First Things published my essay, "What Would Have Stopped Martin Luther." It challenges the inevitability of the Protestant Reformation and argues that the Reformation could have been prevented if the pope had called an ecumenical council right away to judge Luther's theological disputes. I then suggest that this conciliar tradition presents an alternative for Protestants such as Stanley Hauerwas seeking to reform the Church from the outside. The article ends by suggesting that a new council might be needed to resolve the current doctrinal controversies in the Church.
Last September, Prof. Daniel Mark (Villanova) reviewed my William and Mary Quarterly article, "Conciliarism and the American Founding." In an Arc of the Universe post, he posed two questions: "First, can good Catholics be conciliarists? Second, were American Catholics conciliarists in good faith (as it were), or did they adopt conciliarism out of convenience?" Mark and the blog's founder, Prof. Dan Philpott (Notre Dame), invited me to respond. My reply, "The Push and Pull of Conciliarist Thought and Religious Liberty: A Reply to Daniel Mark," can be found here.
Legal scholar Marc DeGirolami's review at the Law and Religion Forum of the William and Mary Quarterly article, "Conciliarism and the American Founding."Read More
New book on Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Contemporary Science published by Routledge.Read More