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

PrsoeevPation With the Church
This is not really Life of Martin Luz
ther" at all say that not merely because
it falsifies his life but because it deals with
only phase of that life. It starts with his
decision to leave the study of law and be
come a monk. It ends with the Diet of
Augsburg in 1880, sixteen years before his
death. In between, it leaves out great events
which might cast discredit on Luther.
Its preoccupation is with his quarrel
with the Church. 1t would be safer to say
that its preoccupation is with the Church
more than with Luther and more with the
modern Lutherans quarrel with the Church
than with Luther's
II is concerned almost exclusively with
showing the Catholic Church in the worst
light. In retrospect the viewer will think
of it primarily as an attack on the Catholic
Church. II makes no serious attempt to even
indicate the theology of Luther. It's prime
object is the Church, viewed in terms that
are intended to totally discredit Her now
and forever.
Enough Of general statements Let us
loos at the film itself and compare its line
with what historical scholarship knows
about Luther. This review cannot be any
thing like complete accounting of false
hoods in the picture. The film is
completely loaded with false innuendo, un-
true suggestion outright misrepresentation.
Practically every movement, every face, ev-
cry word, every situation is rigged and
slanted to give but one impression There
is never for moment let-up in the cam
paign TO vilify the Church. 1t is often most
effective where it is least expected. A few
samples will serve to indicate just how
fair and truthful and scholarly the film
really is.
No Mercy In i5oo7
l. The narration at the very beginning
sets the pace, II pictures the Church In 1900
as really both unchristian and inhuman, as
having lost all concept of the love and
mercy of God.
What is wrong with this estimate? Moth
ing except that il contradicts the volumin-
Gus testimony Of mountains of popular
Catholic literature at the time, not TO men
tion the more scholarly theological works.
Luther gives us help there himself Twice
Tin 1916 and 1919 he edited an anonymous
devotional manual (Theotogia GermdnicdJ
whose third chapter is beautiful discus
sion of the love and infinite mercy of God.
Luther himself in his Table Talk for
the year 1882 says that while he was still a
monk he had gone to his religious superior,
yo.. Staupitz, because he was concerned
with the problem of predestination. He was
assured of the mercy and love Of God IN
these terms: at is in the wounds of Christ
that the meaning of predestination is found
and not elsewhere"
On lndvlssncss
2 Take the matter of the films pre-
sentation Of the Church's teaching on
induLgences and Her practice in regard TO
indulgences. One could have foretold with
out bothering to see the picture itself that
this would be msrepreSented. II has been
nsrepresented too long to be surrendered
at this date Surely this matter has been
gone over enough in the past that there
should be no possibility of these Lutheran
researchers" making a mistake about it
unless the wrong notion serves the purpose
better than the true one.
But there can be no ignorance here from
the lack of information. If they don't like
TO take the word of Catholics for the
Churchs teaching on indulgences, they could
have got ii straight from ProtestantS and
Rationalisis II is simple matter TO find
out the teaching and practice of the Church
on indulgences at the time of Luther Here
the Misrepresentation is so brazen that any
suspicion of sincerity vanishes
What does the Luther film try TO pass
off as truth in this matter (a) That
the Church teaches that indulRences mean
forgiveness of sins without sorrow or CON
fession, mere formality; and (b1 that Tet-
eel preached that sort of view Of indul-
gences in 1917 when Luther rose to attack
the indulgence-System.
History, Not Fiction
What is historys verdict here? The schoI-
ars (?) responsible for the script need to
look no further than THE Summary In
struction" put out by Archbishop Albrecht
of Magdeburg, the man who commissioned
Tetzel to preach the indulgence against
which Luther rallied, to know the answer.
This instruction demands heartfelt con
triton and oral confession" as conditions
necessary for gaining the indulgence.
They could have found the same thing in
Tetzeis own Instructions for Parish Priests
where he emphasizes that pentents must be
absolved as necessary condition for re-
ceiving the indulgence. ''No one" says
Tetzel secures an indulgence unless he has
true contrition" And he adds that an in
diligence can be applied "only to the
pains Of sins which are confessed and for
which there is contrition."
Neither in Luther's time, nor before nor
since except in the misrepresentation of
some Protestant writer's and preachers) has
an indulgence ever been considered as
something which takes away the guilt of sin.
Luther himself is a good witness here. In
sermon OF his before 1916, he correctly
states the teaching and practice of the