As said, you have increasingly marginalized yourself by either your ignorance or reading into the facts, while binding Luther to Rome and her unScriptural priests versus elders and requirement of clerical celibacy has no more validity than requiring a different itinerant Preacher to submit to those who did likewise, and thus also rejected Him. (Mk. 7:2-16; 11:28-33)
They did not seek release from Rome because sex was not their desire, but doctrine, and it was 2 years later that Luther met and took his wife, after working to return the nuns to their parents.
Meanwhile, one man believes that even if wrong,
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.)
So what? He "married" her. She was not free to marry. Nor was he, as a former priest. Crooks and sleazebags both.
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.)
I'm not so sure acknowledgement of conscience regardless of which then archbishop (and now RCC Pope) said it, as it can apply to context of discussion to which you employed it, will be forthcoming.
That is unless it can be sent through the spin cycle, turned into meaning something else, explained away with specious rhetoric, etc.
Just a bit of acknowledgement, every once in a while, would be nice. Some here (among them) can swing it. Some can't. Some try to split the difference, so as to never have to admit to being wrong in the slightest, and when not able to get away with that entirely, hide the confession so as casual passerby won't catch on to what's happening.
Those that cannot concede a point, or see where another may be coming from, are the same whom term all opposition "hatred" as they hurl their own [spitwads].
The trouble with those rapid fire spitwads, is they keep getting ricocheted right back in their own faces. Their own arguments. Their own spit, their own bile...with nothing else need be added to condemn them, and their "reasoning".
Now this sort of thing can be a two-way street of course, as truth in it's essence is (applying to all equally). Cardinal Ratzinger either spoke truth then, or it will now be swept away by prohibiting the same to apply to the very thing he clearly said it did.
I thank & commend you for not sinking to that level [of slime-based SPIT], while continuing to bring cogent argument [discussion] difficult at times as it may be to follow, due in part to the nature of the forum, with many conversations taking place and overlapping, scattering the competing points of proofs & logic widely.
Is this all worth it? I don't know. Much effort for perhaps very little progress.