So-called "Bad" Popes

[Tommy999]

There is actually a book on this, aptly titled: “The Bad Popes”. It details the lives of the eight “worst” popes who, according to the wiki entry about the book, are:

–Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.

–Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
–Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy

–Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy

–Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.

–Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

–Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony

–Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Background:
I am not Catholic bashing. On the contrary, I am an inquirer who is currently discerning whether to enter RCIA. In my discernment process, I have gone through phases of discovery and evaluation where some Catholic doctrines and beliefs that were puzzling or foreign to me all of a sudden clicked and made total sense, while also at times I wonder if some of the bad stuff could potentially be a show-stopper for me unless I have a good explanation for why they happened or why God allowed it to happen.

Question:
Assuming the facts in the book are correct, how do Catholics explain or defend the evidence that God doesn’t always ensure that the supreme leader of the Catholic Church is the “cream of the crop” when it comes to being a model of moral behavior?

Doesn’t God take His blessings away from such a person who so blatantly disregards the Lord’s moral code, or at least until he repents contritely and seeks reconciliation?

Is it a, “Boys will be boys” kind of defense?

Was the moral bar set so low during their era of history?

I personally think it’s like when there were some bad kings in Israel in the OT and some of their behavior was so bad that God allowed some bad things to happen to God’s people, but that God always provided forgiveness and a way of escape and protection if they turned to Him.

I think modern popes have been very good overall, by the way, and I have admired the ones in my lifetime.

All insights are appreciated.

 

[e_c]

None of the moral failures you mentioned are as bad as Peter’s failure in the courtyard. (Note also the scolding he gets from the Lord at Caesarea Philippi when he speaks privately - viz., not as the public leader of the Twelve.)

You might benefit from some reading on the Donatist controversy. We don’t believe that the operation of grace is dependent on the holiness of the minister but rather the character of the office the minister occupies.

 

[PluniaZ]

We should take these accusations with a grain of skepticism. The Pope has always played an important political role in Europe following the fall of the western Roman Empire. As such, the Pope had to get his hands dirty in political affairs - Rome has been sacked, pillaged and conquered countless times over the past 2000 years by countless different tribes and empires. The people of central Italy looked to the Pope as their leader to protect them amidst the chaos of the Middle Ages, and often times they themselves rebelled against his political leadership as in the Commune of Rome in the 12th century.

Nearly all of these “bad Popes” occur in the Middle Ages, when Europe was completely divided into countless little fiefdoms battling each other for petty territorial gains. If a feudal lord felt the Pope hurt his interests, he would have no problem going to war with the Pope and writing all kinds of slanderous accusations against him. There really is no way to verify whether muckraking accusations against the Medieval Popes are true or not. They are just accusations written down by the many, many political enemies the Pope had in the Middle Ages.

And some of these accusations are just silly. Boniface VIII is a bad Pope because Dante made fun of him in the Divine Comedy? Clement VII is a bad Pope because the Holy Roman Empire sacked Rome?

 

[1ke]

Assuming the facts in the book are correct,

That’s a **huge **assumption.

Only one example, Alexander VI, who had many sexual sins and failings-- and too great of an affection for his kinfolk-- was an excellent pope in many regards. He founded hospitals and helped the poor, encouraged the arts and science, set up fair courts, fortified the defenses of the city (the Romans loved him). So, if someone’s sexual sins are the hallmark of whether or not they are a “bad” Pope-- well, are they the mark of whether or not we are all “bad” people?

Usually these sorts of books have an axe to grind. There are certainly more balanced life histories of these popes available. I encourage you to look them up on NewAdvent.Org

how do Catholics explain or defend the evidence that God doesn’t always ensure that the supreme leader of the Catholic Church is the “cream of the crop” when it comes to being a model of moral behavior?

He hasn’t from the beginning. Peter denied him, James and John wanted fame and to lord it over others, Paul murdered Christians, Judas betrayed him.

David-- God’s anointed-- slept with his friend’s wife, had him murdered, and took her for his own wife. And yet, she was the mother of Solomon.

Abraham, God’s chosen, had sex with his slave and beget a child with her.

God works with our humanity, our frailty, and raises us above it. And, despite our human frailties, the Church persists.

Doesn’t God take His blessings away from such a person who so blatantly disregards the Lord’s moral code, or at least until he repents contritely and seeks reconciliation?

No. Nor does he call down punishment upon them.

God loves and holds out his grace to all. Whether we accept it or not, that is up to us.

Is it a, “Boys will be boys” kind of defense?

No. But it is certainly a “viewing the complicated political landscape of the Renaissance through a 21st century lens”. The people of Rome loved Alexander VI despite his promiscuous past. Yes, it was a scandal. In a time of scandals.

Was the moral bar set so low during their era of history

Yeah, it was.

I personally think it’s like when there were some bad kings in Israel in the OT and some of their behavior was so bad that God allowed some bad things to happen to God’s people

And also some good things. David and Bathsheba’s son Solomon was the wisest man ever.

 

[MichaelP3]

There is actually a book on this, aptly titled: “The Bad Popes”. It details the lives of the eight “worst” popes who, according to the wiki entry about the book, are:

–Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.

–Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
–Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who “sold” the Papacy

–Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy

–Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.

–Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

–Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors’ reserves on a single ceremony

–Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Background:
I am not Catholic bashing. On the contrary, I am an inquirer who is currently discerning whether to enter RCIA. In my discernment process, I have gone through phases of discovery and evaluation where some Catholic doctrines and beliefs that were puzzling or foreign to me all of a sudden clicked and made total sense, while also at times I wonder if some of the bad stuff could potentially be a show-stopper for me unless I have a good explanation for why they happened or why God allowed it to happen.

Question:
Assuming the facts in the book are correct, how do Catholics explain or defend the evidence that God doesn’t always ensure that the supreme leader of the Catholic Church is the “cream of the crop” when it comes to being a model of moral behavior?

Doesn’t God take His blessings away from such a person who so blatantly disregards the Lord’s moral code, or at least until he repents contritely and seeks reconciliation?

Is it a, “Boys will be boys” kind of defense?

Was the moral bar set so low during their era of history?

I personally think it’s like when there were some bad kings in Israel in the OT and some of their behavior was so bad that God allowed some bad things to happen to God’s people, but that God always provided forgiveness and a way of escape and protection if they turned to Him.

I think modern popes have been very good overall, by the way, and I have admired the ones in my lifetime.

All insights are appreciated.

I personally have my issues with Catholicism, but the “bad Popes” in history would not be one of them. I still think it is sad though. Benedict IX was a disgrace to the chair of Peter. But then again, as a teenager being elected to such a position, what is to expect? Having a powerful family? It is even noted as the Tusculan Papacy with a few successive Popes from this family ?

So the “bad popes” would not be my concern. Rather the election process through history and the actual line from Peter( although it has been discussed, still not a fact he ever was in Rome) to Francis. How did every single one of these Popes( in my day I researched all of them extensively) came to be in this position? Took me a while to realise it has not always been the Cardinals and Conclave… (And then there is even the Papal Veto for some time)

Regards

 

[Tommy999]

None of the moral failures you mentioned are as bad as Peter’s failure in the courtyard. (Note also the scolding he gets from the Lord at Caesarea Philippi when he speaks privately - viz., not as the public leader of the Twelve.)

You might benefit from some reading on the Donatist controversy. We don’t believe that the operation of grace is dependent on the holiness of the minister but rather the character of the office the minister occupies. .

Hi e_c.
I am not familiar with the Donatist Controversy but will try to read up on it.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? I’m not certain I understand what you mean.

For example, I don’t care much for the morality of the current US president, but I respect and hold in high regard the office of the Presidency of the United States. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Tommy999]

We should take these accusations with a grain of skepticism. The Pope has always played an important political role in Europe following the fall of the western Roman Empire. As such, the Pope had to get his hands dirty in political affairs - Rome has been sacked, pillaged and conquered countless times over the past 2000 years by countless different tribes and empires. The people of central Italy looked to the Pope as their leader to protect them amidst the chaos of the Middle Ages, and often times they themselves rebelled against his political leadership as in the Commune of Rome in the 12th century.

Nearly all of these “bad Popes” occur in the Middle Ages, when Europe was completely divided into countless little fiefdoms battling each other for petty territorial gains. If a feudal lord felt the Pope hurt his interests, he would have no problem going to war with the Pope and writing all kinds of slanderous accusations against him. There really is no way to verify whether muckraking accusations against the Medieval Popes are true or not. They are just accusations written down by the many, many political enemies the Pope had in the Middle Ages.

And some of these accusations are just silly. Boniface VIII is a bad Pope because Dante made fun of him in the Divine Comedy? Clement VII is a bad Pope because the Holy Roman Empire sacked Rome?

Hi PluniaZ;,
Sounds like you are saying that it is important to keep things in historical context. Point well taken.

However, it’s hard to find much good to say about Pope John XII if what they say is accurate. He reportedly was killed by the husband of his lover while said pope was in the middle of having sex with her.

If I understand Catholicism correctly, he may even be in hell due to unconfessed mortal sin at the time of his death. It’s sad and ironic to think that the leader of the Church for a period in history could be in hell.

 

[Tommy999]

Usually these sorts of books have an axe to grind. There are certainly more balanced life histories of these popes available. I encourage you to look them up on NewAdvent.Org .

Understood. I don’t know the author’s background. Perhaps he does have an axe to grind.

He hasn’t from the beginning. Peter denied him, James and John wanted fame and to lord it over others, Paul murdered Christians, Judas betrayed him.

David-- God’s anointed-- slept with his friend’s wife, had him murdered, and took her for his own wife. And yet, she was the mother of Solomon.

God works with our humanity, our frailty, and raises us above it. And, despite our human frailties, the Church persists. .

All good points. Thanks for putting things in proper context. All of this makes sense when I reconsider it in light of biblical history.

No. Nor does he call down punishment upon them.

God loves and holds out his grace to all. Whether we accept it or not, that is up to us. .

I was always taught that our sins separate us from God until we repent and confess them to Him. Don’t we have to repent to God in order to receive God’s grace and forgiveness? Otherwise, what is the purpose of going to Reconciliation if God forgives us no matter what? Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. If I did, my apologies.

Yeah, it was. .

Aren’t God’s people, especially the leader of the flock, supposed to be a cut above the norm from a spiritual and moral perspective? After all, he’s the one holding the keys to the kingdom according to Catholicism, if I understand correctly.

And also some good things. David and Bathsheba’s son Solomon was the wisest man ever.

Another point well taken. To me, this illustrates how God can forgive and reconcile us to Him if we truly repent and come back and seek Him with our whole heart.

 

[e_c]

Hi e_c.
I am not familiar with the Donatist Controversy but will try to read up on it.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? I’m not certain I understand what you mean.

For example, I don’t care much for the morality of the current US president, but I respect and hold in high regard the office of the Presidency of the United States. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, you’ve got it… If I go to Mass with a real priest, and he actually says the right words with the right intent with the right matter, bread and wine actually become Our Lord. That he is a fornicating, thieving, blasphemer would not change this. That he is a serial killer would not change this. That he is a - well, you get the picture.

If John XII had convened an ecumenical council and taught publicly through that council the Immaculate Conception, then it would have become binding teaching.

The power of the sacred offices depends on the authority of Christ, in Whose authority and power a sacred minister participates in virtue of his ordination. It is Christ operating through the minister in a sure and authoritative way. This also responds to the perennial concern of Protestants about mediation… It IS Christ mediating, but He is mediating within another human being… like He is continually being enfleshed on Earth.

The Donatists put holiness as a condition for sacramental validity. Thank God they were wrong… One would have to know so much about their priests - and the level of holiness is, of course, arbitrary.

 

[twf]

You should also look at the OT high priests. Their spiritual authority came from God and remained, as an objective reality of their office, even when they personally fell short. Look at Caiaphas in John 11:49-51 - he condemned God in the flesh to death yet he still “spoke by the Spirit” by virtue of his office. It comes down to freewill. God entrusts a ministry to someone but they still must choose how they’ll use it. It’s also important to remember that it is Christ who works through his priests (including the Pope)… it is HIS holiness, not their own, that sustains the priestly ministry.

 

[Wesrock]

Popes are guaranteed infallibility when formally exercising their magisterial teaching authority on faith and morals. This protects the Church, it’s not a superpower for new revelation. But popes are not guaranteed to be impeccable. Bad popes are not a theological ossue for Catholics. Yes, we’ve had some terribly bad ones. We’ve had ones eho have behaved inexcusably. That makes it all the more amazing to me that the deposit of faith has remained so well guarded despite such bad popes.

There is a push among some for a purer and purer church. It has caused many schisms and heresies in the past. Some Christians believe that where sin is the Church cannot be, and so see such behavior as disproofs of the RCC’s authority. But Catholics have always recognized that the Church is made up of sinners from the pope on down. Jesus consecrated Judas Iscariot at the last supper and gave Judas his own body and blood in the Eucharist. Some see this as a warning of sinners in high places.

The Church also sees the parable of the weeds among wheat and the parable about the fisherman hauling in a net of good and bad fish to sort through as an explanation that the Church would contain both sinners and saints. That there are weeds in the Church doesn’t disprove the Church’s authority.

 

[PluniaZ]

Hi PluniaZ;,
Sounds like you are saying that it is important to keep things in historical context. Point well taken.

However, it’s hard to find much good to say about Pope John XII if what they say is accurate. He reportedly was killed by the husband of his lover while said pope was in the middle of having sex with her.

If I understand Catholicism correctly, he may even be in hell due to unconfessed mortal sin at the time of his death. It’s sad and ironic to think that the leader of the Church for a period in history could be in hell.

Pope John XII reigned in the middle of the 10th Century - the darkest of the dark ages. There were no sovereign nation states in Europe, just scattered city-states constantly at war with each other. The Pope was an object of manipulation and domination by Italy’s various feudal lords. It would be the easiest thing in the world for one of the Pope’s political enemies to make up a slanderous accusation about him and leave it in writing as the only written account of the Pope’s life.

There’s a reason all your “bad Popes” fall into the Middle Ages - every prince and duke across Europe was fighting every other prince and duke, and the Pope was in the middle of it. The Pope’s enemies made up whatever accusations against him they wanted.

 

[e_c]

Pope John XII reigned in the middle of the 10th Century - the darkest of the dark ages. There were no sovereign nation states in Europe, just scattered city-states constantly at war with each other. The Pope was an object of manipulation and domination by Italy’s various feudal lords. It would be the easiest thing in the world for one of the Pope’s political enemies to make up a slanderous accusation about him and leave it in writing as the only written account of the Pope’s life.

There’s a reason all your “bad Popes” fall into the Middle Ages - every prince and duke across Europe was fighting every other prince and duke, and the Pope was in the middle of it. The Pope’s enemies made up whatever accusations against him they wanted.

Or, it was because the men being elected then were often elected merely because of political expedience and not for any reason of actual ecclesial talent or personal holiness.

There have been some TERRIBLE men elected to the papacy. The contrary claim is fantastical.

 

[Wesrock]

There is a lot of slander out there about some popes. Some of it just outright lies easily called out once context is given. And we should clarify and correct specifics where we can to build understanding.

But as a general point, infallibility is not impeccability, there will be weeds among wheat, and we can acknowledge that some officials within the church have been quite the sinners without undermining the Catholic understanding of the Church and its authority. To say we’ve had immoral popes does nothing to undermine the Church or its teaching about papal primacy, supremacy, or infallibility.

 

[boomerang]

Why should the Popes be any better than the Apostles? The Popes were selected by men. The Apostles were selected by Christ Jesus Himself, and the Apostles were, by and large, complete jerks until they got the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Look at what jerks they were:

Luke 9:46
Then an argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. **Really? Egotistical jerks! **

Luke 9:52-54. And he (Jesus) sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?”*** Really?* They wanted to burn alive every man, woman, and child in that entire town because they were rude to them? Jerks! **

Matt 15:22-23. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”** Really? They’re just going to blow her off like this? This distraught woman? Jerks! **

John 12:5-6. “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” Judas did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money bag, he used to take from what was put into it. **Really? Stealing money. Betraying Jesus. Suicide. Total jerk. **

And let’s not forget Peter’s denial, “Jesus? Jesus who?” Jerk! And then there’s Paul, a murderer! A murderous jerk!

There will always be bad Popes, bad bishops, bad priests, bad Presidents, bad Congressmen, bad teachers, bad neighbors, bad parents, bad bosses…There is only perfection in heaven.

 

[Jestersage]

–Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

And yet he gave us Saint Francis Borgia.

 

[7_Sorrows]

–Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

And yet he gave us Saint Francis Borgia.

St. Francis was a Borgia?! I knew he was from a wealthy family.

 

[e_c]

St. Francis was a Borgia?! I knew he was from a wealthy family.

Different St. Francis.

 

[Tommy999]

Popes are guaranteed infallibility when formally exercising their magisterial teaching authority on faith and morals. This protects the Church, it’s not a superpower for new revelation. But popes are not guaranteed to be impeccable. Bad popes are not a theological ossue for Catholics. Yes, we’ve had some terribly bad ones. We’ve had ones who have behaved inexcusably. That makes it all the more amazing to me that the deposit of faith has remained so well guarded despite such bad popes.
There is a push among some for a purer and purer church. It has caused many schisms and heresies in the past. Some Christians believe that where sin is the Church cannot be, and so see such behavior as disproofs of the RCC’s authority. But Catholics have always recognized that the Church is made up of sinners from the pope on down. Jesus consecrated Judas Iscariot at the last supper and gave Judas his own body and blood in the Eucharist. Some see this as a warning of sinners in high places.

The Church also sees the parable of the weeds among wheat and the parable about the fisherman hauling in a net of good and bad fish to sort through as an explanation that the Church would contain both sinners and saints. That there are weeds in the Church doesn’t disprove the Church’s authority.

Yes, I guess that’s the key part (bolded in red) that I wasn’t factoring in to my thinking when I first raised this topic. If the Holy Spirit is truly protecting the Church (and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, as Scripture says), then it makes it even more amazing that the papacy and the Catholic Church have kept marching on after all these centuries and millennia.

Please understand that my background is more evangelical, where incidents like Jimmy Swaggart’s (I think Tim Staples studied under him when he was Protestant) moral failings led to his diminished reputation and influence as an evangelist – in part because of his moral shortcomings, but also because he failed to submit to the disciplinary authority of his denomination, if I understand what happened correctly.

I haven’t studied the time when there were two competing popes (one in Rome and one in France), but I will assume that was short-lived and didn’t do any damage to doctrine or the basic tenets of the Church, correct?

 

[Wesrock]

The Church’s position is that there is only one legitimately appointed Pope at any time, whether or not he occupies the city or there are other claimants. There have been a couple of confusing instances in Church history, the foremost being the Great Western Schism, but the Church has affirmed who was valid Pope throughout the whole ordeal, and this was affirmed in the resolution to the conflict as well. No harm was done to doctrine or tenets to the Church, as you say.