Corrupt Popes

[rkwright]

A claim I hear a lot against the Church is 'the corrupt Popes of the Middle Ages'. OF course normally when I ask which ones the person doesn't know, but just throws a general 'grenade' our way calling them all corrupt. So who are they? Do they exsist? What did they do? How to properly defend the Church in this?

The only thing I know is that even when these Popes were around, Church teaching never changed. Even while the human factor of the Chuch can choose wrong, the teachings of the Church are (and have always) been good and right.

Edited January 14, 2006 by rkwright

[thessalonian]

Well first of all what point are they trying to make. If it's against infallibility of the Pope, their objection is rather pointless. We don't claim impeccability for the Pope. Thus your point is well taken. The ones who were corrupt, there were a few, were busy being corrupt and paid little attention to doctinal matters or corrupting dogma. There is an interesting story in this regard. There was a man, I believe it was Victor, who wanted to be Pope. He got together with a queen, theodora as I recall was her name. She had a forvorite heresy called monophysitism which had to do with the nature of God. I can look up all the details later if you like. She agreed to help him be pope if he would agree to install her corrupt doctrine. Well she got him in but when he got in he couldn't find it in him to corrupt the Church. She exiled and persucuted him and he still would not submit.

Now another point about sinful popes. Do Protestants believe that Apostles and Prophets infallibibly gave us scripture? Guess what. Peter catered to the Jews in Galations. He even denied our Lord. David was a sinner who took his friends wife after having him killed in war. Hophni and Phineas had a little sex thing going in the doorway of the tent of the meeting which they were supposed to be gaurding. Does this prove anything regarding truth? Even Paul says "the good that I would do I do not while the evil that I would not do I do". So shall we rip his pages right out of the Bible. I think not.

Blessings

[ruso]

It is certain that the lessons of the church did not change, but those Popes existed.
Dante in the divine comedy, load hard against the Popes with earth ambitions like Nicolas III or Bonifacio VIII. Although it is possible to be discussed on it, anyway the Pope Celestino V said of Bonifacio VIII:
Enter to reign like a fox, governed like a lion and died like a dog.
Another example is the Borgia Popes, they are the only Popes that do not have buried in the Vatican, nevertheless first Calixto III was pious and charitable, although prohibit the relations with the Jews on the basis of laws that their predecessors no longer applied.
Of the second Alejandro VI takes all the legend, had sons like Cesar or Lucrecia, one became rich and arrive at the papado with corruption.
Nevertheless he was a great defender of orthodoxia and reformed monasteries and religius orders.
The bad fame arrive to them because they were not Italians, but Aragonese, a kingdom that now comprises of Spain, they fought by the power in turbulent times and they were never accepted in Italy.

[furay]

Alexander VI. Ugh. Just, ugh.

[Ziggamafu]

What I like to say is this: the Church is bigger than her bad apples. She is bigger than her current pope. Don't judge the bushel by the peck.

(good reading: "Saints and Sinners" by [I forget]...)

[YMNolan]

I think the strongest point that we can make is that Church teaching never changed despite the corruption of some of the popes.

Actually, when you think about it, it's amazing that the Church survived the reigns of these corrupt men. Today we live in a society where people won't trust an entire government because they don't like its leader. That just shows you that the Church is God's will and even when we're under a sinful pope, His teaching will endure.

Despite murderous, selfish, greedy, scandalous (okay enough adjectives!) popes, the Church is still intact, still growing on a worldwide scale, and still promoting the message of love that began with Christ over 200 years ago.

[Laudate_Dominum]

What has always cracked me up is the fact that there have been so many popes but even the best anti-Catholic books only manage to conjure up a handful of "terrible" popes. If I were to write a book on the wicked deeds of the monarchs of England I could fill many volumes.
Much of the "bad pope" stuff is sensationalised.

[photosynthesis]

one of my agnostic friends has tried to get me to read "papal sin" by Gary Willis for a long time. still haven't read it. still don't want to.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 19 2006, 01:34 AM']one of my agnostic friends has tried to get me to read "papal sin" by Gary Willis for  a long time.  still haven't read it.  still don't want to.
[right][snapback]860767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, I wish that book was a historical survey of corrupt popes, instead it is a snide tract for the justification of dissent in the Church. The impetus of the book as far as I can tell is to undermine the Church's teachings regarding contraception, abortion, sexuality, priestly celibacy, etc.. Pretty much the whole smorgasbord of liberal heterodox "issues".
By fostering distrust and resentment toward the magisterium, this class of people can feel somewhat authentic in their name only Catholicism.

[photosynthesis]

did you ever read "why I am a catholic"? I always see it in the bookstores and wonder, "gosh, why [i]is [/i]he Catholic when everything he says runs so contrary to Church teaching?"

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 19 2006, 01:56 AM']did you ever read "why I am a catholic"?  I always see it in the bookstores and wonder, "gosh, why [i]is [/i]he Catholic when everything he says runs so contrary to Church teaching?"
[right][snapback]860771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Nope. I've read reviews of it and I imagine there would be no point in me reading it unless it was intended as a penance. That sounds like one of the more annoying books in print. He has the audacity to claim some affinity with men such as Augustine, Newman and Chesterton! That just makes me sick.

[phatcatholic]

where's the vomit-smiley when you need it......

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 19 2006, 01:56 AM']did you ever read "why I am a catholic"?  I always see it in the bookstores and wonder, "gosh, why [i]is [/i]he Catholic when everything he says runs so contrary to Church teaching?"
[right][snapback]860771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, I read it while I was still trying to discern whether or not I should be Catholic. Guess what? It reads like a book on why NOT to be Catholic!

...that said: the book is actually pretty good. It covers some interesting bits of trivia knowledge involving the dark spots of Church history (including some disturbing theories surrounding some of the art and design of St. Peter's Basillica). Also, his autobiography (the first section of the book) is interesting...

[Ziggamafu]

Also, Wills has just released another book on the rosary, which is actually supposed to be quite good. For being so liberal and willing to give up major doctrines (infallability, all sexual issues) he sure has a powerful devotion to the Most Holy Rosary!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I wonder about the Catholicity of his meditations since I understand he uses Brown as a major source of his perspective on the Gospels.