Probably something to do with some Caths getting sick of being asked questions involving simple logic that they can’t answer without looking like obvious hypocrites.
Because Leo X used the services of John Tetzel, who preached that buying an indulgence could forgive the sin of raping the virgin Mary. (Tetzel said it, not me.)
Because Leo X had whorehouses just for priests in the Vatican.
Because Leo X left the Vatican bankrupt.
But Luther opposed Leo X and all these wicked things.
And some Catholics just can’t admit that Luther was right about anything because it would shatter their vain self image.
So they can’t answer that, because they are either de facto supporting Vatican whores and being allowed to buy your way out of raping Mary...
... or supporting Luther, who is apparently much worse in their eyes. But they dare not admit it.
At least that’s my best guess.
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. "Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical
Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered" (Beard, "Martin Luther", London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the
indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of
sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that
absolution for
sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An
indulgence, he writes, can be applied only "to the pains of
sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition". "No one", he furthermore adds, "secures an
indulgence unless he have
true contrition". The confessional letters (
confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an
indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from
sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary
indulgence (Paulus, "Johann Tetzel", 103).
Johann Tetzel