Vlad,
Martin Luther’s 95 Theses were about problems within the Catholic Church. The Catholic church adopted most all of them, though it took a century, according to a Catholic historian and Deacon friend of mine. I do NOT see Luther doing a list of secular humanist demands on the Catholic Church today. Who knows, today he might be among those who oppose Vatican II.
G-F
“Martin Luther’s 95 Theses were about problems within the Catholic Church.”
No. The Ninety-Five Theses were primarily Luther’s views of things not the problems in themselves.
“The Catholic church adopted most all of them, though it took a century, according to a Catholic historian and Deacon friend of mine.”
No, whatever was adopted - if anything - was done at Trent (1545-1563). Luther posted the theses in 1517. That means no more than 45 years went by in between then and the end of the council. By the way, I’m a Church Historian.
“I do NOT see Luther doing a list of secular humanist demands on the Catholic Church today. Who knows, today he might be among those who oppose Vatican II.”
No. You’re forgetting the 20th CENTURY. Please note I said 20TH CENTURY. If Luther had been a rebel theologian in the 20th CENTURY he probably would be for same-sex marriage.
“...NOT see Luther doing a secular list...”
I just read a book about Luther and I would see him doing such a list. Luther became very eccentric as his life progressed; especially in the areas of chastity and marriage. This included urging his brother Augustinian monks to abandon their vows, and vilifying chastity. He really got weird about sexual matters.
Cultic Roman ranters aside, there is zero warrant for surmising Luther would support gay anything. Luther even said that that he equate contraception to sodomy in that both are sexual acts that are not performed for the sake of procreation. And which, as with other views, was based upon what he saw Scripture saying, which is why he allowed polygamy in a certain situation. See here for more than you will get from wanned RC historians on that.
What you are also not likely to here from them was papal sanction of a second wife.
In May 1453, the bishop of Segovia Luis Vázquez de Acuña annulled the marriage of Henry and Blanche, on the grounds of Henry's sexual impotence due to a curse.[17][18] This neatly reflected the recent political changes: Castille had supported Charles, Prince of Viana in his fight against John II of Aragon for the Navarrese throne since 1451, and Álvaro de Luna, Duke of Trujillo had been executed in May 1453, leaving Henry with greater control of Castille.[19] Henry alleged that he had been incapable of sexually consummating the marriage, despite having tried for over three years, the minimum period required by the church. Other women, prostitutes from Segovia, testified that they had had sexual relations with Henry, which is why he blamed his inability to consummate the marriage on a spell. Henry's alleged "permanent impotence" only affected his relations with Blanche. Blanche and Henry were cousins, and he was also a cousin of Joan of Portugal, who he wanted to marry instead. Therefore, the reason he used to seek the annulment was the sort of spell that only affected his ability to consummate this one marriage, and would not cause any problems for him with other women.[20] Pope Nicholas V corroborated the decision in December of the same year in a papal bull and provided a papal dispensation for Henry's new marriage with the sister of the Portuguese king.[21][22] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_Castile#Marital_politics
However, RCs imagine we look at Luther as a pope, absurd as that is, and thus attacking him impugns what we believe. Which simply manifests their ignorance or shameless bigotry.
I have not found that actual quote, but,
Martin Luther's view of homosexuality is recorded in Plass's What Luther Says:[28]
“The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature."Plass, Ewald Martin. What Luther Says: An Anthology, Volume 1, 1959. p. 134; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality#cite_ref-28
Also,
in his Lectures en Genesis, Luther sees the sin of Sodom as a vice against nature, man seeking a man instead of women- For him, God implanted in man a natural desire for the opposite sex and homosexual desire is the work or Satan. He clearly contrasted rightful sex within marriage and the hypocrisy of failed celibacy in monasteries, where monks engage in "Italian weddings.'" - Male Homosexualities and World Religions By Pierre Hurteau, p. 112
It is the RC idea that Luther's criteria for belief was whether it helped him dissent from Rome, and or that his basis for doctrine meant one could validly justify any view one wanted, that is as absurd as sodomites calling us "homophobic." Luther actually strongly defended core historical Scriptural beliefs, as do evangelicals, precisely because they are manifestly Scriptural. And thus they oppose the traditions of men which Rome accumulated since they are not of Scripture.
And the evidence is that those who follow men as supreme over Scripture, as Rome and cults do, end up with the most serious errors. And as an autocractic entity, Rome has manifested how much she can redefine past teaching, and thus you have the divisions among RCs. And thus it is more tenable to surmise that Rome could make future accommodations for sodomy than it is that those who hold to the historical evangelical view of Scripture would to any real degree.