That’s wrong. You are doing, from a Catholic side, what Protestants do to us. Dismissing Luther as an alcoholic and sex-pervert was once done in Catholic propaganda. It’s unfair. Benedict XVI (who has read widely in Luther’s writings) made that point at Erfurt on his recent trip to Germany and has made it many times in the past. Luther was a solidly religious reformer. He was rightly concerned about abuses. He made the fatal error, when confronted on the merits of his theological arguments about penannce, confession, and indulgences by Cardinal Cajetan, of defying the Church and labeling Cajetan unbiblical simply because Cajetan was not persuaded by Luther’s arguments.
Luther may have lacked healthy discretion in that case. He should have counted to ten and rethought his positions. He removed himself from the Catholic faith. He also had plenty of personal flaws and sins, like you and I do.
But he was not driven by alcoholism or libido or mental illness any of that crap. You do the Catholic faith a disservice by cheap argumentation. Yes, I know it was routinely taught to Catholics 50 years ago. But the days of Helmut Grisar are long past.
You would do well to read Jared Wicks, _Man Yearning for Grace_ about the young Luther. Wicks does a good job of pinpointing the places where Luther began to argue himself out of the Church. But he is also fair to Luther as a person. Luther was an honest, decent, sincere man but hotheaded and lacking discernment in some ways.
Hold on.
Luther drank too much. He said so.
Luther recommended bigamy (or should I say polygamy), violated his vow of celibacy, married a former nun (who also violated her vow), and urged others to violate their vows. Whether or not he did this out of a religious conviction or just wanton lust doesn’t change the fact he did it.
And about mental illness. It seems a rather fair conclusion to say that Luther was at the very least troubled most of his life. How else can someone explain his bizarre comments, actions, conclusions, and his own admitted self-doubts which often came shortly after bravado of the most ridiculous kind? Also, the simple fact is, since the mid 19th century there has been great development of our knowledge of the human mind. Hence, not surprisingly, whether for good or ill, that knowledge was applied to the life of Martin Luther and he was usually found lacking until a few decades ago. The opposite is now happening, however, where scholars, including Pope Benedict, essentially and politely ignore all of Luther’s bizarre comments, actions, conclusions, etc. and focus on his theology. Even when it comes to that - his heretical theology (and it is heretical) - no one calls it that anymore because in this ecumenical age a type of political correctness has gripped even the Church so that the plain truth cannot be told, the heresy is glossed over, and only positives are emphasized.
You don’t have to be Johannes Pistorius The Younger to conclude there was something wrong with Luther.
You wrote:
“Luther was an honest, decent, sincere man but hotheaded and lacking discernment in some ways.”
Luther was honest? I don’t think anyone can say that when they look at how he distorted the scriptures - its wording, the canon, its doctrines.
Luther was certainly driven by his vanities. He was flattered into a public break with the Church by those Princes of the Holy Roman Empire who wanted to do to the Church's assets in Germany what Henry VIII did in England. In other words he, like his many followers in the last 500 years, was a dupe. Though not unintelligent, he was the original useful idiot.