* Yet even in the first half (about “habitual Christianity”) the expression “emancipate”
* Yet even in the first half (about “habitual Christianity”) the expression “emancipate” must not be stressed, lest it be thought that in my activity I meant to employ external means or proposed their use, nor must the word “Church” be stressed, lest it be forgotten that I have been concerned only with “the single individual” [den Enkelte]; otherwise this half also becomes untrue. This is why I say the idiom “It is just a half-truth” fits “fairly accurately,” for taken strictly the statement is not even half true.
[XIII 442] * Luther’s marriage to Katharina von Bora can serve as an example—for with Luther there never was, no, with Luther there never was any nonsense.
How did he act? He counseled with God and with his conscience. After frightful struggling and spiritual trials [Anfægtelser] he came to this conclusion: At this point an intensive action must be ventured. This was a matter of [XIII 443] conscience! He was silent. Although resolved, he remained silent. Then came the moment to act—he married. “A priest?!” Yes, in spite of the Pope. “With a nun?!” Yes, in spite of all public opinion. —Thank you. Do not disdain a grateful congratulatory message on your marriage—on that day you were hardly overwhelmed by congratulations! Do not disdain a congratulatory message because it is from a single man—it would perhaps be too much if you were to receive congratulations today from all the “married priests.”
On the other hand, how did he not act? He did not go around with hearty nonsense to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, friends and acquaintances, casting a world-historical glance at the Church’s past and ditto at its future. Nor did he talk to those “many friends” in this way: “The question of priests’ marrying is a matter of conscience. But what are we to do? Let’s get together, try to get a few more, and then I shall come out with a petition. Let’s go to parliament. It is true that the matter concerns me on religious grounds, but there is a substantial party interested in the same thing for secular reasons. If we get together with them in the voting, according to my exact knowledge of numerical ratios (knowledge of numerical ratios—fix this in your memory, preserve it for the historian, for this phrase is the secret of my life—knowledge of numerical ratios is really what makes “the reformer”), it is not impossible, it is not impossible that we can squeeze a few points from the opposition and squeeze our way through—to freedom of conscience!—by a very scant simple majority. According to what I know about numerical ratios, this is not at all impossible. And if it should develop that this cannot be achieved, we can withdraw the petition; therefore the matter is not dangerous at all.” No, the matter certainly is not dangerous. —Forgive me, dear Luther, you man of God and man of spiritual trials, but I believe that however reluctant you would be to see such deportment, you would nevertheless agree with me that there is really nothing more to do than to say: The matter certainly is not dangerous. The only danger—and this would be very dangerous—the only danger would be that such a thing might be called reformation and earnestness.