That was the lead-in this morning from New Oxford Review’s news link. The story itself comes from The London Times, which is running it under the headline, “That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope“:
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.
Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.
The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict’s image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.
I smell a rat. This feels too much to me like the build-up to the changing of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the traditional liturgy. My gut is telling me that the Times is seeding the field with false messaging, perhaps for the sensationalism of it or perhaps to distort the true story. Pope Benedict has consistently exceeded my expectations in regards to his orthodoxy, particularly considering his involvement with some of the more progressive elements of the Catholic Church in the 20th century. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Originally, the NOR’s link went to the Times piece. At some point today, they switched it to this story at Catholic World News, which corroborates my own feelings on the topic:
Reports that appear in the Times often find their way into other news stories. That is unfortunate, because the Times has a track record of sensational and misleading coverage of Vatican affairs. This story provides one more example.
Here are the facts that Owens supplies:
- In the Ratzinger Schülerkreis, the informal seminar that Pope Benedict holds each year with his former theology students, the topic for discussion at this year’s August session will be Luther’s teaching and influence.
- Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news) says: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the Word of God.”
Can one logically conclude, from those two facts, that the Pope will “rehabilitate” Luther? No; not even close.
Going further, CWNews notes:
Owen cites “Vatican insiders” to buttress his prediction that Pope Benedict will find Luther innocent of heresy. But who are these insiders, and where is the evidence for their remarkable prediction? You won’t find those questions answered in the Times story.
Citing Cardinal Kasper again– but, significantly, not quoting him directly– Owen says that the Pope’s statement on Luther will have a positive impact on Catholic-Protestant relations. He continues: “It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches.”
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The document issued by the Vatican last July was not a papal statement but a “Response to Questions” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It said that the Protestant denominations, lacking the Eucharist, “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense”– a formulation that is subtly but significantly different from the inaccurate quotation in the Times article. Finally, the Vatican statement did not apply the same criticism to the Orthodox churches; on the contrary it affirmed that they should be recognized by Catholics as “sister churches.”
If the Times report can cram three significant errors of fact into a single sentence, how likely is it that the paper’s predictions are accurate? Prudent readers can make their own judgments.
Is the Holy Father going to retroactively pardon Luther? Is he going to tell us what a great guy he was and how we should introduce him into the litany of saints? Will the addition of Luther to the Roman canon be the next big change to the extraordinary rite?
Don’t bet on it.
Let’s wait and see what this is all about before we start huffing and puffing, shall we?
Martain Luther wasn’t originally a heretic, he was just a monk who first wnated to reform, but the inflexibility of the Pope at that Era made him think the papacy was illegitimate and unbiblical (he became increasingly fundamentalist) and then became a heretic. i think thats waht the Pope was trying to say.
The pope hasn’t said anything yet.
I personally believe that Martin Luther was a victim of his own scruples. Unable to believe that he could ever be absolved of sin, he developed the “dungheap covered by snow” analogy and found solace in the idea that grace, not sacramental confession, would be the instrument of his salvation.
Of course, if you believe that you can’t ever really repent of (or be forgiven for) your sins, it makes them much easier to commit. Nothing you can do is good enough anyway. God will have to provide.
Perhaps this is why Luther grew darker in his conduct as time went on. Perhaps it was because he abandoned his priestly vocation and celibacy and apostacized.
Whatever the case, we’re still feeling the effects now.
It’s really not a disputed historical point that Martin Luther (1) did not set out to break up the Church in his early days; and (2) in his later years was horrified at some of the other elements in the Reformation he had brought about. One can differ over what to make of those facts, but facts they are, and the Church has never denied them and neither speaks to Luther’s primary public sin — schism first and scandal later.
I read a comment on another blog (no idea how authoritative) which pointed out, very simply, that Martin Luther was to be a topic at an upcoming discussion in which the Pope would be involved.
Period.
The rest is media invented.
Luther did not intentionally seek to create a schism in the Church. He had convictions that he believed to be traditional Church doctine that had been “forgotten” or “ignored”, and wanted the Church to return to its own traditions. He wanted a council to be called to judge the issues, which would have been in line with Orthodox concept of preservation of Church truth, but the Pope declined on the basis of the Pope’s own authority (you can’t question the Pope). The real problem here is the schism with the Orthodox Church. I have always been convinced that that schism resulted in distortions that eventually lead to Luther’s reactions and the Protestant movement. When Luther was excommunicated, those like minded, simply did not discontinue what they were doing prior to Luther’s excommunication, preaching the Word and administering the Sacraments. Luther did not start his own church. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church rejected the legitimacy of Luther’s adherents. I have always said that Luther did not leave the Roman Catholic Church; but, rather, the Roman Catholic Church kicked Luther out. Similarly, Luther’s adherents did not leave the Roman Catholic Church; but, rather, the Roman Catholic Church denied their legitimacy.
[...] Will Cubbedge on A Little Social Experiment…Chris on A Little Social Experiment…David Mazur on Pope Plans to “Rehabilit…Steve on A Little Social Experiment…ben on A Little Social [...]