Historical Filth- When Popes attack!

[Squonk]

It'd be nice if You provided us the sources of information, especially that one could, esp. when it comes to reformation-times popes, expect a high level of bias, just as one of yourself ("Popes throughout the ages have always faced a pressing problem. namely "how the hell can I get the cash to pay for my lavish lifestyle and huge retinue of totty?". For a considerably large part of the history of Catholicism, the solution proved to be in prostitution", "fornications of the average Pope")
Still, much of the information seems to be true. Even catholic encyclopedia condemns some of these. Worth to remember that many of these achieved their position unruly and were deposed one way or another. They did not represent the church as much as their own or their family's ambition.
When it comes to Sabinian, however, He didn't close the granaries. He just refused to give the grain completely for free.
When it comes to Urban II, You seem to mae Him responsible for hostility between Christian and Muslim world. That is nonsense.
"Medieval holocaust" - blah

 

[bigmeat]

for the first one do you mean sodomy in todays terms, or back then which was any sex not with the man on top in missionary position

 

[Arminius]

I'm suprised to not see Alexander IV up there. Although he wasn't so much with a vice, just all around horrid.

 

[Squonk]

He's on the second list

 

[Dragonlord]

You'll notice that the Counter-Reformation was actually a remarkable clean-up. The Papacy these days bears no resemblance to the murky past.

It's also worth remembering that genuinely good men became Pope. I just don't write about genuinely good men.

Granted. I don't think anyone, not even Catholic-bashers, would say all (or even most) popes were degenerates or evil.

But... just combine the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope with the knowledge of what some of those popes were like..... *shudder*

 

[Panda]

It's also worth remembering that genuinely good men became Pope. I just don't write about genuinely good men.

I'm glad you don't

 

[Plotinus]

[Dragonlord] You know, of course, that according to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, the Pope is only infallible when making pronouncements "ex cathedra", which literally means "sitting down" but means in his capacity as pastor of the church. It doesn't mean that the Pope never makes errors in his normal life or can do no wrong (that would be more like the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints!).

It's worth pointing out that many of the sources for these characters are *extremely* biased. For example, there's no real reason to think that Gregory VII actually poisoned anyone. He was certainly much hated in his day, but this was largely because he was concerned to reform the church as a whole and the Papacy in particular and end the days of people like Benedict IX (who was truely shocking) - and most people don't like reform when it means giving up their own corrupt lifestyles. Gregory's methods certainly left something to be desired - such as his actions against priests' wives - but like many reformers he evidently felt compromise was not an option. Gregory certainly didn't introduce the ideal of clerical celibacy, which had been around for some five centuries at least. And in the event, Gregory's reforms helped to put the church and the Papacy back on track for a long time: Gregory VII is a saint in the Catholic Church (though of course according to Gregory *all* Popes are saints, making him the only Pope to have canonised himself, which is pretty good going) and the whole period is sometimes known as "Hildebrandine" (from his real name). In fact I believe that Gregory VII is the only Pope to be at least as well known - if not better known - by his real name rather than by his Papal name, which reflects his importance in the reform movement even before he was Pope. He paved the way for the autocratic Papacy of Innocent III and his ilk - it was only some centuries later that we see the degeneration of the Papacy into the remarkable excesses of the Renaissance era. And the rumour that he poisoned people was spread by his enemies in his lifetime, but I don't believe there's any particular reason to give it any weight.

 

[Dragonlord]

[Dragonlord] You know, of course, that according to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, the Pope is only infallible when making pronouncements "ex cathedra", which literally means "sitting down" but means in his capacity as pastor of the church. It doesn't mean that the Pope never makes errors in his normal life or can do no wrong (that would be more like the Calvinist doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints!).

Yes, of course - but just imagine some of these weirdos laying down church law 'ex cathedra' and the Church declaring it 'infallible' just because it was a Pope saying it...
IIRC, the doctrine of infallibility is of a much later date (19th century? you'd know better than I), but it still shows how idiotic that doctrine is..
Of course, I guess the political rationale behind the doctrine is clear enough; no one has the right to question the Pope's pronouncements...

BTW, the other thing, all Popes autmatically being saints...

 

[Huzzamaster]

I don't trust whatever this stupid book is. It sounds biased! This is just another attempt to bash Roman Catholics! I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm an avid and devout follower of the papal throne! I believe in infallibility! But the thing is, the pope is only infallible when he is speaking (making a proclamation) on moral issues, and he is united with the bishops!

The Pope rules!

He stopped Atila and his Huns, he saved Europe countless times, stood firm throughout heresies and all-around kicked butt!

 

[Evie]

I don't consider sending so-called heretics to the flames one after the other a noble accomplishment.

Your mileage may vary, but if it does (and you were not just kidding)...whoa man.

The Catholic Church NOW is pretty decent. The Catholic Church from the third/fourth century up to the twentieth century deserves no praise and a lot of criticism. (Note, of course, that for all that they claim, the protestants with their witch-burning crazes are HARDLY any better). The Inquisition, heretics trial, crusades, forced conversion of the native americans (and destruction of their cultural legacy), etc - none of this speaks positively of the church.

 

[Plotinus]

[Dragonlord] Yes, of course, the doctrine of Papal infallibility was only made official at Vatican I, in 1870, although of course it had been mooted a lot earlier than that. But of course none of the Popes in Kafka's article would have known or appealed to it, so imagining them claiming infallibility whilst engaging in their naughty antics is pretty anachronistic.

I don't consider sending so-called heretics to the flames one after the other a noble accomplishment.

Your mileage may vary, but if it does (and you were not just kidding)...whoa man.

The Catholic Church NOW is pretty decent. The Catholic Church from the third/fourth century up to the twentieth century deserves no praise and a lot of criticism. (Note, of course, that for all that they claim, the protestants with their witch-burning crazes are HARDLY any better). The Inquisition, heretics trial, crusades, forced conversion of the native americans (and destruction of their cultural legacy), etc - none of this speaks positively of the church.

It doesn't speak positively of the Catholic Church if you only list the negative things. Plenty of positives too, you know, such as the first universal education system in Europe (under Charlemagne) or the first free education systems in modern Europe (under the Jesuits). You may also wish to remember that it was the Catholic Church that spoke out against slavery long before anyone else did (Pope Eugene IV in the 1430s) and it was their representatives in South America who spoke out against the cruelties of the Conquistadors (Bartolomeo de Olmedo, Antonio de Montesimos, Bartolome de las Casas, Antonio Vieira, etc) - indeed you may wish to remind yourself what Paraguay was like when it was run by the Jesuits between 1609 and 1750 - the closest thing to a Utopian society that's ever been achieved.

It's easy to present a simplistic view of history when you only look at one side of things. But we all know that history isn't that simple. The Catholic Church was not some kind of completely evil institutional ogre any more than it was full of inoffensive saints. For every Torquemada there was a Francis of Assisi. Do you really think that, say, Matteo Ricci was a bad man? Saying that nothing the Catholic Church did between the fourth and the twentieth centuries is worthy of praise is simply shockingly ignorant, and there's no excuse for it.

I do wonder why people always criticise the church for the Crusades, yet you never hear a whisper of criticism for the Muslims who stole all those lands from the Christains in the first place... they're just as bad as each other!

 

[Kafka2]

"Historical Filth" articles have never been intended as level-headed and rational explorations of history. They are scurrilous and muck-raking trawls through that past's underwear drawer. In such articles I will shamelessly mug up on juicy bits, and gleefully exaggerate points for comic effect- but not to deceive or mislead. Therefore I offer no apologies for the contents of any one of these. And I'm not interested in providing balance either.

Having said that, I never include material from sources I consider to be unduly suspect, and I have never approached any article with the aim of promoting intolerance or bigoted prejudice against any people. This article is not an exercise in Catholic-bashing, any more than the others were Paraguay-bashing, Scotland-bashing, Woman-bashing or just-about-everything-else-bashing.

This is Papal history. The Papacy got over it, so I don't see why anyone else should have an excuse.

 

[cidknee]

It's also worth remembering that genuinely good men became Pope. I just don't write about genuinely good men.[/QUOTE]


wheres the fun in that?
this is my first time seeing one of these articles... Awesome, gonna look for more

 

[Evie]

Granted, Plotinus. However, my post was mostly a kneejerk reaction to the poster I was replying to, who, if he was being serious, well...

I tend to have the bad habit to try to balance out extreme position I read about by speaking out in favor of the other extreme, which is what seems to have happened here.

 

[Plotinus]

I tend to have the bad habit to try to balance out extreme position I read about by speaking out in favor of the other extreme, which is what seems to have happened here.

I have exactly the same habit. You'd never guess, would you!

Personally I do like a bit of ridiculously one-sided history and Kafka always supplies that superlatively... just so long as people are aware there's always another side to every story!

 

[Huzzamaster]

I don't see the Church during that time as horrible! Plotinus did great at showing a more sensible view. I have admired all the popes and Catholicism throughout the history of the Church. The Church may not look as though the perfect place, does not claim to be, and is not! It is designed to lead to a more perfect union with God on earth! The Church as a whole has never lost sight of this goal!

 

[Kafka2]

All of them?

 

[Huzzamaster]

Lol, mis-statement! I just got corrected by a whale-raping abomination! I have admired many of them, some of them had several issues, but the church as a whole has always been admired by me!