Luther's letter contradicting the 10 Commandments

This morning, I came across an extraordinary letter, (so it seems to me) by Luther, in which he appears to be telling his friend it is all right to ignore the Ten Commandments in the sense of avoiding the occasions of sin.  How peculiar.  How can you advise a friend who is being tempted to drink more than he should to drink even more, in order to waggle one's thumb at Satan?  I have read various commentaries over the years that mention how, when he was a monk, Luther suffered with scruples and pride so he never believed he had been forgiven and was always running back to Confession to confess the same sin/s.  This letter, written after he left religious life and married, certainly fits in with such a temperament.  Also note how Luther mentions another man telling him he will become a great man.  A humble man would keep such a remark to himself!  That said, Luther's emphasis on trying to remain cheerful while under demonic oppression is certainly correct.

"Grace and peace in Christ.

My dearest Jerome, you must firmly believe that your affliction is of the devil, and that you are plagued in this manner because you believe in Christ. For you see that the most wrathful enemies of the Gospel, as, for instance, Eck, Zwingli, and others, are suffered to be at ease and happy. All of us who are Christians must have the devil for our adversary and enemy, as Peter says: 'Your adversary, the devil, goeth about,' etc., 1 Pet. 5, 8. Dearest Jerome, you must rejoice over these onslaughts of the devil, because they are a sure sign that you have a gracious and merciful God. You will say: This affliction is more grievous than I can bear; you fear that you will be overcome and vanquished, so that you are driven to blasphemy and despair. I know these tricks of Satan: if he cannot overcome the person whom he afflicts at the first onset, he seeks to exhaust and weaken him by incessantly attacking him, in order that the person may succumb and acknowledge himself beaten. Accordingly, whenever this affliction befalls you, beware lest you enter into an argument with the devil, or muse upon these death-dealing thoughts. For this means nothing else than to yield to the devil and succumb to him. You must rather take pains to treat these thoughts which the devil instills in you with the severest contempt. In afflictions and conflicts of this kind contempt is the best and easiest way for overcoming the devil. Make up your mind to laugh at your adversary, and find some one whom you can engage in a conversation. You must by all means avoid being alone, for then the devil will make his strongest effort to catch you; he lies in wait for you when you are alone. In a case like this the devil is overcome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing with him. My dear Jerome, you must engage in merry talk and games with my wife and the rest, so as to defeat these devilish thoughts, and you must be intent on being cheerful. This affliction is more necessary to you than food and drink. I shall relate to you what happened to me when I was about your age. When I entered the cloister, it happened that at first I always walked about sad and melancholy, and could not shake off my sadness. Accordingly, I sought counsel and confessed to Dr. Staupitz, --I am glad to mention this man's name. I opened my heart to him, telling him with what horrid and terrible thoughts I was being visited. He said in reply: Martin, you do not know how useful and necessary this affliction is to you; for God does not exercise you thus without a purpose. You will see that He will employ you as His servant to accomplish great things by you. This came true. For I became a great doctor--I may justly say this of myself--; but at the time when I was suffering these afflictions I would never have believed that this could come to pass. No doubt, that is what is going to happen to you: you will become a great man. In the mean time be careful to keep a brave and stout heart, and impress on your mind this thought that such remarks which fall from the lips chiefly of learned and great men contain a prediction and prophecy. I remember well how a certain party whom I was comforting for the loss of his son said to me: Martin, you will see, you will become a great man. I often remembered this remark, for, as I said, such remarks contain a prediction and a prophecy. Therefore, be cheerful and brave, and cast these exceedingly terrifying thoughts entirely from you. Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the company of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play some jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a person must drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even commit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to leave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most trifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear that we may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. Accordingly, if the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you must tell him: Just because you forbid it, I shall drink, and that, liberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satan forbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest unconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other reason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has attempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real brave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any.  We must put the whole law (Luther means the 10 Commandments) entirely out of our eyes and hearts, we, I say, whom the devil thus assails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and pronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit that I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you will be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered and made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide."

I have done a lot of reading among very contradictory opinions all morning, and to be frank, sifting through it all has been exhausting.  My overall impression is that Luther was a proud man, very sensual, and definitely neurotic.  However, that makes him human, not a demon.  At the end of all this reading, only a small part of which I have printed here, below, I have come to the conclusion that Luther probably was not a well-balanced man but was not stupid or ignorant as some of the quoted Catholic writers view him because a stupid man would surely not have gathered so many people around him.  Or were his followers stupid too, and looking for a way out that would not endanger their souls if they lived immoral lives?  It sounds crazy but basically that is what Luther seems to have taught and it is definitely what many Protestants seem to believe because they get very worked up if one says to them one cannot get to Heaven unless one fully repents, makes reparation if one can in this world, and also does good, and show them the relevant teachings in the NT.  Also, they do not believe in Original Sin, which was taught by the first Christians who were taught by the Apostles.  (Not everything Jesus said was written down). Protestants believe in the Trinity but that is not spelled out in the NT.  It was the Catholic Church which developed a correct understanding of it based on what is revealed in the Scriptures and what was taught by the first Christians (Holy Tradition).  The very sad, and very negative, fruit of Luther's hatred of the Church is the huge division in Christendom, with some 30,000 and counting sub-divisions among the Protestants.  Today, there are sects who say they love Jesus and follow his teachings but do not believe He is God.  There is even one Anglican bishop, David Shepherd, of whom I read he too did not believe in Christ's divinity.  So??

On the other hand, Luther's actions did wake up the Church to do something effective against many abuses going on and for that Catholics should be grateful.  Luther's pride made him take the route of abandoning the Church - unlike the humility of St. Francis who was also very aware of the scandals of his time but he set about re-building the ethos of the people who professed to be Catholic.  He did not set about trying to destroy the Church itself.  Today, Lutherans are a minority and many are returning to the Catholic Church, thank God.  Marcus Grodi, on EWTN, is an ex-Lutheran who runs a programme called, The Journey Home.  

                                                                                                                                                  I found a very detailed site by James Swan, see below.  He quotes a lot of different people.  There are some who hated Luther and did not have a good word about him and whose thinking has greatly influenced many Catholics, understandably, because Luther did cause a might breaking away from the Church.  And there are others who view him more kindly although not overlooking his weaknesses. 

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther (Part One)

By James Swan July 2003

I. Introduction

I have heard it said that more books have been written about Martin Luther in the last 500 years than any other historical figure, with the exception being Jesus Christ. With such a wealth of material from a number of differing points of view, studying Luther is not a simple task. Luther left behind a vast amount of writings born in a complex historical time period. A researcher approaching Luther has an overwhelming task. He must be familiar with such things like 16^th century culture, medieval theology, Roman Catholic doctrine, the history of Germany, and a host of other religious, sociological, philosophical, and political factors. For the 21^st Century reader of a Luther biography, a certain amount of faith must be placed in the author. One must hope that the author has researched Luther as thoroughly as possible. One hopes that the author has given some effort to see past their inherent biases (all authors have bias!). One must hope they have taken great strides to present Luther in his context, both theological and historical.

 As quickly as Luther’s ideas poured off the press, books and pamphlets either in favor or against Luther came forth as well. Roman Catholic apologists quickly attempted to counter the Reformation. Similarly utilizing the new invention of the printing press, they put forth their side of the story, warning the masses of the danger of Luther. In the past five hundred years, how have Catholic scholars understood Luther? What has been their side of the story? A simple answer to this question would leave many loose ends. An in-depth answer would entail writing an entire theological treatise. But perhaps by focusing on their presuppositional understanding of Luther, one can gain insight into their side of the story. What follows is the first part of an historical overview of key Roman Catholic authors and their approach to Luther. In this first installment, Catholic authors with a severe negative bias toward Luther will be discussed. This negative bias was the underlying theme to almost the entirety of Catholic Luther studies up until the early 20^th century:

 “It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come round to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther's person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists.” [1] (I, Morag, agree.  Catholics for their part have also had to endure scurrilous abuse, and endless fabrications about Catholic beliefs and practices, and about what happened, when, and why during the period of the Spanish Inquisition - which is strongly tainted by the Black Legend propaganda of Elizabeth I onwards.

 My interest in this subject grew out of reading Roman Catholic web pages on Martin Luther. I began to repeatedly see the name of the Jesuit scholar Hartmann Grisar put forth as the definitive source for all Luther information. Upon probing Grisar’s works, I came across the tradition of destructive criticism he belonged to.[2] Simultaneous to this, I had discussions with Roman Catholics who produced a wealth of Luther quotes, but were unable to provide contexts. They informed me the quotes were taken from the book, The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare. Both Grisar and O’Hare are Catholic authors from long ago, and their flawed negative approach to Luther had similarly been responded to long ago. I doubt these counter-responses were sought out by modern-day Roman Catholics. Had they been, perhaps O’Hare and Grisar would never have been pulled from the historical discard bin and thrust onto the World Wide Web, as if these fatal responses to their work had never been given. These authors are once again able to perpetuate their flawed historical studies.

 In part two, Catholic authors that have taken wiser steps in trying to understand Luther without ad hominem attacks will be addressed. There are a wealth of Roman Catholic authors whose opinions and research are worthy of a close look. As Richard Stauffer has noted, “If one wanted to sum up briefly the path Roman Luther-scholars have trodden since 1904, one could say that they passed from destructive criticism to a respectful encounter.”[3] This in no way is an exhaustive list or in depth doctrinal investigation.[4] In my studies, I utilize both Catholic and Protestant works on Luther. Those names that have appeared continually in both theological traditions are the emphasis. This paper is intended to be more of a bibliographic resource, it can be read out of sequence. Since my desire is for this paper to serve as a reference guide, I have included lengthy citations from relevant scholars. It is my desire to allow them to speak, rather than put forth my own opinions.

 

Here are a few citations from James Swan on his site: 

Leonard Swidler, “Catholic Reformation Scholarship in Germany”, 190. Says Swidler elsewhere, “Grisar and Denifle, of course were supported in their attitudes by the highest church authorities. Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Militantis ecclesiae, written for the Canisius-jubilaeum August 1, 1897, described the Reformation as the “rebellio lutherana,” which brought about the ultimate ruin of morals. St. Pius X in his encyclical on St. Charles Borromaeo, Editae suepe, May 26, 1910, said: There arose haughty and rebellious men, ‘enemies of the cross of Christ . . . men with worldly . . . minds whose god is the belly.’ They strove not for the betterment of morals but rather for the denial of the foundations of faith. They cast everything into confusion and cleared for themselves and others a broad path of undisciplined wilfulness, or sought, indeed openly at the bidding of the most depraved princes and peoples and under the disapproval of the ecclesiastical authority and leadership, forcibly to obliterate the Church’s teaching, constitution and discipline” [Leonard J. Swidler, The Ecumenical Vanguard: The History of the Una Sancta Movement ].

Catholic writer Dave Armstrong presents an example of the difficulty utilizing O’Hare’s book. In Armstrong’s webpage, The Orthodox vs The Heterodox Luther, Armstrong presents a section on the bigamy of Philip of Hesse. O’Hare’s book spends much time “proving” that Luther was enemy of the institution of marriage. Armstrong picks up on this and says, “Some of Luther's most shocking opinions are regarding celibacy, chastity, and marriage. One might expect from Luther a certain disdain of Tradition, but not such a wanton disrespect of the moral teachings of the Bible. The most famous sexual scandal of the Protestant Revolt was the bigamy of the Prince ("Landgrave") Philip of Hesse.” To document this, Armstrong presents citations from Luther strikingly similar to those put forth by O’Hare, and provides no references to O’Hare, but rather uses O’Hare’s references in most cases. I would be quite surprised if Armstong is using a source other than O’Hare for his documentation.
 
1.Armstrong
We declare under an oath that it ought to be done secretly . . . It is nothing unusual for princes to have concubines . . . and this modest way of living would please more than adultery.(Document dated December 10, 1539 / Luther's Letters, De Wette -- Seidemann, Berlin, 1828, vol. 6, 255-265)

This quote appears in The Facts About Luther on page 331 in a longer form, though missing a footnote reference., but mentioning DeWette.

2.Armstrong
”The secret soon became public, whereupon Melanchthon "sickened almost to death with remorse." (-no reference-)

From The Facts About Luther page 332: “When Melanchthon discovered that the news of the double marriage was spread broadcast, ‘he sickened almost to death with remorse” on account of the sanction he had given to it.” -no reference-

3. Armstrong

Luther, unabashed, acted as if he was totally unaware of the illegal and immoral transaction, and confided to friends:
A secret yes must remain a public no and vice versa. (De Wette, vol. 6, 263)
 

The Facts About Luther page 333:“…it took a short time for Luther to decide that the rumor of the permission given to Philpp to take a second woman and the farcical marriage should be met with a flat contradiction; ‘for,’ as he said, ‘a secret yes must remain a public no and vice versa.” (DeWette- Seidemann, VI., 263).”

4. Armstrong
 

What would it matter if, for the sake of greater good and of the Christian Church, one were to tell a good, downright lie? (Lenz, Luther's Letters, Leipzig, 1891, vol. 1, 382)

The Facts About Luther page 333: “Then Luther went so far to declare: ‘What would it matter if, for the sake of greater good and of the Christian Church, one were to tell a good, downright lie?’ (Lenz. Briefwechsel, I. 382).

5. Armstrong

Luther believed that polygamy was sanctioned in Scripture: I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. (De Wette, vol. 2, 459)

The Facts About Luther page 329-330 “Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy. To say that he did not "counsel" polygamy, or that he advised that it should be kept secret as a sort of matter of "conscience," is utterly beside the facts. When Bruck, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimer, heard that Carlstadt in 1524 advocated polygamy, he consulted Luther on the new and pernicious teaching. The Reformer, not in the least abashed, openly and distinctly stated: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459). Many other clear statements wherein Luther sanctions polygamy might be reproduced here, but the one given above will suffice for the present.”

As a response to O’Hare and Armstrong, it is true Luther allowed for polygamy, but only in a very narrow sense. (Morag's note: If the quote just above this is correct, why does the writer make this assertion? )

Luther scholar Heinrich Boehmer points out that it was only to be in cases of “severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony…” (Luther And The Reformation in Light of Modern Research, 213-214). Luther understood monogamy was the Biblical norm. Such things like bigamy were only made possible due to severe necessity. For instance, Luther once said that he so hated divorce he would rather see a man in a bigamous relationship rather than a person go through divorce. This wasn’t like Mormonism which in some factions would grant a God-glorifying polygamy. No, bigamy, polygamy, divorce, etc were failing Band-Aids put over sinful, broken relationships. They are human efforts to fix Biblical norms.

Luther fell into some complicated situations, like the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse. Luther still retained a lot of his sentiment as a priest. It was not totally uncommon for Catholic priests to grant secret bigamous marriages. Cardinal Cajetan, perhaps the greatest living Catholic scholar of the day would be a good example of this. Even the Pope during this time sent the question of bigamy to cardinals for review. Thus, it was an arguable point within the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th Century. Thus when Phillip tricked Luther into granting him a second wife, Luther acted very much in the role of medieval catholic priest. Luther was not infallible, and in many instances he retained his medieval training. For this I gently fault him. The Roman Catholic Church had trained him as an Augustinian monk and to act a particular way in particular circumstances. Luther’s actions were more the result on the medieval Catholic climate than biblical misunderstanding.

Roland Bainton explains in detail the situation:

 “There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded. The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the landgrave, Philip of Hesse. This prince had been given in marriage with no regard to his own affections—that is, for purely political reasons—at the age of nineteen to the daughter of Duke George. Philip, unable to combine romance with marriage, found his satisfaction promiscuously on the outside. After his conversion his conscience so troubled him that he dared not present himself at the Lord s Table. He believed that if he could have one partner to whom he was genuinely attached he would be able to keep himself within the bounds of matrimony. There were several ways in which his difficulty could have been solved. If he had remained a Catholic, he might have been able to secure an annulment on the grounds of some defect in the marriage; but since he had become a Lutheran, he could expect no consideration from the pope. Nor would Luther permit recourse to the Catholic device. A second solution would have been divorce and re-marriage. A great many Protestant bodies in the present day would countenance this method, particularly since Philip had been subjected in his youth to a loveless match. But Luther at this point interpreted the Gospels rigidly and held to the word of Christ as reported by Matthew that divorce is permissible only for adultery. But Luther did feel that there should be some remedy, and he discovered it by a reversion to the mores of the Old Testament patriarchs, who had practiced bigamy and even polygamy without any manifestation of divine displeasure. Philip was given the assurance that he might in good conscience take a second wife. Since, however, to do so would be against the law of the land, he should keep the union a secret. This the new bride's mother declined to do; and then Luther counseled a lie on the ground that his advice had been given as in the confessional, and to guard the secrete of the confessional a lie is justified. But the secret was out, and the disavowal was ineffective. Luther's final comment was that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell. [Here I Stand, 292-293].

Note Luther’s final comment, “that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.” A profound aspect of the Bible is its commitment to telling us about the sins of the human condition; even in those characters considered the greatest of God’s people. David was described as “a man after God’s own heart,” yet within his life one finds adultery and murder. Jesus called Peter “blessed,” yet not long after, Peter denied that he even knew him. Examples could be multiplied, and could go beyond the pages of Scripture into the halls of church history. God’s people struggle with sin, and sometimes take great falls. Such is the case of Martin Luther and his involvement with Hesses' bigamy. Luther's life shows many high peaks and some deep valleys: profound success for God’s kingdom, along with human failure. With Luther’s attitude on Bigamy, and his involvement with Phillip of Hesse, we see one of the warts of Luther. Luther had to learn the hard way.
 
In his conclusion, James Swan has other citations, out of which I have picked a couple that I found interesting:

Ignaz Dollinger (mid-nineteenth century)

Dollinger was a famous church historian who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after the declaration of papal infallibility. He wrote a three-volume work entitled Die Reformation. “Dollinger admitted that Luther was the most popular character that Germany had ever possessed, but declared that the Protestant Reformation, judged according to its fruits, was a "soul-murdering heresy" which stifled every arousal of conscience by the illusion of a false assurance of salvation.”[114]  (Emphasis is mine)

 

Jaques Maritain (1950)

“Even the philosopher Jacques Maritain falls into this category of those who see Luther as the demon. To him Luther adds up to be the man of total self-will, who brooks no restraint and no authority. By his emphasis on paradox and his mistrust of human reason "Luther brought a deliverance and an immense relief to humanity. ... He delivered man from the intelligence, from that wearisome and besetting compulsion to think always and think logically." To him Luther is the egocentric par excellence, obsessed with indecency, who convulsively forces trust in Christ to save himself. For such a man Maritain has only a feeling of deep disgust.”[119]

“Maritain couples Luther with Descartes and Rousseau as the three false prophets who have promised freedom to modem man. Luther promised the false liberty of private religious judgment, and so left modern man religiously irresponsible. Maritain would think of Luther not as a gloomy inebriate, nor as a paranoic, but a right merry monster, who ate his food on fast days, kissed his nun-wife, berated the Pope .. . but utterly rejected philosophy. For Luther's rejection of this in principle he has no understanding whatever. And into the arena of serious theology, where Luther labored and fought, Maritain does not want to descend for discussion. Luther has to him no profundity of mind whatever, but at best that sort of natural slyness which enabled him to befool people at a time when thousands of poor Christians wished some excuse to escape the yoke of the Church. Thus Denifle took from Luther his morals, Grisar his mental balance, and Maritain his intelligence.”[120

 

(I, Morag, do think that a monk who makes his vows of poverty and chastity but in order to leave them chooses instead to blame scandals in the Church for his weaknesses, is not a saint.  As for his psychology, there is such a strong tradition that Luther was over-scrupulous that it cannot be ignored.  This makes him human, but again it also makes him no saint and only pride could have spurred him to take on the insititution founded by Christ.  As for his intelligence, I haven't the time or the inclination or the intelligence myself to read all I would need to read to judge that aspect of Luther!  But even a very intelligent man can make costly mistakes, or succumb to diabolical suggestions.)