The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1953-12-04

at variance with this. Luther was sent not
by Won Staupitz but By opponents of
Staupitz to plead with the Roman Curia
against von Staupitz who was trying to ANAL
gamate two groups of German Augustinians
into one.
Won Staupitz is also pictured as absolv-
ing Luther from his solemn vows of pow
erty, chastity, and obedience, and all this
on the spur of the moment. He supposedly
does it so Luther will not have to violate
those vows. Apart from the obvious canon
ical fact that Won Staupitz could not absolve
him in this fashion, even if he wished, there
is the known fact that he never even pre-
tended to do so. The filmic fiction serves
the purpose however, of conveying the
impression that Luther did not violate sol
emn promises ne had made to God, but it
is patent lie Right to his death Luther
was taunted by his adverSaries for break
ing his vows and he did not defend himself
by claiming that Won Staupitz land thus the
Church) had removed the obligation long
ago. The film makes an attempt, however
clumsy, TO take the heat off Luther.
Resl-Life Won sfsupitx
While von Staupitz is pictured more ia
vorably than any other priest or monk
(other than Luther himself, of course), even
he has to pay for his reputation in the
film by being shown denying mercy to
Luther (the mercy of God, that is, and
thus a clear violation of fundamental char
ity) when Luther is getting into trouble
with the Church because of his teachings.
II the best and most sympathetically treated
priest is so un-Christian, one is left to con-
clude what the rest must have been.
Historically this is completely at variance
with the known relations of Won Staupitz
with Luther. He did not break with him, as
the film shows, at an early period but only
Just before Won StaupitZ death in 1924.
Rather than turning his back on Luther,
he stuck by him, was removed from the
monastery as a result, lost his position as
vicar, and was retired to a Benedictine mon
astery at Salzburg. Throughout he is foil
for important remarks of Luther. The dis
regard for the facts about him is in keeping
with the tactics employed all the way
through.
The Debate With Eek
g. The various appearances of Luther in
disputaions, e. g. with Eek at Leipsic, and
before the Diet of Worms, are never cor
rectIy presented Take his appearance at
Leipsic early in the period when he is be-
ginning 10 teach doctrines contrary to the
Church's doctrine. For long time previous
To the staging of this disputation, Eek is
built up in your mind as terrific intellect,
one to be feared and Stunned in debate
At the appropriate time Luther does face
him and (surprise?) comes off splendidly
victorious He is always the complete mas
ter of every situation, il the film is TO be
believed.
But what of the affair with Eek? In
reality Luther Jared ill at Leipsic. He him.
self confessed when II was over that 1T had
started badly and ended badly. Eek was
clever and clearly routed both Luther and
Luther's friend KarlStadt. Eek flushed
Luther out in the open and exposed him
as not Just man complaining about abuses
but hereto who denied even the councils
of the Church. The film spares the audience
the sight of this turn of affairs but history
is not so kind.
Another With csistAn
The film entirely ignores his important
debate with kindly Cardinal CaJetan IN
1513-and for good reason. He Jared no
better there than with Eek at LeipSic At
the Diet of Worms he has them all at bay
in the film version, that Is
The Papal representative is pictured as
Scared to death at the thought of letting
Luther give answers owe must give him no
chance for answers
History does not reveal any of these men
in the least afraid of Luther in argument.
His views had already been discussed at
great length before Worms and there was
no point in doing il all over again.
The film has him dominating the great
hall at Worms with his voice ringing out
majestically IN the speech that ends with
the words "Here stand; cannot do other
wise" Those in attendance testified that
he was scarcely heard, his voice almost in-
audible because of the roar of indignation
which greeted him. Even the Protestant
historians of Luther have shown that the
closing statement above was never uttered.
The word was little late in getting around
to the Historians of this film.
Smashing of Church Art
7. There are numerous rather clever at
tempts TO whitewash Luther in matters
where the historians won't let him be
whitewaShed. For example, ii Is not even
a matter OF minor dispute among histor-
ians that Luther and the movement he
set in motion were responsible for whole
sale destruction of German religious art.
He claimed that the Church's use of art
GmageS, etc) was idolatry and whipped the
people who followed him into frenzy
against these Romish practices. He called
on the authorities TO destroy monasteries
and churches. The people took him at his
word took his suggestions seriously, and
much destruction resulted.
The historians of German culture do not
feel kindly about this so the film seeks to
shift the blame elsewhere than on to Lu-