constitutions "the following directive is given which suggests the meaning of the maxim Scripture Alone"

[A friar] is to read the Sacred Scripture avidly, listen to it devoutly, and learn it fervently. Sacram scripturam avide legat, devote audiat et ardenter addiscat.

Posset states,

The notions "Scripture principle" and "Scripture alone" are often used as watchwords to distinguish Protestants from Catholics. However, the notion "Scripture principle" is an invention of the nineteenth century and "Scripture alone" as a fundamental concept is much older than Luther, although known primarily as a post-Reformation slogan. As to Luther's biblical theology that follows from the focus given by his order's Constitutions, one should not get trapped in the later theological debate about Scripture and Tradition at the Council of Trent. For the historical Luther the issue was not so much Scripture versus Tradition, but biblical theology versus philosophical theology.


The expression "Scripture Alone" is not found verbatim anywhere in the historical Luther's vocabulary. The young friar simply faithfully obeyed the directive that was given him through the Constitutions. The priority of the Scriptures has a long pre-Lutheran tradition inside and outside of his order. What was new with the developing Reformer is his determination and also his radicalism in the handling and employing of the Scripture principle which he had inherited from the tradition in his religious order, with its practice of Scripture meditation to which any young novice was introduced.


The real Luther wanted to read the Bible without philosophical (Scholastic) filters, and thus without a specific hermeneutics: "Luther demanded for the interpretation of the Scriptures quite a special theory of understanding—namely none." Luther wanted to read the Bible "with closed eyes" (clausis oculis), i.e., closed to any philosophical speculation or other influences such as private revelations, etc., in strictly following the monastic tradition of reading the Sacred Page in the prayerful way of lectio divina, reading it "avidly, listening to it devoutly, and learning it fervently."


He was convinced that Scripture can interpret itself. The eminent Lutheran theologian Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001) clarified what Luther meant by "Scripture alone" (even as it is not verbatim Luther's own slogan). He meant to express with this concept the self-sufficiency and clarity of the biblical message that brings us life as it is the living, spoken Word of God.


He did not want a "rational" but an "orational approach," praying over the Scriptures instead of reasoning about them (ratio). Luther himself used the paradoxical expression of "reading" the Scriptures clausis oculis and to chew (ruminare, ruminate) on the Word of God alone. Luther was thinking of Saint John, his favorite evangelist, and declared that with closed eyes Saint John sees farther than we do as he remains with the Word of God alone. (p. 67-68).

Perhaps in this early period Luther was indeed more concerned with freeing Biblical interpretation from philosophy, yet not long after that, "Tradition" was indeed an issue.

Subjectivism?
One final point of interest is the debate over Luther's subjectivism. Catholic historian Joseph Lortz criticized Luther for his subjectivism, individualism, and one-sidedness. Posset though argues "Luther's drive to reforming Bible studies and pastoral care was not caused by 'subjectivism,' a typical Catholic charge..." (p.73). He notes "The issue deserves to be discussed in terms of hermeneutic, but not of psychology" (.73).

These are only a few issues that jumped out at me, particularly since the author is Roman Catholic. Posset cover a lot more territory in this second section than these particular issues. Again, one may think such statements coming from a Roman Catholic theologian are outrageous, but that simply means you've read too much of the Catholic Answers type stuff. A lot of Roman Catholic scholarship is far removed from the simplistic hostile polemic.

-Continued-   

Book Review: The Real Luther by Franz Posset (Part One)

Executive Director of Concordia Publishing House Paul McCain kindly sent me over their new book, The Real Luther by Franz Posset. There is a not-so-subtle irony at play here. I am a staunchly Reformed person reviewing a Luther book written by a Roman Catholic published by Lutherans. This is indeed ecumenicism with irony.

Why would a conservative Lutheran publishing company release a book by a Roman Catholic scholar? This was the first question that popped into my mind when Reverend McCain announced the forthcoming book.  Reverend McCain responded they did so because it is "a very fine book" and I'd have to see so for myself.

Dr. Posset appears to be strongly motivated by underlying ecumenical concerns. He points out early in the book that the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification promoted Christian unity between Lutherans and Catholics who together confess salvation is "By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part" (p. xiv). In an older blog entry, Reverend McCain echoes many of the same concerns I have for this document, noting that the precise formula is rather "justification by grace alone through faith alone" and this "is the only way to avoid obscuring the glory and merit of Christ" that the Joint Declaration betrayed.


Part One: Toward the Anniversary in 2017 (pp. 5-42)
Simply because Dr. Posset affirms this slippery ecumenical formulation doesn't mean he's not able to write an accurate and helpful book on Luther. It's very obvious from his credentials that he's well learned in Luther, being himself the associate editor of Luther Digest. If one were to simply rely on the Internet-anti-Luther polemic put forth by Roman Catholic apologists, one would think it impossible for a Catholic to write a fair or helpful book on Luther. Posset though is one of a number of modern Catholic writers that avoid and decry the vilifying caricature of Luther presented in generations past. These recent Catholic scholars have gone far beyond attacking Luther the person by seeking to truly understand him as an honest theologian. One hundred years ago a book entitled The Real Luther from a Roman Catholic would have attempted to prove Luther to be the spawn of Satan. Today, Catholic Luther scholarship often functions very similar to Protestant scholarship: Luther had his faults, but Luther was also a theologian of the highest rank; a profoundly religious man, a true Christian who lived by a deep faith in Jesus Christ.

Challenging The Reformation Day Story
There's a lot to be thankful for with this book. First of all, it's not simply revisiting the Luther story outlining his life from birth to death. That book has been written thousands of times. If someone is looking for a straight nuts and bolts biography of Luther's life, this isn't the book for you. This book is for someone familiar with Luther's story. Perhaps you've read Bainton or Oberman's biography, or perhaps have seen one of the Luther movies.  You know the basic outline of Luther's life, and you know who some of the key players were. If that's the case, you'll find this book interesting. It will challenge some of the basic historical facts, but not in a confrontational way in which a Roman Catholic author attempts to tear Luther apart in order to have Rome triumph in the end.

The first section of the book scrutinizes the facts and myths of Luther's early years, but not with tedium and dryness. Older Catholic sources have attempted to do the same, but their accounts are often top heavy, droning on for what feels like a small eternity. One need only compare Posset's book to say, anything on Luther written by Hartmann Grisar. Posset sifts the data in a concise reader-friendly manner.

For instance, one tedious Luther debate handled aptly is that made popular by Erwin Iserloh's The Theses Were Not Posted: Luther Between Reform and Reformation. Here Posset concisely sifts through the evidence to determine if the Luther of legend heroically posted his Ninety-Five Theses to the Wittenberg door. Posset also inquires as to how exactly the document disseminated across the land, and what exactly was its correct title? Posset notes the differences between Melanchthon's account and Luther's written statements, but not with indicting either Reformer of fraud. Posset though presents Melanchthon as following hear-say in perpetuating the "door" story, when in fact it would be prudent to simply accept Luther's own account of what transpired October- November, 1517. Posset also brings out the interesting fact that Luther never referred to this document as the Ninety-Five Theses, and the popular commemoration of "Reformation Day" wasn't even celebrated on October 31 but rather on June 25. This lasted up until the 19th Century.

Posset's Use of Primary Sources
His handling of the historical sources is also refreshing. Pointing out how difficult it is to actually handle the primary sources correctly is not mentioned enough by scholars! I can think of very few books that so openly describe what a scholar must really know in order to read Luther as purely as possible. I've had many people over the years suggest I write a book on Luther, but when one reads Posset's overview of what one needs to know to do so, you'll understand why I've refrained. Let's put it this way: It's a lot more complicated than simply learning German.

In many Luther related historical treatments one typically will find references to Luther's Table Talk. With this source one can supplement the historical record with juicy tidbits. These tidbits are often portrayed as a glimpse of the real Luther.  While earlier Catholic writers like Grisar pointed out that they aren't certain fact, he went on to heavily use them, and in the end the reader of his books probably considered them fact. Posset though does no such thing.  It's refreshing therefore to read a Catholic scholar turn away from heavy reliance on Luther's Table Talk, a trait Old Catholic sources gravitated to. Probably half of my Catholic Luther studies involve tracking down obscure Luther quotes, and more often than not, they find their way back to the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. The statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther.  Posset though rightfully argues that the Table Talk does not qualify unconditionally as a primary source (p. 1, 30-31). With insight he states "the real distortion of the Luther image occurred with the Table Talk" (p.30) and that the Table Talk should be read for entertainment rather than as a serious historical guide. Posset himself seems to have undergone a transformation on this score. In an earlier work  he appears to have accepted the truthfulness of the legend of Luther killing a man in a duel found in the Table Talk. This episode is said to have provoked Luther to become a monk. With his current book,  Posset leaves it as an ambiguity (p. 51) and I've been assured he no longer believes it. Posset's emphasis on using the Table Talk without any corroborating historical evidence is a point his fellow Roman Catholics need to hear. While it's true scholarly Catholics have realized this for quite a while, in practice many Catholic laymen still gravitate to this unreliable source exclusively.

The Protestant Sainthood of Luther
Posset argues for dismantling the image of Luther "without the halo" saying "If we want to get to know the historical Luther, present-day 'Protestant triumphalism' needs to be toned down" (p. 35). That's true enough, particularly as he locates the genesis of this image in medieval Catholic iconography.  In doing some research a few years ago, I came across perhaps the height of this image (Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany). Scribner documents the way that many turned Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of Luther refused to burn (Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility). It's here though where some sort of ecumenically fair comment from Posset would have been most appropriate. The same sort of disclaimer should be applied to those Roman Catholics likewise consider to be saints. Some sort of statement leveling the playing field would have been a certain sign that underlying commitments were not formulating his view of "The Real Luther." I would have liked to know exactly what presuppositions served to inform his view. Is this Catholic scholar of the opinion that determining the "real Luther" is the same process one should use with all canonized saints? Or, does Roman Catholicism get a free pass in which the saints are not to be scrutinized in the same way? Are stories verifying the saints taken as fact when they may indeed by myth? I would've appreciated a brief discussion of his Roman Catholic presuppositions on this matter.

Catholic Scholar Hubert Jedin pointed out long ago, Roman Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent. He argued no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound. If I'm going to read a book on Luther by a Roman Catholic, I'd like to know exactly where he thinks Luther stands. Posset argues, "We come closer to the real Luther if we keep the following things in mind: First, let us employ the working hypothesis that Luther is neither exclusively and consistently a rebel or heretic nor exclusively and consistently a saint" (p. 36).  Rather than simply choosing one, Posset includes them all. Was he deliberately vague? Here would have been a useful spot where the author could have expressed his view on Luther precisely. For instance, Catholic scholar Jospeh Lortz said many insightful and kind things about Luther, but also said he was rightly condemned as a heretic. Is Luther a heretic or not in this author's mind? Some pop-Catholic apologists have no problem locating Luther in hell. Others don't know. Others think he's at least in purgatory. Here the author could have shown us how far (or not) his ecumenicism goes.

-Continued-

Luther and the Scriptures by J.M. Reu

Here's a book I spent a lot of money on 10 years ago: Luther and the Scriptures by J.M. Reu. I just found this as a pdf, quite by accident. I don't know whose website put it up, but thank you.

In English, I don't think there's a better scholar on the construction and background of Luther's Bible than Reu. Many of his other books are available via Google and the Internet Archive, but this is the first time I've found this one.

His most extensive treatment of Luther's Bible was
Luther's German Bible: an historical presentation, together with a collection of sources,  also now available online.

An Official Interpretation of Private Interpretation and Other Observations on Blogosphere Lay-Catholicism

In his nuanced exposition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Dulles, Professor at Fordham University and Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America, discusses the inevitable (and appropriate) use of private interpretation after official pronouncements by the Magisterium:

After the Magisterium has spoken, theologians play an indispensable role in giving effect to its pronouncements. Just as they took part in preparing the way for the pronouncements to be made, so too they inform the public about what has been decreed and in doing so interpret the documents. Every papal or conciliar definition or condemnation leaves a certain margin for interpretation, so that private judgment has to complete what public pronouncements left unstated. John Henry Newman insisted on this point in his defense of the Vatican decrees on papal primacy and infallibility. Once a thesis or treatise is censured, he writes, "theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success, but that demonstration is not de fide." Newman considers this process of theological sifting a necessary safeguard, protecting the faithful against the "fierce and intolerant temper" of those who would brush aside theological distinctions and burden the consciences of the faithful with exorbitant demands. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith [Sapientia Press: Naples, FL, 2007], 42-43)

The significance of the quotation will not be lost on those familiar with lay-Catholic arguments on the subject. As we are often told by various lay-Catholic apologists, the use of private interpretation is unbiblical and leads to doctrinal chaos--a great spiritual evil. However, here we are told by an official representative of Catholicism that private interpretation has its place in rightly handling the public pronouncements of the Magisterium, and that it even plays a positive preventative role--inoculating the faithful against "exorbitant demands." While effective epistemological objections can be raised against the standard lay-Catholic argument above, it seems sufficient to note that the role of private interpretation cannot, on Catholic terms, be unbiblical in an unqualified sense. If Dulles is correct, and we have every reason to believe he is an official representative of Catholicism given his relevant qualifications, then the traditional texts leveled against this Protestant hermeneutical assumption are being interpreted too broadly; they strike at both Protestant and (official, authoritative) Catholic notions of private judgment. The lay-Catholic objection to private interpretation must either be abandoned or qualified. For the latter, however, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which an interpretation of a text like 2 Peter 1:20 could be seen to apply only to Protestant private interpretation, and not to the private interpretation discussed by Dulles.

I recommend Cardinal Dulles' work. Indeed, as a general matter, I think most Protestants interested in Catholicism should spend far less time reading and engaging lay-Catholic apologetic blogs and far more time reading and engaging the official works of the Magisterium and their approved scholars. The lay-Catholic convert industry, of which the lay-Catholic blogosphere is a definitive part, merely represents a conservative sociological trend. As Dulles warns, such movements may or may not properly represent the official teachings of the Magisterium:

The sense of the faithful should be carefully distinguished from public opinion in the Church, which is not a theological source attributable to the Holy Spirit, but merely a sociological fact. Public opinion may be correct, but it often reflects the tendencies of our fallen human nature, the trends of the times, and the pressures of the public media. (Ibid., 45)

Indeed, as more of us have come to see, a study of mainstream and approved Catholic scholarship shows a disparity between blogosphere Catholicism and official Catholicism (e.g. Dulles approvingly cites Raymond Brown, a scholar often dismissed as too "liberal" by conservative lay-Catholic apologists). The post-Vatican II sensibilities of the modern Magisterium cannot be found in the basic fundamentalist and evangelical sensibilities of blogosphere converts to Rome.

Consider as well how the informal hierarchy of the Catholic conversion industry functions. Acceptance into its authoritative ranks differs decidedly from entrance into the authority structure of the official Magisterium. In official Roman Catholicism, authority is transmitted via the appropriate form and application of Apostolic Succession. This naturally leads to the promotion of long-time insiders to the faith. In the conversion industry, authority is a function of the kind of conversion manifested (which necessarily excludes persons with a history of life-long Catholic commitment). The more spectacular, with respect to emotional gravity, and the more dramatic, with respect to prior involvement in Protestantism, the greater the authority of the convert to represent the (singular) core value of the movement. As such, those with a prominent voice in blogosphere Catholicism might very well be (and almost always are) completely unqualified to speak for Catholicism in any official capacity. For all their superficial attempts to cultivate an air of intellectual sophistication, Catholic sites such as Called to Communion represent little more than unauthoritative shrines to a selection of conversion narratives. Fellow converts will undoubtedly find such self-centered glorification of the cult of celebrity emotionally satisfying, as, by all accounts, they have imported and applied their evangelical altar-call sensibilities to their new faith community. But for those of us attempting to understand and engage official Roman Catholic belief and practice, nothing seems as fruitless as studying such narratives and interacting with their authors. In terms of official doctrine, they have no more standing than any other set of lay-Catholic opinions.

The natural outgrowth of such circumstances is, of course, the multiplication of situations like the one sketched above--where a popular lay-Catholic apologetic is found to be incompatible with official Roman Catholic teaching. Beyond responding to its effects on unwitting Protestants, there seems to be no value in rigorously engaging a movement that produces such arguments, since faithful adherence to the denomination it promotes would inevitably result in jettisoning many of the very arguments used to arrive at it in the first place.

Two Bioethics Book Recommendations

@ Alex, you won't have an answer that will sufficiently quench your thirst in the pursiut of truth especially in the issues of LIFE (where the Author of Life is God Himself), WHY? well, because these folks here without admitting (self-denial) - that they lack any organic Apostolic authority to pass, declare and promulgate and make a binding teaching. (viz. artificial contraceptio, gay-marriage, abortion etc)

For Pete's sake they don't even agree with their "founding fathers" so why do we take their word seriously? (Jae, Contra Liccione on the Canon Question, 4:14 PM, August 18, 2010)

As Jae's criticisms remind us, it's a popular strategy for Catholics to assert that Protestants have neither an authoritative nor unified stance on controversial bioethical issues. Whatever problems are to be identified in Jae's approach (and there are several), modern bioethical issues are challenging to navigate. However, this is far from saying that Scripture doesn't provide clear direction on these matters. For lay Protestants interested in working through these issues, I'd like to recommend two books:

Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions (VanDrunen)

Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Meilaender)

I think VanDrunen's is the superior of the two (and probably the best book I've read this year), although I still recommend Meilaender's because, among other things, VanDrunen himself draws on the work approvingly.