Dishonest were the politicians, the rulers who chose sides. Luther was wrong but might have been persuaded to reconciliation had the princes not chosen sides.
The Protestant Reformation was fundamentally about the consolidating nation-state finally reaching a critical mass of absolutism such as to break up the Church.
The theological differences were real, significant, powerful but in the end, by themselves, insufficient to break up the Church in to nationl-state churches.
The princes seized the opportunity to take control of the church in their states. This is the true evil of the era—the rise of absolutism, of state-control of the Church de jure in Protestant areas, de facto in Catholic ones.
Luther was wrong theologically but right about many aspects of the need for reform. He was rash and imprudent but in part because he was provoked radically.
If the princes had stayed out of it, salutary reform might have come sooner. But they didn’t and we’ll never know what might have been.
To explain the whole business as Luther’s psychological, libidinous, alcoholic madness is foolish and does not help your own Catholic cause.
You wrote:
“To explain the whole business as Luther’s psychological, libidinous, alcoholic madness is foolish...”
And who here is doing that? No one. You are either mistaken or dishonest now about what I said. Which is it?