Wicked popes

[Tajho]

Since there is no list of who were the “wicked popes” that you are concerned with, this is a general statement.

Check history MOST of these men served as a corporal leader as well as a Pope. And the ones that were not such were deeply involved in the politics of their time. There once was a time when the Papal States encompassed most of Italy.

Often the actions that mark those Popes were done as secular leaders not as a religious leader. They had two posts to fulfill. And that does not justify them but goes a long way to explaining them.

Events like the defense of Europe at the beginning of the last millennium, the Babylonian captivity (to France), questionable ascension to the papacy, generalship of an army, the Inquisition, the protestant riff and subsequent wars all show the papacy in a bad light. Again, these often are more political and secular than part of that pope’s religious role.

This is just a thought to consider when discussing this subject.

 

[ServusHumilis]

My point has nothing to do with Protestant thought, it has to do with normal human contemplation. I have a more difficult time picturing such wickedness as the supreme representative of the church on earth.

Perhaps in God’s view, what some of us see as a wicked pope was exactly what was needed at any given period if and when there was one. None of us have any idea idea how the world could be different today just as the result of the actions of a single pope. Also, perhaps needed changes that might not have otherwise been realized came later as a result of a “bad pope” or two.

 

[Jubilarian]

I see where you are going . It does seem odd though that wickedness would be needed in a pope to accomplish good. Some of these acts were grotesque.

 

[getysbg]

I, too, have always been taught that the Pope is Christ’s representative on Earth, and the the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals who vote for him. It’s hard to reconcile those facts (or more accurately, beliefs) with the fact that some of them were evil and corrupt.

The Holy Spirit guided them but did not make the decision for them. All too often, we fail to take the advice of those who are to guide us.

 

[georget]

“Let not your heart be troubled”. In the end they’ll get theirs and you’ll get yours.
May Gods peace be with you

 

[Jubilarian]

Painfully true.

 

[casslean]

I don’t think it is even necessary to invoke the Holy Spirit in regards to the pope. No pope should ever have been evil, period. There have even been more than one. It seems incomprehensible, yet it happened. Even if doctrine was not changed, it greatly mars the church from the outside looking in to know such evil took place in our hallow haven.

If the Pope was incapable of sin, wouldn’t that be suggesting that by nature of his office, he is not human but divine? It would be only a divine being who is incapable of sin; while you characterise these acts as “evil”, it is probably more appropraite to call them sinful.

We should also remember that Peter, the rock upon which Jesus built his church and the foundation of the papal succession, denied Jesus three times before the crucifixion. Can you imagine a greater act of sin than to turn your back on Jesus in his hour of need? Jesus seems to have accepted and acknowledged that even the leaders of His Church on earth were going to be flawed, sinful humans. Why should we, mere humans, expect them to be greater than that?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’d be curious who OP thinks was a wicked pope. The reason I ask is, in part, because this seems like an awfully subjective area. For example, I remember sinead o’connor tearing up JPIIs picture on national tv. She probably thought he was wicked, but her thinking it doesn’t make it so.

This is a good point. Perhaps an example could be provided.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I, too, have always been taught that the Pope is Christ’s representative on Earth, and the the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals who vote for him. It’s hard to reconcile those facts (or more accurately, beliefs) with the fact that some of them were evil and corrupt.

Then you were taught wrong. Prior to 1059 Popes were not chosen by a college of cardinals at all. IN fact the modern idea of collegiality came much later.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_selection_before_1059

newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

For more than half the life of the Church the system did not look as it does now. I suspect that is where you might find “wicked popes” But also many saints.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t think it is even necessary to invoke the Holy Spirit in regards to the pope. No pope should ever have been evil, period. There have even been more than one. It seems incomprehensible, yet it happened. Even if doctrine was not changed, it greatly mars the church from the outside looking in to know such evil took place in our hallow haven.

Christ selected the first Pope, St. Peter. St. Peter was a sinful man, but he was still selected by Christ to be the first Pope. That is where you need to start your research. Why did Christ select a sinful man to be the head of his Church? What does this mean to the idea that only a non-sinful man should be Pope? And what of the other disciples, all sinners yet entrusted by Christ to spread the Word.

 

[tabycat]

I see where you are going . It does seem odd though that wickedness would be needed in a pope to accomplish good. Some of these acts were grotesque.

Before anyone here can give you anything but a general answer, you have to post which Pope did what before anyone here can answer your questen.

I have not read anything here that any poster (other then you) on this thread that a Pope had to be wicked to do good. So, which Pope did wickedness? What was the wickedness?

 

[Church_Militant]

No…seeing as there was ay least one bad apostle, and all the rest were full of fear, doubt, and were themselves sinners. See Luke 5:[8] Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No…seeing as there was ay least one bad apostle, and all the rest were full of fear, doubt, and were themselves sinners. See Luke 5:[8] Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.

Good point. Jesus himself chose imperfect people from the beginning. And they fought and disagreed and carried on. But even over outright denial (Peter) and betrayal (Judas) and doubt (Thomas,) the Church and the Promise of Salvation and Jesus carried on.

Ever think about that? Those men saw, touched, and heard Jesus. And still failed. But God made their failures his victory. Same with the Popes…

 

[bisco]

you need to understand the times in which those popes who do not meet your expectations lived. a thorough knowledge of those societies will help you understand how it could happen, and help ease your fears. we’re just coming out of the clergy abuse scandal, have you forgotten so quickly?

 

[powerofk]

Before anyone here can give you anything but a general answer, you have to post which Pope did what before anyone here can answer your questen.

I have not read anything here that any poster (other then you) on this thread that a Pope had to be wicked to do good. So, which Pope did wickedness? What was the wickedness?

Here’s a post from the blog talking about some of the so-called “wicked popes”. There were several who were quite corrupt.

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-worst-pope-ever

In addition, there were several anti-Popes (mostly during the Western Schism, and thought by Catholics in countries whose bishops supported them to be the legitimately elected Popes) who were quite scandalous in and of themselves. In fact, until St. John XXIII chose “John XXIII” as his name, the anti-pope from the 1400s who also called himself “John XXIII” was still thought by many to have been the legitimately elected pope from the time. He was well known to have had many mistresses and many illegitimate children - which was also quite common for most kings of his time.

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t use the word “leader” as loosely as you might. We are talking about a man that speaks for Holy Mother Church. No one else fits that description. To align a pope with just another organizational leader is fool hearty . Wickedness is not just a word, it means demonic activity. I love the church, and because I do I am hurt by what occurred and have trouble coming to terms with this issue. I wondered if others did. So far, one person sees things as I do.

Please list the names of the “wicked” popes.

 

[Jubilarian]

If the Pope was incapable of sin, wouldn’t that be suggesting that by nature of his office, he is not human but divine? It would be only a divine being who is incapable of sin; while you characterise these acts as “evil”, it is probably more appropraite to call them sinful.

We should also remember that Peter, the rock upon which Jesus built his church and the foundation of the papal succession, denied Jesus three times before the crucifixion. Can you imagine a greater act of sin than to turn your back on Jesus in his hour of need? Jesus seems to have accepted and acknowledged that even the leaders of His Church on earth were going to be flawed, sinful humans. Why should we, mere humans, expect them to be greater than that?

Again, there seems to be the idea that I am implying that a pope can’t sin. Not true. Of course a pope can sin as the apostles and all of us do. But there are greater and lesser sins. I wouldn’t put Peter’s denial of Christ in the same category as murder or rape. I would never expect perfection from a human being,but I don’t think I should expect horrendous crimes and murder from a man that speaks ex cathedra.

 

[Jubilarian]

Please list the names of the “wicked” popes.

Ok.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php

If you don’t agree, disprove it.

 

[Jubilarian]

**Alsohttp://www.catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-worst-pope-ever

 

[Jubilarian]

Before anyone here can give you anything but a general answer, you have to post which Pope did what before anyone here can answer your questen.

I have not read anything here that any poster (other then you) on this thread that a Pope had to be wicked to do good. So, which Pope did wickedness? What was the wickedness?

You have to be kidding. Do I have to do even the basics? Okay, here you go:

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/the-worst-pope-ever