Martin Luther: "I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing"

A defender of Rome did just enough reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia to conclude Martin Luther was "extremely demonic" based on... his prayer life! Did this papal warrior survey Luther's vast writings and examine his statements on prayer? No, it was enough to pull one shocking quote out of the Catholic Encyclopedia. He posted the following:

If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic, at least at certain times of his life. He is recorded as saying that he could not pray without cursing. Where did Jesus tell us to curse our enemies in prayer? I must have missed that in the Gospels. The Catholic Encyclopedia records Luther's words as, "For I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing. If I am prompted to say: 'hallowed be Thy name', I must add: 'cursed, damned, outraged be the name of the papists.' If I am prompted to say: 'Thy Kingdom come', I must perforce add: 'cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy.' Indeed I pray thus orally every day and in my heart without intermission" (Sammtl. W., XXV, 108)

This Roman Catholic layman isn't alone using this quote to denigrate Martin Luther. Secular psychologist Erik Erikson used the quote in his popular book, Young Man Luther. Erikson doesn't use it to prove Luther was "extremely demonic" in prayer. Rather, he uses Freudian psychology and determines statements like these "...are an attempt to find a safety-valve when unrelenting inner pressure threatened to make devotion unbearable and sublimity hateful- that is, when he was again about to repudiate God in supreme rebellion, and himself in malignant melancholy."

This defender of Rome though has followed the lead of the Catholic Encyclopedia. This resource infers statements like these were part of his "sinister moods." They refer to one of Luther's "old admirers" stating,"with his shameless, ungovernable tongue, [Luther] must have lapsed into insanity or been inspired by the Evil Spirit." The author of the Luther entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, George Ganss presented a wild tempered Martin Luther, depressed and mentally ill, abandoned by most of his friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit. 

Documentation

The Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 9 cites "Sammtl. W., XXV, 108." This page can be found here. Erikson cites a different source: "L.W. W.A. XXX, 3, 470." This page can be found here. Both are correct references from editions of Luther's works. This quote was taken from the 1531 treatise, Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. In English, the title is Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden or sometimes referred to as Against the Traitor at Dresden. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes this treatise can be found in Walch, op. cit., XVI 2062-2086. The treatise, to my knowledge, has not yet been translated into English.

There is debate as to who the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden was. Some older sources refer to Franz Arnold. The sparse information about Arnold identifies him as "a Roman Catholic priest at Cologne, [who] was one of the most violent, though not one of the most distinguished opponents of Luther." Franz is said to have penned "Der unpartheyische Laye" which was "a violent attack on Luther." Luther is said to have responded with "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden." More often though, the "assassin" / "traitor" at Dresden is thought to be Duke George. 

Duke George was a sworn enemy of Luther's. He stands out as a ruler vigorous in maintaining a campaign of propaganda against him. He kept a team of writers busy against Luther. The writings were quite hostile. Duke George actually sought to have Luther's works censured and reviewed, while his work and those under him who wrote just as intensely were allowed to print whatever they wanted. Interestingly, Duke George used one of the most virulent critics of Martin Luther whose impact on Roman Catholic scholarship lasted for centuries:  Johann Cochlaeus. Duke George also used his ruling power to obstruct Reformation printing, as well as promoting wholesale burnings and confiscation of Luther's books. If one was caught printing pro-Reformation materials, it was quite possible Duke George would have that person arrested (which actually did happen). Duke George was part of a secret Roman Catholic alliance seeking to restore Roman Catholicism within Electoral Saxony by having Luther and other Protestants handed over to the authorities. After Luther published "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden," "Duke George expelled a number of evangelically minded persons from Leipzig and Oschatz" [LW 38:142]. Interestingly, Duke George was one of the leaders responsible for actually slaughtering the peasants during their revolt.

In 1531, things became heated between Duke George and Luther. The Duke campaigned that Luther was attempting to incite rebellion against the empire. Duke George wrote an anonymous work (published at Dresden) responding to Luther's "Warning to His Dear Germans" entitled, "Against Luther's Warning to the Germans That They Should Not Be Obedient To the Emperor, Another Warning That They Should Not Allow Themselves To Be Misled By It Nor To Be Moved To Disobedience." Franz Arnold wrote a short afterword to the second edition of this treatise. Luther entitled his response "Against the [Character] Assassin at Dresden" because Duke George published his attack against Luther anonymously. 

In his counter treatise, Luther sauf it was the papists who were really against the empire, not the Lutherans. He listed twelve pieces of evidence proving that Roman Catholic authorities were seeking the physical destruction of Protestants. The quote in question comes from the end of the treatise. It's a response to Duke George's assertion that Luther's writings were filled with evil words and devil references.

Context

It should be my fame and honor, [and] so I also wish to have it, that one should say of me from now on how full I am of evil words, abuse, and cursing for the papists. For more than ten years I have often humbled myself and have used the very fairest words with the result that the longer [I have done so] the worse I have made them. . . . Now, however, since they are impenitent [and] have decided to do simply no good but rather nothing but evil so that there is no hope [for them], I also wish from now on to occupy myself with cursing and rebuking those rogues to my grave [wil jch auch hinfurt mich mil den bosewichten zu fluchen und zu schelten bis jnn meine gruben], and no good word more should be heard from me. I wish to ring them into the grave with my thunder and lightning.

For I cannot pray without thereby having to curse. If I say: "Holy be Thy name," I must in addition say: "Cursed, damned, and disgraced must be the papists' name and all who slander Thy name." If I say: "Thy kingdom come," then I have to add: "Cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy with all kingdoms on earth that are opposed to Thy kingdom." If I say: "Thy will be done," then I must add: "Cursed, damned, disgraced, and to nothing must be all thoughts and plots of the papists and all who strive against Thy will and advice." In truth, I pray thusly daily without fail [both] orally and in my heart, and with me [pray in the same manner] all who believe on Christ, and I also feel indeed that it will be heard. . . . Still I hold a good, friendly, peaceful, and Christian heart towards everyone. Even my greatest enemies know that [English translation from Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 50-51. An alternate English rendering can be found in Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, pp. 151-152].

German text: ...das soll mein Ruhm und Ehre sein, wills auch so haben, daß man von mir hinfurt sagen solle, wie ich voll böser Wort, Scheltens und Fluchens über die Papisten sei. Ich hab länger denn zehen Jahr mich oft gedemüthigt, und die allerbesten Wort gegeben, damit ich sie je länger je ärger gemacht habe... Nu aber, weil sie verstockt, schlecht kein Gutes, sondern eitel Böses zu thun beschlossen haben, daß keine Hoffnung da ist, will ich auch hinfurt mich mit den Bösewichten zusuchen und zuschelten bis in meine Grube, und sollen kein gut Wort mehr von mir hören. Ich will ihn mit meinem Donnern und Blitzen also zum Grabe läuten.

Denn ich kann nicht beten, ich muß dabei fluchen. Soll ich sagen: Geheiligt werde dein Name; muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet müsse werden der Papisten Namen, und aller, die deinen Namen lästern. Soll ich sagen: dein Reich komme; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, verstöret müsse werden das Papstthum, sampt allen Reichen auf Erden, die deinem Reich wider sind. Soll ich sagen: Dein Wille geschehe; so muß ich dabei sagen: Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet und zunichte müsse werden alle Gedanken und Anschläge der Papisten, und aller, die wider deinen Willen und Rath streben. Wahrlich, so bete ich alle Tage mündlich, und mit dem Herzen ohn Unterlaß, und mit mir alle, die an Christum glauben, und fühle auch wohl, daß es erhöret wird...Er argumentiert, dass sein Zorn sich gegen das System (das Papsttum) richtet, das er als gottlos ansieht, er aber als Christ dennoch Nächstenliebe gegenüber jedem einzelnen Menschen empfindet (WA 30.3:470).

Conclusion
The historical context demonstrates that this writing from Luther was not set in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. Rather, the quote rests in a period of societal conflict with detrimental physical implications to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. In essence, this was a writing set in a war zone. Both sides were in a war of who had the right to be the true church. Extreme circumstances often lead to extreme behaviors. 

But does the historical context acquit Luther of such harsh language directed against his enemies? Note that last line above, "Nevertheless I have a kind, friendly, peaceable, and Christian heart toward everyone, as even my worst enemies know." This is a tip off that Luther was admitting to using highly rhetorical and inflammatory language. Secular historian Will Durant's volume on the Reformation uses the same quote as an example of Luther's use of unrestrained language, often to a fault. He also adds the following disclaimer immediately after citing the quote:

Such rhetorical passion was in the temper of the times."Some of the preachers and pamphlet writers on the orthodox side," confessed the learned Cardinal Gasquet, "were Luther's match in this respect." Vituperation was expected of intellectual gladiators, and relished by their audiences; politeness was suspected cowardice (Durant, The Reformation, p.418-419).

Both sides, Papist and Lutheran, felt justified in such abusive language because they considered the other to be in league with the devil. Again, this identification of the devil's leadership was not arrived at in a quiet milieu of theological contemplation. These sixteenth century people took the devil's authority seriously and needed to be vigorously opposed. Historian Mark U. Edwards makes an insightful point that the use of harsh language may primarily have been used to inspire those on the side of the author rather than it serving as a direct attack against the opposition: 

Given such opposed convictions, it is not surprising that the language and form of argumentation employed by the publicists—Luther, Duke Georg, Cochlaeus—suggest that each was speaking more to his own party than to one another. Expressions of righteous indignation, liberal use of insult and name-calling, lengthy recitals of old grievances, rehashing of past disputes, repetition of familiar arguments—such material may appeal to the converted and may reinforce convictions already held. But it is unlikely to move the unconverted. And it will only enrage the opponent [Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 38-39].

Delving deeply into history like this typically never satisfies Roman Catholics flippantly interpret history with conclusions like, "If we look at Luther's prayer life we will see that it was extremely demonic." This quote is yet another example of Roman Catholic bias, perceiving one's enemies in the worst possible way. It would be interesting to find out if this Roman Catholic critic would conclude David was also demonic in Psalm 109 when he wrote the following about his enemies: 

8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance [e]far from their ruined homes. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder the product of his labor. 12 Let there be none to  extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out.

Also, the facts of Luther's theology on prayer don't bear out the conclusion he was demonic. For Luther, prayer was a weapon we have to call down the power of God against the power of the devil. We call down God’s power against every evil the devil tries to bring upon our lives. Prayer is a weapon in our fight against the devil on the battlefield of the lives of those around us. We call down the power of God against the devil for those we love. For Luther, the devil was the mastermind behind the Papacy. Hence, his prayer above reflected this. 

This entry at this point could succumb to text overload with Luther quotes. Anyone interested in a concise overview on Luther's theology of prayer should seek out the entry on "Prayer" in the anthology compiled by Lutheran theologian Ewald Plass, What Luther Says. An overwhelming amount of evidence could be put forth to demonstrate the conclusion Luther's prayer life proved him demonic is spurious and slanderous.    

In a final point of irony, Roman Catholic historian Anton Fischer argued Martin Luther was an admirable man of prayer, a man to be appreciated by Roman Catholics:

However rich a Church may be in truly great Christian men of prayer, it would still have room for the distinctives of the praying Luther; it should not pass carelessly over this great man of prayer and his precious utterances on prayer and his excellent instruction on prayer (English translation by Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, p. 55).

German text: Mag eine Kirche noch so reich an wahrhaft großen christlichen Beter-Persönlichkeiten sein, sie sollte doch auch noch Raum haben für die Eigenart des betenden Luther; sie sollte nicht achtlos an diesem großen Beter und an seinen köstlichen Aussprüchen über das Gebet und seinen trefflichen Anweisungen zum Gebete vorübergehen! (Luther in okumenischer Sicht, pp. 187-188).

Richard Stauffer explains:

Fischer makes a distinction in Luther between the fighter and the man of prayer. The former, to his mind, is the concern of only a part of Christianity; all Christian denominations can, however, lay a claim to the second. In so far as he was a man of prayer, Luther was truly ecumenical. Even a Church rich in believers who are devoted to prayer (he means the Roman Church, of course) has much to learn from him.

And what can Luther teach all Christians about prayer? Two essential truths. The first is that prayer has only one valid criterion—the Word and the Holy Spirit who reveals Himself through Scripture. Luther drew all his strength from the Bible and took all his instruction about prayer from the Bible. In the same way, all believers are exhorted to nourish themselves on the Old and New Testaments, if they wish to pray effectively; there they too will meet with God. The second truth is that the Pater noster constitutes the very heart of the Christian life, and for this reason should be pronounced with the reverence and fervour due to Christ's own words. If it is said in the spirit of the great masters of prayer like St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther (so Fischer ends his article), the Lord's Prayer can bridge the gap which really separates Roman Catholics and Protestants.” [Richard Stauffer, Luther as Seen by Catholics, pp. 38-39].

 

Addendum: Lutheran scholar Julius Köstlin on the Historical Background 

Luther gave open vent to his indignation at the Recess of the Diet and the violent attacks of the Catholics in two publications, early in 1531, one entitled 'Gloss on the supposed Edict of the Emperor,' and the other, 'Warning to his beloved Germans.' In the former here viewed the contents of the Edict and the calumnies it heaped upon the Evangelical doctrines, not intending, as he said, to attack his Imperial Majesty, but only the traitors and villains, be they princes or bishops, who sought to work their own wicked will, and chief of all the arch-rogue, the so-called Vicegerent of God, and his legates. The other treatise contemplates the 'very worst evil' of all that then threatened them, namely, a war resulting from the coercive measures of the Emperor and the resistance of the Protestants. As a spiritual pastor and preacher he wished to counsel not war, but peace, as all the world must testify he had always been the most diligent in doing. But he now openly declared that if, which God forbid, it came to war, he would not have those who defended themselves against the bloodthirsty Papists censured as rebellious, but would have it called an act of necessary defence,and justify it by referring to the law and the lawyers.These publications occasioned fresh dealings with Duke George, who again complained to the Elector about them, and also about certain letters falsely ascribed to Luther, and then published a reply,under an assumed name, to his first pamphlet. Luther answered this 'libel' with a tract entitled 'Against the Assassin at Dresden,' not intended, as many have supposed, to impute murderous designs to the Duke, but referring to the calumnies and anonymous attacks in his book. The tone employed by Luther in this tract reminds us of his saying that 'a rough wedge is wanted for a rough log.' It brought down upon him a fresh admonition from his prince, in reply to which he simply begged that George might for the future leave him in peace (Köstlin, Life of Luther, pp. 431-432).

 This entry is a rewrite of a post from 2009. The original can be found here.