Really? That's a bit hyperbolic. At the Diet of Worms, he said, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (..), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
Martin Luther was a flawed man, as are we all. All of the characters in this story are from a time long ago. But to condemn Luther because he didn't wallow in pig sh## while absolving his supposed betters of their arrogance is plain silly.
Stating that Martin Luther burned the Papal bull, while ignoring that Martin Luther's works were burned first. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was justified in burning the bull, just noting the double standard. Arrogance in the Catholic Church is accepted, expected, and justified.
Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.
My main problem with this whole article is the same as my problem with the Catholic Church. People at the top can be arrogant (even when they're wrong), but people on the bottom are to be subservient. The Catholic Church stinks of man's desire to have power over other men. It stinks of abuse of power. It stinks of the attitude that lower men should know their place.
The point of this article seems to be that reformers in the Catholic Church should tread carefully because those higher up in the church are arrogant and have a right to demand blind devotion without question or thought. I saw no regret or complaint about the structure of the Catholic Church, just an acceptance of elitism. Maybe that's why people kiss the pope's ring while he sits on an earthy throne: it makes sense them in their world view.
You wrote:
“Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.”
NYer is more than capable of responding to you on all of your points, but I hope you don’t mind if I make a point here. You seem to be equating Luther with the Church. Luther had NO AUTHORITY. The Church had AUTHORITY from Christ. In other words, Luther was acting like a deviant child defiantly insisting he was right and his parents were wrong. Also, the idea that only Luther was reasonable and the whole Church or even the whole Diet of Worms was unreasonable is simply ridiculous. Luther’s whole life was marked by rash decisions and actions. The Diet of Worms was anything but rash or unreasonable.
Also, I think you might be making a mistake about what “outlaw” means. The actual decree read like this:
“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favor the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”
The concept of “outlaw” that you are describing is what was believed to be found in medieval English common law. I don’t believe it existed in imperial law in the Holy Roman Empire. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.