Luther: Destroy Convents, Abbeys, Priories

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“[T]he day has come not only to abolish forever those unnatural laws, but to punish, with all rigor of the law, such as make them; to destroy convents, abbey, priories and monasteries and in this way prevent their ever being uttered.” - Martin Luther (Wittenb. 2, 204 B)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion, divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir. It appears the point here is that Luther's evil was his desire to "destroy convents, abbey, priories and monasteries." This same person who posted this quote commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either a historical or actual context!

We'll see with this quote, tracking down it's source and context is an exercise in tedious difficulty. We'll see also that in those alleged sources, as the quote stands, it's probably not exactly what Luther said. It appears to be an embellishment concocted by one of Rome's defenders, many, many, years ago.

Documentation
While a reference is provided (which will be discussed below), it's far more likely the Catholic Answers participant lifted this quote from Father Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther.  Father O'Hare states,

Christ, speaking of virginity, not by way of command, but by way of counsel, said, "he that can take it let him take it" and that His grace will be all-sufficient to overcome the infirmity of nature. Luther in unbounded blasphemy contradicts this Divine utterance. He will no longer acknowledge such preaching. He, the doctor of doctors, considers it all folly and declares most emphatically that "it is impossible for any one to live single and be continent." (To his distorted mind/the vow of chastity was an "impossible vow," "an abomination" and "worse than adultery." In his desire to abolish and get rid of it, he is not ashamed to appeal "to priests, monks and nuns, who find themselves capable of generation," to violate their sworn promises and abandon their freely chosen state of celibacy. Unless they follow his advice, he considers nothing remains for them but "to pass their days in inevitable self-gratification." "Parents," he said, "should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil." (Wittenb. V, 124.) Thus with shameless effrontery, he declaimed like a maniac against religious vows and, so bitterly antagonistic was he, that he went so far as to declare "that the day has come not only to abolish forever those unnatural vows, but to punish, with all the rigor of the law, such as make them; to destroy convents, abbeys, priories and monasteries and in this way prevent their ever being uttered." (See Wittenb. 2, 204 B.) To all this, every libertine from Luther's day down to the present, would respond with a hearty "Amen." Not so, however, the clean of heart, who appreciate the invaluable services that the Religious, male and female, have rendered the world in all ages and climes in every department of life, The great exemplar of virginity was the Lord Jesus Christ. The dissolute nailed Him to the cross. Ever since persecution has been the lot of the clean of heart. Luther and his followers had not the courage to continue to make sacrifices, conquer their passions and bring their unruly bodies into subjection to Divine law and heavenly grace and, imagining others to be as weak, depraved and cowardly as themselves—no longer men enough to bear their self-imposed yoke of chastity — they even charged with a horrible hypocrisy the imitators of the virginity of Christ, whose glorious history is in veneration among the pure of heart the world over. In refusing to believe in the possibility of virtue and self-control and in persecuting the aspirants after perfection, they only prove to the disgust of the decent of all times that they have reached the lowest limits of brutality.

The documentation O'Hare provided was, "See Wittenb. 2, 204 B." Father O'Hare doesn't explain his reference, but I assume he's referring to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's Works. This edition was the first attempt at collecting Luther's writings into a multi-volume set. When O'Hare refers to "Wittenb." he appears to be referring to the Latin volumes, not the German volumes. I base this on his previous reference to "Wittenb. V, 124 (which is a reference to the Latin volumes of the set). I did not find anything in the extant Latin volume 2's I have compiled on page 204 B. Here also is Page 204 B from the 1557 German volume two. There is nothing similar to the quote on that page either. I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources.

There are a number of sources previous to his that use a similar English rendering of this quote, but I suspect this rendering originally came from Roman Catholic historian John Alzog's Manual of  Universal Church History (Handbuch der Universal-Kirchengeschichte, 1841).  Alzog predates O'Hare, and he is referred to a few times in The Facts About Luther.  Alzog's use of the quote can be found here. O'Hare's English rendering (provided by the person who translated Alzog's book) is so similar to Alzog's, it's more likely Father O'Hare was not utilizing a primary German source, but lifted the quote from the translation of Alzog (or someone who utilized Alzog). Here's Alzog's rendering:

Luther was now in a position to see the practical workings of his own teaching and the faithful reproduction of his own conduct, and for the moment he seemed startled by the vision. But rapidly recovering himself, he again dashed headlong into just such violent and revolutionary conduct as he had attempted to suppress, again declaiming like a maniac against religious vows. "It is all one," said he, with shameless effrontery, "whether one says to God: I promise never to leave off offending Thee; or whether one says: I promise to live always chaste and poor that I may lead a just and holy life. The day has come,' he continued, " not only to abolish forever those unnatural vows, but to punish, with all the rigor of the law, such as make them; to destroy convents, abbeys, priories, and monasteries, and in this way prevent them ever again being uttered." (Short Epilogue against Vows and Religious Life in Monasteries, in Walch, Vol. XlX., p. 797)

Notice Alzog provides a completely different reference. Here is Walch XIX, 797. There is nothing similar on this page to what's being cited by Alzog (his German edition has the same reference). Alzog says these words are from Luther's "Short Epilogue against Vows and Religious Life in Monasteries" (Kurze Schlußrede von den Gelübden und dem geistlichen Leben der Klöster). This treatise actually begins on page 1797 in Walch XIX, so it strongly appears Alzog made a one digit error with his reference. This treatise is also known as Luther's Theses on Vows (Themata de votis), or Themes Concerning Vows September 1521 (WA 8:323-329). This text is scheduled to be translated into English in a forthcoming volume of Luther's Works. This writing is a series of points outlining Luther's views on monastic vows (not long after, he solidified these points into The Judgment of Martin Luther On Monastic Vows, LW 44:243). Unfortunately, there is no such quote as that purported by Alzog on page 1797.

What this bibliographic tedium proves is that there is no such quote as that purported on pages 797 or 1797 of Walch XIX, nor is O'Hare's "See Wittenb. 2, 204 B" of any use. It's obvious that Father O'Hare lifted this quote from a secondary source, either Alzog, or someone utilizing Alzog. Citing "Wittenb. 2, 204 B," doesn't make any sense. Why did O'Hare lift the Alzog English version, but left off Alzog's reference?

Context
Even though the references above didn't lead to an exact context, I do have some speculations as to where this quote may have been taken from. First, there is something in the treatise Alzog refers to,  Luther's Theses on Vows. In Walch XIX 1800, two of the theses points state:

And also in Walch XIX 1806, a later theses point states:

In these theses points, Luther speaks of getting rid of monasteries. He does not though mention "convents, abbeys, priories." Theses 128 states that the monasteries should be given "teachers of faith" or destroyed. The Latin text reads, "Aut ergo da monasteriis doctores fidei, aut dele ea funditus." One other context deserves mention, and it come courtesy of Roman Catholic historian, Heinrich Denifle:

Such was Luther's fundamental view from the time of his apostasy until his death. “All monasteries,” he says in 1523, “and all cathedrals and similar abominations in the holy place are to be wholly annihilated or abandoned, since they persuade men into open dishonor of the blood of Christ and of the faith, into putting trust in their own works in seeking their salvation, which is nothing else but denying the Lord, Who purchased us, as Peter says.[Enders, IV, 224: "** * * penitus abolendas aut deserendas esse.” Luther appeals to 2 Peter, 2, 1. But of course there is mo mention there of good works, but only of those sects which deny Christ].

What Denifle is referencing in Luther's letter to the Duke of Savoy, September 7, 1523. It can be found here, and it has been in publication since the sixteenth century.  The text reads,

Conclusion

Denifle provides a number of statements from Luther calling for the downfall of the papacy and the destruction of monasticism. Denifle provided an accurate quote from Luther as to his motivations: "...they persuade men into open dishonor of the blood of Christ and of the faith, into putting trust in their own works in seeking their salvation, which is nothing else but denying the Lord." 

In the quote under scrutiny, I do not doubt Luther at times called for the destruction of papal institutions. Rather the problem is that the quote itself is not found in the specific references provided. O'Hare's reference appears to be entirely inaccurate and a blatant plagiarizing of the English rendering of Alzog. Alzog's reference, "797" is inaccurate as well,  and even when corrected to page 1797, there is no such quote on that page.  Perhaps Alzog meant to only document where the treatise begins? If that's the case, Alzog embellished the context. There is nothing in the treatise that specifically says what Alzog is purporting in the phrasing and order Alzog used. 

Luther: "Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry"

Here's a Luther tidbit from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry.” - Martin Luther (Tischr, II, c. 20 S, 3)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion: divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir.  This same person who posted this quote commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either an historical or actual context!

It appears the point of posting this quote was to show Luther's evil of telling people lacking the desire for sex to get married, this to spite the pope. We'll see this quote comes from a less than reliable source, and in fact, is not something Luther actually wrote. The comment, if Luther made it at all, was a polemical off-the-cuff remark written down and edited by someone else, then published after Luther died. In Luther's actual writings, he says something quite different about the same subject.   

Documentation
While the person who posted this quote did provide a reference, it's far more probable the quote was taken from a secondary source: Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther. Notice the obvious similarities to what was posted on the Catholic Answers forum:

The motives which Luther urged to induce all to enter wedlock were evidently far from being in accord with those which the Almighty intended in the consecration of the union of both sexes. But as he held matrimony to be a worldly thing, denied its sacramental character and refused to acknowledge it to be a type of that great sacrament, which is between Christ and His Church, we need not be astonished that he urges an additional motive to those already advanced for maintaining the obligation of marriage. Here it is, genuinely stamped with the usual Lutheran brand and bearing the marks of the Reformer's abiding hatred against the Pope. To the single, he now cries out: "Though one may have the gift to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope who insists on celibacy and forbids the clergy to marry." (Tischr. II, c. 20 S. 3.) Marry and spite the Pope. Do not mind whether you are called or not called to the married state. Rush into it. Do not weigh the consequences. The Pope insists on safe-guarding one of the evangelical counsels and he must not be suffered to do so longer. The way to weaken his influence and destroy his holy work is for all to marry. The motive was truly ingenious and in every way worthy of the inventive powers of the reformer. Needless to say, the strange advice was not generally heeded, for then and now most men have other and higher reasons than spiting the Pope for their entrance into married life.

I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done the equivalent of a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources, and in some instances, blatantly plagiarized those sources.  I suspect he lifted this quote from Luther: An Historical Portrait (1884) by a Roman Catholic author, J. Verres. Notice the similarities:

Nobody will be astonished, that spite against the Pope should be to Luther an additional motive for declaring and maintaining the necessity of marriage. "Though one may have the gift, to live chastely without a wife, yet one ought to marry to spite the Pope, who insists on celibacy and forbids the Clergy to marry." (54) A worthy motive in a Reformer"!

(54) Tischr. II. c. 20 § 3.  In the same place he says that he had fully made up his mind, in case of serious illness, to marry even on his deathbed, on principle, to honour the state of matrimony. 

The quote and reference used by O'Hare is an exact match to Verres (the English translation used by O'Hare was probably that done by Verres). As to the reference "Tischr. II. c. 20 S 3": Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836." Volume one of this set is available here. I have not been able to locate volume two, however, I was still able to locate what Verres was referring to. The text appears to be the following:

This Table Talk statement was taken from this source. It can also be found in WATR 2:332 (see entry  2129b).  LW did not include this statement in their English edition of the Table Talk. There is though a translation available in earlier English editions of the Table Talk.  In the context below, a statement from an unknown person is made about a preacher embracing celibacy, even though it be severely difficult. Luther then responds to the statement.

Context

FORASMUCH, as a Christian Preacher, for the word's sake, must suffer imprisonment and persecution, much more ought he to endure and bear the coelibatum, and unmarried life, and remain single, although it be irksome and grievous unto him. Luther hereupon said, A man may rather suffer bonds and imprisonment than burning, he that hath not the gift of chastity, the same prevaileth nothing with fasting, with watching, or other things that plague and torment the body, thereby thinking to live chastely. I have found it by experience (though I was not very sorely tempted therewith), that the more I chastised and tormented myself, and bridled my body, the more I was tempted; and besides, although one had the gift to live chastely and unmarried, yet he ought to take a wife in contradiction to the Pope, who forbiddeth the spiritual persons to marry; they are tricks and snares of the devil, whereby he goeth about to take from us the freedom of the Word. We must not only speak, and teach against the same, but we must also act against it, that is, we must marry, therewith to contradict and oppose the false and superstitious ordinances and decrees of the Pope; for I fully resolved thus with myself before I took a wife, that if, unexpectedly, I were taken ill, and likely to die, yet, nevertheless, in honour to the state of Matrimony, I would have caused myself to be betrothed to some honest maid, and for a marriage gift I would give unto her a couple of silver cups (source, and also here).

Conclusion
The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out to Rome's defenders that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. Contrarily though, Verres states:

It will be noticed that also on doctrinal points I have quoted from the Tabletalk, though not on any point exclusively from this source, and perhaps it will be thought that in so doing I have laid myself open to objection. It has been urged that, the Tabletalk not having been written by Luther himself, but having been compiled from the notes of persons who were in the habit of listening to him, nobody would go to a book of this sort for evidence on a man’s teaching. But, salvo meliori judicio, I think that the Tabletalk is a most important book. If we cannot trust to it, to get a proper idea of Luther's views, let no Englishman depend on Boswell for a faithful expression of the views of Johnson. Luther's disciples hung on their master's lips with greater devotion than the scottish laird on Johnson's. Like Boswell they have even recorded sayings, in which it is impossible to discover anything striking, mere platitudes. The reliability of the book appears also from the fact, that Lauterbach, whose notes are the chief source of it, put down his reminiscences day after day, as they were fresh in his memory. If the Tabletalk were in opposition to Luther's own books, we could not trust to it, but this is far from being the case. On the contrary, the official teaching of Luther finds further familiar illustrations in the Tabletalk, and the Tabletalk shows how seriously Luther meant even the most startling things which he said as, Evangelist".

Verres is right that the Table Talk has value and does contain truthful comments made by Luther as recorded by those devoted to him. On the other hand, because of its nature, its second hand nature, it is not entirely reliable as presenting Luther's "official teaching." Verres says it's reliability rests on  "the fact, that Lauterbach, whose notes are the chief source of it..." In actuality, Anthony Lauterbach is only responsible for a portion of the text, those utterances recorded between 1538-1539 (WA TR 3 and 4; entries 3683-4719). With the particular utterance in question, it "was collected though not necessarily recorded" by Conrad Cordatus between the years 1532-1533 (LW 54:169). LW also states that Cordatus "revised all the notes in his possession for the purpose of making stylistic improvements. Unfortunately this removed them a step further from what was actually said at the table..." (LW 54:169). Because of this, LW only used a small selection of statements from the Cordatus collection, leaving out entry 2129b.

Verres states, "If the Tabletalk were in opposition to Luther's own books, we could not trust to it..."  With this statement, that people having no issues with celibacy should still be married to spite the pope, Luther does say something different in his actual writings, as I've documented here and here.  For Luther chastity was a rare gift given only to few people. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:7, Luther states:

Why, furthermore, does he say: “I wish that all were as I myself am”? Is this not spoken against matrimony, as though he wanted no one to marry? True, Paul wishes that everyone might have the great gift of chastity so that he would be relieved of the labor and cares of marriage and might be concerned only with God and His Word, as he himself was. And who wouldn’t wish this for everyone, especially since Christian love desires all good things, both temporal and eternal, for everyone? Love knows no limits of the good it can do and desire, even though it be something impossible, as when Paul in Rom. 9:3 wishes himself cut off from Christ for the salvation of the Jews (LW 28:16)

This thought is in direct contradiction to O'Hare. He indicted Luther: "Marry and spite the Pope. Do not mind whether you are called or not called to the married state. Rush into it. Do not weigh the consequences." Rather, Luther's position was that chastity was a rare gift, and those with it are given it so they "might be concerned only with God and His Word" as the apostle Paul was.

Addendum
There are a number of reviews of  Luther: An Historical Portrait (1884) by J. Verres.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review, in that it is critical of the use of source material. 

Luther: For the Sake of the Christian Church... Tell a Good Thumping Lie

Here's a Martin Luther-related excerpt that appeared on the Catholic Answers Forums:

On conscience he said, “What harm would there be, if a man to accomplish better things and for the sake of the Christian Church, does tell a good thumping lie” (Lenz, “Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356)

This is one of those quotes that I categorically classify as the "Antinomian Luther." They are typically posted by those dedicated to defending the Roman church (but not limited to them!). Historically, such "shock" quotes served as propaganda used by pre-1930 Roman Catholic controversialists. The champion of this view was Heinrich Denifle (1844-1905), an Austrian Roman Catholic historian. For Denifle, one of Luther's major problems was lust and immorality. It was Luther's craving for sex that led him to not only break his monastic vows, but to revolt against the established Roman church. Denifle would use statements like this to prove Luther invented the doctrine of justification to excuse his gross immorality.  This quote proves Luther was so devious, he considered lying acceptable, particularly if it benefited the "Christian church." While this quote may not appear to have sex in view, we'll see below that it's a crucial part of the quote and did make its way into Denifle's analysis of Luther.

 Plagiarism

The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation ("Lenz, “Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356"). Such obscurity often indicates that the material was not taken from an actual straight reading of text written by Luther. This person also stated,

I am a convert from Protestantism who used to idolize Luther until I read his writings (eventually). Before, and while undertaking my doctorate (early music history + performance), I had learned to read primary sources, this is what also lead me to the Catholic Church - the Apostolic Fathers + St Augustine + Aquinas. Today many people will watch a movie about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

I do question the validity of this testimony of learning, especially the claim of reading Luther's writings and the ability to read primary sources to form opinions. Of the two posts of Luther material this person presented in this discussion (#1, #2), neither demonstrates a straight reading of Luther. The material was probably taken from a few web-pages, then cut-and pasted over on to the Catholic Answers discussion forum. I suspect this page, this page, and perhaps this page was utilized. Unless the person posting this material on Catholic Answers wrote these links, much of the content presented is blatant plagiarism.

Even if he (she?) did compose any of these web pages, I still doubt any of the material came from a straight reading (or "studying") of the "primary sources" for Luther. Some of what was posted was directly plagiarized from Father Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts about Luther. For this quote particularly, this EWTN web-page appears to be that which was directly plagiarized (note the phrase, "On conscience he said..."). EWTN did say they took the quote directly from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia version is exactly as it appears on 2001 EWTN web-article. The person responsible for the English version of the quote was probably the author of the "Luther" article in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss (1855 – 1912). One can find Ganss using the quote as early as 1900 and 1902 with the same documentation ("Lenz, Briefwechsel," Vol. I, p. 382. "Kolde, Analecta Luthenma," P- 356). Ganns was heavily influenced by Denifle (Denifle uses the quote here).  The article by Ganss in the Catholic Encyclopedia was influential to American Catholics in the early twentieth century. With the old Encyclopedia now online, Ganns' view has been popularized again, even though the New Catholic Encyclopedia takes a much different approach to Luther, rejecting Ganns' view.

Documentation
The documentation provided is "Lenz,“Briefwechsel”, I, 382; Kolde, “Analecta”, 356."  Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 382 which is a section of a letter from Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse written to Martin Luther on July 18, 1540. While this letter does involve the historical situation surrounding this quote, the quote as presented does not occur on page 382 (and even if it did, it would be from the pen of Philip, not Luther). This incorrect reference is surprising as it appears to have originally come from George Ganns.

"Kolde" refers to Hermann Friedrich Theodor von Kolde, a German Protestant theologian (1850-1913). “Analecta” refers to Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte Luthers, Zugleich ein Supplement zu den bisherigen Sammlungen seines Briefwechsels, published in 1883.  Here is page 356. This page documents material from the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15-17, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting, this page documents some of Luther's statements. What caught the eye of Ganns appears to be the following:

Here Luther is recorded as approving a lie for the sake of Christendom and the world ("...thun umb der Christenheit und aller welt nutz willen). Denifle's English translator renders the passage from Kolde as, "[Phillip] should bear no burden in telling a lie on account of the girl for the sake of the advantage to Christendom and all the world."

Context
In his book The Life and Letters of Martin Luther,  Preserved Smith provides a brief overview of the details of the historical context surrounding this quote  (The Bigamy of Philip of Hesse 1540, pp. 373-386), as does Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol 3 1532-1546 (pp. 205-215). Both of these sources present a good compare and contrast. Smith isn't always sympathetic to Luther, Brecht typically will be. 

The quote itself was the outcome the situation provoked by Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Philip, an important political figure for the early Protestants, went through a series of maneuverings attempting to justify taking a second wife. Smith recounts Philip began this effort as early as 1526, writing Luther for advice. Luther denied him any approval (p. 373).  Fast forward to 1539, Philip "determined Luther or no Luther" to take a second wife. Philip, convincing Bucer, sent him to get approval from Wittenberg.  The Wittenberg theologians noted that God intended monogamy, but conceded to Philip's bigamy, noting it as an exception. They denied it any sort of precedent becoming law, and intended it to be secret pastoral counseling. Brecht calls the advise "extremely risky and in all probability wrong from the very beginning" (p. 207).

Brecht was right, the  bigamy approval became public. This after some denial from Luther and the Wittenberg theologians. Brecht notes that at one point during this fiasco that had the Emperor called Philip to account for his bigamy, Luther would assume responsibility for the Wittenberg counsel (p. 211) as giving Philip private pastoral counseling. This position was maintained by Luther at the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. On the other hand,  Luther maintained the advise was not meant for public policy, but as only the solution to a messy personal problem (See Brecht, p. 212). At these meetings Luther argued the best thing to do was deny the second marriage, for as Brecht points out "Luther foresaw grave consequences for him and the church, and in this he was proved to be correct" (Brecht 3, p. 212).

In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like,  "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).  Smith concludes a bit differently:

Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.

Conclusion
I've gone over this situation before. See my previous entries here and here. It's curious that even though the more scandalous aspect of this quote is bigamy, Luther's detractors assail him rather in regard to "lying," as if the thrust of Luther's life and theology was simply lies and deception.  One thing Luther's detractors do not flesh out are Luther's actual views about lying (see my entry here). Luther did not believe that lying in all its various forms was allowable. As a trained medieval theologian, he made crucial distinctions.

The question as I see it in regard to the historical context of the quote is if the situation was such that a lie of necessity was prudent, acceptable and of "obligation." That's a different question. In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons. Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).

Luther: Parents should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state, as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil.

Here's  a Luther tidbit from the Catholic Answers Discussion Forums:

“Parents should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state, as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil.” - Martin Luther (Wittemb. V, 124)

This quote appeared in the discussion, Did Martin Luther allow divorce? The person who posted it didn't explain how exactly it was relevant to the topic of discussion: divorce. It was posted along with a number of other shock quotes, all I suspect have the goal of preaching the evils of Martin Luther to the choir.  This same person who posted this quote commented elsewhere, "How is quoting Luther’s filthy works verbatim, ‘bashing him’?! Can we not expose his works to stir the hearts of those who ignorantly follow his theology, to reconcile them back to the Church Christ founded?" And also, "We aren’t attacking the person of Martin Luther. We are merely exposing his works for what they are. Wouldn’t you want to know if your denominational founder’s works were vile and lewd? Or, would you want to remain in the naive comfort of not knowing?" This is the mindset of this particular defender of Rome: it's not an attack to present out-of-context quotes devoid of either an historical or actual context!

It appears the point of posting this quote was to show Luther's evil of telling parents not to allow their children to become monks or nuns. Perhaps in a Roman Catholic worldview, such is the case, but not in Luther's. We'll see this quote has the typical spurious pedigree that so plagues Roman Catholic produced Luther propaganda.


Documentation
While the person who posted this quote did provide a reference, it's far more probable the quote was taken from a secondary source: Patrick O'Hare's, The Facts About Luther. Notice the obvious similarities to what was posted on the Catholic Answers forum:

Christ, speaking of virginity, not by way of command, but by way of counsel, said, "he that can take it let him take it" and that His grace will be all-sufficient to overcome the infirmity of nature. Luther in unbounded blasphemy contradicts this Divine utterance. He will no longer acknowledge such preaching. He, the doctor of doctors, considers it all folly and declares most emphatically that "it is impossible for any one to live single and be continent." To his distorted mind the vow of chastity was an "impossible vow," "an abomination" and "worse than adultery." In his desire to abolish and get rid of it, he is not ashamed to appeal "to priests, monks and nuns, who find themselves capable of generation," to violate their sworn promises and abandon their freely chosen state of celibacy. Unless they follow his advice, he considers nothing remains for them but "to pass their days in inevitable self-gratification." "Parents," he said, "should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil." (Wittenb. V, 124.)

I've gone through O'Hare's book for a number of years now. I've grown more and more convinced he did very little of his own research into Luther's writings. He appears to have simply done the equivalent of a cut-and-paste with his favorite hostile Roman Catholic secondary sources, and in some instances, blatantly plagiarized those sources.  I suspect he lifted this quote from Luther: An Historical Portrait By J. Verres. Notice the similarities with the words in bold text:

The conclusions, which Luther draws from his axiom, are (1) the assertion that the vow of chastity is an abomination, and (2) an appeal to the religious, to enter matrimony. "If priests, monks and nuns find themselves fit for generation, they must abandon their vows; if they do not, nothing remains for them, but inevitable impurity and fornication." Hence those parents, who advise their children to enter the religious state, offer them to the devil" (Satanae hoc modo tilios suos dicantes. Wittenb. V. 124). The vow of chastity is an impossible vow:...

If the words in bold text are not enough convincing proof, look at the way Father O'Hare simply rewrote two Luther quotes used by Verras in this paragraph:

Verres stated,

If priests, monks and nuns find themselves fit for generation, they must abandon their vows; if they do not, nothing remains for them, but inevitable impurity and fornication.

O'Hare rewrote this as:

In his desire to abolish and get rid of it, he is not ashamed to appeal "to priests, monks and nuns, who find themselves capable of generation," to violate their sworn promises and abandon their freely chosen state of celibacy. Unless they follow his advice, he considers nothing remains for them but "to pass their days in inevitable self-gratification." 

Verres stated,

Hence those parents, who advise their children to enter the religious state, offer them to the devil" (Satanae hoc modo tilios suos dicantes. Wittenb. V. 124).

O'Hare rewrote this as:

"Parents," he said, "should be dissuaded from counselling their children to adopt the religious state as they were surely making an offering of them to the devil." (Wittenb. V, 124.)

In the later quote, notice the reference is the same. I've yet to come across any other English sources using "Wittenb. V. 124." Verres preceded O'Hare, and O'Hare quotes him elsewhere in his book. As to this reference, "Wittenb.," it refers to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's Works. This edition was the first attempt at collecting Luther's writings into a multi-volume set. When O'Hare and Verres refer to "Wittenb." they are referring to the Latin volumes, not the German volumes. Here is the Latin text from "Wittenb. V, 124:

This snippet is from Matrimonio, Sermo habitus Wittembergae (1522), otherwise known as Uom Eelichen Leben, in English rendered as The Estate of Marriage. This treatise has been translated into English. The quote can be found in LW 45:36.


Context

What we would speak most of is the fact that the estate of marriage has universally fallen into such awful disrepute. There are many pagan books which treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage, such that some have thought that even if Wisdom itself were a woman one should not marry. A Roman official was once supposed to encourage young men to take wives (because the country was in need of a large population on account of its incessant wars). Among other things he said to them, “My dear young men, if we could only live without women we would be spared a great deal of annoyance; but since we cannot do without them, take to yourselves wives,” etc. He was criticized by some on the ground that his words were ill-considered and would only serve to discourage the young men. Others, on the contrary, said that because Metellus was a brave man he had spoken rightly, for an honorable man should speak the truth without fear or hypocrisy.

So they concluded that woman is a necessary evil, and that no household can be without such an evil. These are the words of blind heathen, who are ignorant of the fact that man and woman are God’s creation. They blaspheme his work, as if man and woman just came into being spontaneously! I imagine that if women were to write books they would say exactly the same thing about men. What they have failed to set down in writing, however, they express with their grumbling and complaining whenever they get together.

Every day one encounters parents who forget their former misery because, like the mouse, they have now had their fill. They deter their children from marriage but entice them into priesthood and nunnery, citing the trials and troubles of married life. Thus do they bring their own children home to the devil, as we daily observe; they provide them with ease for the body and hell for the soul (LW 45:36).

Conclusion
In this section of Luther's treatise he discusses those who see marriage as negative. The quote in question is in regard to certain parents who deter their children from getting married because of "the trials and troubles of married life." Notice this nuance was left out of Father O'Hare's version of the quote.

In the same treatise Luther does mention some people that may chose not to marry: those "eunuchs who have been so from birth,"those who "have been made eunuchs by men," and finally, the rare person given the gift of chastity. Luther describes the attitude of this later group:

“I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it. But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children.” Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. No one should venture on such a life unless he be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless he finds God’s grace to be so powerful within him that the divine injunction, “Be fruitful and multiply,” has no place in him (LW 45:21).

This is one of the reasons Luther exhorted parents not to force their children into monastic vows. The majority of people are born with the desire to fulfill God's creation mandate: be fruitful and multiply.  Of course, Luther further says sending children into a religious institution may provide for their bodies, but it was also preparing the soul for hell. Luther says,

No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories which God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God’s ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained (LW 45:19).

Perhaps the reason such sentiment was offensive to Patrick O'Hare is because he was a popular Roman Catholic priest. 

Luther: "if wives aren’t having sex with their husbands, the state should either force them or put them to death"

This popped up over on the Catholic Answers discussion forums:

I agree that we should be careful to be balanced and chartiable in our treatment of Luther, making sure that claims are factual. However we can’t whitewash him either. He did say some terrible things. For example, it is simply factual that he said—in “On the Estate of Marriage” that if wives aren’t having sex with their husbands, the state should either force them or put them to death.

It's refreshing to find someone over on Catholic Answers admonishing others to be balanced, charitable, careful, and factual, and avoid whitewashing in regard to Martin Luther.  It's also true, Luther did say some "terrible things." Let's take a look at the example provided and see what's going on. Was Luther the misogynist and abuser the Catholic Answers participant is making him out to be?

Documentation

The participant provided the bare reference,"On the Estate of Marriage." No edition or page number was provided. Even though sparse, Luther does say something similar to what's being purported.  This treatise from Luther dates from 1522. It can be found in WA 10 II, 267-304 and also in LW 45:11-49. The section of this treatise that's being referred to is found in LW 45:33. An online version of this text from LW can be found here.

Context

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over (LW 45:33).

Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7[:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others? (LW 45:33).

Conclusion
In the section of the treatise being mentioned, Luther was examining grounds for divorce. If a spouse is unable to fulfill the marital obligation and produce children, a divorce may be appropriate in some instances. For instance, if a spouse goes into a marriage with full knowledge of impotence, but keeps it a secret, this could be grounds for a divorce. Another ground is adultery. If the adultery is secretive and only the offended spouse knows, Luther says,"he may rebuke his wife privately and in a brotherly fashion, and keep her if she will mend her ways. Second, he may divorce her, as Joseph wished to do" (LW 45:31). Exposed public adultery though should fall under the rules of the civil authorities, similar to that situation set up under Mosaic law. The state is responsible to enforce the rules of marriage, not the church. 

Luther goes on to discuss a situation in which a spouse refuses sex. He cites Paul "do not deprive each other except by agreement." To willfully deny the other spouse is to rob the other spouse, and is something that is so contrary to marriage, it's like dissolving it. Luther recommends the state step in to compel the spouse, or face the death penalty. That is, marital duties are so crucial to marriage, they need to be taken very seriously. To willfully deny the other spouse is to rob the other, and is actually an act of killing a marriage. To kill a marriage is so terrible, it should meet with severe penalties.  When Luther suggested the death penalty, the point was the seriousness of violating marriage ordinances. That's how seriously Luther took spouses being committed to each other.

I've discussed the quote before: Luther: On Putting Women and Adulterers To Death.  Similarly in regard to adultery, Luther said, "The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already departed and is considered as one dead" (LW 45:32). The sixteenth century was not the twenty-first century. The Roman Catholic Church also believed in the death penalty for certain sins during the sixteenth century. The question is, should Luther's ideas about these marital sins warrant the death penalty? In Luther's mind, the sin was so grievous, it did because it interfered and violated God's divine marriage ordinance. 

I am not an advocate of the death penalty, nor of Luther's view on this, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if a society took marriage and sexuality at least as seriously as Luther did, by recovering the paradigm that marriage functions under a divine mandate. Luther's notion of invoking the death penalty does seem extreme, if not ridiculous. I've not come across anything in the historical record that demonstrates Luther's view was followed during Luther's lifetime, so perhaps the civil authorities thought it extreme and ridiculous as well. However, I don't think Luther's point was simply an example of misogyny, abuse towards women, and a perpetuating of male dominance. Rather, both sexes fell under the same guidelines he proposed.