Sordid claims about popes?

[WJL]

This particular website, among other anti-Catholic and anti-Christian sites, makes certain sordid claims and polemics regarding popes throughout history which involve allegations of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, murder, etc., apparently in an attempt to try to “discredit” the Catholic Church… How should Catholics respond to anti-Catholics/Christians when they use these allegations?

For example here are the allegations listed on the linked site:

Fellow priests put one of the first popes, Sixtus III (432-40), on trial for seducing a nun. He was acquitted after quoting from Christ in his defense: “Let you who are without sin cast the first stone.”

1. Sergius III (904-11), known by his cardinals as “the slave of every vice,” came to power after murdering his predecessor. He had a son with his teenage mistress — the prostitute Marozia, 30 years his junior — and their illegitimate son grew up to become the next pope. With top Vatican jobs auctioned off like baubles, the papacy entered its “dark century.”

1. The 16-year-old John XII (955-64) was accused of sleeping with his two sisters and inventing a catalog of disgusting new sins. Described by a church historian as “the very dregs,” he was killed at age 27 when the husband of one of his mistresses burst into his bedroom, discovered him in flagrante, and battered his skull in with a hammer.

1. Benedict IX, (1032-48) continually shocked even his most hardened cardinals by debauching young boys in the Lateran Palace. Repenting of his sins, he actually abdicated to a monastery, only to change his mind and seize office again. He was “a wretch who feasted on immorality,” wrote Saint Peter Damian, “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.”

1. After massacring the entire population in the Italian town of Palestrina, Boniface VIII (1294-1303) indulged in ménages with a married woman and her daughter and became renowned through Rome as a shameless pedophile. He famously declared that having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other — which should make him the patron saint of Boston priests today. The poet Dante reserved a place for him in the eighth circle of Hell.

1. All pretense at decorum was abandoned when the papacy moved to Avignon in southern France for 75 years. Bon vivant Clement VI (1342-52) was called “an ecclesiastical Dionysus” by the poet Petrarch for the number of mistresses and the severity of his gonorrhea. Upon his death, 50 priests offered Mass for the repose of his soul for nine consecutive days, but French wits agreed that this was nowhere near enough.

1. Decamping back to Rome, the papacy hit its true low point in the Renaissance. (Church historian Eamon Duffy compares Rome to Nixon’s Washington, “a city of expense-account whores and political graft.”) Sixtus IV (1471-84), who funded the Sistine Chapel, had six illegitimate sons — one with his sister. He collected a Church tax on prostitutes and charged priests for keeping mistresses, but critics argued that this merely increased the prevalence of clerical homosexuality.

1. The rule of Innocent VIII (1484-92) is remembered as the Golden Age of Bastards: He acknowledged eight illegitimate sons and was known to have many more, although he found time between love affairs to start up the Inquisition. On his death bed, he ordered a comely wet nurse to supply him with milk fresh from the breast.

1. The vicious Rodrigo Borgia, who took the name Alexander VI (1492-1503), presided over more orgies than masses, wrote Edward Gibbon. A career highlight was the 1501 “Joust of the Whores,” when 50 dancers were invited to slowly strip around the pope’s table. Alexander and his family gleefully threw chestnuts on the floor, forcing the women to grovel around their feet like swine; they then offered prizes of fine clothes and jewelry for the man who could fornicate with the most women. Alexander’s other hobbies included watching horses copulate, which would make him “laugh fit to bust.” After his death — quite possibly poisoned by his pathological son, Cesar Borgia — this pope’s body was expelled from the basilica of Saint Peter as too evil to be buried in sacred soil.

1. Julius II (1503-13) is remembered for commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Sistene Chapel’s ceiling. He was also the first pope to contract “the French disease,” syphilis, from Rome’s male prostitutes. On Good Friday of 1508, he was unable to allow his foot to be kissed by the faithful as it was completely covered with syphilitic sores.

1. Incurable romantic Julius III (1550-55) fell in love with a handsome young beggar boy he spotted brawling with a vendor’s monkey in the streets. The pope went on to appoint this illiterate 17-year-old urchin a cardinal, inspiring an epic poem, “In Praise of Sodomy,” probably written by a disgruntled archbishop in his honor. • 11 May 2010

SOURCE/FURTHER READING: Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, (Yale, 2002); De Rosa, Peter, Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy (New York, 1988).

Could anyone with a knowledge of history confirm or deny the legitimacy of these claims or explain how this sort of thing fits into church history?

 

[WJL]

There is another claim that I heard from a Protestant apologist regarding Pope Julius II (which is how I discovered these above claims after attempting to research this claim) which is that after syphilis was first brought to Europe from the New World, a syphilis epidemic broke out and Pope Julius II was someone who contracted it.

He went on that, after this occurred, the pope called in his herbal healers who couldn’t treat the new disease which they knew little about. As a result, the pope is alleged to have consulted an alchemist and occultist called Paracelsus who popularized the use of harmful toxins, such as mercury, as medicine. Paracelsus is said to have “healed” the pope with mercury (quicksilver) and the pope is then said to have blessed Paracelsus and declared that all herbalists should be burnt at the stake as witches, thereby endorsing the use of mercury as a medicine.

This claim, of course, is attempting portray the church as “anti-science.” I’ve looked for any info online about this but, can’t find any. Could anyone with a better knowledge of church history confirm or deny the legitimacy of these claims?

 

[Poof]

Interesting . Any knowledgeable catholic on this topic? I know there have been a lot of horrible popes throughout our history but some of these are just so bad, such as number four, which debunks the Pope’s infallibility on faith and morals (doubt its true). Are there any truths to these accusations?

 

[DianaCC]

It’s all true. Unfortunately for confirmation I would have to send you to other secondary sources.

Why that church hasn’t collapsed in 2000 years is a miracle.

 

[Poof]

Alright, I can easily accept the others, however, I was under the impression that while we’ve had quite a number of horrible popes, they never taught anything that contradicted authentic Christian teachings in regards to faith and morals. Number four just states the opposite.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In its long, 2000-year history, the Catholic Church has been blessed with many very holy popes but there have also been a few not-so-holy popes. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not promise that the stewards (popes) set over His household (the Church) would always behave as they ought. Rather, He warned that the steward who abuses the servants in his care will be judged harshly upon His return. See Luke 12:41-48. Because the popes are our leaders we own them our obedience and submission. See Hebrews 13:17. We own them our obedience and submission even when their behavior is less than ideal because the popes sit on Jesus’ seat, like the Jewish scribes and Pharisees of old sat on Moses’ seat. See Matthew 23:1-3.

The Catholic Church never claimed that its popes are without sin, only that under certain, specific circumstances its popes are prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

 

[agnes_therese]

Interesting . Any knowledgeable catholic on this topic?

One of the sources listed at the bottom of the original post, Eamon Duffy, IS a “knowledgeable Catholic.”

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Peter denied Christ three times. Why isn’t he on this list?

 

[Philotheatoo]

When I look at what any Pope has done which points to our humanity and nature I think about Mark 8:

33
At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

 

[Saburo]

I would bet that I can find similar moral failings in the leadership of any Protestant church or any other religion that is at least 200 years old much less 2000 years.

It is worth noting that the author of the source book has written other books which present a positive view of the papacy.

amazon.com/Ten-Popes-Who-Shook-World/dp/0300176880/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1312458754&sr=8-6

 

[Poof]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t number four contradict our belief on papal infallibility?

1. After massacring the entire population in the Italian town of Palestrina, Boniface VIII (1294-1303) indulged in ménages with a married woman and her daughter and became renowned through Rome as a shameless pedophile. He famously declared that having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other — which should make him the patron saint of Boston priests today. The poet Dante reserved a place for him in the eighth circle of Hell.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I would bet that I can find similar moral failings in the leadership of any Protestant church or any other religion that is at least 200 years old much less 2000 years.

Warren Jeffs, Tony Alamo, and even that homophobic hate monger Fred Phelps come to mind.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t number four contradict our belief on papal infallibility?

Not necessarily. There’s a certain due process that a Pope must undergo in order to just invoke that.

 

[Dorothy]

It helps to remember what St. Catharine of Siena said:

“If the pope were satan incarnate I would rest in his bosom.”

What she was saying here is that she trusted the words of our Lord about being with us till the end of time, even if the pope was a great sinner. We need to keep our perspective and trust in the Lord, He will take care of everything.

We need to focus on the saints and what God’s grace has done for them. They are our models.

 

[Poof]

The pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. The pope mentioned in number four declared that having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other. Is there something im missing here? So, a pope is not infallible when it comes to faith and morals 24/7, he has to undergo some sort of process? :imsorry:

 

[ChadS]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t number four contradict our belief on papal infallibility?

I can’t comment on each and every example provided in the first post. There were indeed many bad popes and many of them ruled no better than their secular counterparts. They freely gave away high Church offices to friends and family members. Family members sometimes held enough sway to ensure that their progeny became Pope (and this is even after clerical celibacy had long been the norm in the western church).

The list is probably essentially accurate. As Catholics it does us no good to try and defend this behavior or write it off as the rantings of an anti-Catholic. We have to acknowledge it and disavow it. We also have to adequately explain how the person who is Pope is different than the office of the Papacy. This is probably where the argument will fall on deaf ears since in many anti-Catholics’ minds these examples only confirm what they believe about Catholicism and Catholics.

The 4th example doesn’t contradict infallibility since that Pope wasn’t attempting to speak infallibly. In his twisted mind he was giving his opinion and trying to make a grossly immoral thing moral. If the website was honest it would also list all the future saints and other holy people of the time that called each of these Popes out on their behavior. Of course I don’t have a list of that, but for every bad pope it seems there are a hundred shining examples of holy people doing the right thing and not afraid to confront the Pope when necessary.

ChadS

 

[DJK100]

Interesting . Any knowledgeable catholic on this topic? I know there have been a lot of horrible popes throughout our history but some of these are just so bad, such as number four, which debunks the Pope’s infallibility on faith and morals (doubt its true). Are there any truths to these accusations?

You have to take these accusations with a grain of salt. It is obvious an anti-catholic is making these claims and so is not necessarily an unbiased source. Also, a lot of their sources are not quoted. For instance you see a lot of “says a historian,” in the post. What historian? As for Boniface VIII he had a lot of secular enemies and it is not a surprise that a lot of his enemies would try to discredit him. I think even a circle of hell was devoted to him in Dante’s inferno. I have attached a link to the catholic encylopedia which pretty much outlines all the turmoil surrounded his Papacy. Much like todays politics it could be just a case of a lot of mud slinging. I will let you guys read it and make up your own minds.

newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm

 

[JRKH]

Alright, I can easily accept the others, however, I was under the impression that while we’ve had quite a number of horrible popes, they never taught anything that contradicted authentic Christian teachings in regards to faith and morals. Number four just states the opposite.

It says he “famously declared”, but what it does not say is that he “doctrinally taught”. there is a HUGE difference.
It would be interesting to know the source of this famous declaration. Understand that, I’m not saying that he did not say it, I only doubt that he “taught it” as a tenet of faith…

As another has already said, given the number of bad popes, and other clergy, it’s only by a miracle that the Church has not collapsed.

Peace
James

 

[DJK100]

Here is just a little about Boniface VIII from the Catholic Encyclopedia, see bolded particularly

In the meantime there was brewing at Paris the storm in which the pontificate of Boniface was so disastrously to close. Philip concluded peace with England, temporized with the Flemings, and made concessions to his subjects. Boniface on his side acknowledged, as aforesaid, the election of Albert of Austria, and brought to an end his hopeless conflict with the Aragonese King of Sicily. Otherwise he seemed politically helpless, and could only trust, as he publicly stated, in his sense of right and duty. Later events showed that in his own household he could not count on loyalty. In an extraordinary session of the French Council of State (12 March, 1303) Guillaume de Nogaret appealed to Philip to protect the Holy Church against the intruder and false pope, Boniface, a simonist, robber, and heretic, maintaining that the king, moreover, ought to call an assembly of the prelates and peers of France, through whose efforts a general council might be convoked, before which he would prove his charges. Such an assembly was called for 13 June, and met at the Louvre in Paris. The papal messenger with the aforesaid Briefs for the legate was seized at Troyes and imprisoned; Lemoine himself, after protesting against such violence, fled. At this assembly, packed with friends or creatures of Philip, the knight Guillaume de Plaisians (Du Plessis) submitted a solemn accusation against the pope in twenty-nine points, offered to prove the same, and begged the king to provide for a general council. The Colonna furnished the material for these infamous charges, long since adjudged calumnious by grave historians (Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., VI, 460-63; Giovanni Villani, a contemporary, says that the Council of Vienne, in 1312, formally absolved him from the charge of heresy. Cf. Muratori, “SS. Rer. Ital.”, XIV, 454; Raynaldus, ad an. 1312, 15-16). Scarcely any possible crime was omitted–infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc. The king asserted that it was only to satisfy his conscience and to protect the honour of the Holy See that he would co-operate in the calling of a general council, asked the help of the prelates, and appealed (against any possible action of Boniface) to the future council, the future pope, and to all to whom appeal could be made. Five archbishops, twenty-one bishops, and some abbots sided with the king. The resolutions of the assembly were read to the people, and several hundred adhesions were secured from chapters, monasteries, and provincial cities, mostly through violence and intimidation. The Abbot of Cîteaux, Jean de Pontoise, protested, but was imprisoned. Royal letters were sent to the princes of Europe, also to the cardinals and bishops, setting forth the king’s new-found zeal for the welfare of Holy Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm

 

[Corki]

The pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals. The pope mentioned in number four declared that having sex with young boys was no more a sin than rubbing one hand against the other. Is there something im missing here? So, a pope is not infallible when it comes to faith and morals 24/7, he has to undergo some sort of process? :imsorry:

No a pope is not speaking infallibly every time he speaks about faith and morals “24/7”. There are two types of infallibility - infallibility of the Pope and infallibility of the Church. The first is invoked when the Pope makes an ex cathedra proclamation such as the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. The second involves a teaching on faith and morals and is the voice of the entire Magisterium. The second is often communicated by a Pope making a doctrinal statement but must reflect the constant teaching of the Church.

The statement that is attributed to Pope Boniface VIII does not fall into either of those categories.