what rotten Popes?

[Lounge Daddy]

we had a few rotten Popes, didn't we?
which were they?

thank God they were so busy sinning they didn't teach their actions as moral practice.

[OLAM Dad]

Benedict, for starters. Benedict IX that is.

Urban VI
John XII

[Lil Red]

hang on, i'll look in my [u]Catholicism for Dummies[/u] book

Alexander VI
Benedict IX

that's all it lists, but it also says (and this was before Pope Benedict XVI):

[i]Some colorful characters are interspersed among the bunch of 265 popes. 78 of them are canonized saints, and ten more are beatified, which is one step short of sainthood, so approximately 32% of the papacy has been really good. Of all the rest, only twelve are actually considered morally evil and corrupt scoundrels.[/i]

[Semalsia]

How can a pope be morally evil? I thought popes were chosen by God.

[rkwright]

ugh I just read up on Alexander VI..


terrible man!

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI[/url]

[MichaelFilo]

Before we judge the moral character of Popes... wait lets just not do it at all.

God bless,
Mikey

[Lil Red]

i'm just quoting the book, people a book that was written by Fr. John Trigilio Jr. (a priest, EWTN co-host of "Council of Faith" and President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy) and Fr. Kenneth Brighenti (a priest, EWTN co-host, and managing editor of "Sapienta" magazine) [from the book as well]

[afdchick]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='969868' date='May 3 2006, 02:53 PM']
How can a pope be morally evil? I thought popes were chosen by God.
[/quote]

Popes are elected by Cardinals I thought? The Pope is still a human and is not perfect. There were definitely some bad popes. The pope as a man is not infallable.

[rkwright]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='969885' date='May 3 2006, 02:13 PM']
Before we judge the moral character of Popes... wait lets just not do it at all.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

and why not?? While the Pope's teachings on faith and morals [i]can[/i] be infallible, his actions are never perfect. When he is elected Pope, he doesn't lose his human qualities or automatically become a morally perfect person.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='969868' date='May 3 2006, 12:53 PM']
How can a pope be morally evil? I thought popes were chosen by God.
[/quote]Bingo.

Or you could chose to ignore your own God provided intellect and just not question anything a cleric does.

Your choice.

[MichaelFilo]

Certainly right to question his actions, but to denounce a pope as evil, especially being a laymember is hardly appropriate. Thats the job for other popes to do, because only they stand as their equals, occupying the seat of St. Peter. And of course, Jesus, who judges all men. Although no man ought to judge other men...

I have the book, it's wonderful, but alas... to denounce someone as morally evil would, at least from what seems to be the prevailing attitude on this forums, be unbecoming of a charitable person. Only God does that, or the hierarchy, which obviously cannot denounce that which it is under.

God bless,
Mikey

[Domine ut Videam]

yup....Alexander VI!

[Lil Red]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='969987' date='May 3 2006, 04:36 PM']I have the book, it's wonderful, but alas... to denounce someone as morally evil would, at least from what seems to be the prevailing attitude on this forums, be unbecoming of a charitable person. Only God does that, or the hierarchy, which obviously cannot denounce that which it is under.

God bless,
Mikey[/quote]i agree that their wording could've used a little tweaking, but why are you taking me to task for just quoting the book? unless i am misunderstanding your intent, and i apologize if i am

[Guest JeffCR07]

We can, and should, denounce what a person [i]does[/i] as being evil. What we cannot do is denounce a [i]person[/i] as evil. The two are very different propositions. We have the obligation for the former, but we lack the authority for the latter. This being said, it is of course permissible to point to the actions of different pope's and say that what they did was wrong, but we cannot say "so and so was an evil man."

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

Jas, you've become unreasonable. Everyone knows you understand the distinction between the actions of the man filling the office of the papacy and his teachings.

It appears you have merely become morally self-righteous and arrogant, judging everyone as being so inferior to you that they don't even deserve you in their Church so you're going to find one that's more of a showcase for saints rather than a hospital for sinners. It's absurd and unchristian-- you are sinning against Christ in the judgement you are rendering upon the actions of individuals, of popes and laymen alike.

There is a difference between what is taught and what is practiced. That which is taught we ought to judge against scripture and tradition and conscience; that which is practiced by any individual has absolutely no bearing on that. The sin of a man does not have any bearing on the truth of his God. otherwise we might as well just throw out the God of Israel, his people never lived up to what He taught or what Moses taught... Moses didn't even live up to it.

[jasJis]

Al,
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I'm making a judgement on the human actions of humans. Why couldn't I? What's unreasonable about that? It's unreasonable to close your eyes and not recognize human error, thinking that what a Churchman does is 'perfect', just as it's unreasonable to paint ALL Churchmen as corrupt. What is unreasonable?

[Lounge Daddy]

this is helpful... thanx

was Alexander VI just a punk thug?
thank God for protecting the Church from him and all evil attacks

God bless The Church and long live the Pope

[Aloysius]

[quote name='jasJis' post='970776' date='May 4 2006, 10:40 AM']
Al,
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I'm making a judgement on the human actions of humans. Why couldn't I? What's unreasonable about that? It's unreasonable to close your eyes and not recognize human error, thinking that what a Churchman does is 'perfect', just as it's unreasonable to paint ALL Churchmen as corrupt. What is unreasonable?
[/quote]
What is unreasonable about this stance is that you know better-- you know all Catholics don't consider churchmen perfect. That's the whole point of it all-- a hospital for sinners who don't always or necessarily even often practice what they preach. You know we believe in a difference between infallibility in teaching and inpeccability in life-- the only impeccable people would be Jesus and Mary.

I know you understand the difference here. It is unreasonable to attempt to paint the Catholic position as considering popes perfect. No one considers all churchmen or the hierarchy perfect.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='970958' date='May 4 2006, 11:21 AM']
this is helpful... thanx

was Alexander VI just a punk thug?
thank God for protecting the Church from him and all evil attacks

God bless The Church and long live the Pope
[/quote]

did you read the wiki article I posted? I realize wiki might not be the greatest source but it would be a start...

apperently committed his first murder at 12

bought his way into the Papacy (wiki says he actually paid off the cardinals, with money from the indulgences, to gain his power)

had his daughter married in one of the Vaticans most eleborate weddings... thats right his daughter

[quote]Alexander's successor on the Throne of St. Peter, Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini, who assumed the name of Pope Pius III (1503), forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of Alexander VI's soul, saying, "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned."[/quote]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='971205' date='May 4 2006, 02:38 PM']
...Pope Pius III (1503), forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of Alexander VI's soul, saying, "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned."
[/quote]

tragic and hilarious at the same time

ya, i read the entire wiki article at work last night. thanks for the link
history is a pretty interesting thing