Well, that's sure interesting to know cause most of your fellow Catholics think he was and castigate him for *breaking* his vows of celibacy.
Now it appears that all that frothing at the mouth over that issue is for naught.
I wrote "You introduced Luther in post 5681 with respect to arguing he was not antiSemitic." You chose to introduce his name in your post, ostensibly to defend him, so he is your client now, so to speak.
I thus said nothing about Luther not being antiSemitic, and the only reference to him after that is the quote by Ratzinger to do with the contextual mess leading up to the Reformation, which related to the progressive deformation of the church in response to your assertion that the world must have been effectively lost for at least thirteen hundred years if the church was so deformed.
False, based on your own evidence in post 5681 where you tried to shield Luther from what you tried to diminish as the "anti-Semite card" which is evidently all it is to you, by your own words, by your own admission. And you had the audacity to ask me "Do you want to see it again ?" Go for it.