Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI not so bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dominikus28

Guest
I read in one of Fr John Hardon’s talks the following:
Or, the critics point out that America was discovered during the pontificate of Pope Alexander VI, who is described as “probably the most corrupt pontiff in 2000 years of Catholic history” – without distinguishing between Rodrigo Borgia before he became pope and Alexander VI, whose defense of Christian faith and morals was among the most outstanding in Catholic history.
therealpresence.org/archives/Christopher_Columbus/Christopher_Columbus_003.htm

This makes it sound as if all the bad things told about Rodrigo Borgia/Pope Alexander VI have been mostly lies. I have tried to find more information about this, whether all the bad stuff was a myth or not, but I can’t find anything, and I can’t find anywhere where Fr Hardon elaborates on Alexander VI.
 
I read in one of Fr John Hardon’s talks the following:

therealpresence.org/archives/Christopher_Columbus/Christopher_Columbus_003.htm

This makes it sound as if all the bad things told about Rodrigo Borgia/Pope Alexander VI have been mostly lies. I have tried to find more information about this, whether all the bad stuff was a myth or not, but I can’t find anything, and I can’t find anywhere where Fr Hardon elaborates on Alexander VI.
One of the better treatments of him i have read is in Will Durant’s series. I don’t recall which volume, but one supposes it’s the one entitled “Renaissance”. Durant had no motivation to whitewash Alexander VI. But, considering the age in which he lived, he wasn’t anywhere near as bad as people make him out to be.

Possibly his worst acts as Pope were his support of his son, Cesare Borgia, in his wars. But even then, war was endemic to Italy at the time. It was eat or be eaten, even for the papacy, and the papacy had repeatedly been under the dominion of secular rulers before. Cesare was born before Alexander became Pope. As far as is truly known, at least Alexander was chaste after becoming Pope. Alexander was known for “selling red hats”; i.e., appointing cardinals who basically “bought” the position. That was not entirely uncommon at the time, and cardinals were not necessarily even priests then. It was not something anyone would countenance now, but it was typical of the time because all rulers did the same thing within their own powers. Much of that was to finance the wars. But it has to be admitted he really did pacify the regions under the dominion of the Church, relieving them of looting and brigandage.
 
This makes it sound as if all the bad things told about Rodrigo Borgia/Pope Alexander VI have been mostly lies.
I don’t think it makes that assertion at all.
I have tried to find more information about this, whether all the bad stuff was a myth or not, but I can’t find anything, and I can’t find anywhere where Fr Hardon elaborates on Alexander VI.
newadvent.org/cathen/01289a.htm

Some yes, some no, some we may never know for sure.
 
One of the better treatments of him i have read is in Will Durant’s series. I don’t recall which volume, but one supposes it’s the one entitled “Renaissance”. Durant had no motivation to whitewash Alexander VI. But, considering the age in which he lived, he wasn’t anywhere near as bad as people make him out to be.

Possibly his worst acts as Pope were his support of his son, Cesare Borgia, in his wars. But even then, war was endemic to Italy at the time. It was eat or be eaten, even for the papacy, and the papacy had repeatedly been under the dominion of secular rulers before. Cesare was born before Alexander became Pope. As far as is truly known, at least Alexander was chaste after becoming Pope. Alexander was known for “selling red hats”; i.e., appointing cardinals who basically “bought” the position. That was not entirely uncommon at the time, and cardinals were not necessarily even priests then. It was not something anyone would countenance now, but it was typical of the time because all rulers did the same thing within their own powers. Much of that was to finance the wars. But it has to be admitted he really did pacify the regions under the dominion of the Church, relieving them of looting and brigandage.
Chaste after becoming Pope? Highly doubtful - after all, he moved his mistress Giulia Farnese into a palace next to the Vatican shortly after becoming Pope. She was thereafter nicknamed ‘the bride of Christ’ (and less interestingly and more obviously ‘the Pope’s w**re’) Alexander even got upset at her for leaving Rome for a while to visit her sick brother!
 
Chaste after becoming Pope? Highly doubtful - after all, he moved his mistress Giulia Farnese into a palace next to the Vatican shortly after becoming Pope. She was thereafter nicknamed ‘the bride of Christ’ (and less interestingly and more obviously ‘the Pope’s w**re’) Alexander even got upset at her for leaving Rome for a while to visit her sick brother!
Giulia Farnese lived with Lucrezia Borgia there. Lucrezia was, of course, the object of many a vicious tale, none of which have stood the test of scholarship. There is no historical evidence whatever that Alexander had sexual relations with Giulia after he was made pope. He was, however, renowned for his loyalty and solicitation for those who, for whatever reason, were dear to him. He was that way to a very serious fault.

Of course, Alexander had enemies and the salacious stories back then made our contemporary politically-based ones pale in comparison. The “bride of Christ” allegation itself paled in comparison to other bogus stories about Alexander. Modern scholarship has pretty much laid such tales to rest. The Giulia story isn’t entirely resolved, and probably never will be. Regardless of the story about the sick brother, she did leave from time to time and ultimately left Rome permanently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top