Corrupt

[PiousTemplar]

How do I find out why alot of the Popes were corrupt during the Renaissance?

This is starting to make me get bad thoughts about Papal Infabillity. I believe it, but these things sort of make me wonder.

For example: Pope Alexander VI. There is no doubt he was corrupt. The question is, how did he even get elected into papacy in the first place? Surely they would know if he was morally impaired?

Another example: Pope Julius II. I don’t know much about this Pope but from what I have read, he had a bitter rivalry with Pope Alexander VI for the papacy, which when Alexander won he made refuge at Ostia, from Borgia’s ‘wrath’. Does this suggest that Popes sometimes abused their power to take out their opponents?

He then went to Paris, where he incited Charles VIII of France to undertake a conquest of Naples, which then, started the First Italian War.

This information is from Wikipedia, which is quite a reliable site. How did these things happen (I spose this is a stupid question) and how did the Church stop it?

 

[paduard]

Popes, like anyone else, come under the provisions of possessing free-will and being subject to temptation and sin. In other words no one is impeccable, including any Pope.

As regards the thread into infallibility - I defer this to others more knowledgeable in that area.

Regards.

 

[seagal]

Papal infallibility means only that the Pope (and through him, the Church) is without error when issuing doctrines or dogma regarding faith and morals. It doesn’t have anything to do with his personal morals or lack thereof. Here is an excellent article about it in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which will explain it much better than I could.

As for why so many clergy were corrupt in the Renaissance period, I have no idea. Except that the church was an institution of political power in those days, and as they say “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

 

[JRKH]

PT,
You ask good questions. Ones that don’t have simple answers.
As I sit here thinking about it a number of factors fllod my mind so quickly that I don’t think that I could get them all down quickly or accurately enough. But I’ll try.

Temporal power - fall of Rome
Once Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire, the Church and her bishops enjoyed high status. As the Western Roman Empire collapsed, with it’s attendant loss of civil authority, the Church increasingly took on these duties and thus, as a result of these two factors, became much more involved in civil affairs and Temporal power than previously. This duality brought about a situation that was not ideal for temporal “political necessity” was not always in line with spiritual desires or needs.

Political necessities political structure after the fall of Rome and into the Renaissance
The socio-politcal structure that emerged after the fall was one that was very disorganized and feudal in nature and required a great deal of diplomatic skill, but also fostered great desire on the parts of various rival factions to have friendly relations with The Church. This could be acheived one of two ways. Either the factions could change to accomodate the Church (not likely among materialistic rivals), or the factions would have to infiltrate the church with their own families or those sympathetic to their families and causes…
Thus it was that families would, by various means, see to it that they had family members in high church office…The higher the better.

Those who were corrupt not interested in “Spiritual” matters.
However, this unfavorable situation did not prove disasterous for Church teaching for, even though there we many “political” bishops and even popes, there were also many good and Holy men. And then, even as now, there were many who were troubled and struggled between the temporal and the spiritual.
Those Churchmen, yes even popes, who were “corrupt” generally did not have concern about Church teaching as a whole. They were primarily inerested and focused on Temproal matters and so teachings on faith and morals were not effected by such men.

Regulating influence of the “ekklesia” prevents bad decisions related to teaching…
The many good and Holy men, often working behind the scenes in the Church, could and did excersize a balancing influence over the Church, protecting (through the Holy Spirit) the teachings of the Church. So - While an individual Pope might be quite corrupt, this combination of “disinterest” (on his part) in things spiritual and good and holy Churchmen surrounding such corrupt men prevented any bad teachings…

Of couse you understand that the above is extremely oversimplified but I hope it give you some comfort and perhaps some new ways of approaching the problem of corrupt churchmen.

Peace
James

 

[PiousTemplar]

Wow, cheers for the explanation!

 

[mcrow]

Well, keep in mind that not everything the Pope says falls under infallibility. I believe there are only a handful of times in the history of the church where the Pope spoke infallibly.

So, it’s prefectly plausible that those corrupt Popes of the day never spoke infallibly.

It’s testament to the Church being chosen by God and that the Church has survived all of the dark times that it has. We admit the free will of every human, yet through God’s Grace the church continues to thrive inspite of all of the forces over it’s history that try to bring it down.

 

[fhansen]

How do I find out why alot of the Popes were corrupt during the Renaissance?

This is starting to make me get bad thoughts about Papal Infabillity. I believe it, but these things sort of make me wonder.

For example: Pope Alexander VI. There is no doubt he was corrupt. The question is, how did he even get elected into papacy in the first place? Surely they would know if he was morally impaired?

Another example: Pope Julius II. I don’t know much about this Pope but from what I have read, he had a bitter rivalry with Pope Alexander VI for the papacy, which when Alexander won he made refuge at Ostia, from Borgia’s ‘wrath’. Does this suggest that Popes sometimes abused their power to take out their opponents?

He then went to Paris, where he incited Charles VIII of France to undertake a conquest of Naples, which then, started the First Italian War.

This information is from Wikipedia, which is quite a reliable site. How did these things happen (I spose this is a stupid question) and how did the Church stop it?

Original Sin is alive and well, just as the Church teaches. So, great as it would be to find perfection in human beings, you won’t. We all fall short, as scripture says, save one, the Lord Jesus Christ.;

 

[John21652]

PT,
You ask good questions. Ones that don’t have simple answers.
As I sit here thinking about it a number of factors fllod my mind so quickly that I don’t think that I could get them all down quickly or accurately enough. But I’ll try.

Temporal power - fall of Rome
Once Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire, the Church and her bishops enjoyed high status. As the Western Roman Empire collapsed, with it’s attendant loss of civil authority, the Church increasingly took on these duties and thus, as a result of these two factors, became much more involved in civil affairs and Temporal power than previously. This duality brought about a situation that was not ideal for temporal “political necessity” was not always in line with spiritual desires or needs.
…

Peace
James

Good post.

It should be remembered that when the western Roman Empire fell, the eastern Roman Empire still held sway in Constantinople. The eastern Emperors regained the western empire for a while, but after the fall of the western Emperor it was the Papacy that filled the civil vacuum thanks to the risen status of the Church after Constantine. The Church held vasts tracts of land and controlled great wealth. Politically it became the shepherd of the peoples who formerly lived under Roman rule. Even when the Visigoths under Aliric took and plundered Rome in 408, the papacy under Innocent I held firm with its Christian values. Nearly fifty years later Pope Leo I went o see Attilla The Hun and persuaded him to leave Rome alone.In As the broken western empire gradually formed itself into nation states, the Papacy and the Church held western Europe together. Of course, during this period politics was a part of the Papal role. Politics, as we well know, is not a stable persuit. The papacy itself became a battleground for political control. Notwithstanding, the Catholicism of those involved never swayed, or altered. The Bishops, Priests and Monastries were the glue that held Europe together. Through this political turmoil and time of change, the Church held together the values that later transformed Europe into a Christian kingdom.

In the year 800, Charles the Great marched to Rome with his all conquering army to pay homage to Pope Leo III. Amidst great pomp and ceremony Leo III showed great respect for Charles. At Mass on Christmas Day, Pope Leo placed the Imperial crown onto Charle’s head and the pontiff bowed to the new Ceaser. Historian Sir James Bryce, in his tome The Holy Roman Empire (London 1984), says “from that moment modern history begins”. After Charlemagne’s death political turmoil again was the hallmark of European politics. The last effective Pope of that period was Nicholas I, who ruled from 858=67. After that, things got messy as powerful Roman families saw the papacy as a prize. One of the worst was the Theophylacts. In 882 John VIII became the first Pope to be assassinanted - beaten to death by his own entourage. Stephen VI had his immediate predecessor but one, Formosus, disinterred and enthroned in his pontifical robes so he could be condemned for perjury and misuse of his powers. The three fingers of his right hand which he had used to bless his flock were hacked off and his body thrown into the River Tiber. Not long after, supporters of Formosus incarcerated and then strangled Stephen. However, these strange goings on did not necessarily mean they were inadequate governors of the Church. As JRKH points out, the Church structure operated admirably thanks to many good men in high office. John X was brought to the papacy by the Theophylact family organised a coalition of Italian states against the Muslims who had been harassing Roman territory for sixty years. John XI, the bastard son of Marozia Theophylact sanctioned a reform that was to have a major impact on the development of Christian Europe. He took under the direct protection of the papacy a community of Benedictine monks from an abbey in Bergundy called Cluny.For a hundred years, Cluny had an immense influence and effect. Between 1073 and 1119 three Popes came from Cluny. It was the Cluniac reformers who eventually emancipated the clergy from the interference of lay powers. In 1073 Poe Gregory was elected Pontiff. He brought to a head the relationship between Pope and temporal rulers. Then Emporer, Henry IV, was excommunicated by Gregory and in 1077 Henry sought out Gregory at Canossa in northern Italy and stood barefoot in the snow and begged forgiveness. Christianity and Europe blossomed.

 

[tonyrey]

If corruption had undermined the dogma of papal infallibility sceptics would have produced an example of an obviously false doctrine long ago…

There has never been a dogma of papal impeccability!

 

[weilj2]

First of all none of us is perfect and that includes the Pope. God works in mysterious ways that we cannot possibly understand in our present consciousness. the Pope once told Napoleon that the clergy had yet to destroy the Church and neither would he. He was acknowledging the fact that no one is perfect and none of us posess the power to destroy the ministry that God has built through Christ here on Earth. We can never be certain why there were less than honorable Popes but maybe God was showing us that no one can bring down the Church. That the Church is not a human institution. What would be more convincing to those who dont believe than the Church surviving two thousand years of human nonsense. I wont go into papal infallability in this response but there is a common misconception out there that it means the Pope is perfect and that is not what it means. You can have an “evil” Pope who is still infalliable. We should also be careful that we do not judge others. None of us is worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thruough Grace alone can we attain sainthood. It is best not to call anyone evil, no matter what they have done for we ourselves have plenty of sin to keep us busy.

 

[John21652]

If corruption had undermined the dogma of papal infallibility sceptics would have produced an example of an obviously false doctrine long ago…

There has never been a dogma of papal impeccability!

:tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

Good post.

It should be remembered that when the western Roman Empire fell, the eastern Roman Empire still held sway in Constantinople. The eastern Emperors regained the western empire for a while, but after the fall of the western Emperor it was the Papacy that filled the civil vacuum thanks to the risen status of the Church after Constantine. The Church held vasts tracts of land and controlled great wealth. Politically it became the shepherd of the peoples who formerly lived under Roman rule. Even when the Visigoths under Aliric took and plundered Rome in 408, the papacy under Innocent I held firm with its Christian values. Nearly fifty years later Pope Leo I went o see Attilla The Hun and persuaded him to leave Rome alone.In As the broken western empire gradually formed itself into nation states, the Papacy and the Church held western Europe together. Of course, during this period politics was a part of the Papal role. Politics, as we well know, is not a stable persuit. The papacy itself became a battleground for political control. Notwithstanding, the Catholicism of those involved never swayed, or altered. The Bishops, Priests and Monastries were the glue that held Europe together. Through this political turmoil and time of change, the Church held together the values that later transformed Europe into a Christian kingdom.

In the year 800, Charles the Great marched to Rome with his all conquering army to pay homage to Pope Leo III. Amidst great pomp and ceremony Leo III showed great respect for Charles. At Mass on Christmas Day, Pope Leo placed the Imperial crown onto Charle’s head and the pontiff bowed to the new Ceaser. Historian Sir James Bryce, in his tome The Holy Roman Empire (London 1984), says “from that moment modern history begins”. After Charlemagne’s death political turmoil again was the hallmark of European politics. The last effective Pope of that period was Nicholas I, who ruled from 858=67. After that, things got messy as powerful Roman families saw the papacy as a prize. One of the worst was the Theophylacts. In 882 John VIII became the first Pope to be assassinanted - beaten to death by his own entourage. Stephen VI had his immediate predecessor but one, Formosus, disinterred and enthroned in his pontifical robes so he could be condemned for perjury and misuse of his powers. The three fingers of his right hand which he had used to bless his flock were hacked off and his body thrown into the River Tiber. Not long after, supporters of Formosus incarcerated and then strangled Stephen. However, these strange goings on did not necessarily mean they were inadequate governors of the Church. As JRKH points out, the Church structure operated admirably thanks to many good men in high office. John X was brought to the papacy by the Theophylact family organised a coalition of Italian states against the Muslims who had been harassing Roman territory for sixty years. John XI, the bastard son of Marozia Theophylact sanctioned a reform that was to have a major impact on the development of Christian Europe. He took under the direct protection of the papacy a community of Benedictine monks from an abbey in Bergundy called Cluny.For a hundred years, Cluny had an immense influence and effect. Between 1073 and 1119 three Popes came from Cluny. It was the Cluniac reformers who eventually emancipated the clergy from the interference of lay powers. In 1073 Poe Gregory was elected Pontiff. He brought to a head the relationship between Pope and temporal rulers. Then Emperor, Henry IV, was excommunicated by Gregory and in 1077 Henry sought out Gregory at Canossa in northern Italy and stood barefoot in the snow and begged forgiveness. Christianity and Europe blossomed.

John, your post deserves a bigger compliment than mine! :tiphat: :tiphat: