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:
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).
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment
You've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"