"Bad Popes"

[fix]

Please explain.

The Holy Spirit does not force the cardinals to elect who He wants. God has an ordaining will and a permitting will.

As an example He may permit some “bad” men to become pope. That does not mean He ordians it, but He allows it to happen. It is His will either way.

 

[mikew262]

The Holy Spirit does not force the cardinals to elect who He wants. God has an ordaining will and a permitting will.

As an example He may permit some “bad” men to become pope. That does not mean He ordians it, but He allows it to happen. It is His will either way.

Got you. No argument.

 

[StRaphael]

John XII

The following is a passage from Patrologia Latina:

Then, rising up, the cardinal priest Peter testified that he himself had seen [John XII] celebrate mass without taking communion. John, bishop of Narni, and John, a cardinal deacon, professed that they themselves saw that a deacon had been ordained in a horse stable, but were unsure of the time. Benedict, cardinal deacon, with other co-deacons and priests, said they knew that he had been paid for ordaining bishops, specifically that he had ordained a ten-year-old bishop in the city of Todi… They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass. All, clerics as well as laymen, declared that he had toasted to the devil with wine. They said when playing at dice, he invoked Jupiter, Venus and other demons. They even said he did not celebrate Matins and the canonical hours nor did he make the sign of the cross.

To the best of my knowledge, these charges have not been refuted.

 

[Magicsilence]

Boniface VIII was very bad, in fact a murderer. He waged many small wars to benefit his family, laying seige to walled towns in order to dispossess their lords, many massacres resulted. He arrested and imprisoned his predecessor Pope Celestine V, a holy monk who subsequently died in his captivity from maltreatment. (Not too many years after the reign of Boniface came to an end, Pope Celestine was proclaimed a saint.)

Dante reserved a special place in Hell for Boniface in his Magnum Opus, the ‘Divine Comedy’. According to Dante’s scheme of ascription he would be eternally in a hole headfirst with flames of fire burning the soles of his feet, this is the fate of Simoniacs.

He is the author of the Bull Unam Sanctam.

Wikipedia calls him an “anti” pope, but the Catholic Encylcopedia makes no such charge, and indeed wikipedia’s anti-pope webpage does not mention him.

His maltreatment of Celestine was harsh, but he had good reason to keep him locked up, although his treatment cannot be defended.

He is the author of Unam Sanctam yes. But, NewAdvent also says:

Gröne, a German Catholic historian of the popes, says of Boniface (II, 164) that while his utterances equal in importance those of Gregory VII and Innocent III, the latter were always more ready to act, Boniface to discourse; they relied on the Divine strength of their office, Boniface on the cleverness of his canonical deductions.

Pope Celestine was also not quite the saint you proclaim him to be. While good and holy, he abdicated from the papacy, and created a problem not before seen in the Church. Though some have said he wished only to give up the “good life” and return to being a simple monk.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Magicsilence]

http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/pope0217.jpg
"Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it."

Leo X was a Medici, his life was not that of an ascetic as you seem to state, but of an avaricious glutton. He was a prime reason for the Protestant Reformation, things did not start to improve for the church until he and his kind were out of the way.

The scandal of Leo X caused a great many to lose faith in the Holy Church, this is a responsibility he cannot escape.

Actually, he seems to be simply a pleasure lover, but not necessarily bad. He also did a lot of charity work, building schools, giving alms etc…

Having said that, he did indeed cause loss of faith. New Advent finishes:

The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently–"Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Pope Celestine was also not quite the saint you proclaim him to be. While good and holy, he abdicated from the papacy, and created a problem not before seen in the Church. Though some have said he wished only to give up the “good life” and return to being a simple monk.

In fact, Dante’s poem features Celestine in the Inferno’s earliest cantos, where he comes off well only in comparison to his imprisoner Boniface. The hermit-Pope-hermit again is depicted among those flitting, wind-blown souls whose refusal to decide, to take a stand for good or ill, to pick up the gauntlet (Celestine dropped his as few have before or since), left them eternally blowing around outside the Inferno’s confines–unsaved, but too contemptible to be worth Hell’s punishments. In fact, Dante’s portrayal suggests that even the lowest circles have an edge in dignity over certain forms of craven lukewarmness.

 

[JimmyV]

Ah, but was St. Peter’s worth schism?

I don’t think the building of St. Peter’s was the reason for the schism. Martin Luther and John Calvin had their own gain (financial, power) by leaving the church.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t think the building of St. Peter’s was the reason for the schism. Martin Luther and John Calvin had their own gain (financial, power) by leaving the church.

You are kidding yourself if you think that the actions of Martin Luther and John Calvin had more to do with politics than the actions of the Pope. All three acted on theological and political grounds. Leo X, for example, was not a particularly worthy man or Pope. He also lived and breathed politics.

Also, my point is that without the enormous sums of money that needed to be raised for the building of St. Peter’s (a magnificient building btw), there would not be the need, nor temptation, for the abuses in the sales of indulgences. Absent those abuses, it can be argued that Martin Luther would not have posted the 95 Theses. Absent taking that stand, it can be argued that Luther would not have proceeded to some of his more controversial (from the Catholic viewpoint) theological positions. All of course is speculation, but reasoned speculation nonetheless. Was St. Peter’s worth schism? If that is truly the question, then I suppose the answer would, of necessity, be “no”.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

You are kidding yourself if you think that the actions of Martin Luther and John Calvin had more to do with politics than the actions of the Pope. All three acted on theological and political grounds. Leo X, for example, was not a particularly worthy man or Pope. He also lived and breathed politics.

Also, my point is that without the enormous sums of money that needed to be raised for the building of St. Peter’s (a magnificient building btw), there would not be the need, nor temptation, for the abuses in the sales of indulgences. Absent those abuses, it can be argued that Martin Luther would not have posted the 95 Theses. Absent taking that stand, it can be argued that Luther would not have proceeded to some of his more controversial (from the Catholic viewpoint) theological positions. All of course is speculation, but reasoned speculation nonetheless. Was St. Peter’s worth schism? If that is truly the question, then I suppose the answer would, of necessity, be “no”.

Beyond doubt, Leo and his immediate predecessors were great causes for scandal, both in their fundraising methods and in other laxities: they caused schism to look a lot more defensible than it might have looked otherwise. If Luther and Calvin were indeed wrong in their actions, then Leo bears some share of their infamy. But a grown man’s sin is ultimately his own, and so with Luther and Calvin–any schism of theirs can’t be blamed on a cathedral, easier though it might have made their act.

And St. Peter’s is one of the glories of this world, whether one be Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, whether Christian or not–it was well worth the building. Still, there’s no defending Leo’s abuses in its pursuit. I’d have rather seen it finished a generation later with honestly raised funds and without bringing scandal upon the Church.

 

[rr1213]

I agree that Luther and Calvin, and the Popes, were all responsible for their own actions. They were all learned men and intelligent adults. Still, sometimes, people can be pushed by events or other people in directions, or in degree, to place where they might not otherwise have gone. Who knows? It would make great speculative fiction I suppose to postulate alternative histories based on various changes in history.

 

[RomanCrusader]

In fact, Dante’s poem features Celestine in the Inferno’s earliest cantos, where he comes off well only in comparison to his imprisoner Boniface. The hermit-Pope-hermit again is depicted among those flitting, wind-blown souls whose refusal to decide, to take a stand for good or ill, to pick up the gauntlet (Celestine dropped his as few have before or since), left them eternally blowing around outside the Inferno’s confines–unsaved, but too contemptible to be worth Hell’s punishments. In fact, Dante’s portrayal suggests that even the lowest circles have an edge in dignity over certain forms of craven lukewarmness.

Pope Celestine V was a great man and he is a saint in heaven! He lived a holy life and he only left the papal chair because he couldn’t handle the politics that came with it. It was all for the good of the Church and his own soul.

St. Celestine V, pray for us!

 

[Hesychios]

Pope Celestine V was a great man and he is a saint in heaven! He lived a holy life and he only left the papal chair because he couldn’t handle the politics that came with it. It was all for the good of the Church and his own soul.

St. Celestine V, pray for us!

Quite so!

He died in the odour of sanctity, he had many personal followers, literally thousands who adopted his lifestyle and rule. He was a mystic.

He was a simple man, and very devout. He was impressed into the Papal office to break a long stalemate (a few years actually) between two contending factions who could not agree on a candidate for Pope. There are indications that he was a poor choice for the role of Pope, having no interest in such things and not even being a member of the conlave. He was generous to a fault.

Being advanced in age he deserved to retire in peace, it was no sin. Instead, he had to live in fear surrounded by hostile Cardinals who only regarded him as a temporary placeholder and soon tired of his piety and reclusiveness. The new Pope was appalled and saddened by all of their political maneuvering behind his back. He never entered Rome as Pope, instead he governed the church from Naples where he felt safer and insulated from the corrupting influences of the Eternal City. This kept his enemies off-base, because they had to deal with him in an environment they could not dominate.

Finally tired, old and heartsick he handed back the Papal tiara to the same corrupt group of Cardinals who had chosen him originally, so that he might retire to his beloved mountains and die in peace. Benedict Cardinal Gaetani drew up the documents of abdication.

But he was not to find peace. The new Pope, Boniface VIII (Gaetani), immediately removed the Papacy from Naples (so hastily that much of the baggage was left behind). Boniface ordered the humble monk to accompany the party that left for Rome. The monk slipped away and returned to his humble cell on Mont Morone. Boniface sent armed soldiers to arrest him. Warned in time by friendly locals, he fled from one mountain cell to another, one mountain to another through an icy winter. Eventually he realized that he would have to leave the region entirely, he fled to the coast and secured passage on a ship bound for Greece.

Sadly a storm prevented the crossing and the ship was driven back to the Italian shore, where soldiers came, seized him, bound him in shackles and carried him off.

He was incarcerated in the famous Fumone castle, where he died. One account has it that a nail was driven into his skull. This cannot be proven, but the hole is there and no other explanation has been given for that.

He was canonized a mere 17 years after his death.

http://www.manieri.it/Images/Fum06.jpg

• St. Celestine V, pray for us!*

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Quite so!

He died in the odour of sanctity, he had many personal followers, literally thousands who adopted his lifestyle and rule. He was a mystic.

He was a simple man, and very devout. [snip snip snip]
He was canonized a mere 17 years after his death.

Glad to hear it. I’ve no axe to grind against the fellow, but thought I’d pass along Dante’s judgments for what they might be worth. Having heard something of both sides, I incline toward your view, but Dante’s stance can’t be dismissed altogether: had Celestine risked dirtying his hands with politics, might his flock have gained by it? Don’t know.

Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot always recurs to me whenever I read about men like Celestine: it’s one of those haunting case studies about a man whose personal holiness and inability to lower himself to worldly action help ensure the physical and spiritual destruction of everyone around him. At certain junctures, choosing unworldliness is unavoidably a worldly choice with worldly consequences. Still not sure whether that describes St. Celestine–I wonder–but charity should probably lead one to err on the side of “no.”

 

[Wave]

Evidently, the Cardinals weren’t heeding the Holy Spirit’s guidance when these 5 were elected.

John XII and Benedict XIX were not elected by cardinals. That practice was not initiated until 1059. John and Benedict were both elected by Roman nobles who received substantial payoffs from their well-heeled fathers, both of whom were coincidentally named Alberic.

Almost all of the early popes (about most of whom very little is known) are on the list of saints, but the record in the second millennium is poor: Leo IX, Gregory VII, Celestine V, Pius V, and Pius X are saints; no others. Celestine was canonized by Clement V (on the “bad” list) at the insistence of King Philip the Fair to spite Boniface VIII’s memory. Celestine lived in a cave all of his adult life, and his five-month pontificate (spent as the guest of King Charles II in Naples) was characterized by chaos and cardinal-packing of Frenchmen. Pius V has been accused of trying to assassinate Queen Elizabeth and of complicity in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

I don’t see how anyone could leave Vigilius, Honorius I, Urban VI, John XXII, Sixtus IV, Paul III, Paul IV, Urban VIII, Innocent X, and nearly every pope of the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh century off of the list. Surely no one defends Stephen VII, Christopher, and Sergius III. Additionally, the three popes between Pius VII and Pius IX were repressive reactionaries who established a police state in the territories controlled by the papacy.

My own choice for the worst pope would be Innocent III, even though many people consider him one of the best. He was responsible for the Fourth Crusade and the Albigensian Crusade, both of which ended up with wholesale slaughters.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t see how anyone could leave Vigilius, Honorius I, Urban VI, John XXII, Sixtus IV, Paul III, Paul IV, Urban VIII, Innocent X, and nearly every pope of the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh century off of the list. Surely no one defends Stephen VII, Christopher, and Sergius III. Additionally, the three popes between Pius VII and Pius IX were repressive reactionaries who established a police state in the territories controlled by the papacy.

So what did these fellows do that puts them on the “bad pope” list?

 

[Wave]

Vigilius conspired with the emperor’s Monophysite wife to take office when his predecessor had been deposed by General Belisarius but was still alive and in exile. He then involved himself for about a decade in the dispute over “The Three Chapters,” which refuted the Monophysite heresy. He went back and forth on this until he was condemned by every bishop on both sides of the issue. He was admittedly under duress, but he brought it much of it on himself by making contradictory promises to people on all sides.

Honorius I must have been intellectually lazy. He signed a letter written to the Patriarch of Constantinople in his name by John Symponus in which the heretical term “One Will” was used in reference to Jesus. Honorius was unanimously declared anathema by an ecumenical council in Constantinople and was condemned as a traitor by Pope (and saint) Leo II.

John XXII sold everything that wasn’t nailed down. In an age of extreme poverty he amassed so much gold that alchemists thought that he had found the Philosopher’s Stone. He also preached that the saints would not achieve beatific vision until after the Second Coming. Why pray to them?

Urban VI had six of his cardinals tortured and executed. You did not want to cross him or his nephew Butillo. His pontificate was largely spent trying to get even with Charles of Durazo, whom he had commissioned to get rid of Queen Joanna of Naples.

Sixtus IV set the standard for nepotism. He endowed his many nephews and grand-nephews with incredible estates, kingdoms, and benefices. He also was almost certainly complicit in the murder attempt (50 percent successful) on the Medici Brothers in the cathedral in Florence.

Paul III was heavy into astrology. He invited all astrologers to join him in Rome. He spent most of his term trying to set up his son and grandsons with territories to rule. He died shortly after picking a fight with one of his grandsons (a cardinal).

Paul IV was probably the meanest man ever to sit on St. Peter’s throne. His hatred of all things Spanish led him into a short and unsuccessful war with the world’s greatest power. His ally against Spain was the Sultan! He also was a world-class nepotist.

Urban VIII ignored the Catholic side during two-thirds of the Thirty Years War. He was the all-time grand champion at directing church revenues to his own family (and Bernini). He found Galileo guilty of heresy and kept him under house arrest despite the fact that he recanted.

Innocent X essentially turned the office over to his sister-in-law, Donna Olimpia. She was known as La Papessa. She robbed the Church blind.

Sephen VII (or VI if you do not count the three-day Pope Stephen III) conducted the famous Cadaver Synod. He had them dig up the corpse of Pope Formosus. He dressed it up in pontifical robes, put it on trial, found it guilty, broke off the fingers used to consecrate the host, cast the body into the Tiber, and declared that no one ordained or consecrated by Formosus was legitimate. Stephen was imprisoned by the Roman mob and strangled.

Christopher deposed and imprisoned his predecessor, Leo V. He in turn was deposed and imprisoned by Sergius III, who had been a co-judge in the Cadaver Synod. He probably was the father (by his fifteen-year-old mistress, Marozia) of Pope John XI.

Leo XII reinstated the ghetto in Rome and built one in Ancona. He made many crazy rules including the banning of encores in concerts and ad libs in plays. His cardinal-legate in the Romagna condemned hundreds to prison without a trial. High taxes on imports impoverished the citizens of the Papal States.

With good reason Gregory XVI feared that he would be overthrown by a revolution of the Italians. He actually banned railroads and gas lighting in his territories. He spent a fortune (borrowed from the Rothschilds) on defense against his own subjects and filled every prison. He then started incarcerating people in convents and monasteries.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Evidently, the Cardinals weren’t heeding the Holy Spirit’s guidance when these 5 were elected.

How is that? Jesus picked 1 bad apple out of the original apostles. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is not giving guidance? That is only a 8.3% “bad apple” rate and Judas, even through betrayal, was unwittingly instrumental in helping Jesus accomplish his mission and scripture. We are judging my man’s standard not God’s. Have a little faith in Divine Providence. God can easily bring good out of imperfect men. Notice that the loss of Judas did not irreparably harm the Church did it? In fact we got Paul and Mathias out of the deal - what an improvement that was !!

In fact the “bad apple” rate is improving since the time of Christ. Now we have 5 bad apples out of 265 for a “bad apple” rate of only1.019%!! That’s an improvement from the original apostle error rate of a whopping 87% relative improvement!! The good news is that in spite of bad apples the Holy Spirit has perfected The Church, purged those who were not faithful Catholics, corrected some administrative practices (not core dogmas) and some acknowledged abuses that were never officially sanctioned and still preserved 100% of core dogma!! Our popes working together with the bishops remain infallible!

Those that want to blame one pope for the Protestant Revolution are deceiving themselves. There was a festering and lingering tension between the monarch and the state for control of The Church and the State. The kings and princes pounced on the opportunity that Luther gave them when Luther favored giving state rule over ecclesial matters. Luther was a secularist through and through and his arrogance was played like a fiddle by the monarchs who gave political support (and money) to those desiring to usurp the Church authority. The best thing that came out of the Protestant rebellion was the affirmation of the dogmatic proclamations from Trent and the purging of those who were inclined to be disloyal to apostolic teaching. These affirmations included official dogmatic Church teachings in the areas of Scripture and Tradition, Original Sin, Justification, Sacraments, the Eucharist in Holy Mass and the veneration of saints. It issued numerous reform decrees. By specifying Catholic doctrine on salvation, the sacraments, and the Biblical canon, the Council was answering Protestant disputes. Poor popes are bound to happen from time to time - that does not mean that they are going to teach error. Let’s not forget that our pope is also a bishop himself and is in communion with the other bishops. Even a bad pope is not going to unilaterally go against starkly against the other bishops. And no bishop acting in the role of cardinal will ever elect a pope who has contempt for the council of the other bishops.

James

 

[JTBT]

http://www.catholic-forum.com/SAINTS/pope0217.jpg
"Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it."

Leo X was a Medici, his life was not that of an ascetic as you seem to state, but of an avaricious glutton. He was a prime reason for the Protestant Reformation, things did not start to improve for the church until he and his kind were out of the way.

The scandal of Leo X caused a great many to lose faith in the Holy Church, this is a responsibility he cannot escape.

Thank you

 

[JTBT]

I don’t think the building of St. Peter’s was the reason for the schism. Martin Luther and John Calvin had their own gain (financial, power) by leaving the church.

um Luther did what he thought was right, and he was right.
Now he was not perfect; but he risk his life to stand against the selling of indulgences, and the abuse of power in the RC church.
had the RC church captured him he would have been burned at the sake like Huss.
so I don’t understand how you can say that Luther had something to gain. he actually had everything to lose, for all he new he was going to be killed.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Also, my point is that without the enormous sums of money that needed to be raised for the building of St. Peter’s (a magnificient building btw), there would not be the need, nor temptation, for the abuses in the sales of indulgences. Absent those abuses, it can be argued that Martin Luther would not have posted the 95 Theses. Absent taking that stand, it can be argued that Luther would not have proceeded to some of his more controversial (from the Catholic viewpoint) theological positions. All of course is speculation, but reasoned speculation nonetheless. Was St. Peter’s worth schism? If that is truly the question, then I suppose the answer would, of necessity, be “no”.

And you think Luther needed 95 thesis to argue the point against indulgences alone? Are you that gullible? Luther may have started out with good intentions but fully participated in constructing a whole new religion around the tortured ideas that he fabricated to quiet his own sick and scrupulous mind. He essentially declared war on the Catholic Church and put himself up as head theologian over men much more qualified. The man was demented and drunk on his own ego and had support from the Church’s enemies - the monarch. Have you ever read his later writings railing against the Jews that called for their persecution and confiscation of property? Luther sounded like a precursor for the Nazis. Let’s not forget that it was Protestant/Lutheran Germany that brought the world the enlightenment of Hitler. Luther was no holy man - he was a pure secularist and a mentally deranged one at that. Maybe its all a matter of bad sour kraut…

James