Luther, the Tower Bathroom, and Faith Alone

In commemoration of Reformation day 2016, here's a wild and weird one from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards (and also Catholic Answers):

For Luther the bathroom was also a place of worship. His holiest movements came when he was seated on the privy (Abort) of the Wittenberg monastery tower. It was there, while moving his bowels, that he conceived the revolutionary Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Afterward he wrote: "these words 'just' and 'justice of God' were thunderbolt to my conscience.... I soon had the thought [that] God's justice which justifies us and saves us. And these words became a sweeter message for me. This knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower."

The above is a crude description of what Reformation studies refer to as Luther's Turmerlebnis or "Tower Experience." This refers to the place (and setting) where Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone. As the popular version goes, Luther was in the tower of the Augustinian monastery when the "gate to paradise" of the gospel came to him. Luther recollected this experience a year before he died:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. (LW 34:336-337)

Contrary to these tender autobiographical words, how did a coarse tale about Luther's bathroom habits find its way over to Catholic Answers and CARM? Is it just another one of those myths floating around cyberspace?

Origin of The Story 
The words just cited were from Luther's detailed account of his discovery of justification by faith alone (see The Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings, 1545, LW 34:323). Even with this firsthand information, historians have not been able to conclusively determine the exact date or exact place in which it occurred. There have been a number of theories as to the specific date in which Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone. An exact date has importance because there are those who want to read the Ninety-Five Theses with a Luther who already understood "faith alone" as a backdrop for his complaints against indulgences. There are others who posit Luther had his  Turmerlebnis sometime after the Theses were posted. While it might appear to be a silly quibble, it does impact how one interprets Luther's earlier writings. While scrutinizing for the date, any information about the place has been scrutinized in order to concretely fix the date. Did Luther, the agonizing monk in Augustinian monastery have his "tower experience" while still an obedient monk previous to October 31, 1517? Luther doesn't say where he was. Here's second-hand testimony enters the debate.

The crude story finds its genesis from an interpretation of one sentence from the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second-hand comments and anecdotes written down by Luther's friends and students published after his death. In other words, 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. In Reformation history studies, particularity those put together by Roman Catholics and secularists, it is not uncommon to find the Table Talk used as a primary source over Luther's actual writings.  The tenuous nature of this method becomes readily apparent when one actually reads the Table Talk. Often the purported utterances hang without a broader context (or in some instances, any context) and lack the background historical setting in which they were stated.

This particular utterance is found in a 1532 utterance (number 1681) from WA TR 2:177 (and not found in English of the Table Talk in LW 54). Other variations of this utterance can be found in WA TR 3, nos. 3232a, b, c. P. 228 (see Addendum #2 below). Luther is purported to have described his feelings in discovering justification by faith alone sometime between July and September of 1532:

The sentence which has caused this controversy is found at the very end of the second paragraph. The entirety of the second paragraph is in Latin except for the last sentence being a mixture of German and Latin:  Dise Kunst hatt mir der Spiritus Sanctus auf diss Cl[oaca]. eingeben.   In a helpful article Kenneth G. Hagen has described what in this text sentence has provoked this controversy. He points out that there are different versions of what Luther is purported to have said (from Cordatus, Lauterbach, and Schlaginhaufen). The first two say the experience happened in a hypocauslum (warm room or secret place). Hagen states, "However, Schlaginhaufen reports that Luther said that it occurred in or on a "Cl." (auf diss Cl.)." Hagen continues:

The abbreviation "Cl," as the place where the Holy Spirit revealed to Luther a new understanding of Rom 1:17, has caused much speculation and some embarrassment. Some later editors of the Table Talk have suggested that "Cl" means cloaca (toilet). Hartmann Grisar argues that cloaca is the only possible reading. Other suggestions have been that "Cl." means cella (chamber), claustrum (a confined place), capiiulum (chapter), c(apite) 1 (chapter one) or darissimum (very clear).  The last three suggestions refer to Scripture. According to Gordon Rupp, "Most scholars now believe it to have been a warmed room in which Luther studied."

Erik Erikson: Young Man Luther

In the twentieth century some approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Erik Erikson took this controversial sentence and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. From his Freudian perspective Erikson concluded Luther's spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions.  He presented this in his book, Young Man Luther, a Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1958). Erikson states on pages 204-206:

Responses To Erikson

If the word "cloaca" is the word in question, a basic response to the phrase Erikson interpreted literally is that in actuality it was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy. A brief overviews by both Dr. Scott Hendrix and James M. Kittelson in Christian History, Issue 34 (Vol. XI, No. 2).  Kittelson states,

Luther writes elsewhere that the breakthrough occurred when he was In cloaca, which literally means “in the toilet.” Some writers have thus suggested that Luther was sitting on the toilet at that moment; the revelation was a release from parentally induced anal retentiveness.

Dispensing with the toilet theory is easy. “in cloaca” was a bit of monastic slang better rendered as “in the dumps” or “in the pits.” Luther meant that the realization occurred when he was despondent or depressed. He wrote that the event transpired “at last (after) meditating day and night and by the mercy of God. ...” Hence, he was likely in his study, which was located not in the tower but in the arch over the main gate into the monastery.

A more detailed review of this counter-argument to Erikson was described succinctly by Reformation historian Lewis Spitz:  

In his table talk between June 9 and July 12, 1532, however, Luther described his struggle to achieve clarity about faith and righteousness and said that "the Holy Spirit had given him this understanding in this tower." In one of the three rescripts the words auft diser cloaca are added. The phrase looms large in the Catholic-Protestant polemic early in this century and has stimulated analysts to a veritable frenzy of speculation about psycho-physiological relationships, oral anal release, and the Grand Canal controversy. In fact, however, the east tower room on the second floor of the Black Cloister contained the small library reading room with a large Bible where the monks went to read and meditate. It was not a facility. Two explanations of the phrase auff diser cloaca seem far more probable than the defecatory hypothesis. As early as 1919 Ernst Kroker, who had edited these passages in the Tischreden, argued in an article in the Lutherjahrbuch that the term cloaca had to be used in a transferred sense in order is to fit the usage of that day. The psychoanalytic explanation is all but untenable in the light of what we now know about the usage of the term by monks, and specifically by Augustinian hermits. In connection with the experience of accedia, the Klosterkrankheit, the phrase in cloaca was used not only with reference to the locus but to describe a state of melancholy in a way similar to our colloquial expression "down in the dumps." Thus Luther, troubled in conscience, fearful and anxious, suddenly understands that St Paul is speaking of the righteousness God bestows on man through forgiveness, and he is lifted out of the depths into the joy of paradise. [Pychohistory and Religion (Philadelphia: fortress Press, 1977), p. 80].

And finally, Reformation historian Steven Ozment has said,

On the meaning of cloaca, however, the historians have done their homework better than the psychologists. In the late Middle Ages, the descriptions of oneself as being in cloaca, in stercore, or in latrina were common religious rhetoric, actually derived from the Bible and connoting a state of utter humility and dependence on God. When Luther described his Reformation insight as occurring "in cloaca," he was saying no more than that he received his understanding of the righteousness of God after a long period of humble meditation in the tower room- actually the library- of the monastery. Once again an understanding of the religious culture of the period proves more illuminating than conjectures based on modern clinical psychology [Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), p. 230].

It's important to reiterate that Erikson formulated these multiple pages of psychological theory based on one sentence from something Luther did not write (a Table Talk utterance) and in that sentence, the key word in question "Cl." is not certain beyond doubt.  Historical scholars are fairly unified that Erikson made poor use of the evidence. He did not discriminate carefully enough among primary sources, secondary sources and hostile sources. Hearsay functioned as "fact." To my knowledge, Erikson refused to answer his many critics in print.

Addendum #1: Was There a Tower Bathroom?
Yes, there was a tower at Luther's Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg. Some scholars have contended there was no bathroom sort of feature in the tower at all. In 2004 though, excavation around the monastery (while building a garden) unearthed a "stone room" (BBC News) (see picture above of the excavation).

The 450-year-old toilet, which was very advanced for its time, is made out of stone blocks and, unusually, has a 30-square-centimetre seat with a hole. Underneath is a cesspit attached to a primitive drain (link).

A more recent article notes that artifacts from the excavation have been "copiously published in a catalog in 2009" (link). This archaeological discovery though does not necessarily validate that Luther's evangelical breakthrough came while sitting on the toilet. This article states,

What both parties seemed to have missed, though, is the profound medieval roots of the expression. Already in 1012, Thietmar of Merseburg can tell us that demons arise from the cloaca to tempt monks, while others debated whether it was allowed to pray in unclean places. Opinions were divided, but there is evidence that Luther as a good Augustinian believed you could pray everywhere – even in hell. In Augustine’s time, Father Licentius had sung a verse from a psalm while labouring to rid himself of the filth of this earth. Monica had censured him, but Augustine defended the act, arguing that prayer was appropriate anywhere. Later, in the middle ages, to fall into the “cloaca” came to mean “to fall into sin”. It is indeed possible the reformator meant it both metaphorically and literally, when he claimed to have been inspired while shi**ing; as he did a lot. Probably, because of excessive fasting in his youth he suffered from obstipation and chronic disorders in his bowls; as did Ignatius of Loyola too.

Addendum #2 Table Talk 3232c

No. 3232c: Description of Luther’s “Tower Experience”
Between June 9 and July 21, 1532

“The words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness of God’ struck my conscience like lightning. When I heard them I was exceedingly terrified. If God is righteous [I thought], he must punish. But when by God’s grace I pondered, in the tower and heated room of this building,65 over the words, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’ [Rom. 1:17] and ‘the righteousness of God’ [Rom. 3:21], I soon came to the conclusion that if we, as righteous men, ought to live from faith and if the righteousness of God contribute to the salvation of all who believe, then salvation won’t be our merit but God’s mercy. My spirit was thereby cheered. For it’s by the righteousness of God that we’re justified and saved through Christ. These words [which had before terrified me] now became more pleasing to me. The Holy Spirit unveiled the Scriptures for me in this tower.”

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 193–194). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


Addendum #3 Hartmann Grisar on The Tower Incident
I want to make mention of one of the most detailed and tedious studies on the tower experience and the phrase "in cloaca" available in English. This study (first published in German) actually precedes the interpretation of Erikson by many decades: Hartmann Grisar, Luther vol. 6 p. 504- 510 (cf. vol. 1, p.396-397). Grisar was a Roman Catholic historian who belong to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. While one may disagree with his interpretations of the facts in regard to his overall opinion about Luther, over the years I've found his documentation to be useful.  In his analysis of the Table Talk statements in question, Grisar concludes that the word abbreviated "Cl." can only mean "cloaca." Grisar states that it is probable that a later copyist of the Table Talk notes was embarrassed by the word so made it into an abbreviation:

The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther's own words in 1532: "This art the Spiritus sanctum infused into me in this Cl." Cloaca is abbreviated into Cl., probably because Schlaginhaufen's copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the Holy Ghost; the editor suggests we should read "Capitel"; but the chapter-house is not to be thought of. Strange indeed are the interpretations which have been given, even in recent times, by the unlearned to many of the expressions in our texts. The " locus secretus " was supposed to be " a special place allotted to the monks in the tower," whereas it is clear that the " secret chamber " was simply the closet or privy, a word which occurs often enough in Luther's later abuse of the Papists. In olden times it was very usual to establish this adjunct on the city wall and its towers, the sewage having egress outside the town boundaries[link]

In response, Lutheran historian J.M. Reu commented,

It is characteristic for Grisar's mind and method when starting from a very doubtful text, that he attempts to prove that Luther found this important and saving explanation in the privy; but even if he were right, what would it matter ? Kawerau and Scheel on this point strike Grisar home in a way deserved by him [link]

The expression "locus secretus," which Cordatus uses, does by no means necessarily mean privy, and when Khumer's text reads "Turm und Kloake," so this reading is entirely uncertain, being very probably only an incorrect solution of the abbreviation "cl." found in Schlaginhaufen's text. The correct solution seems to be claustrum or cella. Lauterbach's text offers : "in hac turri et hypocausto" [link].

Luther's "Fit in the Choir"

"People like James Swan, who “feel the need” to paint virtually every aspect and historical detail of Luther’s life in the most “positive” (sanitized) light imaginable, also have every reason to want people to completely dismiss the “fit” as being some sort of anti-Luther “myth” which was manufactured by the Catholic Church to discredit the man." [source]

That's what one of my critics recently said in regard to my opinion on Luther's alleged "fit in the choir." In actuality, as I searched through my blog, it appears I've rarely mentioned this myth on this blog, and only in passing (for instance: 5/02/06; 6/04/06; 6/06/06; 7/17/07). The irony of this Roman Catholic critic is his shying away from the original Roman Catholic interpretations of Luther's "fit in the choir" as demon possession favoring instead modern secular psychological interpretations.

Here's how the story goes, as stated by Luther's Roman Catholic biographer Hartmann Grisar:

One day that Luther was present at High Mass in the monks' choir, he had a fit during the Gospel, which, as it happened, told the story of the man possessed. He fell to the ground and in his paroxysms behaved like one mad. At the same time he cried out, as his brother monks affirmed: "It is not I, it is not I," meaning that he was not the man possessed.1 It might seem to have been an epileptic fit, but there is no other instance of Luther having such attacks, though he did suffer from ordinary fits of fainting. Strange to say, some of his companions in the monastery had an idea that he had dealings with the devil, while others, mainly on account of the above-mentioned attack, actually declared him an epileptic. We learn both these facts from his opponent and contemporary, Johann Cochlaeus, who was on good terms with Luther's former associates. He asserts positively that a "certain singularity of manner" had been remarked upon by his fellows in the monastery.2 Later on his brother monk, Johann Nathin, went so far as to assert that "an apostate spirit had mastered him," i.e. that he stood under the influence of the devil.3
1. Dungersheim, " Erzeigung der Falschheit des unchristlichen lutherischen Comments usw.," in " AHqua opuscula," p. 15, cited above on p. 4. 2. Joh. Cochlaeus, "Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri," Mogunt., 1549, p. 1. 3. Dungersheim, ut supra. [source]

Documentation
The spurious origins of this tale alone should be enough to caution one from giving it more value than its actual worth. Historians have traced this story not back to anything Luther wrote, or even a Table Talk utterance recorded by one of his acquaintances. Rather, this story originates from one of Luther's earliest Roman Catholic biographers, Cochlaeus. It comes from the very first paragraphs of his lengthy biography of Luther: 

“…[W]hen [Luther] was in the country, either because he was terrified and prostrated by a bolt of lightning, as is commonly said, or because he was overwhelmed with grief at the death of a companion, through contempt of this world he suddenly - to the astonishment of many - entered the Monastery of the brothers of St Augustine, who are commonly called the Hermits. After a year's probation, his profession of that order was made legitimate, and there in his studies and spiritual exercises he fought strenuously for God for four years. However, he appeared to the brothers to have a certain amount of peculiarity, either from some secret commerce with a Demon, or (according to certain other indications) from the disease of epilepsy. They thought this especially, because several times in the Choir, when during the Mass the passage from the Evangelist about the ejection of the deaf and mute Demon was read, he suddenly fell down, crying 'It is not I, it is not I.' And thus it is the opinion of many, that he enjoyed an occult familiarity with some demon, since he himself sometimes wrote such things about himself as were able to engender a suspicion in the reader of this kind of commerce and nefarious association. For he says in a certain sermon addressed to the people, that he knows the Devil well, and is in turn well known by him, and that he has eaten more than one grain of salt with him. And furthermore he published his own book in German, About the 'Corner' Mass (as he calls it), where he remembers a disputation against the Mass that the Devil held with him at night. There are other pieces of evidence about this matter as well, and not trivial ones, since he was even seen by certain people to keep company bodily with the Devil.” [source]

Roland Bainton notes:

“The story is poorly authenticated. It received distribution through Cochlaeus, whose virulent misrepresentations of Luther have poisoned the Catholic attitude toward him until recently refuted by the Catholic scholar Adolf Herte. Cochlaeus wrote later than, and presumably was dependent on, Dungersheim, who took the tale from Nathin, who appears to have derived it from the Bishop of Mansfield. Thus we get it fourth hand.” (Roger Johnson, ed, Psychohistory and Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p.42)

But it's actually worse than simply a fourth-hand apocryphal story. Gordon Rupp explains,

The story that Luther had a fit during Mass, while the story of the epileptic boy was being read, is more than dubious. It comes to us from four catholic writers: Nathin, Dungersheim, Cochlaeus,Oldecop, all of whom were his enemies, all of whom believed that he was possessed by a demon. An examination of these sources shows that they are not four separate accounts but each is repeating the other, as W. S. Gilbert would say, adding a few corroborative details intended to give an air of artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Such is Cochlaeus’s addition of the cry ’ I am not’. [Gordon Rupp, John Osborne and the Historical Luther, The Expository Times 1962; 73; 148).

Interpretations
When this story was first told by Luther's detractors the goal was to prove Luther was possessed by a demon. Cochlaeus believed Luther was a child of the devil, the fruit of a union between Satan and Luther's mother (who later regretted not having murdered him in the cradle). Luther's life was characterized as a man who lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. Luther was a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. Demonic monstrosities boiled out of Luther’s powerful perverted mind. At Luther's death, Satan came to drag him off to hell [source].

Fast forward a few hundred years and Luther's secular interpreters gravitate towards this tale in their probings into Luther's psyche. The most famous of all the psychohistorical approaches to Luther was Erik Erikson's Young Man Luther (1958). This is the favored interpreter of my Roman Catholic critic (see here, here, and here).

Erikson used a modified Freudian approach to Luther. Erikson analyzed Luther’s writings with Ego Development psychology, which evaluates important crisis’s in Luther’s life. For Erikson, Luther's fit in the choir was an identity crisis. He calls it a persistent identity crisis "the epileptoid paroxysm of egoloss." Erikson argued that Luther so identifies with the story of a boy possessed with a demon that he has to scream out to try to establish his non-identity with the boy. What's truly fascinating to me is not Erkison's interpretation but rather his admission that its historical verity doesn't really matter: 

If some of it is legend, so be it; the making of legend is as much part of the scholarly rewriting of history as it is part of the original facts used in the work of scholars. We are thus obliged to accept half-legend as half-history,provided only that a reported episode does not contradict other well-established facts; persists in having a ring of truth; and yields a meaning consistent with psychological theory" (Young Man Luther, p. 37).

What's also fascinating is that my Roman Catholic critic also grants the story is not an "undisputed fact." For this person though, "the fit in the choir is more than likely" because it is consistent with Luther's behavior in the monastery "like six hour confessions, extreme self mortification, obsession with the devil, and being found unconscious from fasting" and "some of Luther’s brother monks thought him to be either insane or demon possessed and that fact is entirely consistent with the 'fit'." This is the level to which some Roman Catholics will go: if it sounds like it could be true, then it probably is. That's certainly a far cry from "to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."

Rupp points out "This story is in fact the only kind of evidence that Luther ever had such attacks. There is no trace of epilepsy before or after. Psychosomatic attacks show themselves in his forties, 1527-1528, but they are connected with his heart, dizziness,palpitations, and fainting fits" (Rupp, 148). Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset states that in the monastery "Luther was not a loner or a constantly depressed introvert" (The Real Luther, p. 94).

Indeed, Luther did claim "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work." My Roman Catholic critic thinks Luther's behavior in the monastery was abnormal for a 16th century monk. I would rather argue Luther was being a consistent Romanist.  Let's play in a Roman Catholic reality for a moment: If Luther was abnormal according to my Romanist critic, so was Pope John Paul II with his penitential practices and self-mortification (for example, the use of hair shirts).

Interestingly my critic quotes Erikson's overview of other psychological interpreters of the choir fit, but neglects to point out that each of these interpreters (Denifle, Reiter, Smith) arrived at a different conclusion about this alleged story. Erikson actually catches Reiter changing the story from Luther saying "That's me!" to "That's not me!" (Erikson, pp. 27-28). Men like Denifle, Smith, Reiter, or Erikson did use, in a sense, a similar approach in trying to understand Luther, but none of them arrive at the same conclusions, or even minimize or maximize similar conclusions. To simply lump them all together is the way of propaganda.

Conclusion
My critic can claim that my presentations of Luther are sanitized and present a distorted image of a historical personage. But above you'll notice my method for arriving at the conclusions I do about the choir fit story. The above would be the same sort of scrutiny I would use on any historical person.

Using Psychohistory To Interpret Luther (A Response To Catholic Apologist Art Sippo (part 3)

This is a continuation of look at Catholic apologist Art Sippo’s take on Luther scholarship. Previous entries can be found here:

On Dialoging With Catholic apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Father O’Hare’s “Facts About Luther”

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo on Luther Scholarship and Research (Part 1)

Art Sippo on Catholic Historians Grisar and Denifle and Luther’s Demon Possession (part 2)

Catholic Apologist Art Sippo Takes The Time To Thank Me For My Luther Research

If you've read through any of these links, or visited the battlefield and read through the discussion proper, you've probably realized that Mr. Sippo’s understanding of Luther appears to be strongly based on the psychohistory approach. In other words, history can be understood by applying the science of psychoanalysis to a historical figure. This view holds that history is more than simply “facts”- it is also the result of psychological forces that drive people to do what they do. Those scholars Sippo relies on, and also his own comments about Luther, demonstrate this. Sippo's champions are men like Denifle, Grisar, and Erikson. All used a pyschohistory approach in interpreting Luther.

Note Sippo’s words:

“[Heinrich Denifle] dug into the archives where only scholars had previously gone and he found evidence of Luther's intemperate personality, his intolerance, and his gross logical inconsistency in what he wrote. He also resurrected the complaints of many of Luther's contemporaries about the man's erratic behavior and his excesses. It is Fr. Denifle who brought these things to light and spurred on the more critical portrait of Luther that would emerge in the 20th Century from Fr. Grisar, Preserved Smith, Paul Reiter, Erik Ericsson[sic], Marius, and Rix.”

Sippo says, “It must be noted that psychiatric diagnoses cannot be made with certainty on deceased people. But some folks have left us enough information in their journals, diaries and written output that we can make an intelligent guess as to their state of mind.” One thing Art Sippo doesn’t tell you, is that while men like Denifle, Grisar, Smith, and Erikson used a similar approach in trying to understand Luther, none of them arrive at the same conclusions- or even minimize or maximize similar conclusions. So, even though Luther produced a large corpus of writings to draw analysis from, each of these psychohistorians arrive at different conclusions when digging for pychohistory "facts"[tedium: Sippo says, “The English translation of his works runs to 52 volumes…” Actually, it runs 54 volumes with a 55th volume appendix, and also a 56th supplementary volume by Jaraslov Pelikan on interpreting Luther].

Let’s look at the evidence.

Denifle’s approach has been called “the pansexual interpretation of the Reformation.” According to Denifle, Luther’s psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. All these were some of Luther’s psychological reasons to abandon the Roman Church in his “attempt” to destroy her. This approach to Luther has been largely abandoned- even Denifle’s close associate, Albert Maria Weiss, O.P., concluded, “Denifle was a historical researcher of the first rank, but as a historical writer Denifle was not the equal of the researcher.” In other words, the case against Luther that Denifle built was not valid. Rarely will anyone find a brave writer willing to defend Denifle’s pansexual approach to Luther. That Mr. Sippo could even recommend his writings leads me to believe he was completely unaware of its abandonment by Catholic historians- unless of course, Sippo himself wants to argue in favor of Denifle’s pansexual approach.

Immediately following Denifle were the works of Hartmann Grisar. Grisar similarly used a psychohistory approach in his volumes on Luther. Did Grisar exclusively use the pansexual approach as did Denifle? No, while he will at times indict Luther’s in similar ways, Grisar basically categorizes Luther neurosis with pathological manic-depressive psychology. Where Denifle wants you to hate Luther as a depraved sex maniac, Grisar wants you to pity him for being a psychopath. Sippo comments that it was Herbert David Rix “who makes the case for Luther's manic-depression problem” in the mid-1980’s. Actually, Grisar made it long before him. Out of all the psychohistory works, Grisar’s books at least have some value in factual content. Generally, Grisar’s “facts” are good- even if his conclusions and insinuations flaw his overall work.

Grisar can indeed be praised for avoiding some of the abusive polemic language that filled Denifle’s work. He also strove to disprove many of the stories about Luther’s personal life that Denifle used to damage the reputation of Luther:

“Grisar demolished two major points in the thesis of Denifle. He was not at all disposed to credit the tale of Luther’s moral turpitude. He stated emphatically that ‘the only arguments on which the assertions of great inward corruption could be based, viz. actual texts and facts capable of convincing anyone…simply are not forthcoming’ He admitted that Denifle’s interpretation of ‘concupiscence’ would not bear examination. ‘Nor does the manner in which Luther represents concupiscence prove his inward corruption. He does not make it consist merely in the concupiscence of the flesh.’ He can pay tribute to Luther’s minor virtues, as when he admits that “Of Christian Liberty” “does in fact present his wrong ideas in a mystical garb which appeals strongly to the heart.” [Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God (Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton Publishing, 1953), 25].

Dr. Sippo also mentions Protestant historian Preserved Smith. Smith’s most famous work on Luther is a compilation of his correspondence called, The Life And Letters of Martin Luther. Smith was known as an excellent historian, but as Reformation expert Lewis Spitz once pointed out, in his psychological analysis he was a “very amateurish analyst.” Smith was very interested in Freudian analysis and theory, particularly the role of sex in personal development. In 1913 he published an article called “Luther’s Early Development in the Light of Psychoanalysis” [American Journal of Psychology 24 (1913) 360-77]. Commenting on Luther, Smith says,

“Luther is a thoroughly typical example of the neurotic quasi-hysterical sequence of an infantile sex-complex; so much so, indeed, that Sigismund Freud and his school could hardly have found a better example to illustrate the sounder part of their theory than him.” (p.362).

Smith’s Freudian observations show Luther to be a product of an alcoholic parent, a sufferer of the Oedipus complex, was an abused child, struggled with depression, had an infatuation with demonism, and had sexual repression. Smith then interprets these factors as the causes of some of Luther’s central doctrines (like faith alone, the Bondage of the Will, etc).

The most famous of all the psychohistorians writing on Luther is Erik Erikson in his book, Young Man Luther (1958). Erikson used a modified Freudian approach to Luther. He approached religious phenomena with prejudice: recall, Freud argued that religious phenomena are to be understood on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual: hence, a materialistic outlook on religion. Freud saw religious concerns within an individual as reflecting something “wrong” in a human. Erickson does the same with his treatment of Luther. Catholics beware: Erikson is no friend of your beliefs, or of anyone with religious beliefs. While Sippo criticizes me (very unjustly) for recommending John Todd and Joseph Lortz, one should ask him why he recommends a book presupposing an atheist worldview.

Erikson felt that since a great body of writing from Luther and his students existed, an evaluation could take place. He analyzed Luther’s writings with Ego Development psychology, which uses a model that posits two important crisis’s in Luther’s life: Identity and integrity crises. These are key to the development of the human personality-

-Identity crises: takes place in the years of adolescence: a young person comes to some independent recognition of himself

-Integrity crises: Begins in more mature years (mid life crises)

Erikson looked at Luther’s relations to his father and mother (even though the source material was very limited). For instance, he quotes Luther’s statement on his dad beating him- Erikson’s conclusion is that since Luther had such a love / hate relationship to his father, he eventually rejected the pope. Erikson also argues that Luther’s father was a drunkard, given to cruelty. In regards to Luther’s mother: Erikson makes much of Luther’s statement that she beat him once for stealing a nut. Erikson concludes Luther dethroned the Virgin Mary due to his hatred of his mother.

In both of these examples, Erikson failed to take into account all the evidence. Luther elsewhere says his father was ‘happy’ when drunk; also in the account of his beating there are other texts that say his father felt quite remorseful for it, and expressed this to Luther. Erikson doesn’t take into account that Luther rejected the devotion to Mary of the medieval church, and also wrote a “sensitive” commentary on Mary’s Magnificat. There really wasn’t a violent rejection of Mary due to his relationship with his mother- if anything, Luther reevaluated Mary’s role as an example of justification by faith alone. Positive statements about Mary are peppered through his writings.

Erikson’s notes three crises in Luther’s life:

-First crises: The thunderstorm in 1505 and joining of monastery. Erikson argues “identity crises”: Luther’s desire to separate himself from his father; his joining the monastery shows Luther’s fear of God and his father motivated him.

-Second crises:(also an identity crises) 1507- Luther in the monastery has a “fit in the choir loft” while Mark 9:17 is being read (the healing of a boy with demon). Luther cries out, “It is not I!” Erikson argues that Luther so identifies with the story of a boy possessed with a demon that he has to scream out to try to establish his non-identity. [Note: Luther never referred to this story: It comes from a Cochlaeus- a Roman Catholic 16th century polemicist who wrote against Luther. Cochlaeus admitted he got this story fourth hand].

Third crises: Luther’s “Tower experience.” Erikson takes a German phrase uttered by Luther and interprets it literally to mean Luther was sitting on the toilet when he has his evangelical breakthrough. Erikson concludes that one can see from a Freudian perspective how Luther’s spiritual issues are tied up with biological functions. [Note: there was no toilet in the tower. The phrase Luther said in German means, “down in the dumps”- it was conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed].

Many reviews of Erikson’s book have been written. There is no agreement among scholars as to whether or not his work on Luther is reliable. To my knowledge, Erikson refused to answer his many critics, in print. Historical scholars are fairly unified that Erikson made poor use of the evidence, simply because Erikson was not a Reformation historian. Erikson made use of both Protestant and Catholic sources. In terms of Catholic sources, he used the work of Heinrich Denifle, and also did not discriminate carefully enough amongst primary sources, secondary sources and hostile sources. In other words, hearsay also functioned as "fact".

But these are some of the sources Art Sippo directs you toward in understanding Luther. Judge for yourself if these men produce a unified, historically verifiable understanding of Luther, or if they’re... guessing. How can someone do psychology on a dead man? One cannot. Thus, the psychohistory method, while interesting, should not be one’s main approach to learning about Martin Luther.

Now, I realize I’m the “enemy” Protestant…you know, that evil snake that’s come to the Envoy forums to trip up Roman Catholics. But, judge for yourself by what I’ve written if I deserve the treatment being doled out by Mr. Sippo. I’ve attempted to substantiate my opinion respectfully. Mr. Sippo has continually hurled invective at me. Wonder why?

I don’t claim to be a Luther “expert”. But, I do claim to pursue the truth. I apply the same scrutiny to Protestant writers as well. Mr. Sippo hurls insults at me because he’s most likely scared people will read my responses seriously, and maybe even read the books I recommend. I don’t claim to be any type of psychologist, but I do wonder why Mr. Sippo writes violently when dialoging with protestants, or discussing the Reformation. I think before I write. I try to do serious historical study. I don’t simply rant and rave and hurl invective. Catholics can hate me for being a Protestant or 'anti catholic" if they want, but at least argue cogently.