Wicked popes

[tryphon]

The “wickedness” of some Popes is a concept that has been amplified “ad hoc” by enemies of the Catholic Church. Even if you look at the Borgias and some of the other much maligned Popes of antiquity, keep this in mind:

1. We DO NOT know the circumstances surrounding the alleged criminal acts
2. We must place everything in context: different historical periods see things under a different light
3. We were not there and we do not know the circumstances nor the manner in which the persons involved justified their actions and atoned for their sins.
   Let’s have more trust in the wisdom of the people involved in these ALLEGED crimes…

 

[casslean]

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.

Humans are fallible. It is not reasonable to say “Well, I’ll allow SOME fallibility, but not THAT fallibility.” We are fallible. We are all subject to temptations of all kinds. To expect any of the Popes to be less fallible than you or I would be denying a part of their humanity.

Further, those Popes weren’t speaking ex cathedra when they were committing those crimes; the Pope is only infallible in matters regarding church teaching and church doctrine. While it might be upsetting to us to think that a Pope was able to bribe his way into the papacy, Pope Alexander VI did not then dictate, from his position as Pope, that church teachings permitted him to do so.

That doesn’t mean you can’t be disappointed in them, for turning away from the gifts God granted them in such a horrific way. But being disappointed in them does not mean that we condemn the Church because it happened.

And, yes, I do consider Peter’s denial of Jesus as being in the same category as those you listed above. He broke the first and most important Commandment - he denied the Lord.

 

[Jubilarian]

The “wickedness” of some Popes is a concept that has been amplified “ad hoc” by enemies of the Catholic Church. Even if you look at the Borgias and some of the other much maligned Popes of antiquity, keep this in mind:

1. We DO NOT know the circumstances surrounding the alleged criminal acts
2. We must place everything in context: different historical periods see things under a different light
3. We were not there and we do not know the circumstances nor the manner in which the persons involved justified their actions and atoned for their sins.
   Let’s have more trust in the wisdom of the people involved in these ALLEGED crimes…

1. Even Catholic historians acknowledge that evil doings occurred by some popes. We have enough history to draw reasonable conclusions in some instances.
   2)The “different historical periods” argument is weak. Some people make the same claims about the life of Jesus.
   3)One could argue that “we where not there” for a great deal of history. Again, weak. We work with what we have and enough information supports corrupt popes. I would love to defend against it as well but I refuse to bury my head in the sand. Not all crimes were “alleged”, there are documents supporting the acts.

 

[bisco]

no need to defend, and no need to lose sleep over it. as always, God is in control, not us. thanks be to God!

 

[Jubilarian]

Humans are fallible. It is not reasonable to say “Well, I’ll allow SOME fallibility, but not THAT fallibility.” We are fallible. We are all subject to temptations of all kinds. To expect any of the Popes to be less fallible than you or I would be denying a part of their humanity.

Further, those Popes weren’t speaking ex cathedra when they were committing those crimes; the Pope is only infallible in matters regarding church teaching and church doctrine. While it might be upsetting to us to think that a Pope was able to bribe his way into the papacy, Pope Alexander VI did not then dictate, from his position as Pope, that church teachings permitted him to do so.

That doesn’t mean you can’t be disappointed in them, for turning away from the gifts God granted them in such a horrific way. But being disappointed in them does not mean that we condemn the Church because it happened.

And, yes, I do consider Peter’s denial of Jesus as being in the same category as those you listed above. He broke the first and most important Commandment - he denied the Lord.

Yes it is reasonable to say I can “allow” one fallibility and not another. Are mortal sins greater than venial sins? Is not punishment meted out according to the crime? We can tolerate a man or woman that masturbates but we wouldn’t hopefully tolerate rape or murder.

Saying the horrific acts of some popes falls under the “we are all fallible” category seems to me an excuse. Sure, we are all fallible but at some point we have to call what themselves did wicked. Peter denied the Lord out of fear, and although it was wrong, can you equate that with a pope lusting in the flesh with many mistresses? Where’s the fear? Peter didn’t sin because of power. Yes Peter broke a commandment due to fear.

Also, I don’t condemn the church because it happened, I am simply very troubled by it, just as I was with the priest sex scandal. As far as speaking ex cathedral , my point is that he (the pope) has that capability, and to know that he was fornication and selling the papacy on one end and speaking with certainty about the church on the other is off the charts scary.

 

[casslean]

Saying the horrific acts of some popes falls under the “we are all fallible” category seems to me an excuse. Sure, we are all fallible but at some point we have to call what themselves did wicked. Peter denied the Lord out of fear, and although it was wrong, can you equate that with a pope lusting in the flesh with many mistresses? Where’s the fear? Peter didn’t sin because of power. Yes Peter broke a commandment due to fear.

Why is it an excuse? No one is saying it is right, or that it wasn’t terrible, or that it wasn’t sinful. It was terrible behaviour. We are saying that popes are human, and humans make mistakes. Humans fall. Humans are subject to temptation. It is part of our humanity. We can’t accept that popes are human, but then say that they should have less humanity (less capability to commit grievous sins) than any other human.

I’m not sure what you are seeking to uncover here. I’m sure everyone agrees that the Pope should not be committing adultery, or bribery, or murder. We just don’t agree that there is anything inherent in the office that prevents them from being subject to such temptation.

Personally, I take solace in knowing that the Church has continued, more or less unchanged, for 2000 years, despite the sins of these popes. If that isn’t evidence of God’s work, I don’t know what is.

 

[Jubilarian]

Why is it an excuse? No one is saying it is right, or that it wasn’t terrible, or that it wasn’t sinful. It was terrible behaviour. We are saying that popes are human, and humans make mistakes. Humans fall. Humans are subject to temptation. It is part of our humanity. We can’t accept that popes are human, but then say that they should have less humanity (less capability to commit grievous sins) than any other human.

I’m not sure what you are seeking to uncover here. I’m sure everyone agrees that the Pope should not be committing adultery, or bribery, or murder. We just don’t agree that there is anything inherent in the office that prevents them from being subject to such temptation.

Personally, I take solace in knowing that the Church has continued, more or less unchanged, for 2000 years, despite the sins of these popes. If that isn’t evidence of God’s work, I don’t know what is.

I think there is something “inherent” to being the the pope. I can understand sin will occur because he is just a man, but to what degree? You say, “subject to temptation” as if former pope sins were contemplated only. Remember, temptation is not sin. These popes sinned grievously.

If taking on the responsibility of leading the Catholic Church can involve such horrors, what does it say to us? If the pope can completely lose it, what chance do I have of reducing sin? I realize most of these acts happened decades ago but there is no way that it could be said that a destructive impact was not had . What I’m looking to “uncover” is, I think these long ago atrocities shatter the image of the Church, and if you think deeply enough about them, have the possibility of affecting ones belief in God.

Sometimes when things happen in years past, they become sort of “oh well”. I don’t want what these popes did to become oh well moments . We are talking about depraved minds in some cases with these popes. I understand he is only a man, but he is a very special man, and for these very special men to do what they did shocks the conscience beyond belief.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think there is something “inherent” to being the the pope. I can understand sin will occur because he is just a man, but to what degree? You say, “subject to temptation” as if former pope sins were contemplated only. Remember, temptation is not sin. These popes sinned grievously.

If taking on the responsibility of leading the Catholic Church can involve such horrors, what does it say to us? If the pope can completely lose it, what chance do I have of reducing sin? I realize most of these acts happened decades ago but there is no way that it could be said that a destructive impact was not had . What I’m looking to “uncover” is, I think these long ago atrocities shatter the image of the Church, and if you think deeply enough about them, have the possibility of affecting ones belief in God.

Sometimes when things happen in years past, they become sort of “oh well”. I don’t want what these popes did to become oh well moments . We are talking about depraved minds in some cases with these popes. I understand he is only a man, but he is a very special man, and for these very special men to do what they did shocks the conscience beyond belief.

You’re confusing the qualities of the office with the qualities of the man in it. Until you understand the difference between the two the fact that there have been bad popes will continue to plague you.

 

[tryphon]

I think there is something “inherent” to being the the pope. I can understand sin will occur because he is just a man, but to what degree? You say, “subject to temptation” as if former pope sins were contemplated only. Remember, temptation is not sin. These popes sinned grievously.

If taking on the responsibility of leading the Catholic Church can involve such horrors, what does it say to us? If the pope can completely lose it, what chance do I have of reducing sin? I realize most of these acts happened decades ago but there is no way that it could be said that a destructive impact was not had . What I’m looking to “uncover” is, I think these long ago atrocities shatter the image of the Church, and if you think deeply enough about them, have the possibility of affecting ones belief in God.

Sometimes when things happen in years past, they become sort of “oh well”. I don’t want what these popes did to become oh well moments . We are talking about depraved minds in some cases with these popes. I understand he is only a man, but he is a very special man, and for these very special men to do what they did shocks the conscience beyond belief.

Jubilarian, you are passing judgement on Popes, without having all the facts. The reports one finds today are skewed, usually via Protestant sources. We were not there. We do not know the true circumstances and we do not know if, when and how the Pope(s) repented and atoned for their sins. It is not OUR judgement that counts and we are taking for true what are only partial reports by people who usually had a vested interest in discrediting the Head of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Jubilarian]

You’re confusing the qualities of the office with the qualities of the man in it. Until you understand the difference between the two the fact that there have been bad popes will continue to plague you.

What are the qualities of the office?

 

[Jubilarian]

Jubilarian, you are passing judgement on Popes, without having all the facts. The reports one finds today are skewed, usually via Protestant sources. We were not there. We do not know the true circumstances and we do not know if, when and how the Pope(s) repented and atoned for their sins. It is not OUR judgement that counts and we are taking for true what are only partial reports by people who usually had a vested interest in discrediting the Head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Nah. Of course there are Protestant websites and literature that rail against popes, but there is reputable Catholic information to support their wicked behavior. There is such thing as righteous judgement. We call sin, sin, when we see it. The Catholic Church is not interested in discrediting itself. They know what these popes did. Yes, some reports are not trustworthy , however I think the church reports accurate history.

Sure, they could have repented, but a person could kill someone and repent but the damage is still done. We can’t bury our heads to the sins of the past.

 

[tryphon]

Nah. Of course there are Protestant websites and literature that rail against popes, but there is reputable Catholic information to support their wicked behavior. There is such thing as righteous judgement. We call sin, sin, when we see it. The Catholic Church is not interested in discrediting itself. They know what these popes did. Yes, some reports are not trustworthy , however I think the church reports accurate history.

Sure, they could have repented, but a person could kill someone and repent but the damage is still done. We can’t bury our heads to the sins of the past.

Respectfully, I doubt the veracity of even some historical Catholic sources, since those events happened at a time of internal strife.
Moreover, I do not consider myself worthy of judging the life, deeds and atonement of anyone, least of all a Pope. By embracing the critics, you do.

 

[casslean]

I think there is something “inherent” to being the the pope. I can understand sin will occur because he is just a man, but to what degree? You say, “subject to temptation” as if former pope sins were contemplated only. Remember, temptation is not sin. These popes sinned grievously.

Why? Because you want to believe that? Because you don’t want to be disappointed by these popes?

There is no Church teaching that suggests there is anything inherent to being the Pope, and moreover, by suggesting that there is - and that these men lacked it - you are also suggesting that God erred in allowing them to be raised to the papacy. That just isn’t consistent with what we know to be Church teaching.

Sure, they could have repented, but a person could kill someone and repent but the damage is still done. We can’t bury our heads to the sins of the past.

That can be said of anyone who commits a sin; God did not make forgiveness of sins contingent on there being no lasting damage. Why can you hold these popes to a higher standard than that imposed on them by God?

Moreover, how are people “burying their heads to the sins of the past”? We acknowledge that it happened. We acknowledge it was sinful. We hope these people repented. We just don’t allow it to shake the foundation of our belief in the Church.

 

[Jubilarian]

Respectfully, I doubt the veracity of even some historical Catholic sources, since those events happened at a time of internal strife.
Moreover, I do not consider myself worthy of judging the life, deeds and atonement of anyone, least of all a Pope. By embracing the critics, you do.

Actualy you gave me a good response. I would only say, how much of history can we trust then? Is church history, strife and all, without merit. Your right about judging,my point is that if these things happened, and it seems some did, we can call it for what it is. Thanks for awakening my senses though. Peace.

 

[Jubilarian]

Why? Because you want to believe that? Because you don’t want to be disappointed by these popes?

There is no Church teaching that suggests there is anything inherent to being the Pope, and moreover, by suggesting that there is - and that these men lacked it - you are also suggesting that God erred in allowing them to be raised to the papacy. That just isn’t consistent with what we know to be Church teaching.

That can be said of anyone who commits a sin; God did not make forgiveness of sins contingent on there being no lasting damage. Why can you hold these popes to a higher standard than that imposed on them by God?

Moreover, how are people “burying their heads to the sins of the past”? We acknowledge that it happened. We acknowledge it was sinful. We hope these people repented. We just don’t allow it to shake the foundation of our belief in the Church.

“Inherent” is a word meaning “characteristics”. Doesn’t it seem to you that good characteristics should be part of a pope? You may be right though, apparently a Christ like nature is not a prerequisite . People get disappointed by a Scout leader for example that falls short with sin. I think a pope is many notches above that.

I don’t think God erred because as was posted by another member, the Holy Spirit guides Cardinales and doesn’t make the ultimate decision.

But you are right, Church teaching is what matters. I let my emotions get in the way. I think that Protstants think we bury our heads in the sand. I should have avoided directing that at another Catholic, although some could stand a review of history, good and bad within the Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Trying to judge anyone else is, as the saying goes, “above our pay grade”.

Frankly I have my hands full trying to take up my cross daily and follow Him.

 

[Jubilarian]

I never made a call on their eternal destiny, so I wasn’t looking to judge them. As Catholics, we know what sin is and we point it out often. There’s a difference.

 

[Tajho]

Trying to judge anyone else is, as the saying goes, “above our pay grade”.

Frankly I have my hands full trying to take up my cross daily and follow Him.

Oh Yes!!!

 

[tryphon]

Actualy you gave me a good response. I would only say, how much of history can we trust then? Is church history, strife and all, without merit. Your right about judging,my point is that if these things happened, and it seems some did, we can call it for what it is. Thanks for awakening my senses though. Peace.

Peace to you, brother!
Incidentally, I see some similarity between this topic and the current criticism of the Crusades. I just finished reading the book “The glory of the Crusades” by Steve Weidenkopf and he gives a surprising account, seen, for once, from a Catholic (and non-reformist) point of view. Very good book! (sorry for the OT).

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What are the qualities of the office?

To start with, your idea that there is something “inherent” in being the Pope. To use a poor analogy, look at fatherhood. Mr. Snuffy is a father. He abuses his kids. Does the fact that Mr. Snuffy is a father who abuses his kids invalidate fatherhood or does it mean that Mr. Snuffy is a horrible father? Is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Snuffy’s mere status as a father somehow makes him incapable or should make him incapable of abusing his kids?