Pope Judging 101

Magisterium

CS-St.PeterSquare_Pixabay

There seems to be a rather disturbing trend in what I would call papacy bashing. This recent trend is fueled by a media that is focused exclusively on gaining ground via sound bites. These sound bites are more often than not misquoted and taken out of context. Pope Francis has become a frequent victim of this strategy, in part, due to his desire to be out among the people. Most notably this occurs during his unscripted off-the-cuff airplane interviews. What in turn happens is a real push by some individuals to paint Pope Francis as a “bad Pope”. I’m not writing this to get into that debate rather, I am here to show that indeed we have had  few “bad Popes” through the course of history.

I would direct your attention to the book Good Pope, Bad Pope: Their Lives, Our Lessons, where Mike Aquilina details some of the high points and low points of the 2000 year papacy. To do this, he focuses on twelve popes and describes the situations they were in, the decisions they made and the subsequent impact it made on the Church. It’s all here, the good and the sometimes not so good.

The book itself is by no means meant to slander any pope. Instead, it does an exceptional job of making the case that the men that have risen to the papacy are simply human. They have faults just like the rest of us. Though infallible when proclaiming Church doctrine, the rest of the time they are not and lapses in judgment are possible.

There is a lot to learn in this book and I can only highlight a few of the stories. The first thing to note is the election process that took place in the early church. At one time the  citizens of Rome elected the successor to Peter and things were not quite as organized…or civil…. as we know them today. While we anxiously await the white smoke, the citizens of Rome took to the streets as mobs and sometimes there was bloodshed. Such was the case in the battle for the papacy between Damasus and Ursinus in 366 AD. The fighting became quite bitter. “Ultimately Damasus got the best of the strife by the strenuous efforts of his partisans. It is certain that on one day one hundred and thirty-seven bodies were found in the Basilica of Sicinius, which is a Christian church.” Despite how he became pope, Damasus left us with one great deed. He employed St. Jerome in authoring what is known as the Latin Vulgate.

The seat of Peter was such a coveted jewel that even cutting deals was acceptable. Vigilius (537-555) had no problems using this avenue. He struck a deal with then Empress Theodora. She was an avid supporter of the Monophysite heresy. Vigilius promised if she would use her influence to get him elected pope he would reinstate the Monophysite believing Bishops who had been excommunicated. Theodora saw to it that Vigilius was elected……but he did not hold up his end of the bargain. The Monophysite heresy lost. “If Vigilius had been a good man, we might have said he was a hero to steer the Church through such troubled waters. Since he was what he was, we can only say it was a miracle.”

Benedict IX is the only Pope to have held the papacy more than once….historians count his tenure as three times! He was elected young and had less interest in Church doctrine and more interest in partying. Eventually, he was run out of town and another Pope, Sylvester III, took his place. Benedict sent his families private army to Rome who overthrew Sylvester and Benedict was reinstated for his second papacy. Not too long after, the papacy started to dis-interest him so, for 1000 lbs. of gold, Benedict sold the papacy to his godfather who took the name Gregory VI. Eventually, Benedict decided he wanted the papacy back. This was a most interesting time as Sylvester III never really went away. Now three men claimed to be pope! Henry III of Germany called a special synod which resulted in none of the three being recognized and the seat of Peter being open.

Not every Pope mentioned in this book has such a colorful or questionable story. Some are truly good men. St. Leo the Great stood up against Attila the Hun. St. Celestine V was a hermit when he was elected and never really wanted to become Pope. However, he paved the way for future popes to be able to retire. He also made sure no future papal election would occur outside a conclave. St. Pius XII took a strong stand against the Nazi’s who ultimately, knew better than to take on the Catholic Church. Of course, there was also our beloved Pope John Paul II. The man whom Mikhail Gorbachev credited with the collapse of Communism.

I quote Mike from the afterward,“The popes you’ve met in this book certainly have been a mixed bag—heroes and villains and weaklings and saints. Yet Francis is still teaching the same doctrine Peter was teaching his little band of followers back when Nero was emperor. An objective, unprejudiced look at history shows that the doctrine of the Church is protected. Even if the pope is a bad man, he never damages the core of Catholic teaching.”

I had a chance to discuss this book with Mike. One thing we talked about were the questionable personalities in the early years of the papacy and what went through his mind as conducted his research.

I actually found the early years — and even the early centuries — to be pretty clean. The Church venerates the first thirty-five popes as saints. That’s an amazing run. I even like that thirty-sixth pope, who broke the streak, and I tell his story in my book.

It’s in the so-called Middle Ages that things get grimy. I had heard about the bad popes before, of course, so I knew what was coming. But as I waded deeper and deeper into the muck of their crimes, I sometimes found myself wondering whether these men believed in God at all.

My second thought, though, was to marvel at God’s faithfulness. Jesus told the first pope: “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” And he made good on his promise. Some of the popes committed sins that will make you shudder — actually, Peter himself committed sins that should make you shudder — but not a single one of them ever taught error in matters of faith and morals. That’s remarkable, when you consider the doctrinal mutation that has gone on ad infinitumamong Christians who are separated from the Rock. At least one of the bad popes may have intended to give aid to heretics — I tell his story in the book — but once he was enthroned, he lost the will to follow through on his intention. Another man was a proud heretic when the emperor installed him as an antipope — and even he was prevented somehow from teaching bad doctrine! After two thousand years and two hundred and sixty-six popes, the Catholic Church continues to teach the faith in its integrity. Our God is an awesome God.

We also talked about the humanity of the men who held the papacy.

My thoughts again go back to Peter. He denied Our Lord not once, but three times. He alone among the disciples earned that famous rebuke: “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Those are strong words. But he really did earn them. I’ll bet many of Our Lord’s enemies stopped worrying when they heard that he had named Peter as his vicar. If the papacy were merely a human enterprise, it would have failed after maybe five weeks of Peter’s leadership. But it’s not just human. It’s a divine institution because it was established by God incarnate. And so it’s the only institution that’s still around from the time of the Roman Empire. Pagan Rome’s glory is a magnificent ruin — rubble reconstituted as a museum. But the pope is very much alive — and the most Googled person on the planet. Did I mention that our God is awesome?

I was intrigued by the fact that of the 266 popes, he chose twelve to write about in this book, why these twelve?

They’re the subjects of my favorite pope stories. That’s all. I wanted readers to be entertained, shocked, amused, and gripped by the narrative. Who knew that a papal-history book could be so full of sex, violence, betrayal, intrigue, trickery, torture, and comedy? There are chase scenes, Nazi villains, and a cameo appearance by Lucrezia Borgia, the famous poisoner. And it’s all true.

One of the good popes, soon-to-be-Saint John Paul II, did what armies and nations had failed to do. He brought down world communism. But he got into my book because he kissed five of my children.

To sum this all up we need to take a step back before we judge Pope Francis. Have there been Popes that may not have the better interests of the Church at heart? As Mike mentions, however, not a single one of them has been able to “upset the apple cart” so to speak when it comes to the trajectory of the Church. The Church is Christ’s bride and he has promised to be with her until the end of time.

Might I suggest that when the next news outlet misrepresents something Pope Francis has said, first, fact check it yourself; go to the complete text and read what he actually said. Second, don’t judge rather let history do what it must. Simply live your Catholic faith to the fullest and you will be rewarded in heaven.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

25 thoughts on “Pope Judging 101”

  1. An example of a very religious Pope but whose judgement and expression were flawed was Pius IX. His was one of the papacies that is best confined to history and the man recognized as trying to navigate rough waters, not always with great skill. His elevation to sainthood will cause many to try to explain the goodness of a man does not always confer wisdom.

  2. The pope’s communication problems are self imposed. His method of obscure, vague, imprecise Jesuit-speak ensures whatever he says will mean anything to everybody.
    He knows exactly what he is doing.

    1. Concerned parent

      The pope’s communication problems are the least of our problems; it is his choice of dissident synod fathers, his support for the heretical Kasper proposal and his constant double speak.

      Some Questionable Ecclesial Appointments of Pope Francis

      -http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-appoints-leading-opponents-of-catholic-doctrine-to-ordinary-synod/

      Cdl. Oswald Gracias – http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/synod-profile-cdl.-oswald-gracias

      The Church cannot change her language about homosexuality
      http://voiceofthefamily.com/the-church-cannot-change-its-language-about-homosexuality/

      And this is just the tip of the nasty iceberg -http://voiceofthefamily.com/

  3. Flattery is just as shallow as bashing and both are sins. I like Pope Francis but our system leans toward flattery among those with a paid Catholic career and the bashing comes from independents generally. Both have at times carnal motivations….income versus pride. I like Pope Francis’ choice of living in the one room in the hotel. Previous Popes were living in spacious square yardage while telling couples to have many children and therefore little square yardage per person. It was a contradiction. Pope Francis’ example is telling couples that he is living in restricted square yardage also just like them. But he does make actual mistakes that have nothing to do with context. Two Sundays ago he called for a worldwide halt to executions by saying the fifth commandment was against the death penalty: ” The commandment “You shall not kill,” has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty “. A Bible reading 16 year old knows that God gave the fifth commandment in Deuteronomy chapter five and the same God gave multiple death penalties in Deuteronomy chapters 13 and 19…in the first person imperative. I had the Jesuits as teachers for 8 years; they are not Bible memorizers…they are Bible generalists and scanners. Aquinas was a Bible memorizer; after him came the flood of generalists. The last three Popes were Bible generalists. That’s how they all concertedly hated the death penalty. Effectively they all never mention Gen.9:5-6 in its entirety despite ccc #2260 doing exactly that ( a CDF Cardinal got fed up with their movement…ccc 2260 versus ccc 2267 are duelling Cardinals on that topic).

  4. “Might I suggest that when the next news outlet misrepresents something Pope Francis has said, first, fact check it yourself; go to the complete text and read what he actually said.”
    This makes my head explode. It’s time to quit blaming the media. The Pope says many confusing or downright un-orthodox things. The press reports these things because they are in fact confusing or un-orthodox. The Catholic media then leaps to the Pope’s defense with weak attempts to prop him up and put the best possible spin on what he said. Enough!

    1. It shouldn’t make your head explode because it is simply good advice. An awful lot of the time, the Pope is misreported. He may have been misheard, he may sometimes have been misunderstood by people who are either non-Catholic or whose theology is a bit shaky. But sometimes, the misreporting is deliberate – it isn’t a mistake or misunderstanding, it is done on purpose. it is deliberate calumny, mendacity, misrepresentation, call it what you will. And the supposedly Catholic media is far from immune.

      The advice is sound. If you come across a report that seems to be odd, do not indulge the pyrotechnic inclinations of your brain; take the time to check that the report is accurate. It usually isn’t, and that isn’t the Pope’s fault; it’s the fault of the people doing the misrepresenting. Taking the time to check is the least you owe the Holy Father, I would have thought.

    2. The advice is patronizing in that it assumes we have not already “gone to the source”. How many times must I “go to the source” only to discover that what the “mainstream media” reports is essentially accurate, and then to read all the weak “Catholic media” attempts to explain, rationalize, contextualize or excuse what the Pope said?

      The truth is, when you “go to the source” it can be very dispiriting because often it is even worse than what the media reported. The Pope has an obligation to remain silent if he can’t avoid saying scandalous and unorthodox things when he speaks.

      As for those things that are actually misreported or twisted by the media, it is not realistic or fair to expect the average “Joe Catholic” to hunt down the primary source material every time the Pope says something that gets reported in the papers. Realistically, we all know that no more than 5% of Catholics, and less than 1% of non-Catholics are going to do that. The Pope knows this. Thus, he knows that the vast majority of the world’s population is likely to be left with the wrong impression, yet he seems not to care. One has to wonder whether it is intentional?

      Perhaps he knows exactly what he is doing, and he doesn’t mind scandalizing faithful Catholics and throwing us into confusion and dismay. Perhaps he is even “telegraphing” what he really thinks but can’t say “officially”? I have to say, he seems to be getting a kick out of it. It is not edifying.

      I pray for our Holy Father. I pray for the Holy Spirit to descend upon him and guide him.

    3. How many times must you “go to the source” and discover that what the MSM reports is essentially accurate?

      On my experience, very rarely. Very rarely indeed. Maybe once – and even then, it was a question of giving it some calm thought for a while.

      The “source” is the Vatican website, by the way. Nothing else.

    4. I have pretty much spent the past 3 years “going to the source.” Believe me, it is rarely edifying.

      There is much that is not available on the Vatican website. However, there are reliable Catholic outlets that publish the best transcripts available.

    5. I go to the source, regularly. I find it quite enlightening.

      That “much that is not available on the Vatican website” is what, exactly? Please provide examples.

      Believe me, there are no “reliable Catholic websites” that are publishing “much that isn’t available on the Vatican website”. There is very little that isn’t available thereon.

    6. Sure there are. The NC Register is pretty reliable. But take, for instance, the Pope’s interview published in America magazine soon after he was elevated to the papacy. I am not sure that was published on the Vatican website, but I can’t imagine you would claim it to be unreliable.

    7. two publications don’t amount to “much”, IMHO. And that’s assuming that they are always scrupulously accurate. Broadly, that’s true of NC Regoster, I’ll grant you – but not even always there.

      Anyway. Not “much”. Two.

    8. Concerned parent

      Maybe you can help me rationalize why P. Francis chose the following clergy to be Synod fathers.

      Pope appoints leading opponents of Catholic
      doctrine to Ordinary Synod

      http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-appoints-leading-opponents-of-catholic-doctrine-to-ordinary-synod/
      or

      Pope criticizes those who ‘hide behind’ the Church’s teachings in closing talk at Synod

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-criticizes-those-who-hide-behind-the-churchs-teachings-in-closing-talk
      It’s frustrating when you have to give your Church leader the benefit of the doubt over and over again!
      Instead of looking up to him for guidance and leadership, we have to constantly try to rationalize what he may be trying to say (or not)! It gets tiresome and demoralizing to say the least.

    9. He selected those people – among others – to attend the Synod in order to ensure that all points of view were heard. I seem to recall him saying something about ‘speaking out’. If you have a look at the totality of those he “specially invited” you will that it was quite a mixture, form all across the Church.

      I hope you’re not suggesting that he should have locked them all away and suppressed any points of view you don’t agree with? That would be rather counter-productive and would certainly open His Holiness up to criticism. Whatever the contents of the exhortation, when it is published, it could never be claimed that people had had no opportunity to speak their minds.

      You don;t have to “constantly try to rationalize what he may be trying to say”. All you have to do, if he is reported as saying something you find confusing, is go to the Vatican website and check what he actually said. You will find, more often than not, that he said something rather different. If you find yourself in disagreement with the Pope, the problem might be with you. After all, he is the Pope and you are…Not.

      I understood quite well what the Pope was saying when he spoke of people who ‘hide behind’ the Church’s teachings. There are, undeniably, people who have used the Church’s – or their interpretation of them – in the same way as the “computer says No”; “more than my jobsworth” and “sorry, I don’t make the rules – I only enforce them” crowds. The Church was not founded in order to be condemnatory and to set its face against poor, weak, broken humanity. It is supposed to be the lifeboat that will rescue them. As the Pope recently – on that flight back from Mexico, as it happens – made clear, the doors are not going to be thrown open in a ‘non-judgemental’ way; Church doctrine is not about to be overthrown. But it might be nice to offer a helping hand rather than a forbidding raised palm; Justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is dissolution. I doubt that the Pope has either in mind – rather the opposite, I suspect.

    10. Concerned parent

      I suggest you read the following : The ‘Francis effect is silencing Catholic bishops, priests, and laity

      See: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-so-called-francis-effect-is-silencing-catholic-bishops-priests-and-lait

      The object of the Synod was not to introduce false doctrine, but to reinforce Christ’s teaching on marriage, sexuality and life.

      The two synods were called to address the challenges facing the family in the modern world and the mission of the family in the modern world.

      Unfortunately both synods were in fact dominated by attempts to undermine or alter the
      teaching and discipline of the Church on a wide range of issues relating to marriage, the family and human sexuality. Both assemblies witnessed division between synod fathers who wished to uphold Catholic teaching and those who
      wished to undermine or alter it. Read more:
      https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/how-did-heterodox-prelates-try-to-change-doctrine-at-synod

    11. I very strongly recommend that you stop reading LifeSiteNews. It is strongly partisan, very much anti-Pope Francis and has even been accused of scurrility.

      If you would like an idea of how partisan it is, read its report on Cardinal Erdo’s keynote opening speech to the Synod.

      You could also read this. It is true in pretty much every particular.

      http://scottericalt.org/life-site-news-gets-a-pope-story-wrong-again/

      I found myself in conversation with the person who claimed to have started this distortion; he was quite shameless about what he had one and even sought to defend it as legitimate, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. A sort of “lying in a good cause” type of thing.

      Fwiw, I firmly maintain that no cause is made better by lying. if promoters cannot tell the truth, they should consider carefully whether they actually have a case to make at all.

      Anyway, I repeat: ignore LifeSiteNews – you will feel better for it. Try LifeNews instead; it does good work.

    12. Concerned parent

      Thanks for the advice, but NO THANKS, because I am following truth and exposing heresy.

      If you don’t like Lifesitenews, then try VOICE OF THE FAMILY for truth on PF and the Synod-http://voiceofthefamily.com/

      And if you don’t like that, you can go to CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT – http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4408/the_offthecuff_and_outoffocus_papacy.aspx

      or The Remnant – http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2321-catholic-world-report-nails-it-what-is-pope-francis-doing

      MUST WATCH
      The Remnant Forum: The Pope’s Enemies List?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8wgpmQVV4

      or you can see all of the thousands of people who want the pope to speak truth.

      Pope must address crisis of trust
      within Church in wake of Synod

      http://voiceofthefamily.com/pope-must-address-synod-created-crisis-of-trust-within-church/

      http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/hundreds-of-us-priests-ask-synod-to-stand-firm-on-church-teaching-70779/

      Ask Pope Francis to uphold Church teaching on marriage, family at the Synod
      https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/pope-francis-appeal

      If these various truthful sources aren’t good enough for you, I suggest you change your diabolical source which is giving false info. No more to say to you.

    13. No, you are not “following truth” if you follow the current incarnation of LifeSiteNews. When something goes out of its way to misrepresent and distort information in order to promote its particular agenda, then truth is certainly not what is bring promoted.

    14. PS – the claimed “Francis effect” doesn’t seem to have silenced LifeSiteNews and its fellow-travellers. One sometimes finds oneself wishing it had.

  5. Only scanned your article…did any of the bad popes attempt to or even imply they wished to change fundamental moral teachings of the Church?

  6. One of the more interesting good yet flawed popes was St. Pius V. He came about in a very turbulent not particularly pious period. Did some good but kicked the Jews out of the papal states, save for a port town which he knew would not function without them! A cruel expulsion. But as the writer says, the office of pope is its salvation. Today Catholic and Jewish relations are at their highest for which we can thank God and the wisdom of great popes later like St JP II.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.