By James Swan
July 2003
The first Catholic apologist to critique Luther:
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 lusts after wine and women, is without
conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. Luther is 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.
The 19th Catholic
scholar who held Luther was a fallen-away
monk with unbridled lust, a theological ignoramus, an evil
man, and used immorality to begin the the Reformation. Denifle
accuses Luther of buffoonery, hypocrisy, pride, ignorance,
forgery, slander, pornography, vice, debauchery,
drunkenness, seduction, corruption, and more: he is a lecher,
knave, liar, blackguard, sot, and worse: he was
infected with the venereal disease syphilis.
The Jesuit historian who used Freudian psychology to arrive at the
assessment that Luther was a monk obsessed with the lust of
the flesh and a pathological manic-depressive personality. Luther’s
view of justification by faith alone came from his own immorality—that
in order to justify his loose life and to excuse his renunciation of the
monastic ideal, Luther denied salvation with works. Luther was a neurasthenic
and a psychopath. He sees him as the victim of bad heredity, a
maladjusted misfit entering the monastic life because of some traumatic
experience during a thunderstorm. Grisar argues that Luther was simply a neurotic
man who spent his entire life unhappy and guilt-ridden.
Catholic historian George Ganss presents a a wild tempered Luther, depressed
and mentally ill. Luther was the victim of lust seeking unbrideled
sexual liscence through his teaching. Luther ended up abandoned by most of his
friends and colleagues, dejected and despairing, tortured in body and spirit.
VI. Patrick O'Hare: The
Facts About Luther:
Father O’Hare presents a Luther
who is not only mad, but morally
depraved and corrupt. He asserts that Luther in the Wartburg was in
close touch with Satan. Luther lived indecently, decried
celibacy and virginity, sanctioned adultery, dishonored
marriage, authorized prostitution and polygamy, and was a drunkard
and frequenter of taverns who preached his theology in the fumes of alcohol in
the midst of his fellow revolutionaries. He attributes to Luther a fickle and
cunning character, an inordinate impudence, an unbridled presumption, a titanic
pride, a despotic nature, and a spirit of blasphemy; Luther was a
blasphemer, a libertine, a revolutionary, a hater of religious vows, a disgrace
to the religious calling, an enemy of domestic felicity, the father of divorce,
the advocate of polygamy, and the propagator of immorality and open
licentiousness.
VII. Other Catholic Anti-Luther Writers:
A brief look at a few other
Catholic approaches to Luther.
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 16th century culture, medieval theology, Roman Catholic doctrine, the history of Germany, and a host of other religious, sociological, philosophical, and political factors. For the 21st 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 20th 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]
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.
Catholic writings against Luther began highly polemic. During Luther’s lifetime, one of Luther’s first biographers was also a great adversary with lasting impact: Johannes Cochlaeus. Cochlaeus spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this description:
“Naturally of a quiet and studious disposition he
was drawn into the arena of polemics by the religious schism. There he
developed a productivity and zeal unparalleled by any other Catholic theologian
of his time.”
“With indomitable ardour he published pamphlet after
pamphlet against Luther and Melanchthon, against Zwingli, Butzer, Bullinger,
Cordatus, Ossiander, etc.” [5]
It is for his writings against Luther that Cochlaeus is remembered. Even with such a great output of works against Luther, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state that “Almost all of these publications, however, were written in haste and bad temper, without the necessary revision and theological thoroughness, consequently they produced no effect on the masses.” Note, the Encyclopedia does not repudiate the information put forth by Cochlaeus, only that his tone and structure of the material held it back from gaining popularity with the sixteenth century people. Overall, the Catholic Encyclopedia presents Cochlaeus in a favorable light: he “worked untiringly to bring about the reconciliation of Luther,” “he wrote against the [peasant’s] rebellion and Luther, its real author,” “he laboured strenuously in 1530, to refute the Augsburg Confession,” he was one of the “foremost champions of the Church,” and “He was one of that distinguished group of scholars” that fought against Protestantism.
What did this great scholarly opponent say about Luther? Here are a few summary statements from modern Catholic and protestant scholars of the content of Cochlaeus’s image of Luther:
“Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the
devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy
of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience,
and approves any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He
perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty two gulden- the sum he
required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and
quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him…” [6]
“He refers to Luther as a
child of the devil, the fruit of a union of Satan with Luther's mother who later
regretted not having murdered him in the cradle. His fellow monks knew him as a
demon-possessed quarreler who lusted after drink and sex, without conscience,
ready to use any means to further his own plans. Demonic monstrosities boiled
out of his powerful but perverted mind. At Luther's death, this
"father" appears to drag him off to hell.”[7]
“Cochlaeus did
not go about his difficult work with the coolness and detachment of a
non-partisan historian, nor did he think it a fault not to do so. He felt his
readers should not only be informed about Lutheranism, but also made fully
aware that Luther had devastated the Church and had brought unutterable misery
to his German homeland. Every deprecation, slander and evil legend was snatched
up by the author: he asserted, for example, that Luther entered into the
indulgence battle against Tetzel because, as an Augustinian, he was jealous of
the lucrative indulgence trade enjoyed by Tetzel and the Dominicans. Another
story had it that Luther already as a fifteen-year-old lad was indulging in
immoral relations with his benefactress, Frau Cotta zu Eisenach; that he lived
a riotous student life in Erfurt; and that during his first period in the
cloister Luther lived in concubineage with three nuns, from which experience,
he is supposed to have contracted venereal disease.”[8]
“By his own
admission, Cochlaeus set out to make his readers feel revulsion toward Luther…
Cochlaeus did use Luther's own works, citing from or referring to 140 writings
of the reformer. In selecting for citation, Cochlaeus had an eye especially for
passages in which Luther attacked Catholic doctrines and institutions. The
excerpts were to show the reader a Luther quite reckless in polemics, clearly
destructive of church, clergy, and sacraments. Cochlaeus depicts Luther as the
cause of the violence in Germany in 1525, when the peasants revolted, and
laments the desolation of his native land, all due to Luther's heresies and
defiance. Luther, according to Cochlaeus, was not even consistent, but kept
changing his views as occasion suggested.”[9]
“Cochlaeus found Luther to
be a man full of evil intentions and ambitions, and he was clear that jealousy,
selfishness, hypocrisy, and a desire for notoriety ultimately motivated all the
Reformer's actions. No good was to be expected of such a man, and no defamation
seemed too base to be left unmentioned. In his Sincere and Thorough Apology for Duke Georg of Saxony of 1533,
Cochlaeus thus willingly accepted Peter Sylvius's fable of Luther's creation by
the Devil; and although in the Commentaria he expressed some doubt about the
truth of the rumour, he remained convinced that, as a destroyer of the Church
and the German nation, Luther was an agent of Satan himself. Such obsession
with the person of Martin Luther made Cochlaeus blind to the wider context of
the Reformation, and his writings in consequence show remarkable ignorance and
misjudgement of the German political situation, of growing lay interest in the
shaping of Church life, and of the intellectual outlook of the new learning.”[10]
Protestant scholar Robert Kolb notes that Cochlaeus saw Luther as “an agent of the devil, a perversion, and a monster.”[11] Cochlaeus best expressed this portrayal of Luther as a seven-headed dragon, in a book as well as in an accompanying artistic portrayal.[12] Cochlaeus explains the picture:
“It is indeed a
miracle and surpasses all reason and understanding, however sublime and
venerable, that in one deity there are three, and these three deities are
one—one in substance, yet three in person. But in one cowl of this one Luther,
there are seven, and these seven Luthers are not only one in substance, but
even in person. An extraordinary theology indeed, hitherto unheard of not only
among Jews and heathens, but also among Christians! In the old, most Christian
Evangel, there was one heart among the multitude of believers and one soul; yet
in this new Evangel one heart and flesh are cut apart into many heads, and not
only is it that diverse people hold diverse opinions, but one and the same mind
grows several heads next to itself.”[13]
The goal of Cochlaeus in the use of this image was to point out that Luther was thoroughly contradictory in his own beliefs. Cochlaeus ultimately did not fight against Luther via Scripture and Church decrees. Rather, he used Luther’s own words, set up in such a way that they appeared contradictory and absurd. Cochlaeus had done what would later be a standard approach to vilifying Luther: create a book of out-of-context Luther quotes so parishioners of Catholicism would not have to read Luther for themselves. Cochlaeus divided up the life of Luther into seven distinct periods, each represented by one of the heads on the monster. Each head held a contradictory opinion to the other. He explains what each head represents:
“Thus all
brothers emerge from the womb of one and the same cowl by a birth so monstrous,
that none is like the other in either behavior, shape, face or character. The
elder brothers, Doctor and Martinus, come closest to the opinion of the Church,
and they are to be believed above all the others, if anything anywhere in
Luther's books can be believed with any certainty at all. Lutherus, however,
according to his surname, plays a wicked game just like Ismael [lat.
ludere—Luder, Saxon pronunciation for Luther]. Ecclesiastes tells the people
who are always keen on novelties, pleasant things. Svermerns rages furiously
and errs in the manner of Phaeton throughout the skies. Barrabas is looking for
violence and sedition everywhere. And at the last, Visitator, adorned with a
new mitre and ambitious for a new papacy, prescribes new laws of ceremonies,
and many old ones which he had previously abolished—revokes, removes, reduces.
This is the sum of my book.”[14]
In his books, Cochlaeus does what later Catholic critiques of Luther promise: to present the real “facts” about Luther, undistorted from Luther’s own writings.[15] When not vilifying Luther’s character using hearsay and slander, he will at times over-analyze Luther sentence by sentence, to the effect of missing the central points of Luther’s reformation teaching. Catholic scholar Adolf Herete showed that Cochlaeus had in fact actually read very little of Luther’s books from cover to cover. Most of the citations used were from the prefaces and conclusions of Luther’s treatises.[16] Gotthelf Wiedermann notes,
“Septiceps Lutherus is nevertheless a masterpiece of distortion, misrepresentation, and also stupidity. With little regard for the dialectical nature of Luther's writings—more often than not the Reformer was obliged to fight on two fronts at the same time—quotations are torn out of context and 'edited' in a way that created artificial contradictions to make nonsense of anything Luther ever wrote. If Cochlaeus reproduced Luther's words, he certainly violated his thoughts and arguments, seizing on passages that sounded particularly scandalous and revolutionary with all the zeal of a cheap journalist.”[17]
Even though the Catholic Encyclopedia says Cochlaeus had no “effect on the masses”, his work did have a great effect on subsequent Catholic understanding of Luther. The Encyclopedia goes on to say that “His greatest work against Luther is his strictly historical "Commentaria de Actis et Sciptis M. Luther" (extending to his death), an armoury of Catholic polemics for all succeeding time.” The Encyclopedia also states that Cochlaeus is “in the main followed by Catholic investigators” doing research on Luther.
Cochlaeus, in essence, became one of Luther’s most influential opponents. His biography “deeply influenced the image of Luther held by Catholics for more than two centuries.”[18] His overall “image of the devilishly destructive Luther dominated Catholic popular understanding of Luther for centuries.”[19] The scholars agree:
“There can be no doubt of the sincerity and
conviction of Cochlaeus, but neither can there be any doubt that it was he who
poisoned the well of historical studies. Roman Catholic historians have drawn
their prejudice against Luther from this polemical source, which in its
animosity has an almost total disregard for objective truth and historical
facts. Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritain (to cite the most
famous and influential) have all drunk deep of this poisoned well-too deeply-
and lesser historians have adopted their position.”[20]
“An answer to
this question of why the more scientific and accurate Catholic depiction of
Luther is so recent was well stated at the time of World War II by Catholic
scholar Adolf Herte in a three-volume work, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann
der Lutherkommentare des Cochlaeus. His clear and, for many Catholics,
embarrassing answer was this: Catholic Luther interpretation for the previous 400
years had more or less repeated what Johannes Cochlaeus, a contemporary of
Luther, set forth in his extremely negative Commentaria de actis et scriptis M.
Lutheri.. Cochlaeus' writings were basically nothing but fiction, calumny, and
lies. In the rude style of that time, Cochlaeus depicted Luther as a monster, a
demagogue, a revolutionary, a drunkard, and a violator of nuns.”[21]
Thus, the influence of Cochlaeus on Roman Catholic approaches to Luther cannot be minimized or overlooked. His polemical work served as a distorted systematic guideline of what Catholics were to think about Luther:
“Through the centuries,
generation after generation of Catholic priests were brought up on church
histories, encyclopedias, world-chronicles, and histories of heresy all of
which, deliberately or unknowingly, accepted Cochlaeus's verdict on Luther.
Only in the Age of Enlightenment did the Commentaria temporarily lose some of
its hold on Germany, though not on France; and even then the revival of confessionalism
in the nineteenth century renewed the old influences and continued to do so
right into modern times.”[22]
Protestant theologian Ulrich Kremer points out that the popular demonization of Luther started in the 16th Century by Cochlaeus was “so lasting that, …the entire Catholic historiography of the Reformation until the publication in 1939 of Joseph Lortz’s magnum opus came under the spell of such powerful polemic [that of Cochlaeus]”.[23] Gotthelf Wiedermann notes, “It was only in the 20th century that Cochlaeus hold on the Catholic image of Luther was gradually broken, especially by Joseph Lortz’s Die Reformation in Deutschland, (1039-40)”.[24] Modern Catholic historians are aware of the vast shortcomings of the work of Cochlaeus. Catholic historian Adolf Herte “published studies on Cochlaeus and his influence (1935, 1943) which make it clear how Cochlaeus had intentionally sketched Luther in the worst possible light so as to arouse suspicion and hatred toward his person.”[25]
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “Luther, to the vexation of Cochlaeus wrote in answer only a single work, "Adversus Armatum Virum Cocleum".” This is indeed true, yet Cochlaeus’s name appears various times throughout Luther’s Works. Late in his career, Luther was to say:
“Thus the papists, too, studiously distort our
statements in order to enhance their own cause. When we declare that a man is
not justified by works, they assert that we are forbidding and condemning good
works. Such vipers are Cochlaeus, Witzel, and others. These
are satanic lies of venomous and very evil men who do not listen to our
statements and do not want to listen. Yet they force them into having a
different meaning—a meaning which they themselves want them to have.”[26]
“For
thus the enemies of the truth are accustomed to obscure, traduce, and corrupt
the fruits and gains of the Gospel and of salvation among simple and godly
hearers. Eck, Cochlaeus, Pighius, and many others are the best contrivers of
such calumnies. They adorn themselves with false and counterfeit
praises; but they defame us, in order to make us more obnoxious to those who
are strangers to our doctrine. Accordingly, they secretly take away what is
most beautiful
and best for winning over the hearts of simple men, namely, the favor and
goodwill of men, by which we could gain and educate many through the Word. We
have to be befouled in order that they may be beautiful.”[27]
Had Luther the foreknowledge of Cochlaeus’s lasting impact on Catholic scholars studying his life and writings, perhaps Luther would have spent more time refuting his material. Luther did not take him all that seriously. Rather than engage him, Luther lampoons, insults or simply dismisses his writings as nonsense. Luther refers to Cochlaeus as a “windbag,”[28] a “viper,”[29] “impudent young rascal,”[30] and he sarcastically calls him the “profound thinker that he is.”[31] Luther would say this in regard to Cochlaeus:
“I fear no fanatic, for I know none who can oppose
me with arguments that would put me to confusion. All their arguments I’ve
already heard from the devil-in fact, more weighty ones—but I have overcome
them through the Word of God. I don’t think Cochlaeus could
stand my devil even as long as it takes me to say a single word. He and those
like him know nothing about this.”[32]
There is a story in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, that the Elector of Brandenburg’s son had seen Cochlaeus’s picture depicting Luther with seven heads. The boy remarked, “If Dr. Luther has seven heads, he will be invincible, for so far they have not been able to vanquish him though he has but one!”[33]
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Heinrich Denifle was one of the best Austrian Catholic preachers in the 1880’s, and “beloved by Leo XIII and Pius X.” He was also an accomplished scholar, with groundbreaking work on the relationship between scholastic theology and medieval mysticism.[34] The Encyclopedia praises Denifle:
“Catholic and non-Catholic savants alike… have recognized that he was immeasurably superior to his adversaries. This was owing to his intimate knowledge of the Fathers, of theology -- both scholastic and mystic -- of medieval history, and lastly of Middle-High German with its dialects.”
In the course of his research on medieval theology and the corruption of the Church, Denifle developed an interest in understanding Luther. The Encyclopedia states,
“At the beginning of this painful investigation Denifle had not a thought about Luther, but now he saw that he could not avoid him; to estimate the new departure it was necessary to understand Luther, for of this appalling depravity he was the personification as well as the preacher. So Denifle devoted many years to the task of ascertaining for himself how, and why, and when Luther fell.”
A great irony in Luther studies is that the protestant heirs of Luther did not know they possessed a copy of Luther’s early 1515 – 1516 commentary notes on Romans, while the Vatican claimed to be in possession of a copy. In 1880, Leo XIII opened the secret archives of the Vatican to scholars. Luther’s then-unknown Roman’s treatise was found, and Denifle working as an assistant archivist was able to utilize it. The announcement that Father Denifle was going to publish a biography including never before writings from Luther was highly anticipated in the academic world. The Encyclopedia touts,
“For
some time previous it had been known that Denifle was engaged on such a work,
but when in 1904 the first volume of 860 pages of "Luther und Luthertum in
der ersten Entwicklung quelienmässig darstellt" appeared, it fell like a
bomb into the midst of the Reformer's admirers. The edition was exhausted in a
month. The leading Protestants and rationalists in Germany, Seeberg, Harnack,[35] and seven other professors, besides a
host of newspaper writers attempted to defend Luther, but in vain. Denifle's
crushing answer to Harnack and Seeberg, "Luther in rationalistischer und
christlicher Beleuchtung" appeared in March, 1904, and two months
afterwards he issued a revised edition of the first part of the first volume;
the second was brought out in 1905 and the third in 1906 by A. Weiss, O.P.”
The Encyclopedia approvingly evaluates Denifle’s work on Luther:
“[Denifle] examines [Luther’s] views on the vow of chastity in detail, and convicts him of ignorance, mendaciousness, etc. The second part which is entitled "a contribution to the history of exegesis, literature and dogmatic theology in the Middle Ages", refutes Luther's assertion that his doctrine of justification by faith, i.e. his interpretation of Rom., i, 17, was the traditional one, by giving the relevant passages from no fewer than sixty-five commentators. Of these works many exist only in manuscript. To discover them it was necessary to traverse Europe; this part which appeared posthumously is a masterpiece of critical erudition. The third part shows that the year 1515 was the turning point in Luther's career, and that his own account of his early life is utterly untrustworthy, that his immorality was the real source of his doctrine, etc. No such analysis of Luther's theology and exegesis was ever given to the learned world for which it was written.”
“He has thrown more light on Luther's career and character than all the editors of Luther's works and all Luther's biographers taken together. Denifle wished to offend no man, but he certainly resolved on showing once and for all the Reformer in his true colours. He makes Luther exhibit himself. Protestant writers, he remarks betray an utter lack of the historical method in dealing with the subject, and the notions commonly accepted are all founded on fable. As he pointedly observes: "Critics, Harnack and Ritschl more than others, may say what they like about God Incarnate; but let no one dare to say a word of disapproval about Luther before 1521". Denifle's impeachment is no doubt a terrible one, but apart from some trifling inaccuracies in immaterial points it is established by irrefragable proofs.”
Interestingly, these positive comments from the Catholic Encyclopedia come from roughly the same time period in which Denifle’s work on Luther appeared. It is apparent that the compilers of the Encyclopedia were quite favorable to Denifle: he is a frequently cited scholar throughout the entire work on a variety of topics. That Denifle is a respected scholar is beyond question. That his opinion on Luther would carry weight in the academic world is understandable, particularly since Denifle had a deep knowledge of medieval theology, and access to early works from Luther otherwise unavailable to the modern world.
Catholic scholar Leonard Swidler points out that Denifle’s work met with great approval of the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, and influenced papal statements. Denifle’s influence can be found in the encyclical Militantis ecclesiae, written for the Canisiusjubilaeum August 1, 1897. Here Pope Leo XIII spoke of the Reformation as the “Lutheran Rebellion” that ushered in the demise of morals. Pius X wrote an encyclical on St. Charles Borromaeo, Editae saepe, (May 26, 1910) in which he put forth:
“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 wilfullness, or sought, indeed openly at, the
bidding of the most depraved princes and peoples and under the disapproval of
the ecclesiastical authority and leadership, to forcibly obliterate the
Church's teaching, constitution and discipline.”[36]
How though did Denifle’s research stand the test of time? Here are a few summary statements from modern Protestant and Catholic scholars evaluating the content of Denifle’s work on Luther:
“The Dominican
Denifle attempted to perform a "moral and scholarly execution" of
Luther as a fallen-away monk with unbridled lust, a theological ignoramus;
Luther was an evil man, and the Reformation fundamentally sprang from
immorality. He wrote, "Luther, there is nothing godly in you!" Luther
was ‘an ordinary, or if you will, an extraordinary destroyer, a revolutionary,
who went through his age like a demon ruthlessly trampling to earth what had
been reverenced a thousand years before him. He was a seducer who carried away
hundreds of thousands with him in his fateful errors, a false prophet who in
his contradiction-burdened teaching as in his sin-laden life manifested the
exact opposite of what one should expect and demand from one sent from God. He
was a liar and deceiver who through the very overthrowing of all moral
limitations under the banner of Christian freedom attracted to himself so many
deluded souls.’”[37]
“Denifle has two principle theses: the first is that
Luther was so vile that he could not possibly be an instrument of God, that he
was an imposter whose reforming zeal was but a cloak to his own moral
decadence; the second theses is that this so-called reformer made no discovery
at all in the theological realm, that he was not only a liar, but an ignorant
liar- too ignorant of the true medieval context to understand the prevalent
teaching of the righteousness of God. To defend his first theses, Denifle
accuses Luther of buffoonery, hypocrisy, pride, ignorance, forgery, slander,
pornography, vice, debauchery, drunkenness, seduction, corruption, and more: he
is a lecher, knave, liar, blackguard, sot, and worse. Rupp describes such
language as belonging to criminal pathology. Such accusations are seriously
drawn up, and in the guise of scientific objectivity have deceived many: they
are dictated by blind anger. He cries out toward the end of his book, ‘Luther,
there is nothing divine in you! At the end he appeals to Protestants, ‘Have
done with Luther; return to the Church’.” To defend his second thesis,
concerning Luther's theological incompetence, Denifle argues that Luther was
contaminated with nominalism, and had shown himself utterly unable to
understand the golden age of scholasticism. In a volume of sources published
the following year, Denifle analyzes no fewer than sixty-six commentaries on
Romans from the time of Augustine onwards, in an attempt to bring out Luther's
errors on justification and his ignorance of medieval tradition. Unfortunately
for Lutheranism, no Luther scholar of the day could match Denifle’s mastery of
the Middle Ages or his knowledge of the religious life for use in preparing a
response. When the Protestants eventually did reply, Denifle simply dismissed
them, referring to the 'inferior mentality' of Protestants (men such as Harnack
and Seeberg!) and describing them as symptomatic of 'the bankruptcy of
Protestant Science'.” [38]
“[Denifle] had
expert knowledge which could have served well in understanding Luther's
earliest works… But Denifle, a pugnacious Tyrolian, chose not to understand
Luther but to demolish him, showing Luther to be a theological ignoramus and
decadent, fallen monk victimized by unruly passion According to Denifle,
Luther's theology rests on the conviction that the human heart is wholly
dominated by lust anger, and pride. Luther had not taken monastic discipline
seriously and failed to cooperate with the graces God offered him. Luther had
fallen into numerous sexual sins and his theology then is simply a clever
justification for a life without self-discipline and moral striving. Along the
way in his exposition, Denifle heaped intemperate abuse on Protestant accounts
of Luther for their misunderstandings of medieval thought. He opened one of his
concluding chapters with a flourish, ‘Luther, there is no once of godliness in
you!’”[39]
“The evidence
which Denfile presented [about Luther] was certainly impressive and his
influence on anti-Lutheran writers has been continuous and considerable; but it
had been marshaled in a distinctly slanted fashion He had, for instance, laid
great stress on Luther's use of the word ‘concupiscentia', mistakeningly
interpreting it as sexual lust. He quoted a phrase which Luther used in a
letter to his wife, 'I gorge myself like a Bohemian and I get drunk like a
German. God be praised. Amen', to suggest that he was a worldly man, but he did
not note the context of the letter, a humorous one written to his wife when she
was very worried by his poor appetite. He used a series of portraits in his
first edition to show how the thin, ascetic scholar and monk became obese and
unattractive; the last of his portraits, he noted, was surprisingly bestial',
though the fact that it was made of the reformer after his death, and possibly
after decomposition had set in, should have minimized his astonishment.”[40]
“Denifle has grossly misrepresented
[Luther] in identifying [Luther’s admitting of sins] with the lusts of the
flesh, and his theory that the sensual tendency ultimately led him to a sense
of moral bankruptcy and induced him to take refuge in the doctrine of
justification by faith alone is utterly misleading. It is not shared by
reasonable Roman Catholic writers like Kiefl, who have rightly discarded the
theory of Denifle and his followers Grisar, Paquier, Cristiani as untenable.”[41]
“Father Heinrich
Denifle in his Luther und Lutherthum made three major points: 1) Luther had
broken his monastic vows; 2) at least sixty-five instances can be found of
interpretations of Romans 1:17 in Luther's sense before Luther's time; and 3)
the year 1515 was the turning point for Luther when lust overpowered him. It is
useful to recall the tone of Denifle's polemic. "Luther's melancholy
interior is the midpoint of his theology" (vol. 1, p. 590). "Luther
gave the impression of being a man who hurls himself into the flood, without
knowing what he is doing. He believed thereby to have found the best means with
which to make himself the leader of the movement. Now he first sees what he has
begun; he cannot turn back, the waves have been set free, his pride does not
allow him to rescue himself from it, so he becomes completely radical"
(vol. 2, p. 13). Warming up to his subject, Denifle continues: "Luther's
undertaking was faustian, the black magic artist Dr. Faust is only an idealized
Luther" (vol. 2, p. 108); "the devil controlled him, the devil who
bothers Luther so terribly is Luther's own uneasy conscience and this devil
plagues him more and more" (vol. 2, p. 118). "The Reformation was the
cloaca maxima, the large drainage canal, through which the debris, which had
long been piling up, was conducted away, which would otherwise have ruined and
poisoned everything if it had remained in the church" (vol. 2, p. 109).”[42]
“[Denifle]
depicted Luther as a moral miscreant who had invented the doctrine of
justification to excuse his own immoral life. He accused the Reformer of being
guilty of a "damned halt-knowledge" and of a "philosophy of the
flesh," and he called Luther's doctrine a "seminar of sins and
vices." In several passages he chose the form of personal address to
Luther, exclaiming, for example, "Luther, in you there is nothing
divine!"”[43]
“Denifle pursued the
question of Luther's relationship to medieval theology, especially to Thomas
Aquinas. His conclusion: the Reformation was based at least in part on Luther s
woeful ignorance of classical Roman theology. As for the causes of Luther s
reformatory views, Denifle found them in what he called Luther’s unbridled
sensuality, his uncontrollable lust, thirst, and appetite. Justification by faith then became the cover-up
for his own sins. The composite picture of Luther is that of a glutton, a
forger, a liar, a blasphemer, a drunk; a vicious, proud, unprincipled,
syphilitic man whose communion with God ceased entirely before his death, which
may have been self-inflicted.”[44]
“Denifle began to quarry
from Luther's own works and manuscripts what was rumored even before
publication to be "ein boses Buch!" The work was aimed at
annihilating Luther's reputation, but out of his own mouth and from his own
pen. The young Catholic Luther, torn with sin and constant remorse, was pitted
against the hardened old reprobate. Grilling his subject mercilessly like a
savage district attorney, Denifle denied him veracity, depicted a lecherous
young man ridden by unconquerable concupiscence of the flesh, and later
exhibited a bloated besotted beast given to vile ragings and obscene
vituperation. Luther had been wicked very wicked indeed—why, his own words
about culpa, culpa, mea maxima culpa!" and his inability to find peace
even behind monastery walls convict him! Unable to find any goodness even with
God's grace Luther in final desperation simply "invented" forgiveness
for nothing, i.e., justification through faith—and then advised "pecca
fortiter," sin boldly! Thus he unleashed all the wicked passions of the
Evangelical Reformation.”[45]
“What are Denifle's theses?
There are two. The one seeks to make Luther into a man so vile that he could
not be the instrument of God, an imposter whose "reforming"
activities were merely a wretched camouflage to mask his moral decadence. The
other tries to prove that the "pseudo-reformer" had made no
rediscovery at all in the theological realm; it was that his propensity for
lying or his crass ignorance only prevented him from understanding that the
justitia Dei familiar to the medieval theologians was as important for them as
he said justification was for him. To defend the first of these theses, which
was self-condemnatory purely because of its exaggeration, Denifle does not
hesitate to accuse Luther of buffoonery, hypocrisy, pride, ignorance, forgery,
slander, pornography, vice, debauchery, drunkenness, seduction, corruption, and
the like. These accusations, drawn up as a list of indictments which, disguised
as scientific objectivity, are dictated by the blindest anger, culminate in a
paragraph headed "The Christian Character of Luther". Having stated there that
Luther wanted to be a filthy swine because this animal embodied his ideal of
the spiritual life, Denifle pronounces the verdict: "Luther, there is
nothing divine in you!" To the Protestant readers who have the patience to
read to the end of his invectives, Denifle addresses a final appeal: "Have
done with Luther; return to the Church."”[46]
“…[T]he
high point in controversial literature was reached in the writings of Heinrich
Denifle and Hartmann Grisar shortly after the turn of the century. The
Dominican Denifle attempted to perform a “moral and scholarly execution” of
Luther as a fallen-away monk with unbridled lust and a theological ignoramus.
Luther was an evil man, and the Reformation fundamentally sprang from
immorality. Denifle wrote “Luther, there is nothing godly in you!” Luther was
“an ordinary, or if you will, an extraordinary destroyer, a revolutionary, who
went through his age like a demon, ruthlessly trampling to earth what had been
reverenced a thousand years before him. He was a seducer who carried away
hundreds of thousands with him in his fateful errors, a false prophet who in
his contradiction- burdened teaching as in his sin-laden life manifested the
exact opposite of what one should expect and demand from one sent from God. He
was a liar and deceiver who, through the very overthrowing of all moral
limitations under the banner of Christian freedom, attracted to himself so many
deluded souls.”[47]
The bias of Denifle is overtly apparent. Catholic scholar Jared Wicks points out the immediate reaction to Denifle’s work from Catholic scholars:
“Catholic
university men in Germany were reserved about Denifle’s bombshell from Rome.
Some coolly pointed out that a person so depraved as the Luther depicted by
Denifle could not possibly have produced the literature that in fact changed
the course of Christian history. It was lamented that the new documents Denifle
presented would never lead to corrections of Lutheran views of Luther, since
the Dominican had clothed his work in a vitriolic rhetoric repulsive to
Lutherans.”[48]
Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz unmasks the link between Cochlaeus and Denifle, and clearly expresses that he purposefully has abandoned
“the evaluative
categories of a Cochlaeus, … dominated [Catholic
Luther studies] for over 400 years, and those of the great Denifle…. Gradually
Catholics have come to recognize the Christian, and even Catholic, richness of
Luther, and they are impressed. They now realize how great the Catholic guilt
was that Luther was expelled from the Church to begin the division that burdens
us so today--even in theology. Finally, we are anxious to draw Luther's
richness back into the Church. ”[49]
In God’s blessed providence, Denifle’s works on Luther have not been widely disseminated in English, but remain one hundred year old, out of print German tomes. The English world has been spared his biased attacks against Luther. Still, even though his work remains obscure, Catholics on the World Wide Web still find ways of utilizing his material:
“Our
(people) are now seven times worse than they ever were before. We steal, lie,
cheat, ... and commit all manner of vices." (110:22/47 - Denifle,
Heinrich, Luther and Lutherdom, vol.1, part 1, tr. from 2nd rev. ed. of German
by Raymund Volz, Somerset, England: Torch Press, 1917)”
"The world by this teaching becomes only the worse, the
longer it exists ... The people are more avaricious, less merciful ... and
worse than before under the Papacy." (110:25/49 - Denifle, Heinrich,
Luther and Lutherdom, vol.1, part 1, tr. from 2nd rev. ed. of German by Raymund
Volz, Somerset, England: Torch Press, 1917)”[50]
Atkinson says, “Denifle's thesis has wreaked irreparable harm to the Catholic understanding of Luther, and has exercised an astonishing influence on Catholicism in general and on Catholic scholarship in particular, which one might have thought impervious to such impassioned and biased thinking.”[51] Denifle’s attacks though did have this positive aspect: he forced Protestant scholars to do even greater research into Luther, particularly to reviewing the early years of Luther’s life and medieval scholasticism. Richard Stauffer notes the Reponses to Denifle’s main points on Luther:
“Whereas in the first thesis
he seeks to rule out his opponent on the score of morality, in the second he
aims at proving Luther's incompetence, if not dishonesty, in theology. In this
new attempt at liquidation Denifle revives the idea that Luther was
contaminated by the nominalism of William of Occam and failed to appreciate the
golden age of scholasticism…Denifle's theses stirred up considerable feeling in
Protestantism. The former had nevertheless a certain usefulness, in that it
made Lutheran historians finally renounce hagiography and rediscover the true
Luther: a man who, besides his greatnesses had also his littlenesses and who,
because he was conscious of his wretchedness, was able to be unreservedly the
herald of God's grace. Among those who were stimulated by Denifle's attacks to
try to give Protestantism a sound picture of the Reformer, we must mention Otto
Scheel. The biography which he set out to write, but which unfortunately
remained unfinished, is a remarkable work. It devotes no less than two
volumes—all that appeared-to tracing Luther's development up to 1515, a period
treated only very superficially by nineteenth-century Luther-scholars.
Denifle's second thesis had the effect of reminding Protestant theologians
that, to know the young Luther, it is also necessary to know the teaching of
scholasticism; that, to understand his message, the necessary preliminary is to
have understood the thought of the Middle Ages. In this respect, the German historian
whom one can regard as the initiator in the renaissance of Luther studies, Karl
Holl. did a wonderful work. He was able to show, in particular, that Luther s
interpretation of Rom. 1: 17 represented not only a rediscovery of the thought
of St Augustine but even a new understanding of God.”[52]
Background
The Jesuit scholar Hartmann Grisar made a positive attempt to go beyond Denifle’s vilification, but in essence did nothing more than follow in his footsteps. Grisar delved deeply into Luther studies. His work on Luther spanned multiple volumes and thousands of pages. His books were considered the standard Catholic understanding of Luther for decades; so popular were they that the Knights of Columbus gave thousands of copies of Grisar’s books to libraries all across America.[53] His books on Luther were highly praised as a new height in Luther research:[54]
“[Grisar’s] book
is so studiously scientific, so careful to base its teaching upon documents,
and so determined to eschew controversies that are only theological, that it
cannot but deeply interest Protestant readers.”
“[Grisar’s] Life of Luther'
bears fresh witness to his unwearied industry, wide learning, and scrupulous
anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as well as absolutely accurate in
matters of fact.”
“This 'Life of
Luther' is bound to become standard ... a model of every literary, critical,
and scholarly virtue.”
“This third
volume of Father Grisar's monumental
‘Life’ is full of interest for the theologian And not less for the
psychologist; for here more than ever the author allows himself to probe into
the mind and motives and understanding of Luther, so as to get at the
significance of his development.”[55]
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.”[56]
“[Grisar]
further demolishes Denifle’s criticism of Luther on the matter of the
understanding of concupiscentia: Denifle had interpreted Luther completely in
sexual terms, whereas Grisar shows that Luther understood the word as the 'I'
in every man that sets itself against God.”[57]
While noting these positive aspects of Grisar’s work, most scholars tend to treat Grisar and Denifle together, as two scholars who basically arrived at the same conclusions, sharing the same bias. Richard Stauffer has succinctly said,
“Compared with Denifle's work, that of Grisar seems an improvement, if only by its tone; for is it not written with a chilliness preferable to the rabies of its predecessor? One might think so at first sight; but I follow Walter Kohler in regarding the brutality of the Dominican as better than the smoothness of the Jesuit. Where Denifle says straight out what he thinks to be the truth, Grisar makes subtle insinuations. One example from among many will illustrate this. It concerns the illness from which Luther suffered in 1523. In asking what was the cause of first the fever and then the insomnia, Grisar relies on a document which an historian cannot draw on in this case and so suggests that Luther could have had the malum Franciae, that is, syphilis. Grisar does not make positive statements; he is content to hint. But by this he shows clearly enough the malice of which the Roman Catholic historian Adolf Herte accused him thirty years later.”[58]
Similarly,
H. Boehmer has
said,
“As Denifle himself stands within a great historical tradition of belief, so his words have also a formative influence… The chain of catholic tradition is not broken. Not even with Grisar, however much the coarse bludgeoning is replaced by the elegant and refined silkiness. But one does not know whether this change of weapons really means a genuine superiority. Denifle's grossness is at least honest; one knows where one is. But Grisar will just hint, or raise a question, or suggest possibilities, without wanting to decide, so that there is always a certain ambiguity in what he says. It is certainly not proved, but on the other hand, it is not all complete invention; there must be something in it.” [59]
Catholic scholar Jared Wicks points out the basic key to understanding Grisar’s interpretation of Luther, which cast a shadow of suspicion over his research:
“Grisar looked
at times to psychology for understanding Luther. In this account, Luther verged
on neurosis as he swung from pseudo-mystical quiet to intemperate attack and
near-hysteria. As Luther dealt with his maladjustments he came to hold
doctrines diverging from church teaching. Late in life Luther suffered bouts of
dismal depression, but then he would swing over to jocularity, frenetic work,
and violent polemics.”[60]
It is Grisar’s emphasis on approaching Luther with a psychology evaluation that ties his name with Denifle. Both Grisar and Denifle evaluate Luther’s character, and attempt to explain why Luther denied that ‘works’ contribute to salvation. . According to these men, Luther’s doctrine of justification was due to his abnormal psychology, faulty education in Nominalist theology, and moral corruption:
“The key to Luther for Grisar was his education in
the decadent system of William of Ockham. Add to this Luther's fascination with
a mysticism of passivity, and one can grasp why Luther polemicized against good
works. Luther's early successes made him proud and unreceptive to sound
correction.”[61]
“…Denifle and the Jesuit Hartman Grisar, used
Freudian psychology to arrive at their assessment that Luther was a monk
obsessed with the lust of the flesh and a pathological manic-depressive
personality….These polemical portraits were corrected in the 1940’s when an
ecumenically oriented scholar, Joseph Lortz, rejected Freudian psycho-historical
methods in favor of a more objective critical assessment to depict Luther as a
faithful priest-professor who had succumbed to ‘subjectivism.’” [62]
“Although
Denifle's insistence that there was a fundamental moral flaw in his personality
was questioned by the scholarly Jesuit, Hartmann Grisar, yet his interpretation
of Luther was not basically different. 'The real origin of Luther's teaching',
he concluded, 'must be sought in a fundamental principle ... his unfavorable
estimate of good works' ”[63]
“[Grisar’s] huge,
three-volume work presents Luther as a man who was physically, mentally, and
spiritually ill, a psychopath who should have been hospitalized. Grisar invites
the reader to pity Luther, but his own malice shows through very clearly. Luther
is a wholly impure, deeply immoral individual... in a 1926 one-volume summary
of Luther, Grisar thought he foresaw the time when no one would take Luther
seriously.”[64]
“…[A]s Strohl observes, ‘Grisar does not differ
fundamentally from Denifle.’ Both writers speak of the fall of Luther... He
found the root of Luther’s heresy in the Reformer’s hatred of good works, and
in domestic quarrel between Observants (‘the Little Saints’) and the
Conventuals within the Augustian order. ‘The real origin of Luther’s teaching
must be sought in a fundamental principle…his unfavorable estimate of good
works.’ ‘His estrangement from what he was pleased to call ‘holiness by works’
always remained Luther’s ruling idea, just as it had been the starting point of
his change of mind in monastic days.’ Thus, the cumulative impression of
Grisar’s work is not much more flattering to Luther than that of Denifle.” [65]
“It is well known that the most important works
leading up to Lortz are the defamation of Luther by H. Denifle…and the
pathological interpretations of Luther by H. Grisar.”[66]
“The brutal
frontal attack of Denifle was replaced by the smooth insinuations of the Jesuit
professor Father Hartmann Grisar in his chilly Martin Luther, which even goes so
far as to insinuate that Luther could have had syphilis. Grisar also repeats
Denifle’s main thesis, namely, that Luther was incompetent to teach on
justification; he contends that this incompetence derives from a wrong attitude
toward good works, a hostility to 'holiness by works'. Furthermore, he argues
that Luther’s view did not have its origin in his study of either Romans 1.17
or in any theological source, but in his own immorality—that in order to
justify his loose life and to excuse his renunciation of the monastic ideal,
the apostate monk had no other course than to become the apostle of salvation
without works… Grisar goes beyond Denifle is in asserting that Luther was a
neurasthenic and a psychopath. He sees him as the victim of bad heredity, a maladjusted
misfit entering the monastic life because of some traumatic experience during a
thunderstorm when a student. Grisar argues that Luther was simply a neurotic
man who spent his entire life unhappy and guilt-ridden.”[67]
“Grisar not only
depicted Luther as a manic depressive but misrepresented his teaching on
central doctrines. "The actual point of departure for Luther's
teaching," he wrote, "was his overweening opinion of himself,
intellectual pride was his actual misfortune" (vol. 1, pp. 9 I ff., 97).
Luther simply could not overcome concupiscence. "That is the 'famous
article concerning justification by faith alone,' a purely magical process,
born out of the individual condition of one who let himself be over-powered
through his guilt by his strong feelings" (vol. 1, pp. 450ff). Grisar
argued that "Luther leaves no actual Grace which makes for righteousness
and which dwells within man himself, for he sees in God a will to grace, not to
view us as sinners and to lend us his active support in fighting sins." In
discussion of these, Father Sartory speaks of the "pan-sexual"
interpretation of Denifle and the "pathological interpretation" of
Grisar.”[68]
“In Grisar's eyes, Luther was a
sinner in the complete sense of the word, that is to say, a being who was the
victim of his egoism and his pride as well as of his sensuality. But the
attempt at character study does not stop here. Luther must have been above all
(and here we have Grisar's real originality) a neurasthenic and a psychopath. Victim of a bad
heredity, maladjusted by nature, he had suffered an incurable shock when at the
age of twenty-two the thunderbolt struck close to him near Stotternheim. Thus,
"beginning at the storm of July 2, 1505", it was possible to see in
Luther as he entered the monastery "a young religious burdened with a
neurosis, and throughout the following years an unhappy man whose
suffering" was "a sad and pitiful cross".”[69]
Scholars have evaluated Grisar’s work on Luther and have found it still with an implicit bias against Luther, not so dissimilar in intent from the blatant attacks by Denifle. Below are comments from both Catholic and Protestant theologians on the inherent bias in Grisar’s work:
Ian Siggins says that Grisar’s works on Luther are “A Catholic historian’s learned but extremely negative critique of Luther.”[70] Roland Bainton calls Grisar’s work “Disparaging of Luther.”[71] Lutheran Charles Anderson said Grisar (and Denifle) saw Luther as a “villain who tore the seamless robe of the church…”.[72] Jared Wicks calls Grisar’s books on Luther “cold and one-sided.”[73] He also says, “Grisar had vast factual knowledge of Luther, but he also showed a subtle talent for stirring suspicions about Luther. He repeatedly showed how problems plaguing modern Protestantism stemmed from Luther.”[74] Wicks says also:
“Among the strongly
judgmental Catholic treatments of Luther, pride of place belongs to the
well-informed German Jesuit, Hartmann Grisar, whose massive original volumes
are digested into the mere 600 pages of Martin Luther, His Life and Work.”[75]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“Grisar's analysis of Luther
is, by his own description, psychological rather than biographical in
orientation. Though intended to be more objective and moderate in tone than
previous Catholic studies such as that by Heinrich Seuse Denifle in 1903, it
tends to emphasize negative qualities in Luther's personality. Contemporary
Catholic appraisals of the Reformer appear more balanced than Grisar's without
totally replacing it.”[76]
James Atkinson has said,
“Grisar’s intent was to ruin Luther’s reputation, and among those who accept him as an authority without reading further, we may suppose that he succeeds altogether too well.