There is much to know of history, and I cannot claim to know it all, but you were suggesting the Reformation was a product of other considerations, which leads away from looking at the rot that was in the Roman church at the time, casting blame elsewhere.
Let us agree to what first causes actually were, then we can continue on to later ramifications, involvements, philosophical considerations and their resulting impacts upon European societies & culture.
Are you maintaining it was the Renaissance that led Luther to state his own opposition to corruptions which could be then seen in the Latin Church of that era? Or is it more like mixing in that part with all the rest of later developments, in hopes of distracting from and burying it (the rot), using guilt by association technique to impugn the Reformers, for the sake of the more generally sinful nature of mankind, which one can pretty much always find evidence for, wherever on cares to look?
That's what I have long been seeing in argument against Luther and the Reformation. Upthread, we had one of your cohorts accuse Luther of having his way with a barrel-full of nuns (as in many). Then it comes out it was he married one of them. Two years after they both had left the Latin Church. They were married... but Still damned to hell for fornication, according to one of your brethren.
I'm sorry, but in the environment here, to be snootily told that I'm simply too ignorant to understand, is a bit much. The real problem you may have with me FRiend, is that I understand much only too well!
The Reformation did not begin with Luther, the Reformation was not entirely a Lutheran issue, nor did it end with him. We can argue whether Luther was a champion or a dupe, whether he was sincere or not, but Luther could not have publicly opposed the Church had the Renaissance not created a political environment for a public opposition.
Peace be with you.