Having now read the bull, I have a different picture. Yes, Luther had a legitimate beef about the sale of indulgences and other simonies rampant in the Church. But having read those of Luther's blatherings that Leo condemned, I can see that they are beyond mere heresy. I suspect (as my wife has suggested to me) that Luther was not praying with a full rosary, as it were.
Let's look at a few of Luther's lunacies:
6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.
So not only are we not forgiven if we confess and repent of our sins, but it's actually a sin to repent of them.
8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
Don't try to confess all your sins, because there will be more that you don't know about. Better to keep your mouth shut. Unless, of course, you've been caught publicly.
9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.
If we don't hold back a few sins, then God won't have anything to forgive. Huh?
12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.
"A jocose manner?" Do priests kid around in the confessional? Absolve you with their fingers crossed? Even better, if the penitent wasn't contrite, but really believes that he has been absolved anyway, it still counts. "I'm not sorry, but I believe I'm forgiven anyway, so it must be so!" Clap your hands and Tinkerbell will live.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
Aren't we told to beware of those who call evil good and good evil?
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Okay, I agree with this one. One out of 41 ain't bad. Next!
34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.
Sure! And Katrina, 9/11 and light beer are really God's judgment on us, and we shouldn't lift a finger to mitigate the damage from them.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
So? If I understand correctly, it's only a mortal sin if it's committed knowingly. This guy has a guilt complex that's mind-boggling!
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.
Whose canon, Martin? Yours or the unexpurgated one? (Pardon the pun.)
40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.
The souls freed from Purgatory are in heaven. How can you be less happy in heaven? And, of course, that's assuming there evven is a Purgatory, since he says it can't be proven. For something that may not exist, Luther sure thinks he knows a lot about it.
Okay, it's entirely possible that I'm misunderstanding some of these statements. I'm not really a scholar; I don't even play one on TV. And if Luther didn't say those things, someone please tell me; I dislike straw men from Catholics as much as from Protestants. But if I read those statements, and it were up to me, I'd have excommunicated the guy who made 'em too. And preferably referred him to a competent mental health professional.
Notice also that the excommunication wasn't a knee-jerk reaction.
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
So authorities tried to get Luther to come talk things over peaceably, and he stuck his fingers in his ears and chanted "La la la, I can't hear you!" Clearly, he didn't want to resolve problems unless it was on his own terms. I have small children who do that, too. (Burning the bull, along with the Canon Law, probably wasn't the most mature reaction, either.) Still, Leo makes it clear that he wanted to work things out with Luther, and that even in Martin's absence, he and his advisers discussed Luther's statements carefully to see if they were orthodox. Finally, Leo issued Exsurge Domine, which stated that these teachings of Luther's teachings are "not Catholic... and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church." Luther's response, as I see it, was a combination of "Yeah? Well I don't wanna be Catholic anyway!" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
If this is bull-oney, then Leo should have dished up a couple more slabs, and I wish he were here to do it today. Way to go, Holy Father! I'm sorry I ever thought you were a blockhead.
Update: Bill Cork corrects the date and adds a couple of things:
Exsurge Domine condemned certain teachings of Luther's, was issued on June 15, 1520, and may well have taken four months to get to him. But this was not the decree of excommunication – that was Decet Romanum pontificem, dated January 3, 1521 (sorry, but the only on-line source I could find has it in Word format). Luther was given time to respond and recant, but Leo saw that he just dug himself in deeper.
Thanks, Bill!
No comments:
Post a Comment