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: “As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity”

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

In studying Luther, we must remember that his cardinal dogma when he abandoned Catholic teaching was that man has no free will, that he can do no good, and that to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible. He insists that the moral law of the Decalogue is not binding, that the 10 Commandments are abrogated and that they are no longer in force among Christians. “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart”(De Wette, 4, 188). “If we allow them — the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies, and blasphemies.” (Comm. Ad Galatians). “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid 10 Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (Wittenb. Ad 5, 1573). “As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity.” (Alts Abenmachlslehre, 2, 118)

A number of quotes are presented. This entry will concentrate on the last quote: "As little as one is able to remove mountains, to fly with the birds, to create new stars, or to bite off one’s nose, so little can on escape unchastity. (Alts Abenmachlslehre, 2, 118)." As to the other quotes, I've covered most of them already as part of my Luther, Exposing The Myth series, or elsewhere on this blog.

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. Notice in the paragraph above, the Catholic Answers participant says Luther believed "to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible." Then quotes are brought forth to demonstrate Luther was fundamentally immoral and rejected God's law. 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.

Let's take a closer look at this quote and see what's going on. Let's see if the historical record proves Luther was a sex-driven person who abandoned God's law to fulfill his fleshly desires.

Plagiarism 
The person who posted the quote provides obscure documentation.  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 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 these posts were blatant plagiarism. Even if he (she?) did compose one 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, especially the quote above under scrutiny. The paragraph appears in almost the exact form in Father O'Hare's book on pages 314-315. O'Hare uses it to question Luther's morality: to prove his "disturbed conscience," and that "he was not a God-inspired man and had no claim to be considered even an ordinary reformer or spiritual guide." O'Hare states, 

In studying Luther, we must remember, that his cardinal dogma when he abandoned Catholic teaching, was that man has no free-will, that he can do no good and that to subdue animal passion is neither necessary nor possible. He insisted that the moral law of the Decalogue is not binding, that the Ten Commandments are abrogated and that they are no longer in force among Christians. "We must," he says, "remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart." (De Wette, 4, 188.) "If we allow them—the Commandments—any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies." (Comm. ad Galat. p. 310.) "If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews." (Wittenb. ad. 5, 1573.) Having thus unceremoniously brushed aside the binding force of the moral law, we do not wonder that he makes the following startling and shameless pronouncements. "As little as one is able," he says, "to remove mountains, to fly with the birds (Mist und Ham halten), to create new stars, or to bite off one's nose, so little can one escape unchastity." Alts Abendmahlslehre, 2, 118.) Out of the depths of his depraved mind, he further declares: "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations (temptations to lewdness) by fasting, prayer and chastisement.  For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women." (Jen. ed. 2, p. 216.)

Whether the person at Catholic Answers took the quote from O'Hare's book or not, someone at some point did, and that's why it's on the Internet (now being disseminated by cut-and-paste plagiarism). To borrow from this Catholic Answers participant: today many people will read a biased and poorly researched web-page or book about Luther and think they are well informed about him.

Documentation
O'Hare does cite a reference for the quote in question: "Alts Abendmahlslehre, 2, 118." This cryptic reference occurs numerous times in nineteenth-century Luther-related materials, primarily German writings, and then fizzles out in twentieth-century usage.The reference appears to point to the second volume in a book in regard to the Lord's Supper. Whatever is meant by this reference, versions of this quote with a similar reference can be traced back in its polemical usage to at least 1781. For instance,  this eighteenth-century author says Luther lived his early years in constant lust and fornication, and that he freely admitted he was unable to live a chaste life. He the cites the quote under scrutiny:

Notice with this book, also mentioned is a "2" and a "118," which is similar to what O'Hare is citing, but it leaves out "Alts Abendmahlslehre." Unfortunately, what's being referred to by Father O'Hare and this other reference isn't clear to me. "Alts" could be referring to the Altenberg edition of Luther's collected writings. If O'Hare and this author are citing volume 2 page 118 of the Altenberg edition, there's nothing on this page similar to the quote in question, nor is this treatise about the Lord's Supper. Interestingly though, notice the "T. 2. 292" from the 1781 book above. There is something very similar to the quote on p. 292 of Altenberg, volume 2 (which will be discussed below).

Another reference that also occurs with this quote at times is "Gottlieb. 2. Ausg. S. 245." For instance, this book from 1896 uses the quote and adds the Gottlieb reference:

"Gottlieb. 2. Ausg." refers to Briefe aus Hamburg: ein Wort zur Vertheidigung der Kirche gegen die Angriffe von sieben Läugnern der Gottheit Christi, Volume 2 by Gottlieb (Tilmann Pesch SJ). Here is Page 245:

Gottlieb simply cites the quotes with the "Alts Abendmahlslehre"  reference: "In abundance, Luther often says it outright, after man Pure, chaste life is impossible. As little as I can paint away mountains, fly with the birds, hold manure and urine, darken the sun, create new stars, and bite my nose, I can not let go of fornication (Alte Abendmahlslehre 2. 118)."

Context
I'm not sure what source is meant by "Alte Abendmahlslehre 2." However,  as stated above, there is something very similar to the quote on p. 292 of Altenberg, volume 2 (cited in the 1781 text).  Page 292 states:

This page is part of Letter Luther wrote in August 1523 to the Burgemeister at Nuremburg."to resist papal pressures and to appoint an evangelical preacher." Jules Michelet explains:

One of the points which gave the greatest disquietude to the Reformer was the abolition of monastic vows. In 1522, he sent forth an exhortation on this subject to the four mendicant orders. The Augustines, in the month of March, the Carthusians in August, declared energetically in his favour.

To the lieutenants of his imperial majesty at Nuremberg, he writes, in August, 1523: "It is inconsistent with the nature of God to require vows which it is impossible for human nature to keep. . . Dear lords, we implore you to unbend in this matter. You know not what horrible and infamous cruelties the devil exercises in convents; render not yourselves accomplices in his wickedness, charge not your consciences with his guilt. If my bitterest enemies knew that which I learn every day from all the countries about us—ah, I am sure they would at once assist me in overthrowing the convents! You compel me to cry out louder than I otherwise would. Give way, I entreat you, ere these scandals burst forth more scandalously than they need to do."

It is in the context of this letter that something very similar to the quote occurs. This letter can be found in Sämtliche Werke, Volumes 53, 182-190 with the quote on page 188 and also in WABr 3:367-374, with the relevant section on page 372:

To my knowledge, this letter has no official English translation. In this section, Luther says that unless God provides a miracle of chastity, a vow of chastity is impossible to keep. It would be like the miracle of a person flying like a bird (Wer will doch fliegen geloben wie ein Vogel, und halten, es sei denn Gottes Wunderzeichen da?). Mankind was not created for chastity, but rather to be fruitful and multiply. To impose a vow of chastity on someone naturally born to procreate is like a person trying to hold their dung and urine (Mist oder Harn halten).  

Conclusion
I would be surprised if  "Alte Abendmahlslehre 2. 118" said anything different than what Luther 's letter from August 1523 to the Burgemeister at Nuremburg says above. I would also be surprised if some other context (other than this letter) the quote is purported to have been taken from actually exists. True, some of the key phrases are missing from the August 23 letter:  "...to remove mountains, to create new stars, or to bite off one's nose...". After going through years of these quotes, one thing I've noticed is that when a Luther quote provides a number of statements together saying the same thing, they can at times be secondary summary statements put together by someone reading Luther. 

One thing is clear from the context: Luther believed in celibacy for those who were given it by God. Otherwise, Luther believed in the married life as the norm for human beings. Biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. This desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). During Luther's time, the monks and nuns were plagued with fornication because of the unnatural vow they took. Some of Luther's detractors though (like Denifle and O'Hare) painted a much different picture: Luther was simply espousing blatant fornication. Perhaps these men took issue with Luther here because they themselves worked hard at keeping their vow of celibacy.

Luther wrote often on vows and chastity. In his extended treatment of 1 Corinthians 7, he ends with this summary that well explains his view:

Now we may summarize this chapter thus: It is well not to marry unless it is necessary. It becomes necessary when God has not given us the rare gift of chastity, for no one is created for chastity, but we are all born to beget children and carry the burdens of married life, according to Gen. 1; 2, and 3. Now, if someone should not suffer from this necessity, he would be the exception solely by the grace and the miraculous hand of God, not because of command, vow, or intent. Where God does not effect this, it may be attempted, but it will come to no good end. Therefore they are nothing but abominable murderers of souls who put young people into monasteries and nunneries and keep them there by force, as though chastity were something that could be put on and off like a shoe and something that is in our hand. Meanwhile they themselves take quite a different view and drive others to attempt what they have never even raised their little finger to attempt or would not be able to. It is easy to say: “Be chaste,” but why are you not chaste? It is great for you to eat like a pig and drink like a horse while telling me to fast! But enough said for those who are willing to listen. And what more can one say to those who will not listen? May God enlighten them or prevent them from strangling souls in this fashion! Amen. (LW 28:55-56).

Responding to Ben M on priestly celibacy, with a pinch of sarcasm

Ben M has decided to weigh in on celibacy.  I sinned extensively against the Lord recently by watching the Lost finale, and so I'm feeling a bit saucy.  Hopefully both of my readers will forgive the sarcasm of some of my comments here.


No, that's not what St. Paul meant!

He said "forbid marriage".  RC priests are forbidden to marry.
Interestingly, Paul told us that presbuteroi are supposed to be one-woman men.  Not no-woman men or many-boys men.


a. The Roman Church has NO “doctrine” forbidding anyone to marry - marriage is a sacrament open to all.

Except priests.  Do you think we're idiots or something?


b. God has always called certain individuals to the celibate life in order that they may serve him unreservedly.

What's your point?  That's a matter between the individual and God, not to be mandated by the church.


c. The Church has every right to set rules and conditions pertaining to the priesthood

If you say so.  But they violate the biblical commandment.  Apparently they have "every right" to do that, too.



And currently she has chosen to accept candidates for priestly ordination only from among those who have this gift of celibacy

And if the RCC does it, it has to be right!  B/c Christ founded it!  Matthew 16!  Blah!!!


Why do Protestants forbid celibacy to their clergy, when the very Apostles SS. Peter and Paul and their successors - St. Timothy e.g. - were prime examples of a celibate clergy??

1) You have no proof Timothy was celibate.
2) Paul CHOSE to be celibate.  RCC MANDATES its clergy be celibate.
3) Peter was married.  Fail.
4) Paul was an apostle, not a presbuteros.



Re: perpetual abstinence in marriage is unbiblical - “Else, they cannot be one flesh. 1 Cor 7: 3.”
Well, that’s certainly what, with perhaps a couple of exceptions, Protestants believe.

Yeah, that's so crazy, that Protestants might just believe what the Bible teaches.



(Beza said:) We cannot expect people today to live chastely in a sexless marriage, as if they were ‘new Josephs and Marys.’”

1) Beza is not a Protestant Pope.  I can't believe you people can't get that through your heads.
2) Sexless marriages are indeed violations of the command of 1 Corinthians 7 and the various other descriptions of marriage as "one FLESH".  Hard to be one FLESH when you're --ahem-- not, you know, one flesh.



“The traditional option of maintaining a sexless ‘spiritual marriage’ was anathema to Calvin.”

Awesome.  Good for Calvin.  Another reason to like the guy.


One comment in Beza's biography has not served Calvin well, and that was the suggestion that he and Idelette had a sexless marriage, adhering to chastity.

I can't believe it!  Calvin might have actually been a sinner?
Sorry, we can't allow that kind of trash to sully the pages of this blog.  Our team will have a meeting later to determine whether we should delete this comment and also ban all RCs from commenting.  Forever.


St. Augustine:
“So if you can manage it, you shouldn’t touch your partner, except for the sake of having children.” Sermon 278:9:3,

I can imagine nothing so bizarre to as to suggest that a church writer 3 centuries after the Bible was written might say something unbiblical or incorrect.